BDSM and Self-Harm

[setzer777]

Should consensual physical injury in the context of BDSM ever be considered pathological? I'm mainly thinking of practices that are generally considered pathological and in need of treatment when performed on oneself (such as cutting and burning).

On the one hand I generally think that anything consensual in the bedroom is okay, but on the other hand I have trouble with the notion that a behavior that is considered harmful and in need of intervention when done solo is made okay simply by adding another person and sexual pleasure into the equation.

Is it the motivation that makes the acts okay or not-okay?

[Annihilist]

Why does it have to be labeled as "okay" or "not okay'"?

I personally feel that any harm of the self is fine. It's your choice and it's no one else's right or responsibility to tell you that what you are doing is "not okay". I don't believe that intervention is right.

In the context of sexual pleasure, I can't see any reason to say it's not okay. People can do what they like. If it harms them, it's a risk they are willing to take, and they should be aware of potential consequences. If they are not aware of the risk factor, then they are ignorant and stupid and they are liable for any damage to themselves.

[curtis95112]

I don't know, we generally try to deter suicide even if we agree with the right to it. That's why we have suicide hotlines.

And calling people stupid for doing risky things doesn't really help when the problem is more a lack of education than stupidity. That's not even taking into account the numerous psychological problems that can lead people perfectly aware of the consequences to self-harm. Psychological disorders are very much real.

[Thesh]

Willingly subjecting yourself to harm in and of itself isn't unhealthy. Context is everything. Many people are into masochism because they enjoying pushing their limits; it's a thrill, a rush. Many find that combining pain with sexual pleasure results in stronger orgasms. Some people are just turned on by being dominated. These are all perfectly fine, and (in my opinion) healthy.

If you are hurting yourself for similar reasons, then more power to you. If you are hurting yourself because you hate yourself, because you are depressed, etc. then that is not healthy and you should seek help.

[EdgarJPublius]

I don't believe that self-harm is necessarily 'pathological' or calls for intervention unless it is otherwise interfering with a person's life/livelihood.

In addition, many such activities become substantially safer with the simple addition of another person who can provide basic first-aid, call an ambulance and perform other safety functions.

And motivation should not be ignored either. If someone is hurting themselves for non-sexual reasons, it is often as a form of 'cry for help' or as a symptom of an underlying condition that could worsen. These cases obviously need to be addressed differently from cases where self-harm is much less likely to become more dangerous.

[Annihilist]

And motivation should not be ignored either. If someone is hurting themselves for non-sexual reasons, [b[it is often as a form of 'cry for help'[/b] or as a symptom of an underlying condition that could worsen. These cases obviously need to be addressed differently from cases where self-harm is much less likely to become more dangerous.

This is actually not true. Most people do everything they can to hide it, because of the social stigma associated with self harm. If you're looking for a cry to help, self harm is the worst choice. You're more likely to be berated and ridiculed than actually helped.

Don't take it personally, but I get really annoyed when people associate self-harm with a "cry for help" or on a more extreme level, as "attention-seeking".

[felltir]

This is something I've though about before, and I sort of agree with EdgarJPublius (though Annihilist is right about the attention seeking thing.)

I think it's important what the reasons are.

No matter who is hurting you, if you want to be hurt because you hate/dislike yourself, that is not okay. (I was originally going to say if you want to be hurt because you think you deserve it, but sometimes/often in a BDSM context that is why you want to be hurt... you misbehaved and you "deserve" to be punished )

[omgryebread]

Why does it have to be labeled as "okay" or "not okay'"?

I personally feel that any harm of the self is fine. It's your choice and it's no one else's right or responsibility to tell you that what you are doing is "not okay". I don't believe that intervention is right.

In the context of sexual pleasure, I can't see any reason to say it's not okay. People can do what they like. If it harms them, it's a risk they are willing to take, and they should be aware of potential consequences. If they are not aware of the risk factor, then they are ignorant and stupid and they are liable for any damage to themselves.

Yeah, let's maybe not call people stupid for what may be a serious psychological problem, kay? I can't honestly tell you the rationalizations involved in drinking half a bottle of vodka and taking some painkillers, but it obviously falls under self-harm and obviously I was aware of the risk factor. I'd like to think I'm not stupid, though.


