Motorsport boss Max Mosley and his Sado-Masochistic Sickness

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I am reminded of a remark Cleckley made about how high functioning psychopaths need to take a vacation into filth at regular intervals to relieve the pressure of acting normal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mosley-i-have-been-married-for-48-years-and-my-wife-never-knew-about-this-862045.html

Mosley: 'I have been married for 48 years, and my wife never knew about this'

Mosley reveals his lifelong interest in sado-masochistic sex

By Andy McSmith
Tuesday, 8 July 2008

The motorsport boss Max Mosley, who is suing the News of the World, for breach of privacy, has defended his lifelong interest in sado-masochistic sex as a harmless pursuit whose practitioners have the same right to privacy as anyone else. The case at the High Court in London, which opened yesterday, could make legal history because Mr Mosley's lawyers are pushing for "exemplary" damages to deter all newspapers from intruding into people's sex lives for the titillation of their readers.

To emphasise the harmless nature of his sexual games, Mr Mosley claimed that being beaten with a cane until your bottom bleeds is no more painful for an experienced masochist than a shaving cut.

"You have to understand that people who do this a lot become very sensitive and bleed very easily and the pain involved in that, compared to all sorts of things, is very modest," he told the court. "I'd far rather do that than jump into a cold swimming pool. The level of violence is minimal, the drawing of blood a little like cutting yourself shaving."

News Group Newspapers contests Mr Mosley's claim for breach of privacy on the grounds that the public had a right to know about the private activities of a prominent figure who presides over one of the world's most popular spectator sports. A pillar of their defence is the disputed claim that Mr Mosley, whose mother and father were admirers of Adolf Hitler, introduced a Nazi theme into his sexual role-playing.

Mark Warby QC, representing News Group, also claimed that to inflict violence that causes someone to bleed, even on a willing victim, is a criminal offence, a suggestion Mr Mosley dismissed as absurd. Mr Mosley also denied that sado-masochism is any more "immoral" than any other form of extramarital sex between consenting adults.

"I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion that any of this is depraved... [or] immoral. I think it is a perfectly harmless activity provided it is between consenting adults who want to do it, are of sound mind, and it is in private," he said.

He also admitted that sado-masochism can seem ridiculous to outsiders, and that even the participants occasionally have difficulty keeping a straight face. The same problem afflicted some of the lawyers and members of the public as they listened to yesterday's evidence. At one point, one woman in the public gallery was in tears – though it was not obvious whether they were of mirth or distress.

The case, which is expected to last all week, concerns a story published on the front page and two inside pages of the News of the World on 30 March, under the headline "F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers".

The "orgy" – which Mr Mosley preferred to describe as a "party" – took place in the basement of a Chelsea flat on 28 March, and was secretly filmed for the News of the World by one of the women present. Mr Mosley disputed the description of the women as "hookers" or "prostitutes" on the grounds that they were not paid to have intercourse, although he gave them £500 each for joining in two elaborate games. One involved Mr Mosley being humiliated and beaten, while in the other, two of the women acted out the parts of victims. In the first game, Mr Mosley used the name Timothy Barnes, while the woman who humiliated and caned him called herself Officer Smith. In the second, which involved the women dressing up either in uniforms or in striped prisoners' garb, Mr Mosley and a woman identified in court only as B spoke in German while their "prisoners" protested in vain that they could not understand what they were being told to do.

One of the more dramatic moments came when the court was played a recording of part of this game, in which Mr Mosley and "B" talked in German while another women – identified as A – protested, in English: "But we are the Aryan race, the blonds." Next, there was a loud crack, followed by a woman's cry of pain as she was "punished" for speaking out of turn. "It's perfectly clear that Woman A understood this to be a scene involving Nazism," said Mr Warby.

Mr Mosley dismissed the Aryan reference as "a throwaway line in a general scenario". He vehemently denied that the role-playing had any Nazi overtones, or that the costumes belonged to any recognisable historical period. "I can think of few things more unerotic than Nazi roleplay," he said. "There was not even a hint of that – certainly not in my mind and, I'm convinced, not in the minds of any of the other participants." In one terse exchange, he sarcastically asked Mr Warby: "Did you have any particular period in mind for the mid-thigh camouflage?" Mr Warby retorted, with even heavier sarcasm: "Ha! Ha! Ha!"

