Shame and Humiliation

[xssve]

A very humanist interpretation Allard.

And, I agree with you in substance about the heaven and hell thing - the Dr. is a serious writer, most of you appear to be, and I always try to approach his threads as writerly ones, though they often turn political.

All by way of reiterating that for me, this entire discussion has been in context of character and plot development rather than politics per se, and I think it only polite to try to keep it that way, I apologize profoundly to the Dr. for the threadjack: art imitates life, and in life, there is a deeply ingrained capacity for shame that is often exploited to political ends, and any story dealing with shame and humiliations flirts that line.

I'm still struggling with that Busty Jessica non-con gangbang story for example, I just can't seem to strike the right tone between her being forced/coerced into it, and presumably ending up enjoying it, how the rest of the character behave, etc. Let it never be said I don't take gangbang stories seriously and if the eventual result is still the work of a hack, it won't be from lack of trying.

It's something I think about, and even in terms of stories like gangbang or extreme/gonzo sex stories in general - on one level, it's a form of thrill seeking not a lot different than mountain climbing or skydiving, on another level it's fraught with potential for social conflict on myriad levels - one can either invent a mythical setting where such conflicts don't exist, or exploit it to heighten the tension, if the point of the story is a shame/humiliation fetish - you can go either way on that in terms of pure erotic storytelling, and any level in between - I've been both places at various times in real life and one day I might want to tackle it from a more political angle, you never know.

 

[Shwenn]

I believe there are innate differences between men and women under the bell curves, but I'm not going to try and argue that here anymore.

I agree.

It has been researched quite convincingly and scientifically.

I don't think there is any point to claiming those differences don't exist.

Even in my field of math, I've seen it born out that men are better at focused problem solving where women are better at analyzing complex problems.


I just don't see any point in arguing which is better. I think the best thing for everybody is to have as many distinct points of view as are possible. By including both genders, we widen our perspective considerably.

It is possible that one is better. I don't know. I just find the whole question to be very beside the point.

 

[xssve]

To put it another way, there is often a "not-getting-caught" aspect to shame and humiliation - you may not be ashamed of anything in private, but it might be more problematic if someone else became aware of your activities, no?

It can create a great deal of tension, in both the real and imaginary senses, it's a fundamental dynamic in exhibitionism and/or public sex for example - the thrill of the possibility of being caught and possibly humiliated.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

A very humanist interpretation Allard.

And, I agree with you in substance about the heaven and hell thing - the Dr. is a serious writer, most of you appear to be, and I always try to approach his threads as writerly ones, though they often turn political.

That's a good point. Maybe I should have emphasized that my generalities about male and female are literary generalities. I'm talking about the idealized concept of female and male, the way Paglia or other literary critics do. I'm not really interested in applying these concepts to individuals except in the most generalized sense.

In that sense it's actually meaningless for me to try to apply these ideas to people as individuals because my characters aren't individuals, they're symbols. The quirks of individuals don't have much meaning to me, because I have to deal in universals and symbols. All individuals have to be generalized into symbols if they're to have any sort of universality or literary meaning, see?

But of course I don't treat people in the real world like stereotypes, nor do I expect them to act that way. So I hope you don't think I actually expect women to be riddled by shame or any nonsense like that, because I most certainly don't. Everyone's different and personality transcends gender in real life. But fiction is something else. And neither do I treat my characters like one-of-a kind individuals either. They'd have no meaning to my readers if I did. They have to be symbolic of larger concepts.

And I heard what you said early on, Stella. I can certainly allow for you being an outlier to my shame theory. Or more likely you're even in the mainstream and my theory only applies to a minority of women. I'm not concerned whether my hypothesis is universal or not, because I know it's not. But I think it's true enough to be useful. It's a theory with a nice narrative and leads to a certain type of literature, which is why I like it, whereas your explanation doesn't lead me to any type of narrative, which is why I didn't really pursue yours, that's all. I wasn't ignoring it. (Well sure, I was trying to fit you in, but you can't blame me for that. )

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm still struggling with that Busty Jessica non-con gangbang story for example, I just can't seem to strike the right tone between her being forced/coerced into it, and presumably ending up enjoying it, how the rest of the character behave, etc. Let it never be said I don't take gangbang stories seriously and if the eventual result is still the work of a hack, it won't be from lack of trying.

