TimFreeman comments on Is masochism necessary? - Less Wrong

8 Post author: PhilGoetz 10 April 2009 11:48PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (143)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TimFreeman 13 April 2011 12:41:19AM *  1 point [-]

Arousal: The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies

Thanks, I'll check that out.

pathological beliefs ... "I might hurt my partner unless I control myself"

I'm not sure that's pathological. I've read a few independent reports of broken penises from an overenthusiastic woman on top. I've also been warned that some people clench their teeth during orgasm, which can make some types of oral sex a problem.

I agree that the proposed examples solve the problems posed by the beliefs, whether true or not.

a person worried about the intensity of his desire hurting his partner might normally self-inhibit; but when tied up, he can see he has no scope to hurt his partner, and thus let his sexuality run free at full intensity -- because it's safe to do so.

That's bondage, not masochism.

a person exceedingly focused on pleasing his partner might be less able to focus on his own body's sensations; but when presented with a demonstrably strong, happy partner taking what he/she wants, it's safe to set that worry aside.

That's domination, not masochism.

Your examples are interesting, but they aren't helping to understand masochism. Perhaps there's some other example from the book you cited that pertains to masochism?