Why Does Discipline Bring Pleasure?

We often use the concept of pleasure to explain why someone engages in BDSM activities.

For instance, someone might enjoy being spanked or tied up, finding these activities pleasurable, and thus seeks out partners to practice with.

From this starting point, we can explain many phenomena, such as the necessity of the “informed consent” principle. If someone is forced rather than willing, it obviously won’t be pleasurable. Similarly, the SSC (Safe, Sane, Consensual) safety principles are vital because safety is a prerequisite for pleasure—no one finds pleasure in ending up in the hospital.

However, one aspect that’s challenging to explain is the “discipline and punishment” within DS relationships. In BDSM, DS stands for dominance and submission. The roles in these relationships are referred to as Dom (dominant) and Sub (submissive). This relationship emphasizes psychological obedience and attachment more than the physical aspects of S/M relationships. For those interested, you can read more in this comprehensive guide to BDSM.

In DS relationships, maintaining the roles often involves discipline and punishment as tools for TJ (training and justice). For example, a Dom might order a Sub to complete certain tasks, rewarding success and punishing failure. Submissives find pleasure in this process that upholds the Dom’s authority.

It’s crucial to note that in this article, “punishment” refers to genuine punishment, which causes discomfort to the Sub to ensure they avoid forbidden actions in the future. For example, for a pain-loving Sub, punishment might be three months without spanking rather than receiving 100 hits, as the latter could be seen as a reward.

Thus, punishment truly causes discomfort to the punished, whether it’s hitting a non-masochist to tears or making an indulgent Sub abstain until they’re frantic. These actions themselves aren’t pleasurable.

But this isn’t coercion or tyranny. If you ask these Subs, they’ll say they willingly and gladly accept the Dom’s punishments.

For example, a Sub might share how they were caught slacking on their studies and were grumpily sent to a corner to recite 100 words as punishment. Their tone might be filled with a sense of reassurance or even pride. This feeling likely doesn’t come from the act of memorizing words but from the dependence on the Dom to discipline them when they err.

If we stick to the idea that pleasure drives behavior, the only explanation is that a Sub’s pleasure comes not from the punishment itself but from the consistent presence of someone to correct and discipline them when they make mistakes.

This brings up a persistent question: why do we derive pleasure and dependence from being disciplined?

Recently, while reading Michel Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish,” I found new insights after understanding the evolution of modern societal punishment and power operations since the 17th century. I’d like to share these thoughts.

What Are Discipline and Punishment?

Let’s consider what’s happening in a DS relationship. It seems like one role, the Dom, commands another role, the Sub, establishing rules and punishments.

But that’s just the surface. In reality, it’s about one individual disciplining another. So, what is “discipline”?

Foucault defines discipline as the combination of theories and practices that make bodies more obedient and useful: docility + utility = discipline. Discipline not only makes bodies do more but makes the process of doing things more controlled.

For example, in our school days:

In kindergarten, we were required to arrive and leave at specific times. Initially, we might resist and cry, making it hard for teachers. But by elementary or middle school, we could arrive on time ourselves, showing increased docility. We also learned to follow rules, like doing synchronized exercises or studying for exams, which increased our utility, preparing us to be “useful” members of society.

Foucault argues that schools are the most common disciplinary institutions in society. Each of us is a product of such discipline. In essence, before encountering BDSM, we’ve already been conditioned to be disciplined. We’ll delve into this more later.

For now, let’s return to the question of what’s happening in DS relationships.

In typical Dom-Sub relationships, common activities include:

1. Establishing roles and their hierarchies.
2. Training the Dom’s or Sub’s body, similar to how schools teach synchronized exercises. For instance, there are standardized Sub postures circulating online to discipline their bodies.
3. Keeping the Sub’s body visible to the Dom at all times, symbolizing the Dom’s scrutiny over every aspect of the Sub’s body.
4. Observing and gathering knowledge about the Sub to optimize the discipline plan. Good performance is rewarded, and failures are punished.

These actions might seem like mere physical training, but is that all there is?

Higher Contexts of Discipline

In everyday life, avoiding illegal acts is enough to escape punishment. But in disciplinary contexts, the system is more advanced: individuals must constantly remind themselves of their roles, or face punishment for not doing what’s expected.

For instance, if a Dom instructs a Sub to kneel by the bed until they wake up, the Sub might be punished not just for failing to wake up the Dom but even for not kneeling correctly. This shows that the Dom is making the Sub think about what they should be doing, not just what they shouldn’t do.

Most of us have experienced this. Think back to school when a teacher might scold, “Is this what a student should be doing?”

Foucault says that disciplinary power targets identities, not actions. This is evident in the above scenario.

Generally, laws punish “what you did” (e.g., A sold drugs, B robbed a store), with penalties matching the actions. But discipline asks, “Who are you? What is your role? Why didn’t you fulfill your role?”