Mr Mosley was questioned at length about his relationship with his father, Sir Oswald Mosley, who founded the British Union of Fascists in 1932, and married Diana Mitford, one the Mitford sisters, in the presence of Hitler and Goebbels.

In his youth, Max Mosley was involved in a group his father founded after the war, the Union Movement, which called for immigration controls and for black and Asian immigrants to be paid to leave Britain. He said in court that he had never renounced his father, but he had ended his political activity around 1963. He has been president of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile since 1993. One of the attractions of motor racing, he said, was that it allowed him to escape the shadow of his parentage because "the name Mosley meant absolutely nothing".

He was married in 1960, and began to indulge in sado-masochism around 1963, but his wife and children knew nothing of that side of his life. "That headline in the newspaper was completely, totally devastating for her and there is nothing that I can say that can ever repair that," he said. "Also, for my two sons, I don't think there is anything worse... than to see in a newspaper... pictures of the kind they printed."

The case continues.
 
Laura said:
I am reminded of a remark Cleckley made about how high functioning psychopaths need to take a vacation into filth at regular intervals to relieve the pressure of acting normal.
I suppose we can only be thankful that psychopaths of Mosley's ilk confine their sadism to "role-playing", unlike those like, say, the BTK Killer, who regularly indulged in the real thing. I'm curious about the difference between the two types: Are men like Mosley too "smart" to risk losing their high status in life; do they literally have more control over their urges?
 
I think that born psychopaths, like anyone, are conditioned by their environment. I also read a study recently comparing psychopaths that don't get with those that do and it said that the "socialized psychopath" - the one that seems to be able to live a conscienceless life without running afoul of the law - has more functioning frontal cortex stuff.

Here's a link to the study: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~raine/volume%20reduction%20in%20unsuccessful%20psychopath.pdf

Background: Although studies of neurologic patients have suggested that prefrontal structural impairments may predispose to sociopathy, it is unknown whether there is a relationship between psychopathy and prefrontal volume in individuals from the community and whether any prefrontal structural impairment is specific to “unsuccessful” (caught) psychopaths as opposed to “successful” (uncaught) psychopaths. This study tests the hypothesis that psychopathy is associated with a reduction in prefrontal gray volume but that this abnormality is specific to unsuccessful psychopaths.

Method: Prefrontal gray and white matter volumes were assessed using structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 16 unsuccessful psychopaths, 13 successful psychopaths, and 23 control subjects.

Results: Higher total as well as subfactor psychopathy scores (arrogant/deceptive, affective, and impulsive/unstable) were all associated with low prefrontal gray volume. Unsuccessful psychopaths, but not successful psychopaths, had a 22.3% reduction in prefrontal gray matter volume compared with control subjects.

Conclusions: These results demonstrating for the first time a prefrontal structural deficit in community psychopaths provide partial support for a prefrontal theory of psychopathy but highlight an important difference between successful and unsuccessful psychopaths.
In short, psychopaths exist on a spectrum like everyone else and that should give us pause to think. If the spectrum is like the Bell Curve, with the very violent at one end and the totally parasitic, helpless, inactive type at the other end, there's a HUGE number of successful ones in the middle!!!
 
Laura said:
I am reminded of a remark Cleckley made about how high functioning psychopaths need to take a vacation into filth at regular intervals to relieve the pressure of acting normal.
I don't disagree, but I didn't see enough in the article you quoted to be convinced (I don't have the practice that you do). So I did some Googling, and it took a while to find much of anything personal about Mosley, apart from the scandal and the usual unattributed, unconfirmed copy/paste bio information. I did finally come across this at _http://www.sportspromedia.com/mosley.htm:

SportsPro said:
His [Mosley's] personal character is inextricably mixed up with his business persona and has never been properly analysed. On a first meeting, he is immensely charming, highly personable and particularly likeable. But it is skin deep and that first perception is miles away from reality. People who have dealt with him say his word is not always his bond. They say it is easy to be beguiled by his opening manner. One said: “He presents himself as the ‘voice of reason’.”
This sounds vaguely familar. :o

I wasn't terribly taken back by his SM activities. I was bothered more by his not telling his family, and the effect that that ultimately had upon them. I have spent quite some time trying to understand the BDSM world, because I have felt some attraction to some of the activities there (but not SM), and I wanted to try to understand why. I did not conceal my need to understand from my relationships, though. I think now that my feelings were connected with growing up in a abusive, dysfunctional family, and those feelings started to fade as I began to resolve some of the other issues. Some BDSM community members, though, strongly deny the existence of any such link. I wonder how much they know about dissociation?

