What is a Sadist?

[revlis87]

A friend and I just had this heated conversation. We were talking about fraternity hazing, and I suggested that a funny thing to do would be to make pledges lie down in the snow in boxers for 20 seconds. My friend interjected that he was not a sadist and that was sadistic. My arguement was that there was a difference between 20 seconds and 10 minutes because 10 minutes was a matter of extreme pain and 20 seconds was not going to cause serious physical pain. For the purposes of the arguement it might as well be 2 seconds - the purpose is that it makes the individual uncomfortable.

The question is not so much about the individual instance as it is about the concept of sadism. Here is what dictionary.com says...

1 : The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.
2 : The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.
3 : Extreme cruelty.

Acccording to my friend's definition, it is the act of getting pleasure from anyone's uncomfort that constitues sadism. He has agreed that by his definition practical jokes whereby someone is fooled into thinking, for example, that they are going to have to spend time with someone they dont like, for even a matter of seconds is sadism as long as the person pulling the joke is getting pleasure out of it.

My opinion is that sadism involves an element of cruelty andd that his definition is far to broad. Thus, I say sadism distinguishes between a practical joke and laughing as someone urinates on someone else.

What do you think?

In your responses, please dont consider the issue of HAZING. The question comes down to whether sadism haas a very general definition or whether it is more specific in its nature.

Thanks !

[miajag81]

A sadist and a masochist are in an elevator together. The masochist turns to the sadist and says, "Hit me." The sadist narrows his eyes, licks his lips, and says, "No."

[whiskeytown]

none of the definitions you give apply to making pledges lie down in the snow in boxers for 20 sec. - your guys aren't deriving any sexual pleasure from it (I hope) and it's not extreme cruelity -

Sadism is a sexual thing, not just torture, IMHO - your friend is full of crap -

RB

[revlis87]

bump?

[Blarg]

No, sadism doesn't have to involve sex directly.

An act can be sadistic without being sexual. But a sadist takes pleasure in the suffering of others for its own sake. The goal of a practical joke is usually to create an absurd situation or amusing reaction, not to cause suffering.

Sadism really has nothing to do with discomfort. Dictionary.com uses the words "pain," "abuse," and "cruelty." Those are pretty strong words. If a prank doesn't actually result in pain, there's no way it's sadistic.

[man]

I think it's sadism whenever you derive pleasure from someone else's discomfort. but it's probably easier to look at it like it's on a spectrum. laughing as half naked frat boys lie in the snow is low-level sadism. laughing as a person burns to death is high-level sadism.

[bwana devil]

why not have them put on their boxers and lie on the floor inside? what would the point of having them lie in the snow be?

probably partly to humiliate/embarass and partly because the snow is cold and uncomfortable.

if youd be just as happy as having them lie on the floor inside (which im sure you wouldnt), then i wouldnt consider it sadistic.

and you dont have to derive sexual pleasure for something to be sadistic. your own definition spelled that out.

i agree w/ your friend.

btw what are the consequences if your frat house gets caught hazing?

bwana

[ZeeJustin]

IMO you are both wrong. The key is where the pleasure comes from, regardless of whether or not pain is inflicted. Most frat guys prolly find slapstick stuff funny, because it's slapstick, not beacause people are suffering.

FWIW, the difference between the discomfort your friend talks about and the cruelty you talk about is arbitrary. Discomfort is just a minor amount of suffering, so in that regards, it would still qualify towards the definition, although on a smaller scale. But again, the key is exactly where the pleasure is derived from.

Edit: This should be obvious, but based on the responses of this thread, it seems like I should say it anyway:
Words have multiple definitions. The definition you are debating is the second one you listed above. Only one of the definitions explicitly requires things to be sexual, so Whiskey is clearly wrong.

[RiverFenix]

[ QUOTE ]
No, sadism doesn't have to involve sex directly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does when it comes to donkey punches