Another blogger (Down on My Knees) pointed out ‘Sex advice: I spank my wife for her pleasure, not mine’ in the Times. There are two answers to the question:
Q I spank my wife for her pleasure, not mine. But I got excited when she was spanked by a friend as a joke. Should I ask if we can involve someone else?
They are both a little odd, but the first one, by Dr Thomas Stuttaford, is particularly puzzling. He starts off by telling the reader what sadism and masochism are. He then explains
Sadism and masochism, popularly known as S&M, often coexist. In many cases there is evidence in foreplay that the partner of the accepted sadistic or masochistic person has similar tendencies. Usually these will be complementary to the other’s inclinations.
It seemed to me that he thinks sadists and masochists end up together by chance. They get clues about their partners’ inclinations from the way they do foreplay, because, presumably, it must never be spoken of! I’m sure that happens, but it’s really not such a terrible dark secret these days – some people do admit to their desires and actively seek out willing partners, as the reader seems to be thinking of doing.
Not surprisingly, men who display a greater than usual propensity to being oppressively dominant often display sexual urges that include fantasising about or actually inflicting physical suffering or emotional humiliation on their partners. They frequently team up with women – or, if homosexual, with men – who have complementary urges to be dominated.
First of all, it’s not clear if Dr Stuttaford is talking about people who are sexually ‘oppressively dominant’ or people who are ‘oppressively dominant’ outside of sex. If it’s the latter, is he correct? That there’s evidence of a link between a generally dominant nature and sadism?
He leaves out bisexual men, although I suppose it’s implied that they’ll choose male or female partners (he’d probably have been better sticking with just ‘partners’). Women are left out altogether. If I read this, knowing nothing, I’d assume that women are never sexually sadistic.
These people have often had a difficult childhood, lack self-esteem and feel unworthy. In later life they want to be beaten, smacked, humiliated, bound, urinated or defecated on, treated as an animal or child. Potentially masochistic people may indulge in hypooxyphilia, a dangerous desire for partial asphyxiation.
I suppose any group of people often have had a difficult childhood and self-esteem issues, so it’s difficult to argue with that. You could just as well say that nurses or rugby players or people who like oral sex have often had difficult childhoods and and low self-esteem. But why bring it up? The implication is that people become masochistic because of their difficult backgrounds and lack of self-esteem. Mind you, most of the things he says these damaged people are into sound like a lot of fun. I’d guess that the reader’s particular kink might be some sort of mixture of voyeurism and cuckoldry, rather than being urinated on, etc., but I suppose suggestions are always helpful.
It’s strange that this in response to someone saying that he spanks his wife for her pleasure – how did that lead into difficult childhoods, being oppressively dominant, low self-esteem and dangerous breathplay? It turns out that spanking isn’t normally masochism, so that’s OK.
Spanking is a common practice that should be diagnosed only as sadistic or masochistic when there is a real desire to inflict and suffer considerable pain
and
Your wife’s desire to be spanked wouldn’t qualify as representing a masochistic streak in her personality unless it was well established, of at least six months’ duration, and unless the spanking produced obvious evidence of sexual stimulation.
That puzzled me – ‘for her pleasure’ implies that the reader’s wife does find the spanking sexually stimulating.
If your wife is truly masochistic, she is relatively unusual in one respect. Research has shown that 95 per cent of sexual masochists are men and that only 5 per cent of women derive sexual pleasure through pain. Even this minority isn’t always entirely masochistic; one in three of them is occasionally sadistic, often biting and scratching more vigorously than is usual.
These odd statistics have been pointed out in the comments. What he seems to be saying is that 5% of masochists are women AND that 5% of women are masochists. I think that maybe he meant to say that 5% of people are masochists (and 5% of those masochists are women), but I’m not sure. I’m also not sure whether he’s saying that a third of female masochists are also sadistic (whereas male masochists are not), or that a third of all masochists are also sadistic. If it’s the former, he seems to be saying that men become sadistic because they are obsessively dominant, whereas women become sadistic because of difficult childhoods and low self-esteem.
Finally, he gets round to answering the question.
Whatever your sexual habits, asking a third person to share them often leads to trouble.
Statistically, how often? I suppose it’s fair enough to point out that it might cause problems, but there’s no advice on how to avoid potential problems. There’s also no suggestion of other ways they could explore that particular kink without involving a third (talking about it, filming him spanking her, etc.). The ‘advice’ is really just ‘If you go ahead with this then she might leave you’. Then
Your observation that you derive a thrill from seeing your wife spanked by a friend is interesting. Psychologists teach that sadomasochism in its various guises could stem from the pleasure in childhood, long since forgotten, that the person may have experienced when seeing others punished.
This may well be what psychologists teach, and they may be right. But how do they know what comes first? Why would some children feel ‘pleasure’ when seeing others punished and some wouldn’t? If we didn’t expose children to punishment would there be no sadomasochism? If that pleasure and that experience is ‘long since forgotten’ then how have psychologists managed to research it?