I would guess from your comments that what struck you was the SM fantasies and the detachment from what they depict in real life. That's what strikes most people, I suppose, and provides the tabloid with the incentive to "expose" people this way. When, however, one is predisposed from an early age to have BDSM fantasies of one sort or another, this practice of "exposing" people is itself very disturbing. What is the difference between an adult that consensually role-plays torture scenes with other adults, and parents that have no "perversions" but that actually torture their children? Quite a lot. I would much rather grow up as the child of the role-player, if that is as far as they ever took it, but I ended up with the other kind of parent instead, though I did get off relatively mildly. I had decided by age 12 that I didn't want to have children because I had come to see childhood as a kind of prolonged torture. This was not consensual in any sense. But it woudn't make the tabloids--it was considered ordinary behavior on my parents' part. Justifiable, even.

The reason I am not a member of the BDSM community is that I wasn't comfortable with the fantasies that I had. I understand that many people have them, and consider exploring them to be "safe," but I followed my deeper inner feelings which said that encouraging these fantasies didn't lead anywhere that I personally wanted to go. I was careful, though, to deal with self-loathing which was an issue at one time. I have no idea how many people in my situation choose to find something else to do--they tend to remain silent about it. The ones I hear from are those saying "come on in, the water's fine."

There are some interesting statements in chapter 12 of ISOTM about buffers and "abuse of sex." I am more concerned about this than the psychopathic angle, although they are closely connected:

Ouspensky said:
...Modern education and modern life create an enormous number of sexual psychopaths. They have no chance at all in the work...
In searching for more background information about Mosley I came across a few other articles:

MI5 OFFICER EXPOSED IN NEWS OF THE WORLD STING ON RACING BOSS MAX MOSLEY: _http://www.news-alliance.com/mi5_in_max_mosley_sting.html

Is there another story here?

Max Mosley vs. Julie Myers: _http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-mosley12apr12,0,3110462.story

"A private bondage session is no one else's business. Government-linked racism is everybody's business."

Max Mosley's Nazi S&M Orgy (Slate): _http://www.slate.com/id/2188752/

"It was distasteful. Was it also pathological?" This article asks the question, but I don't think it answers it. (See my SportsPro quote, above.)
 
It's worth noting that Max Mosely is protected by Sir Bernie Ecclestone. The two of them run the FIA and Formula 1 as a complete dictatorship. Bernie is usually hyper about protecting Formula 1's reputation -- apparently not in this case. Bernie's administration of Formula 1 is a case study in cunning, manipulation and revenge. Hmmmmm. There should be college courses on the psychology of these two.

http://pathwhisperer.wordpress.com
 
pathwhisperer said:
It's worth noting that Max Mosely is protected by Sir Bernie Ecclestone. The two of them run the FIA and Formula 1 as a complete dictatorship. Bernie is usually hyper about protecting Formula 1's reputation -- apparently not in this case. Bernie's administration of Formula 1 is a case study in cunning, manipulation and revenge. Hmmmmm. There should be college courses on the psychology of these two.
The article I quoted above at _http://www.sportspromedia.com/mosley.htm discusses the two together at length.

SportsPro said:
...And there lies the crux of Max Mosley’s life – his relationship with Formula One’s commercial supremo, Bernie Ecclestone.

So what is this relationship between Mosley and Ecclestone about? A relationship so strong that the younger man will dance to almost any tune the older man plays. It goes back a long way...
And so on. It does sound like another case study. I am surprised at how these patterns turn up in so many different places, at all levels of society, and how it escapes the notice of so many people.
 
Laura wrote, "I am reminded of a remark Cleckley made about how high functioning psychopaths need to take a vacation into filth at regular intervals to relieve the pressure of acting normal."

And these "vacations" are precisely the stuff that, when reported, makes people immediately think it's a lie, it's so sick and outrageous. But Cleckley's comment also prods me to wonder if there's truth in the rumors one encounters on the web about various, high-profile elites engaging in everything from pedophilia to morbid artwork to sadistic orgies.
 