In BDSM contexts, since a Dom’s expectations for a Sub are always changing, Subs can’t settle into a stable understanding of whether their actions are right or wrong. They might constantly question if they are too fat, too thin, or whether the Dom likes their behavior or attire. They don’t know the answers themselves; only the Dom does. This uncertainty makes them more dependent on their Dom. In previous articles, many Subs’ self-confidence came from the Dom affirming that their behavior and state met expectations.

Many Subs’ reliance on Doms stems from this. Many newcomers’ reliance on experienced individuals also stems from this. Even in their absence, we might self-interrogate, wondering what they would think of our actions or words. This is one of discipline’s effects.

Therefore, the various behaviors discussed, appearing as physical training, actually target the mind. Punishment aims not to control the body but to penetrate deeper, inspecting and training the soul, spirit, will, and preferences.

The goal of such discipline is to increase the Sub’s docility and utility.

Again, utility means the Sub can do more for the Dom. Docility means the process becomes easier to control.

For example, some Subs are willing to do anything for their Doms and feel happy helping them. The willingness to do more is an increase in utility. The happiness from helping is an increase in docility, as the cost of having them do things decreases, or even becomes negative (if they feel anxious or doubtful when not doing things for the Dom).

Pleasure

Returning to the concept of “pleasure,” we often say we practice BDSM to pursue inner pleasure. But after understanding this, can you still be sure this “pleasure” originates from an innate self, rather than being a product of invisible discipline?

Foucault is pessimistic about this. He doesn’t believe in an “inner self.” He argues that all our supposedly “natural” or “authentic” thoughts are results of modern social discipline.

Thus, yes, we seek out Doms, accept discipline and punishment, and enjoy it due to inner pleasure. But this pleasure isn’t an innate trait; it’s a result of being disciplined.

The classic example is the “Stockholm Syndrome,” where hostages, after being tormented by kidnappers, develop positive feelings towards them just because the kidnappers provided food and water. Many refuse to testify against their captors, with one woman even defending them in court, hoping for their release.

If we see “first inflicting pain, then giving a treat” as a method of discipline, then the resulting goodwill and comfort are the products of discipline. Thus, the captives not only obey the kidnappers but are also willing to defend them, showing increased docility and utility.

So, what is an individual really? Is there truly an unaltered “nature” or “human essence”? Foucault denies this, arguing that all individuals are “entities crafted by a specific power technique we call ‘discipline’.” An individual’s personality and preferences are all shaped by societal, familial, and social power relations from an early age.

Finally, we can ask, in our actual lives, who is disciplining us? Who is playing the role of the Stockholm kidnappers?

Broader Reflections

We often joke, “Life itself is the ultimate Dom, TJ-ing me until I can’t breathe.” This isn’t far from the truth.

After corporal punishment left the historical stage, discipline took its place, thriving in modern society to maintain social cohesion and operation.

Foucault suggests that physical punishers like executioners were replaced by a vast technical disciplinary army, including prison guards, doctors, teachers, priests, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. This army ensures discipline penetrates even the most insignificant irregularities, deviations, or abnormalities.

For example, companies and factories embody “enclosed spaces” of discipline, where individuals are isolated in cubicles, away from public view. Leaders’ positions often allow oversight of everyone, like a teacher’s podium or office computer monitoring software, effectively regulating behavior and preventing disruptions.

Reflect: does a Dom requiring a Sub’s complete visibility and scrutiny have a similar mechanism?

Schools and hospitals use spatial hierarchy for discipline. We’ve encountered situations where top students sit in front while poor students sit at the back. This seating arrangement creates a competitive mechanism, invisibly shaping students’ personalities, emotions, intentions.

If we’ve grown up accustomed to top students sitting at the front and bad ones at the back, with the teacher on a high podium, then feeling pleasure from a Dom being high up and a Sub being in a cage in BDSM might not be surprising.

So, when someone asks, why is a Sub in a cage? Can’t the Dom go in? A Sub might reply, because I like it, mind your own business. But this “like” might be a superficial answer, with disciplinary effects as an underlying explanation.

In “Discipline and Punish,” Foucault emphasizes that our schools, prisons, factories, hospitals—all social institutions—are disciplinary spaces. There is no inherently independent consciousness within us; our so-called personality and nature are results of discipline.

Through this article, I hope to provoke thought: is human DS behavior a microcosm of social discipline? When we confidently pursue BDSM, claiming to seek freedom from societal constraints, are we humorously like Sun Wukong trying to leap out of the Buddha’s palm, only to find we’re still on his fingertip?

• The End –

References

[1] Foucault, Michel, translated by Liu Beicheng, Yang Yuanying. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 1999.