Of course it's hedonistic. But what is wrong with that? I would go so far as to posit that all actions, charitable or otherwise, are driven by the self serving goal of personal satisfaction.
If it brings you joy to help others then it becomes a bit of a semantic and meaningless debate as to whether your intentions are noble or not.
It's important to be careful with our definitions. Hedonism in everyday language refers to minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure, with those two words defined imprecisely. The fact that people may derive utility from experiencing pain, both directly (enjoying pain signals themselves) or indirectly (choosing to suffer pain for some "greater good," like a sacrifice for a family member), is usually ignored in the everyday definition of hedonism. Of course, if we define hedonism to mean "people should do what they decide is the best thing for them to do," then it's a fairly obvious thing to support, mainly because it's impossible for a human to do otherwise because of the definitions of "should" and "best."
In common terms I assume people to mean that an action was taken simply to experience pleasure. It's generally used negatively to imply that there is an emptiness and a selfishness driving the actor which I tend to dispute.
I think that your second definition is both easy to support and reduced beyond usefulness. If one experiences pleasure from pain (BDSM, piercing, tattoos, or as you mentioned sacrifice) then there is no paradox, no need to ignore these situations and no need for an alternate, even more vague definition.
Under your proposed definition that includes sacrifice and enjoying pain, how is it possible for anyone to not be practicing hedonism? It's by definition impossible to make a choice that is not your preferred choice.
This is the thing - without an external (to ourselves) frame of reference, all actions are equal. Killing someone, or ignoring a beggar on the street, or kissing a friend, are all equal. Whichever gives us pleasure is the best to do.
We can easily argue that we only do that which brings us pleasure with the understanding that acting on our personal morals even against our purely animal bodies gives us a greater or 'higher' pleasure...
I think this is the kind of hedonism being proposed as normal/natural/good by some people here.
I believe that there is a moral code outside of our limited personal experience, and that most of us have some sense of that. Most of us instinctively feel that killing someone is "bad", and helping an old granny across the street is "good".
Not all do, and in a purely hedonistic amoral philosophy, it's right and proper for a psychopathic sadist to hurt others, if that gives them the greatest pleasure. And then it's purely right and proper for society to stop them. But both the sadist and the society are of equal "rightness" in this wordview.
And I reject that. I believe there are moral and immoral actions. And no matter how we feel, or what we believe, there is an absolute "good" and "bad".
There's also an awful lot of gray areas. And most of us are far too judgemental and see things from our own perspective.
What's best for society, or what's "moral," is a different matter. It's still by definition impossible to make a choice that is not one's preferred choice, so it's silly to recommend someone to do so. I realize that this is a bit too semantic for everyday usage (thus you could reasonable tell someone "don't murder someone even if you want to"), but I think it's an important distinction to make if we're waxing philosophical.
If it brings you joy to help others then it becomes a bit of a semantic and meaningless debate as to whether your intentions are noble or not.