sgr 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (143)
Tags: fun evolution ethics psychology sex

Comments (143)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: sgr 22 April 2009 01:55:13AM *  1 point [-]

The psychologist Michael Bader recently wrote a rather nice book that touches on this subject, called Arousal: The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies.

His analysis of masochism (among many other things) is that it helps the masochist feel safe in a way that allows their desire freedom to be expressed.

For example:

  • 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.
  • 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.

Bader points out that these are brilliant solutions to the problems posed by pathological beliefs ("I might hurt my partner unless I control myself", or "I must reserve all my attention for my partner and not myself", ...). In therapeutic contexts, helping people understand these reasons for their desires makes them less guilty, and able to think of their particular desire as simply something any reasonable person would enjoy, given their psychological makeup.

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?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit