The Marquis de Sade as a Freudian Sadist

Author's note: This was written a week or so ago for a class called "Love, Hatred, & Resentment" with the prompt: "Is [the Marquis de Sade's] Philosophy in the Boudoir a sadistic text as [Sigmund] Freud understands sadism in [his] Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality? Why or why not?" I was arguing for the affirmative.

The Marquis de Sade is a historical character to which many descriptors could be applied: morally corrupt, depraved, perverted...sadist? It would then seem to follow that “sadist” does indeed belong on that list, seeing as how it is his namesake. However, would that be fair? Would that be correct to say?  In his “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality” Seminal psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud outlines several aspects of human sexuality, including those of sadism and masochism. Having Freud’s three essays and de Sade’s “Philosophy in the Boudoir” it is safe to conclude that yes, the Marquis de Sade is indeed a Freudian Sadist. We will go about showing this by first looking at what Freud explicitly defines as “sadism” (what exactly sadism is), then taking into account the role of pity and its influence on the development of sexuality (how individuals become sadists) and finally turning our attention to both pain and its relation pleasure (why individuals would want to pursue a sadistic lifestyle). In each of the sections references will be made to de Sade’s “Philosophy in the Boudoir” to appropriately demonstrate how the Marquis’ philosophy fits Freud’s assessment of sadism.

Freud has a rudimentary definition on what he considers to be sadism:

“In ordinary speech connotation of sadism oscillates between, on the one hand, cases merely characterized by an active or violent attitude to the sexual object, and, on the other hand, cases in which satisfaction is entirely conditional on the humiliation and maltreatment of the object.” (Freud 24, emphasis added).

The latter half of that definition, in which violence is entirely conditional is what Freud argued constituted a “perversion”. However, we are concerned only with the phenomena of sadism itself, the “humiliation of maltreatment of the object” rather than the psychology of perversions, so we will eschew that aspect of Freud’s definition. It is without a doubt that the Marquis participates in this behavior.

“EUGÉNIE: Gently, gently, I can’t stand it (she yells , tears roll down her cheeks.) Help me, my dear friend!...(she struggles.) No, I don’t want it to enter me!...If you persist, I’ll scream bloody murder!...

CHEVALIER. Scream as much as you like, you little slut! I tell you, it has to enter even if you kick the bucket a thousand times.

EUGÉNIE: How barbaric!

DOLMANCÉ Ah! Fuck! Is a man tactful when he gets a hard-on?

CHEVALIER. Hey! My dick’s inside!...It’s inside, damn it!...Fuck! To hell with her virginity!...Watch her blood flow!
EUGÉNIE: Go on, tiger!...Go on! Tear me to shreds now if you like! I don’t give a damn!...” (de Sade 101).

Later on in the scene, one of the players introduces a whip:

“DOLMANCÉ: One moment, beautiful boy, on moment!...She has to present me with her ass while you fuck her!...Yes, that’s it! Come closer, Madam de Saint-Ange. I promised fuck your butt, and I’ll keep my word!...But lie there in such a way that I can fuck Eugénie and leave enough space to whip her! Meanwhile, the Chevalier should whip me! (They all get into their positions)

EUGÉNIE: Ah! Fuck! He’s tearing me apart!...Be gentle, you big clod!...Ah, the bugger! He’s shoving it in!...He’s in!...He’s hit rock bottom!...I’m dying!...Oh, Dolmancé, how hard you whip!...The flames are being kindled on both sides! You’re setting my ass cheeks on fire!” (Sade 102)

Now that it is quite apparent that the Marquis does indeed participate in Freud’s basic definition of sadism (that is the humiliation and maltreatment of the object), next we must address what is essentially the “how” of sadism: how does one become a sadist and does the Marquis fit in with Freud’s characterization of sadism’s development in human sexuality? And what does pity have to do with sadism anyway? To begin answering these questions Freud starts at infancy. Freud describes human infantile sexual development as “diphasic”; such that the first phase occurs from age two to five, proceeding into a latency period lasting from five to puberty, and finishing with the second phase from puberty on. (Freud 66). The latency period is particularly important because this is when what Freud calls the “forces of resistance” are built up to impede the sexual instinct: “It is during this period of total or only partial latency that are built up the mental forces which are later to impede the course of the sexual instinct and , like dames, restrict its flow -- disgust, feelings of shame and the claims of aesthetic and moral ideals.” (Freud 43). Sexual phenomenon like sadism, along with others such as exhibitionism and scopophilia, as well as all the other fetishes of sexual object-choice begin, for Freud, at the first phase of infantile sexuality and are sublimated (redirected in to substitutive satisfactions) in response to the forces that are built up during latency. This is all well and good, but how does it relate to sadism and where does the Marquis fit in?