PF said:
Thank goodness the courts are ensuring that public are shielded from knowing about the depraved behaviour of psychopaths. We wouldn't want those "masks of sanity" to slip now, would we?
Well, as Commissioner Gordon says at the end of the movie, "The Dark Knight," "Sometimes the people deserve better than the truth." How's that for a nod to "spin?"
 
PF said:
Thank goodness the courts are ensuring that public are shielded from knowing about the depraved behaviour of psychopaths. We wouldn't want those "masks of sanity" to slip now, would we?
Well it's an interesting question, imho. Psychopath or not, his sexual practices really aren't anyone elses business. Granted he's a public figure, but technically was he breaking any laws? I'm not sure on the legality of this type of prostitution in Britain, maybe someone from across the pond can comment?

Legal or not it's still disturbing, but in a court of law there has to be a really good reason for this kind of violation of privacy. His consenting adults defense is pretty standard and would be hard to get around even though his behavior is ultimately degrading anyone he 'interacts' with into a sex object.

It's not like he was having a threesome with an underage boy and convincing him it was some sort of mystical practice.... I mean, if someone I slept with decided it video tape it and then share it with a news paper who then proceeded to publish images from it... well yeah, I'd be pissed and sue too. Then again, I'm not a public figure and my sexual practices don't degrade my partner into an object to be used.

Pretty Twisted.
 
Mutual consent is probably the line of defense here, though I am not sure how far you can go. Clearly consent doesn't apply to minors, who legally are unable to consent. But what about adults? Is it ok to do whatever, as long it is done mutually consenting? How about the story of this german chap who castrated a victim he met over an internet chat room, who "consented" to be castrated, tortured and killed. In legal terms, one would argue, that by "consenting" for this, you must be insane, thus unable to consent. It's circular logic ...
 
The mantra is actually "safe, sane, and consensual" (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe,_sane_and_consensual). Your example wouldn't really fall under the "safe" or "sane" categories. Mosley's activities might, as the words are understood in that community. I couldn't say, though, without reviewing what he did. Does it seem important?
 
Hi mb,

Hadn't heard of the SSC concept before, but I agree with the text within your link, that the problem lies with the subjective nature of these terms ...

Does it seem to be important? I don't know. For me the question is - what human behaviour is acceptable in general. The problem then is, acceptable to whom and for what. I am aware, that this involves some form of judgement, so the concept may not be valid. I am also not sure, if it is admissible to ask this question in the first place - as this is a free-will universe. So one can argue - under these premises - that there will always be consent.

Not sure that all makes sense, still trying to get my head around the concept of "free-will", so to me this question is indeed interesting, but please let me know what you think.
 
I like the way Gurdjieff (via Ouspensky) described the problem in terms of misuse of the sexual center or "abuse of sex." (I don't have the book with me but the discussion is in chapter 12 of ISOTM, as I mentioned earlier.) My sense was not that he was condemning anyone, but that he was making the point that if you use your sexual center in certain ways, you are going to have "no chance at all in the work."

I went through a particularly difficult period of my life a few years ago, and it happens that some of the people that supported me during that time were from the local BDSM community. I felt very safe around them, generally (there were individual exceptions).

Mosley is someone I would be inclined to avoid, but not simply because of his interest in SM activities.

I guess one way of putting it is that if I had the choice of crossing paths with someone who was into BDSM or with a sexually-inhibited member of the religious right, I would feel much, much safer with the BDSMer. If you knew me, you would realize that I really mean that, too. And this is not a hypothetical example--I crossed paths with both last month!

Neither the BDSM path nor the religious right path is "acceptable" for me, because I am engaged in a work that is not compatible with either. I have been on both of those paths in the past, however, to one degree or another, and I realize that people learn and make adjustments as they go through life. I don't try to decide what is acceptable "for" other people. They all have their roles to play and lessons to learn. And I have to be very wary of some of them.

If I am going to avoid someone, though, I want to understand the risk--I don't want to simply act from fear or prejudice, and I particularly don't want to avoid someone because someone else lied about them to me and I believed it.
 
Hi mb,

If you read the passage that you referred to in ISOM more carefully, you will see that G. did not mean excess or perversion of sex when he talked about misuse of the sexual center. Rather, he referred to the usurping of sexual energy by the intellectual or moving centers.
 
Back
Top Bottom