You're assuming rational actors for no reason at all. A lot of self-harm is not taken by rational actors. It's perfectly possible that rational actors would engage in BDSM. I'd wager that most people engaging in BDSM are rational. However, it's also clear there are non-rational actors, and assuming that all BDSM behavior is rational is stupid. (Perhaps now is the time to define what I mean by rational. A rational actor is one who can perceive reality accurately and weigh risks and benefits. A rational act is not one that's a good choice, but merely an act taken because of a rational decision making process.) You're pretty willing to just call them stupid, yet it's possible that some people may engage in masochistic sexual behavior because of an underlying mental illness.

This is actually not true. Most people do everything they can to hide it, because of the social stigma associated with self harm. If you're looking for a cry to help, self harm is the worst choice. You're more likely to be berated and ridiculed than actually helped.

Don't take it personally, but I get really annoyed when people associate self-harm with a "cry for help" or on a more extreme level, as "attention-seeking".

It can be attention-seeking behavior, but it's usually not. It might be though, and yes, it's not a rational way to seek help. This doesn't make this motivation for self-harm any less "valid" however, and is not a sign of stupidity or anything like that.

Self-harm isn't a condition in and of itself (maybe it should be, though) and is viewed as a symptom of another condition.

BDSM is not self-harm + sex. It's a quite different thing, one which might be merely a preference. When it interferes with the subject's life, then it would be classified as a clinical paraphilia.

[EdgarJPublius]

And motivation should not be ignored either. If someone is hurting themselves for non-sexual reasons, [b[it is often as a form of 'cry for help'[/b] or as a symptom of an underlying condition that could worsen. These cases obviously need to be addressed differently from cases where self-harm is much less likely to become more dangerous.

This is actually not true. Most people do everything they can to hide it, because of the social stigma associated with self harm. If you're looking for a cry to help, self harm is the worst choice. You're more likely to be berated and ridiculed than actually helped.

Don't take it personally, but I get really annoyed when people associate self-harm with a "cry for help" or on a more extreme level, as "attention-seeking".

Communicating distress and 'attention seeking' are common reasons for self-harm that should not be ignored or marginalized. They are not the only motivations and I don't mean to imply they are, but are none-the-less widespread and an important factor to be recognized and discussed when dealing with self-harm.

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/micro ... ture4.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_harm# ... ltzer_13-5

[Puppyclaws]

Should consensual physical injury in the context of BDSM ever be considered pathological? I'm mainly thinking of practices that are generally considered pathological and in need of treatment when performed on oneself (such as cutting and burning).

On the one hand I generally think that anything consensual in the bedroom is okay, but on the other hand I have trouble with the notion that a behavior that is considered harmful and in need of intervention when done solo is made okay simply by adding another person and sexual pleasure into the equation.

Is it the motivation that makes the acts okay or not-okay?

No, it should essentially never be considered pathological. The thing is, cutting and burning in those contexts are different. If somebody cuts/burns themselves to gain sexual pleasure, that may be self-harm technically, but it's really not self-harm as that is talked about in psychological terms. It falls more into the category of sexual paraphilia. So yes you could say that it is motivation, not the presence of another person, that defines it. Some people treat sadism/masochism related paraphilias as either definitively or possibly pathological, but these people are a minority and basically jerks; the psych community does not in general understand the BDSM community. I think we're all better off if they keep their pathologizing noses out of it, frankly. Better to cast no net at all and miss a few ultra-extreme cases than cast too wide a net which this sort of categorization likely would.

No matter who is hurting you, if you want to be hurt because you hate/dislike yourself, that is not okay.

People are complex. I don't want to say I disagree with this sentiment but...there may be a point where those feelings are tied up with sexual feelings, and the two things are difficult to disentangle. Even getting treatment and getting rid of negative cognitions about the self is unlikely to change a lot of that.

[lutzj]

I'd add that the main goal of "harm" in BDSM is to cause pain or discomfort, while pathological self-harm is more about damaging one's own body. AFAIK, most people involved in BDSM take pains to avoid leaving marks or other permanent damage.

[Thesh]

I'd add that the main goal of "harm" in BDSM is to cause pain or discomfort, while pathological self-harm is more about damaging one's own body. AFAIK, most people involved in BDSM take pains to avoid leaving marks or other permanent damage.

