December 15th, 2001

don't fear death

a mental masochist?

i played last weekend. it has been over a year and half and i learned something about me. perhaps i tend to analyze things too much...during that time between wakefulness and sleep when my mind tumbles over thoughts and tries to process them and put them away in their perspective containers. i played a little Friday night and a bit more Saturday. there was a difference in my space each night. i needed to understand why.
for me, there are two types of play. the first is with a top who's intent is to send me to never-neverland. usually it is a little pain and a lot of sensation. it feels good. when one has been celibate as long i have, the touches are nice... the endorphins are a release.
the second is with a top that is truly a sadist. this is the play that is most fulfilling for me. i am not a masochist. this is not to say that i don't enjoy pain in some sense, but there are layers that are a little more complicated than simple masochism. i can (and have) go without play for a very long time. but it is this second kind of play i miss. it isn't the pain at all that fulfills me, it is the taking of it. yes, it is endorphins...but, more importantly, it is adrenaline. and i am an adrenaline junkie.
i must be most careful with my play partners. i am drawn to the edge...that darkness which has the capacity to skip along the line of danger. things that are sharp and shiny, a hand enclosing my boundaries not slightly pushed, but broken. it isn't a masochistic need... just as i feed his (or her....this dynamic really is gender-less) sadism, i am nourishing my own need to surrender in the only way i really can at the time. i am giving up control.
MS, my long time friend and play partner, and i are the epitome of this symbiosis. many of you (that know me in RL) have seen this. i have never attempted to put words to what happens when we have played together. people have commented to both of us on the effect....the chemistry...the sparks. part of it is no doubt our close relationship, but there is another part that is deeper, perhaps even more intimate than we realize. he doesn't hesitate to take what he needs from me in a scene; and i don't hesitate to allow him to do so. we both need it. the cane has never been a friend of mine. in his hands, i always hated it. i remember a time when he had pushed those boundaries of mine with it, intensely. reading me well, as always, he slowed and asked if i was all right. we were always incredibly in tune with each other. "take more", i told him. i surprised myself with those words. i sure as hell didn't want him to, yet i knew his sadistic little demon was not satiated. i could never go into my own space until he was in his. i didn't let go until i knew. often he would he would differentiate the two by telling me, "this is for me" or "this is for you". it was not a dominant and submissive relationship. it was an exchange, equality, between close friends. i held out to him an elixir for his sadism and he gave me a place where i could temporarily find shelter in my slave soul.
a true S/M relationship is not theoretically possible. a masochist needs a sadist, but a sadist needs a non-masochist. the sadist enjoys inflicting pain, but it is deeper than that. it is not simple pain - it is suffering of his/her "victim". is the masochist suffering? not really....not in the BDSM sense. Paz writes, in his essays on Sade:

Sadism is a joy in the suffering of others. The sadist's pleasure is dulled if he realizes that his victim is also his accomplice. The voluptuousness of the crime, according to the cognoscenti, is in causing an unexpected suffering in another. In contrast, the masochist interiorizes the other: he enjoys his suffering because he sees himself suffer. The masochist is double: both the accomplice of his tormentor and the spectator at his own humiliation. In sadism the other only appears as an object, a living and throbbing object; in masochism, the subject, the I, becomes an object: an object endowed with a consciousness. Turned into the spectacle of himself, he is the ear who hears the cry of pain and the mouth from which it comes [wow...those words]. Sade was consistent with himself: the conduct that has been called sadistic was for him a philosophical and moral exercise. Thus he repeatedly affirms that the ultimate end of libertinism is to reach a state of perfect insensibility, similar to the impassivity or ataraxia of the ancients. The exact opposite of masochism. Sade is a child of the Encyclopedia, Masoch of a teary Romanticism.

not long ago i was trying to recall something i had read that explained how a masochist and a sadist are an impossible couple. it was Anita Phillip's "In Defense of Masochism". my copy is in a box in storage with the rest of my life. i wish i had it. i've searched the web for the excerpt with no luck. she says, in her explanation, that "each is disqualified from dancing to the other's tune. The perfect choice (for a masochist) may be another masochist."

i suppose it could work together, but there must be a point when masochism ceases and the "bottom" suffers - does not enjoy the infliction - in order for the sadist to find fulfillment.

ok, so maybe i am a little bit of a masochist. i don't like labels. i do know that i need, in a Master, at least a touch of sadism. it is all intertwined in mental control...

i had a taste of that Saturday, and i miss it.....

my rambles here are just flowing thought that i don't expect to make much sense ;)



"The goal of sadism, common to all its manifestations, is the passion to have absolute and unrestricted control over a living being...its transformation from impotence to omnipotence."
E. Fromm, "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness"