Shame and Humiliation

dr_mabeuse said:

Okay, then let me ask you this: Humiliation can be erotic. Can shame be erotic?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. But then I'm not into the connection between humiliation and the erotic either.

dr_mabeuse said:

Okay, then let me ask you this: Humiliation can be erotic. Can shame be erotic?

Click to expand...

On second thought, yes.

Or... there's an element of shamefulness which, for me, ratchets up the level of eroticism of certain acts and desires.

A trope in many of my fantasies and much of my writing, is battling against that sense of shame one feels when he desires something which goes against his deepest sense of himself.

So--to again bring up something I mentioned a while back on your incest thread--I have a story where a character succumbs to his sister's seduction, and I find that it's his shame at his need to cross a boundary that's really loathsome to him, not the act of incest per se, which is highly erotic.

I don't know that actually feeling shame can be erotic, though. Shame, for me, is something heavy and miserable.

When I think about another of my pet fantasies and a recurring theme in my writing--rape--I don't think I feel shame when reveling in those fantasies. I do feel some guilt, which perhaps rises to the level of shame, for writing them and putting them into the public realm, and there's nothing erotic about that shame.

And, when I think what it would be like to be a man, and to fantasize being the perpetrator of rape, to have rape as a core of my erotic fantasy realm, where I frequently imagined my partners as victims, I think I'd feel constant shame, and I don't think that shame would be a turn-on. But maybe I'm wrong, there...

How would you set up an erotic situation around a personal and solely self-referential emotion?

I just can't see whacking off to the memory of the money I've squandered on nothing, or the time I failed to ... I dunno, perform in some way expected of me, in relation to my fellow human beings or my world.

Shame is about as unsexy an emotion as I can think of. It is not the same as humiliation.

Expiation for something shaming? With a sexual content? I'm not coming up with it, it seems like an incredibly slimy thing to visit on the shamed person.

(edited to say-- damn, if only I'd known varian was posting at the same time! )

Sex as an act-- is not even on my horizon of shame, although interpersonal issues between the actors of sex-- those might factor in.

Stella_Omega said:

How would you set up an erotic situation around a personal and solely self-referential emotion?

I just can't see whacking off to the memory of the money I've squandered on nothing, or the time I failed to ... I dunno, perform in some way expected of me, in relation to my fellow human beings or my world.

Shame is about as unsexy an emotion as I can think of. It is not the same as humiliation.

Expiation for something shaming? With a sexual content? I'm not coming up with it, it seems like an incredibly slimy thing to visit on the shamed person.

(edited to say-- damn, if only I'd known varian was posting at the same time! )

Sex as an act-- is not even on my horizon of shame, although interpersonal issues between the actors of sex-- those might factor in.

Click to expand...

Being totally incapable of finding anything erotic about humilitation, totally, the idea that shame might be a turn on is equally foreign. I find the concept essentially pathological. Either sex is fun, normal, healthy and good for you or it is something to be hidden and revolted by. The later is, to my mind, nonsense. Therefore, if something is basically good what is there to be ashamed of or humiliated by?

dr_mabeuse said:

I heard once that shame is what we feel when our secret desires become known. Humiliation is what we feel when we show our weakness. I don't know if I buy it though.

Click to expand...

I think that shame requires some sense that one's secrets are wrong. Otherwise I'd just call it embarassment.

dr_mabeuse said:

Okay, then let me ask you this: Humiliation can be erotic. Can shame be erotic?

Click to expand...

In Praise of Shame

Last night unto my bed methought there came
Our lady of strange dreams, and from an urn
She poured live fire, so that mine eyes did burn
At the sight of it. Anon the floating fame
Took many shapes, and one cried: "I am shame
That walks with Love, I am most wise to turn
Cold lips and limbs to fire; therefore discern
And see my loveliness, and praise my name."

And afterwords, in radiant garments dressed
With sound of flutes and laughing of glad lips,
A pomp of all the passions passed along
All the night through; till the white phantom ships
Of dawn sailed in. Whereat I sang this song,
"Of all sweet passions Shame is the loveliest." -- Lord Alfred Douglas


I'd say yes. What is the desire for erotic humiliation, but the desire for one's shame to be uncovered?

I think the reason humiliation can be erotic is because there is a loss of control. Someone is humiliating you, therefore, you are NOT in control... to some this is very erotic. Or YOU are the humiliator, thus you get off on subduing someone. The eroticism is in the power and control; either you lose it or you gain it.

As for shame...

No one makes you feel shame except you. Therefore, you, humiliating yourself for- yourself? Hmmm. I'd much rather do other things to myself than shame myself. Like Stella I can't imagine getting off on my own shame.

There's a wonderful article out there in the dim recesses of academia, the main gist of which is that Bram Stoker was a closeted gay man and that much of Dracula was influenced by this fact. What the author captures beautifully and argues very persuasively is that Stoker felt a certain eroticism in the mere act of committing to the page this half-revelatory, half-veiled tale in which he continually approached and then retreated from his own desires. Certainly, given the time period, shame plays heavily in that - why else keep murdering conspicuously macho characters in horrible ways throughout his various novels and short stories?

The point (and I swear I have one here) is that the eroticism isn't so much in the creation of the shame as in what he did with it. That anguished little dance of half-confessing, half-denying was certainly fraught with immense tension, and I'm strongly persuaded that some of that tension was erotic to him. That's also, I think, the shame/humiliation nexus, rising from the tension inherent in eroticized shame. One's desire is shameful and must be concealed; it is nonetheless a desire and must be expressed. To express it is to endure humiliation. Some choose that and call it a goal. Others, like Stoker, linger on the shame itself, petting and shivering over the mere thought of revelation.

I'm remembering Stephen King's line in Danse Macabre that you can tell that when Lucy is being bitten by Dracula that "she's coming her brains out."

rgraham666 said:

I'm remembering Stephen King's line in Danse Macabre that you can tell that when Lucy is being bitten by Dracula that "she's coming her brains out."

Click to expand...

Oh, bien sure! And that scene with Mina drinking from Dracula's breast while Jonathan lies half-conscious on the bed beside her - amazing. That's not even to mention Jonathan and the three hungry female vampires alone in the chambers of the castle, or that whole subtext of Lucy having multiple lovers who all end up loving each other. The man knew eroticism.

I read a newspaper column years ago, about what sort of monsters a society has and why. Basically monsters deal with the things society doesn't want to deal with.

Frankenstein's monster was the first modern monster. And that society didn't want to deal with science and its effect on nature. So the monster was 'unnatural' and created by science.

Dracula and Mr. Hyde were the next major monsters. And what did late Victorian society not want to deal with? Sex. So both these monsters were sexual monsters.

The thing our society doesn't want to deal with is Death. It's not part of our lives and we can't control it. An especial affront to control freaks such as ourselves. So our monsters are killers. Jason, Freddy, Michael Myers, Hannibal Lecter and zombies put death right in our face. And it scares the hell out of us.

rgraham666 said:

I read a newspaper column years ago, about what sort of monsters a society has and why. Basically monsters deal with the things society doesn't want to deal with.

Frankenstein's monster was the first modern monster. And that society didn't want to deal with science and its effect on nature. So the monster was 'unnatural' and created by science.

Dracula and Mr. Hyde were the next major monsters. And what did late Victorian society not want to deal with? Sex. So both these monsters were sexual monsters.

The thing our society doesn't want to deal with is Death. It's not part of our lives and we can't control it. An especial affront to control freaks such as ourselves. So our monsters are killers. Jason, Freddy, Michael Myers, Hannibal Lecter and zombies put death right in our face. And it scares the hell out of us.

Click to expand...

Good analysis, that. And as the Human Immortality Project advances, what will the next monster represent? Randomness? If we don't die from what used to be 'natural causes' the only thing left to kill us will be accidents and the law of averages. Sooner or later that piano being lifted into the apartment above where we are walking will slip . . .

BlackShanglan said:

I think that shame requires some sense that one's secrets are wrong. Otherwise I'd just call it embarassment.
.....

I'd say yes. What is the desire for erotic humiliation, but the desire for one's shame to be uncovered?

Click to expand...

dammit, us neo-libertines lose out on so much of the fun stuff!

Stella_Omega said:

dammit, us neo-libertines lose out on so much of the fun stuff!

Click to expand...

But think how much more fun you have in other ways!

It isn't easy being vanilla . . . (with apologies to Kermit)

Stella_Omega said:

dammit, us neo-libertines lose out on so much of the fun stuff!

Click to expand...

There's a reason all of the great decadents were Catholics.

Sin is no sin when virtue is forgot.
It is so good in sin to keep in sight
The white hills whence we fell, to measure by--
To say I was so high, so white, so pure,
And am so low, so blood-stained and so base;
I revel here amid the sweet sweet mire
And yonder are the hills of morning flowers;
So high, so low; so lost and with me yet;
To stretch the octave 'twixt the dream and deed,
Ah, that's the thrill!
To dream so well, to do so ill,--
There comes the bitter-sweet that makes the sin. -- Richard Le Gallienne

BlackShanglan said:

There's a reason all of the great decadents were Catholics.

Click to expand...

yes-- there must be something to have declined from, after all, like kicking against the pool wall to get moving. Me, I'm just floating somewhere in the vastness of the deep end...

Stella_Omega said:

yes-- there must be something to have declined from, after all, like kicking against the pool wall to get moving. Me, I'm just floating somewhere in the vastness of the deep end...

Click to expand...

We are all mere minnows in the shallows of your id.

BlackShanglan said:

We are all mere minnows in the shallows of your id.

Click to expand...

Nice, nice. Except for those of us who will remain permanent pollywogs, never metamorphosing, unchanged unto death.

BlackShanglan said:

There's a reason all of the great decadents were Catholics.

Click to expand...

Stella_Omega said:

yes-- there must be something to have declined from, after all, like kicking against the pool wall to get moving. Me, I'm just floating somewhere in the vastness of the deep end...

Click to expand...

I knew I missed out on something by being raised Lutheran!

iamincognito45 said:

I knew I missed out on something by being raised Lutheran!

Click to expand...

Yeah, Father Martin even approved of occasional sin, "so as to mock the devil". Now how do you rebel against something like that?

voluptuary_manque said:

Yeah, Father Martin even approved of occasional sin, "so as to mock the devil". Now how do you rebel against something like that?

Click to expand...

Takes all of the fun right out of it, doesn't it?

BlackShanglan said:

Takes all of the fun right out of it, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Kind of gives one a warm feeling of approval, so long as it's done deliberately and not by accident. And I can give it up any time I want!

voluptuary_manque said:

Yeah, Father Martin even approved of occasional sin, "so as to mock the devil". Now how do you rebel against something like that?

Click to expand...

I used to refer our being 'Casual Catholics'

Now I have "Methodist Coloring Book" by the Dead Milkmen in my head. Where's MissScarlett?

You've got a Methodist coloring book and you're coloring really well
But don't color outside the lines, or God will send you to hell
Coz God hates war, and God hates crime
But he really hates people
Who color outside the lines ...

ETA: What is it about this thread that keeps putting songs and poems into my head? Le Gallienne cheek-by-jowl with the Dead Milkmen really is an odd combination.

dr_mabeuse said:

Okay, then let me ask you this: Humiliation can be erotic. Can shame be erotic?

Click to expand...

I don't think humiliation is erotic at all - but shame is very erotic - it is almost inescapable in this culture that our earliest sexual experiences are tinged, and associated with shame, it's practically an industry.

Humiliation is erotic only because, and to the extent that one is so ashamed of allowing oneself to be humiliated.

Myself, I'm mostly into mere orgiastic hedonism, which some seem to consider shameful, but it will have to do, as I burned out on shame a long time ago.

There is in fact, an entire mythos constructed around blushing itself, white supremacists deny the humanity of darker skinned peoples on the notion that they cannot (apparently) blush, and it's often repeated that "animals don't blush".

It's an explicit component of Judeo-Christian creationist myth - Adam and Eve are shamed and humiliated at appearing naked - interestingly, God, rather than being shocked, is more pissed off that they are ashamed, and presumably deduces from this that they have eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, i.e., the knowledge of good and evil.

Again, it think it's important to note that it is not actually their nakedness that is the crime, it's the fact that they are ashamed of it, which leads to a whole different interpretation of the myriad Christian erotophobias that to me at least, is way more political than spiritual, and firmly grounded in this world.

"You appear more concerned with holes than you are with souls", is what I tell them, and it does shut them up for a while.

Nice poem BTW, there Shang. "There are no heights without the corresponding depths".

In any case, there is little suprise that shame and sexual desire become associated, through simple association: the erotic combination of the fact that so many people are trying to make you feel bad about doing something that feels so good - whether it's simple exposure, running around without your diaper, scratching an itch, peeing your pants, playing doctor with the boy/girl next door, etc. The physical processes of shame, flushing, a sense of disconnectedness, etc., are all very similar physiologically to the physical process of sexual desire, and fear and desire combine to make a potent emotional cocktail that tends to leave a lasting impression.

From the other side, a sexual object in the throes of shame implies vulnerability, etc., there's a bit of a freeze effect, like a deer caught in the headlights that's very appealing for some reason, a surrender of control, which may stem back to the "confusion" originally caused when proto-humans became bipedal and females lost estrus, i.e., most regulated and instinctive patterns of sexual receptivity, where passivity that can be transformed into submission may well have provided a breeding advantage, and the trait would have been passed on.

It might be why some women report being rendered speechless and incapable of resisting during rape, i.e., "she didn't say no".

Naturally, this is pretty complicated from a storytelling standpoint, where it's verbotten to allude to sexual feelings in unmentionables (children), even in an indirect way, but it's in early childhood, often in less overtly sexual incidents (simply appearing naked in mixed company is one almost everybody has experienced), that these associations are formed.

I've wrestled with this dynamic, it goes to motive, but always hit the age wall, it's a thing that dtends to occur well before one reaches sexual maturity, which is why it confuses people, because it's so diffuse.

But there is always going to be somebody that simply cannot understand this dynamic: why anybody would allow themselves to be subjected to shame/humiliation consensually - and it's almost always assumed to stem from "low self esteem", etc., the usual cliches, including the fact that males (and some females) do indeed take advantage of this - and while there may well be some people who endure it out of desperation, there are definitely many more who get a distinct and profound thrill out of it, and have little problem maintaining control in the non-sexual area of their lives.

From this standpoint, one suspects that consensual humiliation/degradadation might actually become an act and form of rebellion against biology and it's social reinforcements, i.e., to submerge yourself in it, and emerge with a smile on your face - i.e., it becomes an act of confronting your deepest fears and learning to control them

It's a little like going to horror movies, there's a good reason that most of your horror movies have a strong underlying sexual theme that heightens the tension.

Theoretically then, one might be able to simulate this dynamic by scaring the reader withing the context of a sexual scene - I caught more than whiff of it in Doctor M's abject sex story of yore, the one where the husband loses it, and I think it might be part of the reason Gonzo sex is such a popular category of porn, even if not that many people actually engage in it - and practically a foundational principle of BDSM.