Masochism is...

I read some interesting graffiti on the wall of a bus shelter the other day:

Apathy is Masochism

Really? Why? I don't get it.

I tried reversing the phrase:

Masochists are Apathetic

I would have thought that masochists were anything but!

Then what about sadists? Would empathy be sadism? Are sadists empathic? Sympathetic?

My head hurts!

From the Top Shelf - Highlights IV

Today I have another highlighted excerpt to share with you from S-M: The Last Taboo, by Gerald and Caroline Greene.


Another of Havelock Ellis's female correspondents wrote: "Actual pain gives me no pleasure, yet the idea of pain does, if inflicted by way of discipline and for the ultimate good of the person suffering it... I only get pleasure in the idea of a woman submitting herself to pain and harshness from the man she loves when the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. She must be absolutely sure of the man's love.
2. She must have perfect confidence in his judgment.
3. The pain must be deliberately inflicted, not accidental.
4. It must be inflicted in kindness and for her own improvement, not in anger or with any revengeful feelings, as that would spoil one's ideal of the man.
5. The pain must not be excessive and must be what when we were children we used to call a "tidy" pain; i.e., there must be no mutilation, cutting, etc.
6. Last, one would have to feel very sure of one's own influence over the man."

The authors conclude "The passage is particularly compelling since it suggests so much control. A Sadean fantasy frequently has the infliction of punishment accompanied by a mandatory smile on the victim's face. Outside the sexual sphere pain is condemned.

So s-m is a personification of the imagination."

From the Top Shelf - Highlights

One of my favourite books on the top shelf is one I bought at the campus bookstore while I was at university. It's called S-M: The Last Taboo, by Gerald and Caroline Greene. Published in 1974, it is largely a scholarly study, relying heavily on the thoughts and findings of Havelock Ellis, the Marquis de Sade, Sigmund Freud, Krafft-Ebing and several others.

The most enjoyable (and the most re-read) part of the book was the section devoted to examples of spanking erotica. The two scenes from O, Calcutta that I posted here and here came from that book.

What I want to share with you today and over the next few weeks are the passages that I highlighted with a pink felt marker over thirty years ago. My thoughts, desires and feelings have matured and evolved over time, and I find it interesting to be reminded of what was so important and significant way back then.




Today's excerpt involves the concept of pain. But first, a word about terminology. Sadist and masochist are the words the authors use as general terms for the person who inflicts pain and the one who receives it. Those words might just as easily be spanker and spankee, or top and bottom in today's vocabulary.

Accidental pain is not perceived as pleasurable or sexual. The average sadomasochistic session is usually scripted: the masochist must have allegedly done something meriting punishment, there must be threats and suspense before the punishment is meted out, etc. Often the phenomenon reminds one of a planned ritual or theatrical production... When one appreciates this one realizes that often in the relationship the sadist is merely servicing the masochist. The sadist must develop an extraordinary perceptiveness to know when to continue, despite cries and protests, and when to cease.

Interesting that the writer calls TTWD theatrical. I suspect I highlighted this passage because of my desire for roleplay as part of spanking. The top servicing the bottom? I never thought of it that way, but he does have a point.

What do you think?