Well here you are: the archetypal shame-->flame scenario. A person -- woman this time -- sweet, repressed, republican, forced past her capacity for shame into total loss of inhibition, total acceptance of what's being done to her: Breaking the shame barrier. What's the problem you're having with it?

It's an internal struggle, of course, id versus superego, and she negotiates it by giving over her ego to her captors (or thinking she does) and letting them force her to do what she already wants to do, and when she sees them collapsing around her, overcome by her own desirability, her own sense of iddy sexual power drives her on -- releases the beast within, the wild female phantasm.

I wonder that no female version of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde's never been written using the virgin/whore dichotomy. It's such a much more complete split than what you have in men, which is more of a continuum.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No, fuck it. *L* I don't want it anymore.

I believe there are innate differences between men and women under the bell curves, but I'm not going to try and argue that here anymore.

The bell curve, though, admits of huge variation. And as such, is not useful for generalities.

I agree.

It has been researched quite convincingly and scientifically.

I don't think there is any point to claiming those differences don't exist.

Even in my field of math, I've seen it born out that men are better at focused problem solving where women are better at analyzing complex problems.


I just don't see any point in arguing which is better. I think the best thing for everybody is to have as many distinct points of view as are possible. By including both genders, we widen our perspective considerably.

It is possible that one is better. I don't know. I just find the whole question to be very beside the point.

I agree, because these abilities have nothing to do with any points that have been argued here.

That's a good point. Maybe I should have emphasized that my generalities about male and female are literary generalities. I'm talking about the idealized concept of female and male, the way Paglia or other literary critics do. I'm not really interested in applying these concepts to individuals except in the most generalized sense.

OH Yeah! And yanno, Paglia puts her damn fool foot in her mouth all the time. She pisses me off, people quote her as an authority and she's just an opinionator. I think I've said so somewhere in this thread.

In that sense it's actually meaningless for me to try to apply these ideas to people as individuals because my characters aren't individuals, they're symbols. The quirks of individuals don't have much meaning to me, because I have to deal in universals and symbols. All individuals have to be generalized into symbols if they're to have any sort of universality or literary meaning, see?

But of course I don't treat people in the real world like stereotypes, nor do I expect them to act that way. So I hope you don't think I actually expect women to be riddled by shame or any nonsense like that, because I most certainly don't. Everyone's different and personality transcends gender in real life. But fiction is something else. And neither do I treat my characters like one-of-a kind individuals either. They'd have no meaning to my readers if I did. They have to be symbolic of larger concepts.

And I heard what you said early on, Stella. I can certainly allow for you being an outlier to my shame theory. Or more likely you're even in the mainstream and my theory only applies to a minority of women. I'm not concerned whether my hypothesis is universal or not, because I know it's not. But I think it's true enough to be useful. It's a theory with a nice narrative and leads to a certain type of literature, which is why I like it, whereas your explanation doesn't lead me to any type of narrative, which is why I didn't really pursue yours, that's all. I wasn't ignoring it. (Well sure, I was trying to fit you in, but you can't blame me for that. )

If you want to start over... because what kind of literature does it lead to?

 

[xssve]

Well here you are: the archetypal shame-->flame scenario. A person -- woman this time -- sweet, repressed, republican, forced past her capacity for shame into total loss of inhibition, total acceptance of what's being done to her: Breaking the shame barrier. What's the problem you're having with it?

It's an internal struggle, of course, id versus superego, and she negotiates it by giving over her ego to her captors (or thinking she does) and letting them force her to do what she already wants to do, and when she sees them collapsing around her, overcome by her own desirability, her own sense of iddy sexual power drives her on -- releases the beast within, the wild female phantasm.

I wonder that no female version of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde's never been written using the virgin/whore dichotomy. It's such a much more complete split than what you have in men, which is more of a continuum.

Yeah, that is the easy part, the hard part is being a shitty writer, maybe I overthink things, but the whole process for me is complicated by the non-consent part, reluctance is sight easier, but I really hate to play on that old cliche that this is really "What every woman wants", even if it is precisely what this woman wants - as you say, characters aren't people, they're symbols, and I try to be careful with symbols if my goal is to communicate a certain thing and make myself clear.

