ABSTRACT
The term sadism suffers from the weight of multiple and sometimes conflicting meanings, the most problematic of which is its confusion with aggression. The author reviews Freud’s changing uses of the term. He then argues that the function of sadism and masochism, which always occur together, is to bind the subject to her object in contrast to aggression, the aim of which is to destroy. This distinction is of great clinical importance, as it alerts the clinician to the effort to maintain a tie to an object. A developmental hypothesis is offered as a possible explanation of the reversibility of sadistic and masochistic roles. The author also offers the conjecture that the sadomasochistic need to control the object is the common denominator in compulsory sexual practices.
