SM Masochists and US

It is my biased observation that while Monsieur De Sade seems universally known, the proposed psychological yin to his yang, Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch, is not . Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch(1836-1895) was best known as a Polish novelist, for whom the term "Masochism" was coined by German psychologist, Kraft-Ebbing. I am of the opinion that Ebbing's understanding of masochism doesn't really apply to the general application we now use within the community. In fact I am somewhat offended by it in general.

Masochism: The Association of Passively Endured Cruelty and Violence with Lust.

"By masochism I understand a particular perversion of the psychical vita sexualis in which the individual affected, in sexual feeling and thought, is controlled by the idea of being completely and unconditionally subject to the will of a person of the opposite sex; of being treated by this person as a master, humiliated and abused. This idea is coloured by lusting feeling; the masochist lives in fancies, in which he creates situations of this kind and often attempts to realize them. By this perversion his sexual instinct is often made more or less insensible to the normal charms of the opposite sex, incapable of a normal vita sexualis, psychically impotent. But this psychical impotence does not in any way depend upon horror sexus alterius, but upon the fact that the perverse instinct finds an adequate satisfaction differing from the normal, in woman, to be sure, but not in coitus." (Translated from Kraft-Ebbing 1926)

As frustrated as I find myself with Kraft von Ebbing's definitions, there are certainly many aspects of Von-Masoch that do fit our subcultural patterns. For example, the first manifestations of his "different kind of loving" began at a very young age and involved intimate encounters with his aunt, Countess Zenobia.

"As he tells the story, he was "alone with this beautiful woman" one afternoon when she asked him to help her take off her furs. She led the boy into her bedroom. During the undressing he began kissing her feet. She returned this show of affection by kicking him away with a cruel laugh. Later in the day, during a game of hide and seek, he was hiding in her clothes rack when the countess and her lover entered the room. They were soon followed by her husband and before the count had time to speak, his wife punched him in the nose. She then picked up a whip and ordered both men to leave the room. At that moment, the clothes rack toppled over and Masoch was discovered. His aunt grabbed him by the hair, threw him to the carpet, and administered a vigorous whipping, which to his surprise produced feelings of excitement and lust" (Kopple).

(Another tidbit worthy of note was that Leopold called his female dominants , " Master"). Thus, From the above account, we not only have our "masochist" presented, but also documentation of his life- long fur fetish.

"He was accustomed to say of an attractive woman: "I should like to see her in furs," and, of an unattractive woman: "I could not imagine her in furs." His writing- paper at one time was adorned with a figure in Russian Boyar costume, her cloak lined with ermine, and brandishing a scourge. On his walls he liked pictures of women in furs, of the kind of which there is so magnificent an example by Rubens in the gallery at Munich. He would even keep a woman's fur cloak on an ottoman in his study and stroke it from time to time, finding that his brain thus received the same kind of stimulation as Schiller found in the odor of rotten apples." (Havelock Ellis, 1905)

Excerpted from "Confessions",( Marie is a young maid in the household):

The evenings were already long. To pass the time, Leopold made us play at "brigands".(14th century : one who lives by plunder usually as a member of a band : BANDIT)"

The brigands were myself and Marie, and we had to chase him. I had to lend Marie one of my furs and put on one myself, for without them we were not "convincing." Then commenced a mad chase throughout the house until we had laid hands on our victim. Then it was necessary to tie him to a tree with ropes, and to decide his fate. He would be condemned to death, of course; we ignored his cries for mercy.

Up to that time it had only been a game, but one day Leopold gave it a more serious turn: he truly wanted to receive a punishment that would make him suffer. Since we could not murder him, he at least wanted to be beaten, and that with the help of ropes which he had prepared.

I refused to do this, but he did not yield. He found my refusal childish, and declared that if I would not beat him, he would have Marie beat him, because he could see in her eyes that she wanted to do it.

To avoid this, I gave him some light blows. This was not enough for him, and as I assured him that I was not able to hit harder, he said that he absolutely wanted to be beaten with the greatest possible force, and that Marie could probably do this better than I.

I left the room in order to put an end to the matter. But I was wrong. Marie beat him as he wanted to be beaten, with all her might, even in the next room I heard the sound of the blows on his back.

The minutes seemed like centuries to me. Finally the punishment stopped. He came in as if nothing had happened and said, "Well! She beat me magnificently! My back must be lashed and scarred , you have no idea of the strength that girl has in her arms. At each blow, I thought my flesh was going to be torn apart."

Was this book simply to save face in Victorian society? Was Wanda really Leopold's slave, being topped from the bottom through instruction to top? I know that perhaps sounds ludicrous, but I will intimate that given my own intricate relationships, I personally can relate to this complex web of power exchange... utterly and completely. I think that her book is probably a little of both. A way to appear as an innocent "victim", an endeavor to gain the very independence and dominance that she seemingly denied enjoying. Finally, I can't help but wonder if the term "masochism" really and truly has a "mother" (Wanda) as opposed to a father (Leopold).

In conclusion, I ask that we ,as a sub-culture be aware of the history of our terminology. The definitions of sadist and masochist seems to vary from medical community to legal community to the BDSM community. For example:

Medical dictionaries define "sadism" as:

"A condition in which there is a derivation of pleasure from inflicting pain, discomfort or humiliation on another person or persons. The sexual significance of sadistic wishes or behaviour may be conscious or unconscious." (Condition meaning to imply an abnormality.)

and "masochistic personality" as: "A personality disorder in which the individual accepts exploitation and sacrifices self-interest while at the same time feeling morally superior or feigning moral superiority, attempting to elicit sympathy, and inducing guilt in others."

HOWEVER "sadomasochistic relationship" is defined as:

"A relationship characterized by the complementary enjoyment of inflicting and suffering cruelty."

Therein may lie a number of misconceptions and misunderstandings. Know your history. Read the books written by these fascinating people. Understand them as they are. INDIVIDUALS. Just as each one of us are individuals. Yes, "catchy" acronyms like BDSM helps to assemble us under one umbrella and give us strength in number. Finally, we need ask, is this term "SM" truly applicable to us? Perhaps the phrase as a whole, however the separate components may need be reconsidered.