Some people may avoid marks, but many subs want marks and are proud of them. It's actually difficult to avoid leaving marks with things like single whips and canes, and some people like to be hit hard enough with the flogger to leave bruises.

[felltir]

I'd add that the main goal of "harm" in BDSM is to cause pain or discomfort, while pathological self-harm is more about damaging one's own body. AFAIK, most people involved in BDSM take pains to avoid leaving marks or other permanent damage.

Some people may avoid marks, but many subs want marks and are proud of them. It's actually difficult to avoid leaving marks with things like single whips and canes, and some people like to be hit hard enough with the flogger to leave bruises.

This. In my experience, the marks/bruises are a fun reminder for those involved of the sexy times.

[krogoth]

BDSM is to cause pain or discomfort, while pathological self-harm is more about damaging one's own body.

masochism or, sadomasochism, that is BDSM and pathological self-harm, all seem to be different forms of the same thing, especially when you take into account those whom "cut to feel good" I've had many a friend say that self halm makes them feel better. Maybe the body releaving endorphens to releave the pain or some such?

[Ulc]

In general I'd agree with those pointing out that motivation behind harm is quite important when it comes to dealing with this. The motivation behind pathological self-harm, such as most cutting, is self-hate, and a hatred of the life they live - and self-harming is a way to exert a measure of control on their own lives while taking it out on themselves, and it's not healthy for that reason.

The motivation behind BSDM is fairly varied, but is generally based on what people enjoy, rather than what they don't enjoy, which makes all the difference. And if someone was to solo-harm themselves for that reason, I wouldn't consider it pathological either, imagine a person that found that playing with pain* during masturbation increased the pleasure, would that be a problem? In my opinion

I'd add that the main goal of "harm" in BDSM is to cause pain or discomfort, while pathological self-harm is more about damaging one's own body. AFAIK, most
people involved in BDSM take pains to avoid leaving marks or other permanent damage.

Permanent damage, yes - but for marks, I'll just refer to this

*But remember, safety first! Always use disinfected knives and cleaned floggers! And never do asphyxiophilia-play alone!

[felltir]

BDSM is to cause pain or discomfort, while pathological self-harm is more about damaging one's own body.

masochism or, sadomasochism, that is BDSM and pathological self-harm, all seem to be different forms of the same thing, especially when you take into account those whom "cut to feel good" I've had many a friend say that self halm makes them feel better. Maybe the body releaving endorphens to releave the pain or some such?

I think you're completely wrong.

Cutting to feel good is about endorphin relief yes, but the reasons it is needed is often things like depression, suicidal urges, self-hate, that kind of ball-park.

BDSM, on the other hand, is all about feeling good, but the most common reason is the base urge: This feels good, so I'll do it. The reason masochists like to be hurt (normally) is not because they hate themselves, and sadists don't (normally) want to hurt people because they hate everyone. They do it because hurting and being hurt, in the right contexts, is FUCKING HOT. That's all.

[lutzj]

Cutting to feel good is about endorphin relief yes, but the reasons it is needed is often things like depression, suicidal urges, self-hate, that kind of ball-park.

BDSM, on the other hand, is all about feeling good, but the most common reason is the base urge: This feels good, so I'll do it. The reason masochists like to be hurt (normally) is not because they hate themselves, and sadists don't (normally) want to hurt people because they hate everyone. They do it because hurting and being hurt, in the right contexts, is FUCKING HOT. That's all.

felltir does a better job of articulating what I was trying to say here. If I might try again, it's like the difference between hunting for the thrill of the chase and hunting because you hate animals and want them to die. The motivations behind BDSM and pathological self-harm are very different.

[krogoth]

They do it to feel better, you do it to feel better.

(I use the words "they" because I don't do it and "you" because you do it.)

"The motivations behind BDSM and pathological self-harm are very different."
Do motives even matter? My brother hates cats, he humanely traps them and has them put down, he does this on properties he has a licence to do so. Does it matter that it's to save other animals or because he hates them?

Either way, I'd say self-harm for any reason is pathological issue. It's certenly far from mainstream and openly accepted in all circles.

[omgryebread]

They do it to feel better, you do it to feel better.

(I use the words "they" because I don't do it and "you" because you do it.)

