The Language of Pain: A Philosophical Study of BDSM

Abstract

This philosophical article attempts to promote the recognition of the social world of BDSM in philosophical and tropological perspective. BDSM, and especially sadomasochism, is difficult to understand in its own, characteristic motivational perspective because such negative experiences as, say, pain and humiliation, indicate aversion rather than attraction. To cause pain to others is typically condemned. To cosset pain and suffering is said to be perverse. My main point is we that can better understand BDSM via its typical language and rhetoric, especially by paying attention to the key role of linguistic metonymy when we discuss the riddles of pain and pleasure. Also, this article discusses the various ways of talking about and potentially condemning BDSM by calling it a perversion or a paraphilic disorder. I conclude that, within some reasonable limits, BDSM is not vulnerable to the standard forms of criticism.

Agonistic approaches to sexuality: A critical analysis of the conservative mindset

“…Think of a consensual S/M show where the master will whip their submissive slaves, cut them with blades, and burn them. They claim they enjoy the pain [ 21 , 39 , 40 ]. Why is such a scene sexual?…”

Historical Trauma, Queer Sex, and Physical Touch in Barbara Hammer’s Nitrate Kisses

“…As Timo Airaksinen explains, when BDSM practitioners welcome and indeed urge on feelings of pain and enact gestures of "violence," the very meanings of pain and violence are reconfigured, altering their ability to wound. 28 BDSM sex presents us with the most cohesive, integrated representation of pain and pleasure in Nitrate Kissesviolence transmutated into pure desire and sexual bliss felt on part of the leather dykes. Phase III explores what might be considered a "sex-violencebody nexus."…”

Good Life without Happiness

“…A happy life may be painful, yet life in pain is bad. One may refute this by saying the SM lifestyle may be both pleasant and good (Airaksinen 2017(Airaksinen , 2018. But this makes a good life a non-universalizable norm; the argument illegitimately conflates happiness and the good life.…”