God knows, it's like pulling teeth more often than it ought ought be.

Now the thing is, I've seen this happen, only the other way around, gangbangs that started out innocently (!) enough and went south for a less than fairy tale ending when somebody went overboard (or underboard), I'm trying to draw the lines very carefully here, but I sort of go back and forth between this fretting about it and damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.

I just don't have enough experience as a writer yet to make these kinds of judgment calls without agonizing over them.

 

[AllardChardon]

Doc,

The Three Faces of Eve was about as close as they came to the virgin/whore Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde with a woman and that was based on a real case study.

Allard

 

[Stella_Omega]

Busty jessica-- someone wrote her a really passionate and intense and nuanced poem about being gangbanged by succubi while her husband slept next to her.
She was unappreciative.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Paglia puts her damn fool foot in her mouth all the time. She pisses me off, people quote her as an authority and she's just an opinionator. I think I've said so somewhere in this thread.

I think it's in my signature line.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think it's in my signature line.

It is!
(I keep siggies turned off so I only see them if I look at someone's profile)

 

[xssve]

Busty jessica-- someone wrote her a really passionate and intense and nuanced poem about being gangbanged by succubi while her husband slept next to her.
She was unappreciative.

Yeah, well, whatever, it's a good excuse to do a gangbang story - I'd love to read that one.

 

[xssve]

Doc,

The Three Faces of Eve was about as close as they came to the virgin/whore Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde with a woman and that was based on a real case study.

Allard

MPD wasn't it? I,m fascinated by the syndrome, read several books on the subject. I've been considering a story like that, although without the MPD, but mroe along the lines of an extremely high sex drive - several in fact, it neatly evades the whole shame and humiliation issue if she just doesn't give a fuck.

 

[AllardChardon]

Yes, Joanne Woodward starred in The Three Faces of Eve. It was released in 1957 and pretty advanced for its time.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

OH Yeah! And yanno, Paglia puts her damn fool foot in her mouth all the time. She pisses me off, people quote her as an authority and she's just an opinionator. I think I've said so somewhere in this thread.


If you want to start over... because what kind of literature does it lead to?

Paglia's a critic, not an authority. Critics deal in theory and opinion, not fact, so it makes no sense to talk about their being "right". But I think her theories are deeply fascinating and useful and productive, and what else could you ask for from a critic? In fact, the idea we've been pursuing most recently in this thread, the idea of cataloging the evolution of various female personae through art, is what her book is all about. I mean, she wasn't the first to think up this idea, but she was the latest to explore it in depth. I thought her idea of female as Dionysian and male as Apollonian was pretty brilliant, and I've applied that idea to analysis of BDSM with good results.

I hate her politics and I know she's anathema to most feminists, but I think her literary criticism is just knockout stuff. Best I've read in ten, fifteen years. She's had a tremendous influence on me, not so much in her ideas, because I was thinking the same things before I read her, but in the way she presents them. But if you hate her ideas, it's no wonder you don't like the kinds of things I've been saying.

As to what kind of literature does this shame-based theory of eroticism lead to, well, I think of things like the central narrative in BDSM, the question of why someone gets tied up in the first place. It could be because they don't want to have anything to do with the dom, it could be because they're just masochistic, or the dom's simply sadistic and overpowering and it's an act of rape, but more likely it's gong to be because the sub has inhibitions based on shame or reluctance that the dom's going to force them to overcome.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It is!
(I keep siggies turned off so I only see them if I look at someone's profile)

But, but . . . that will keep you from seeing the picture of my No on Prop 8 sign that I'm going to put there tomorrow! The sign is up, now, but it's dark outside.

 

[xssve]

I should rent it - damn kids monopolize the televisions and I haven't strung cable to my bedroom yet, but I read the book - loooong time ago, don't remember much.