"The motivations behind BDSM and pathological self-harm are very different."
Do motives even matter? My brother hates cats, he humanely traps them and has them put down, he does this on properties he has a licence to do so. Does it matter that it's to save other animals or because he hates them?

Either way, I'd say self-harm for any reason is pathological issue. It's certenly far from mainstream and openly accepted in all circles.

Your definition of pathological is horrible. No good psychiatrist should treat a problem that doesn't interfere with the person's life.

Not everyone gambles, but some people do and it doesn't really hurt their life. Some people gamble so much it prevents them from carrying out the rest of their life, and that's pathological. Same with drinking, eating, lying, having changes in mood.


Motivations matter very much in psychology. Let's say I kill someone. Did I kill them because I do not feel guilt or learn from punishment (antisocial personality disorder), did I kill them because I have uncontrollable anger (borderline personality disorder or bipolar disorder), did I believe they were trying to kill me (paranoid personality disorder or schizophrenia), did I have some sort of hallucination that encouraged me to kill them (schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder), was I under some delusion that I had to kill them (psychotic disorders again)?

They all result in murder, but they are very different. They'd kill for different reasons in different ways. They'd be more or less likely to kill at all. (Note that none of them are actually likely to kill.) Treatments are going to be vastly different, of course.

[SpazzyMcGee]

I might have agreed a few months ago that BDSM is somewhat pathological, but then I came across deviantART artist who creates a series of comic strips centering around BDSM. The comics are pretty funny and did a good job communicating the reason why people like BDSM, but if you are curious I'll warn you that some might consider many of the strips softcore pornography . The link is in the spoiler.

Spoiler:

shiniez.deviantart.com

What I took away from the aforementioned comic was that BDSM isn't about domination and pain so much as it is about trust. Even the wildest of people have boundaries and one who partakes in BDSM needs to trust that their partner won't cross those boundaries. In a way BDSM is like a team building exercise . The underlying sadomasochistic urges might still be pathological even if BDSM can help foster a trusting relationship with one's significant other, but I wouldn't be too quick to judge.

There are plenty of examples of humans being functional members of society while seeking out stimuli we are either culturally or biologically meant to avoid. Violence is generally frowned upon by society and yet many sports rely on peoples' violent tendencies. Adrenaline junkies seek out exciting and many times life threatening situations in order to "feel more alive". Seeking such forms of excitement can either be a healthy recreation or a dangerous pathology depending on the risks one takes and whether or not one can limit oneself. The same can be true of people who seek pain and humiliation.

I wouldn't call such activities and underlying motives pathological so long as participants can function as a healthy and stable members of society.

[Nem]

Cutting and burning are not things I'd view as being in need of treatment. I view cutting and burning as being generally symptomatic of a deeper upset that the person might want help with. There's no need for anything unless you assume a goal on the part of the person you're going to say has the need. If you don't want to go on living, you don't even need oxygen.

The same framework just carries over to BDSM. Do people need it to stop? Sure, some of the time. Is it the motivation that makes it okay or not okay? Sure, for some people. This sort of stuff is pretty much entirely about the people commenting on it, rather than anything about the act itself.

I think what people get so hung up on with these question is that they think they can't help people if people don't need help. But that seems, to me, a very strange way of thinking of things. As a compassionate person should you let someone know that they're loved? Yes, probably. As a compassionate person should you stop someone killing themselves? Well, if you honestly believe that they're going to get better and that the majority of their life will be super-happy-fun-times, then yes, probably.

Of course, when you start looking at it that way, you start to sound a little arrogant - which is why it's important to actually have data to back up such beliefs. If you go carelessly trampling all over other people's desires, that doesn't reflect too well on you.

Once we jettison the idea that we need people to need our help before we can do anything, much of the emotional investment we might have had in the idea of pathologising behaviours goes right out the window. And we're left with, I think, the far more useful questions of whether they might show someone is suffering and what we should do, if we're compassionate creatures, in response to that.

[lutzj]

Cutting and burning are not things I'd view as being in need of treatment.

Do you mean to suggest that (trigger) a person who cuts their hand open doesn't need bandages for their wounds, on top of psychological help? The symptoms of self-harm (i.e., the "harm" involved) need treatment just as much as the underlying causes.