Kelley Walker wrote:
>
> A
> which of course, should remind everyone that a lot of other cultures engage
> in ritualistic sacrifices and i'd sure call that sado-masochistic.
There may be some exceptions, but I've never seen a discourse invoking sado-masochism that did not pretty overtly claim that sado-masochism is the cause of sado-masochism. That is, the phrase is always used (a) to simply describe a phenomenon and (b) _in the same_ text, explain the phenomenon named. Kelley's "lack of explanatory power" is a gross understatement. Most psychological explanations invoked by literary critics, sociologists, political theorists, etc. are tautological, but in most there are at least a few more steps between _A_ and _A_, while s-m explanations blurt it out: s-m causes s-m.
It is merely by definition not by any material analysis that the crucificxion etc. is an instance of s-m.
Carrol