The sexual instinct to cruelty, that Freud believes we all have (Freud 58), like everything else for Freud, begins at childhood; and this instinct to cruelty eventually encounters a mental force of resistance, in this case: pity. “Cruelty in general comes easily to the childish nature, since the obstacle that brings the instinct for mastery to a halt at another person’s pain -- namely a capacity for pity--is developed relatively late.” (Freud 59). Sadism (as well as masochism) occurs when that mental dam of pity either is overridden, malformed, or absent entirely. It is clear from Philosophy in the Boudoir that the Marquis has a notable lack of pity. This is most clear when he is describing his beliefs on charity:

“EUGÉNIE: ...But, Dolmancé, couldn’t charity and benevolence constitute happiness in a few sensitive souls?

DOLMANCÉ: Eugenie, may we be spared the virtues that produce only ingratitude! And don’t be fooled, my charming friend. Benevolence is more a vice of pride than a true virtue of the soul...I personally envisage it only as the greatest of all swindles. It accustoms the pauper to assistance, which saps his energy. He no longer works if he expects your charity.” (Sade 29).

Later, Dolmancé takes it even further:

“DOLMANCÉ: ...What do I care about other people’s sufferings? Don’t I have enough misery of my own without burdening myself with the misery of others? May the hearth fir of that sensitivity never illuminate anything but our own pleasures! Let’s be sensitive to whatever delights them, and let’s be absolutely inflexible about the rest. This attitude of the soul results in a sort of cruelty that is sometimes not without its charm. One cannot always do evil. So if we can’t always create this pleasure, we can nevertheless replace this sensation with the caustic little malice that we never do good.

This taking pleasure in the presence of anothers’ suffering is a notable characteristic in colloquial sadism, and the demonstrable lack of pity is characteristic of Freud’s assessment of sadism.

Finally there comes what is, essentially, the “why” of sadism. What exactly do sadists (and masochists for that matter) get out of the practice? What we have to examine here is pain (which is clearly a component of sadomasochism) and its relationship to pleasure as well as the extent of which pain becomes, or even is pleasure. Freud discusses certain affective processes (i.e. emotions) that provide “further sources of excitation in children” (Freud 69). He observes that “The sexually exciting effect of many emotions which are in themselves unpleasurable, such as feelings of apprehension, fright or horror, persists in a great number of people throughout their adult life.” (Freud 69). Taking this, Freud goes even further: “If we assume that a similar erotogenic effect attaches even to intensely  especially when the pain is toned down or kept at a distance by some accompanying condition, we should here have painful feelings,one of the main roots of the masochistic-sadistic instinct...” (Freud 70, emphasis added). When Freud speaks of these sensations being “toned down or kept at a distance” he means certain limitations that protect us from actual danger; that is the employment of “safe words” in the bedroom that set clear limits as the what the participants consent to.

The Marquis has plenty to say about pain and its transformation into pleasure throughout the dialogue in the boudoir.

“MADAME DE SAINT-ANGE: Whether she’s penetrated in front or in back, of a woman is still unaccustomed to such treatment, then she’ll always feel pain. It has pleased nature to help us achieve happiness only through pain. But once nature is vanquished, nothing can replace the pleasure felt by the woman; and the pleasure enjoyed during penetration of her ass is incontestably preferable to all the delights that can be gained by the penetration in front.” (Sade 17).

Dolmancé mentions this transformation again, later when he is discussing the particulars of anal sex:

“DOLMANCÉ:...But ignoring her pains that soon change to pleasures, the fucker must push his dick, gradually and energetically, until he achieves his goal--until, that is, his pubic hair precisely rubs the circumference of the anus he’s fucking. He must then follow his route swiftly; all the thorns have been gathered, only the roses remain.” (Sade 45).

As we see Freud develop his theory on sadism and masochism we see the Marquis at every turn. At the outset, when Freud is describing the phenomenon at a basic level the Marquis is there; whipping and humiliating his peers. Later, when Freud is describing how sadism and masochism develops in human sexuality, the Marquis is there with his denouncement of charity and his overcoming or absence of pity. Finally, when Freud is describing why its practitioners engage in sadism and masochism, the Marquis is there; elucidating as to how pain can be pleasurable and indeed how it can be pleasure. We can conclude, with much certainty that the Marquis de Sade does indeed live up to his namesake and is from a Freudian perspective, a sadist.

Works Cited

Freud, Sigmund, and James Strachey. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. New York: Basic, 2007. Print.

Sade, Marquis De. Philosophy of the Boudoir. London: Penguin, 2007. Print.