EMBRACING THE INNER SADIST

Recently, my husband Karl and I were out having a Thai dinner with one of his work associates and his wife (let's call them Bill and Barb ), neither of whom has the slightest idea of the D/s lifestyle we lead.  We had ordered four appetizers with the intent that each of us would have one piece of each item, thereby allowing  us to try a little bit of everything.  Worked out fine until Barb plucked a second spring roll from the plate of four before Bill had a chance to try one.  She gave him a wicked little smile as she did so, and said to the table in general   "Bill just loves spring rolls.  He was saving this one for last, but I know he's more than willing to sacrifice so I can have a second one of these delicious things.  Isn't that right, honey?" 

Bill just smiled in response, but I recognized that smile.  It had that "cracked" quality to it, and then he said "My sweet  Barb just loves to torture me whenever spring rolls are around.  She's such a little sadist."  We all had a good laugh, and I'm sure that Barb and Bill never noticed the little smirk that passed over Karl's face as the dinner went on.

Back at home, I asked Karl what that little smirk was for, and he laughed and said "If only they knew what a real sadist can do."

To which I innocently replied, "Whatever do you mean, Karl?  Do you know any real sadists?''  Yes, I was smiling when I asked that question, and Karl was smart enough to instantly drop to his knees before me and say  "Only the woman I so desperately love."

Clever boy.  All of which sent me to my pocket dictionary for a definition of "sadist".  My little Webster's said sadism is "An abnormal enjoyment of cruelty".   Then I went online and found the following definition:
"Sadism - Sexual pleasure obtained by inflicting harm (physical or psychological) on others".  This came from worldnetweb.princeton edu/perl/webron.

The second definition had added some key words - "sexual pleasure" - and broadened it to include both physical and psychological harm.  I wanted one more definition, and I found it on Webster's Online.  Here it is:
"Sadism - a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others (as on a love object)."  Well now, we've added "sexual perversion" to the mix and brought in  the element of doing it to a "love object".

Quite a mixture of definitions.  If we combine all three, we have a definition of sadism that  might read  "An  abnormal sexual perversion where gratification is obtained by inflicting  physical or psychological cruelty or pain on others, including the one you love."  I think that covers it all pretty well.

So how many dominant women would be willing to label themselves "sadists" when all of the above is considered?  And how many submissive men would like to be controlled by such a woman?  Personally, I've never denied my sadistic side, keeping in mind that there are many levels of sadism that can be considered, and that I'm not about to do anything that causes permanent physical harm.  I also seriously doubt that any ProDom would deny an element of sadism within herself.  Indeed, they'd most likely brag about it, and judging from ProDom websites, it's an integral part of what they have to offer their clients.  Which means, of course, that this is just what many men are seeking (and are willing to pay for), and why they are left frustrated at home with a woman who doesn't want to be regarded as a sadist, and won't administer any form of corporal punishment.

I've read many, many blogs written by submissive men who say that their so called Dominant wives draw the line at inflicting real physical cruelty.  If they don't raise that whip, or swing that cane, or put him over their knee, or administer cock and ball torture, or any stuff like that, then they can't be accused of being sadists, right?

Well, what about psychological cruelty?  Just what is that?  Requiring your husband to bow before you, to act as your housekeeper, to give you full control of the finances, to put you in charge of his orgasms, to sit at your feet while you read or watch television, to wear  women's clothing or diapers, to stand in the corner for hours as punishment for not doing his duties properly, etc., etc. Would those be a few examples?  How about having him wear a chastity device, or bringing him to the edge over and over and then ruining his orgasm.  Or you could have him wear frilly little bows in his hair in public to humiliate him, or control what he's allowed to look at on the internet. Or, this is a good one, take all the money he makes at work and force him to ask permission to spend any of it on himself.  If these are examples of psychological cruelty, then is the Dom who partakes in them not a sadist? 

I can hear the protests already.  "But he likes all of those things.  He wants to serve me and when he's humiliated, etc, he gets turned on.  How can I be a sadist when I'm just giving him what he wants?"  To which I would answer, what if he wants to be physically punished, or beaten or tortured?  How can you be a sadist if that's what he WANTS?  What's the difference between the two methods of dominating if both wind up making him a happy submissive?  Why do you think that the addition of corporal punishment makes you a sadist, yet the psychological pain doesn't?  Come now ladies, you can't have it both ways.  If you're giving him what he wants and that means to you that you're  NOT a sadist, then whether your treatment of him is physical or not, you're NOT a sadist, right?

Yet, according to the definitions of sadism above, either way, physical or psychological cruelty makes you a sadist. The point I'm trying to make is that any woman who takes on a role of dominance with her male is to at least some extent a sadist, by definition, whether she's physically punishing him or not.  ANY form of punishment or cruelty at all makes you a sadist.  Whether it's a paddling or taking away his internet privileges, you are punishing him. I've read blog entries from Femdoms who seem aghast at the idea that they might be considered sadistic.  Yes, I humiliate him in public when he has to follow behind me and wait with the shopping bags outside the dressing room door, yes I put him in a cage when he misbehaves, yes I force him to clean the floor over and over until I'm satisfied, but oh no, I'm not a sadist.  Well, of course I enjoy it, I even derive sexual gratification from putting him in these positions, but that doesn't make me a sadist.  I'm not abnormal; I'm not perverted.  Not like I'd be if I beat him.

Such foolishness.  There's nothing wrong with embracing your innner sadist, ladies.  It's there in all of us who choose dominance as a way of life.  What about the other parts of those definitions?  Is being a Dom "abnormal"?  Well, it certainly isn't the norm, so yes, it's abnormal.  It's a "perversion" as well, in the same sense that it's abnormal.  A Dom is certainly perverting the usual view of a relationship simply by dominating a submissive male.  Do all these words frighten you?  Are you afraid to admit that you're sexually aroused by your dominance? 

You'll never know what it feels like to give him a spanking, or a paddling, or a caning, or (gasp) a whipping until you try.  And I'd be willing to bet that your submissive will most likely love it, really love it, that there's a physical price to pay for disobeying or disappointing his Dom, despite any earlier protestations to the contrary.   You might even find that YOU like it, that you get a little bit wetter by exhibiting such power, by taking your control to a heretofore unexplored level.  Remember that last definition of sadist?  The one that talked about administering physical or mental pain to your "love object"?  Give it a try.  Be a little "abnormal" and "perverted".  The world thinks you're abnormal and perverted anyway just by being a DOMINANT.  What have you got to lose?