Greg Bear, I think it was, in one of his novels coined the word "agents" to describe different facets of the personality - the movie with J Lo where she goes inside the serial killers mind is very similar, and was I believe at least inspired by Bears novel, which I can't remember the name of - something about Angels I think - can't remember the name of the movie either - anyway, I don't know where Bear got it from but it has a certain robustness - i.e., it's similar to roles, in that we have a role at work, another when we're fooling around, another when we're with the kids, etc., and Agent theory just takes this a step further, you become another person, another personality takes over in a given situation, a personality specifically equipped to deal with specific situations submerging the other agents in your psyche - the integrated personality is called the "optimal personality".

Interesting theory anyway, it brings to mind Linda Fiorentino's character Jade in the movie of the same name - fucking hot.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Selena_Kit has enshrined my opinion of Paglia. -

...

As to what kind of literature does this shame-based theory of eroticism lead to, well, I think of things like the central narrative in BDSM, the question of why someone gets tied up in the first place. It could be because they don't want to have anything to do with the dom, it could be because they're just masochistic, or the dom's simply sadistic and overpowering and it's an act of rape, but more likely it's gong to be because the sub has inhibitions based on shame or reluctance that the dom's going to force them to overcome.

Well, I just read something like that, and it was very hot. The bottom was a young man however, and his shame was homoerotic... I know, it's nowhere you plan on going!

I have done reluctance, where the bottom doesn't want to admit that she-- or he-- wants-- but I have always related it to embarrassment. In fact, I'd say that embarrassment carries a similar erotic weight for me, that shame does for you!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Selena_Kit has enshrined my opinion of Paglia. -Well, I just read something like that, and it was very hot. The bottom was a young man however, and his shame was homoerotic... I know, it's nowhere you plan on going!

I have done reluctance, where the bottom doesn't want to admit that she-- or he-- wants-- but I have always related it to embarrassment. In fact, I'd say that embarrassment carries a similar erotic weight for me, that shame does for you!

Reluctance is fun and goes very well with trepidation. "Please make me do something I really want." It's the rape fantasy and it doesn't have to be a woman in the 'forced' position, either. I'm not even sure that embarrassment is required, though it certainly would carry weight. Much better than Non-concent, IMO.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't know if you've read "When Petey Met Yuri."

I ought to write the correlary, a dyke who wants to be topped by a man. I'd need a consultant. Mab?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I don't know if you've read "When Petey Met Yuri."

I ought to write the correlary, a dyke who wants to be topped by a man. I'd need a consultant. Mab?

Uh, no, I haven't. Where is it? On your webpage?

 

[AllardChardon]

Facets of our personality as an alternate agent... sounds intriquing.

Something similar happened to me in real life. I used to go out on weekends quite often, dressed to kill every time in nylons and skirts, with full make-up. Several men in the bar I frequented only saw me there.

One Saturday afternoon while I was screaming my lungs out on the sidelines for one of my sons who was playing soccer (I have three sons), this guy comes up to me and says, "Glenna" and I say "Yes" and he says he didn't actually recognized me, he recognized my voice and did a double take. "You look completely different without make up and your outfits". "Yeah, this one is Glenna, the Soccer Mom, an entirely different entity." LOL

 

[xssve]

I live amongst a lot of very traditional Mormons and Christians, and personality is always assumed to be monolithic: you are one thing and one thing only, "Man", Mother, slut, etc., and that is your defining characteristic for ever and ever amen.

They really don't know what to do with me - I have a reputation for aggressive sexuality (not - I'm actually pretty laid back till you get me started), but I open doors for ladies, i.e., I'm not a "dog", or a masher, I'm a mother (I do the best I can), and I'm emotional, kinda sensitive to the attitudes of the women I peruse, (picky, Venus in Virgo, very inconvenient), I can hang with a Doctor or a dancer/ex prostitute, makes no diff to me but might gaff a respectable woman off if she's condescending, and that or something makes me unslutlike, etc., I just don't fit into their limited array of stereotypes - "he changes"! I quit worrying about it a long time ago, and just refer to myself as a garden variety pervert amongst adults.

I'd love to see you dressed to the nines... http://images.adultmatchdoctor.com/image/forums/emoticons/5.gif

 

[Selena_Kitt]

(picky, Venus in Virgo, very inconvenient)

Wow. Yeah.

Sheesh!

 

[xssve]

It's hell I tell ya.