A BRIEF HISTORY OF SADISM
I am most noted for my consensual sadistic behavior, and I have performed a great deal of research on the subject of sadism—not to understand my own behavior, but to understand its origins, its history, and the language involved, kind of like some sick behavioral family tree, I guess. So let’s talk about sadism for a bit.
The ravished girls were led away to marriage; their very shame made them more beautiful. And when one struggled hard against her captor, He carried her away in eager arms, And said: “Why spoil your pretty eyes by weeping? Your father took your mother, I take you!”
In the eyes of the poet, the psychological shame of the girls made them more attractive and maybe even sexually aroused the onlookers. Unmistakably, when the girl struggled knowing she was going to have sex, possibly forcible sex, her captor was still happy. It is safe to say sex has been around a long time. Is it inconceivable that sexual gratification from the suffering of others has been around just as long?
The behavior that we know today as sadism has been around for thousands of years, but there wasn’t a name for it until recently. Could it be that this was just normal, accepted behavior for the times? And how did this behavior, along with all the evil circumstance that ill-informed people associate with it, come to be known as sadism?
The vast majority of people in the BDSM community probably disagree with the definition of sadism as put forth in the medical literature. I will attempt to shed a favorable light on this subject by explaining the changes associated with the medical definition of sadism. It is my hope that you will agree, as evidenced by these changes, that it is no longer an evil sexual practice but can be an accepted sexual behavior.
Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902), a German-Austrian psychiatrist, adopted the term sadism for professional use in 1898; however, he first discussed the sexual nature of sadistic experiences in 1886, in Psychopathia Sexualis:
The experience of sexual, pleasurable sensations (including orgasm) produced by acts of cruelty, bodily punishment afflicted on one’s person or when witnessed in others, be they animals or human beings. It may also consist of an innate desire to humiliate, hurt, wound or even destroy others in order, thereby, to create sexual pleasure in ones self.[12]
By using the adjective innate, Krafft-Ebing shows he firmly believes one can be born a Sadist. I completely agree with this possibility; I often say I am just wired this way. Later definitions of sadistic behaviors put forth by the psychology community did not include Krafft-Ebing’s original assertion that Sadists could derive sexual pleasure from watching others receiving acts of cruelty or bodily punishment.[13] This is especially important to me because I do become sexually aroused when watching a scene in which the bottom is suffering. Yet, I do not derive sexual pleasure while watching a fistfight or poking my patients with needles for blood draws.
Krafft-Ebing used the term sadism to describe a set of sexual behaviors, specifically the behaviors practiced and written about by the Marquis de Sade, a renowned French author who lived from 1740 to 1814. It is obvious the word sadism is derived from the name of de Sade himself as well as the French word sadisme. Sadisme appeared in an 1834 French dictionary written by lexicographer Pierre-Claude-Victor Boiste. Krafft-Ebing’s original definition did not differentiate between consensual or nonconsensual acts. One can argue that his definition addresses nonconsensual behavior, as this is what the Marquis de Sade wrote about. The marquis’s works included graphic descriptions of acts in which the “victim” (I put this in quotes because today we call them bottoms) was made to suffer, feel pain, and be humiliated, which resulted in the sexual gratification of the aggressor. For example:
He bleeds both of her arms and would have her remain standing while her blood flows; now and again he stops the bleeding and flogs her, then he opens the wounds again, and this continues until she collapses. He only discharges when she faints.[14]
She raises a storm, criticizing their behavior toward her and describing it as unjust. “‘Were it just,’ says the Duc, wiping his razor, ‘it would surely fail to give us an erection.’”[15]
But the darling girl’s pleas were worse than futile, for Dubourg, far from being disgusted by the spectacle of her suffering, actually savored it, delighted in it, thrived on it! Striking her once, twice, a third time, he fell madly on top of her and began nuzzling her bloody mouth.[16]
You may have heard the term sexual sadism. Given the fact that sadism was coined to explain a form of sexual gratification, many authorities believe it is redundant to say “sexual sadism,” preferring simply “sadism.”
Not only did the Marquis de Sade write about acts of sexual perversion, he apparently indulged in them. His most famous “victim” was Rose Keller. According to the court in which he was tried for his acts, de Sade picked up Rose Keller and took her to a home in Arcueil where he reportedly bound and flogged her. Due to the lack of physical evidence, it is not known whether de Sade raped her.
Among the numerous reports of his participation in orgies, one well-known account states that he hired four prostitutes to take part in an orgy that included a round of flogging during which everyone was flogged, including de Sade himself and his servant. It was this encounter for which the marquis was arrested for poisoning and sodomy. De Sade was accused of slipping something equivalent to Spanish fly into some aniseed sweets. (Rather than sexually arousing the prostitutes, it made them very sick.)
In 1898, Krafft-Ebing described sadistic behavior in sexual terms:
The quality of sadistic acts is defined by the relative potency of the tainted individual. If potent, the impulse of the sadist is directed to coitus, coupled with preparatory concomitant or consecutive maltreatment.[17]
Note how he describes the behavior of a sexual act being fueled by the “maltreatment” of another human. You can also see that he believes the amount of discomfort felt by the victim is a direct factor in the degree of sexual gratification.
The term sadism originally described a behavior, not a psychological disorder. Subsequently, the psychiatric community attached the classification of paresthesia (an abnormal or perverse sexual feeling) to it. In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association changed the classification of sadism from a paresthesia to a paraphilia (a recurring sexual fantasy or behavior that involves unusual and especially socially unacceptable sexual practices), which is how it is still classified.[18]
The behavior associated with sadism has not changed since it was first defined. What has changed is the American Psychiatric Association’s classification and diagnostic criteria for sadism and our view of what is healthy and unhealthy sadism. Today, if the sadism is consensual and not harmful to the person or to others, the association does not consider it to be a paraphilia. It is only labeled a paraphilia when it is deemed unhealthy and causes the person significant distress, and then it is defined as a psychosexual disorder comprising thoughts, sexual fantasies, or acts with nonconsenting persons or objects involving pain or humiliation of oneself or another.[19] Even the American Psychiatric Association says you can consent to pain and suffering!
11
1 Ovid (43 BC–AD 17),
12
2 Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing,
13
3 In addition, subsequent behavioral descriptors of sadism do not include behavior toward animals.
14
4 Marquis de Sade,
16
6 Marquis de Sade,
18
8 This general definition of paraphilia is from
19
9 The language of the DSM-IV-TR reads: “The diagnosis is made if the behavior [see previous note], sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” American Psychiatric Association, 573.