Shame and Humiliation

[Stella_Omega]

She's so much fun, you won't believe.

damn, what are you doing? Gonna give me a reputation I can't live up to!

 

[Guest]

damn, what are you doing? Gonna give me a reputation I can't live up to!

Oh, you can certainly try.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, you can certainly try.

shit, I'd better start lifting weights or something

 

[Guest]

shit, I'd better start lifting weights or something

Tongue exercises.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Tongue exercises.

and fingering... and possibly aerobics for stamina!

 

[Guest]

and fingering... and possibly aerobics for stamina!

Oooh.

 

[AllardChardon]

Shame on all of you! Now, REPENT!!

 

[ottohauser1977]

I would, if I believed in things like God, sin, Heaven, and Hell. Since I don't....

 

[ottohauser1977]

Speaking of humiliation, I have a slightly humiliating brother-sister scene in my story, where the sister humiliates her brother a bit. But he feels no shame, so there's another distinction.

Or does he?

More to the point, do I feel shame over this plug? I definitely don't feel humiliation.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Yes! Trepidation-- that's yummy.

Trepidation to me is a type of shame. Because what are you afraid of in a new sexual situation? It's doubtful anyone's going to walk into a situation where they're actually frightened for their physical safety, so what they're usually afraid of is being taken past their limits and being embarrassed or humiliated. They're worried about their personal integrity, their perceived status. They're afraid of being shamed. When you play with a new partner you're nervous because you wonder if this person's going to make you cry Uncle, whether they're going to see your vulnerabilities and pierce your defenses, what they'll think of you. Isn't that fear of shame?

I see all transgressive play as involving shame. That's what makes it transgressive, isn't it?

Of course you can have open, loving sex between two people, but how boring is that? No one forced to expand their boundaries, no one pushed to test their limits or sacrifice for the beloved? Everyone firmly ensconced in their comfort zone?

You misunderstand me, I think. You think I'm talking about sexual guilt, and I'm not. I'm talking about the ego-risk you subject yourself to when you give yourself to another sexually, when sex is more than just genital friction. If you want to keep it at the dermal level, then no, no shame or any other emotion is involved. But when you get into the area of ego negotiation regarding sexual love I think it's a little naive to assume it's all butterflies and roses.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The way you describe it, Stella, almost makes it sound the opposite: a gleeful revelling in shamelessness.

You know... that sort of rebellion AGAINST shameful behavior... is really just the shadow of shame itself. Or vice versa. The absence of shame is back to the garden, eden itself, without any knowledge of one or the other. (Using it as a metaphor here, not a literal translation or anything.) The absence of shame is pure innocence. Shamelessness is something different. It is a rebellion against shame itself, a renouncing of it, a rejection. (And to keep with the Christian metaphor, not unlike Lucifer's rejection of God in the first place...)

But human nature actually chooses the tension of the opposites: shame/shameless, rather than real innocence.

Human nature chooses knowledge. Remember, there were two trees... the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge (of good and evil). The tree of life would have essentially given immortality. But we humans didn't really want to live forever. We chose to be embodied - we chose the tree of knowledge, the pieces of the puzzle that would place us in a precarious predicament for the rest of our mortal lives, wondering what comes before and what comes after.

Humans chose flesh, the body, the mind, and not the spirit. And spirit is the thing often sought through sex (among other means).

 

[rgraham666]

Damn, it turns me on when you get all intellectual like that, Selena.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You know... that sort of rebellion AGAINST shameful behavior... is really just the shadow of shame itself. Or vice versa. The absence of shame is back to the garden, eden itself, without any knowledge of one or the other. (Using it as a metaphor here, not a literal translation or anything.) The absence of shame is pure innocence. Shamelessness is something different. It is a rebellion against shame itself, a renouncing of it, a rejection. (And to keep with the Christian metaphor, not unlike Lucifer's rejection of God in the first place...)

But human nature actually chooses the tension of the opposites: shame/shameless, rather than real innocence.

Human nature chooses knowledge. Remember, there were two trees... the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge (of good and evil). The tree of life would have essentially given immortality. But we humans didn't really want to live forever. We chose to be embodied - we chose the tree of knowledge, the pieces of the puzzle that would place us in a precarious predicament for the rest of our mortal lives, wondering what comes before and what comes after.

Humans chose flesh, the body, the mind, and not the spirit. And spirit is the thing often sought through sex (among other means).

Yes! Thank you! That's what I'm trying to say. In that Edenic innocence there is no sexual heat. It's the state of pre-adolescence before we've tasted of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's pre-erotic. As soon as we eat of the tree we know shame because we know self-awareness and desire.

In the Kabbalah, the universe was formed when desire arose. Desire gave birth to something called the Bread of Shame, the knowledge that the universe's desire was not the same as God's desire, and thus arose self consciousness or awareness. Adam and Eve is supposed to be a microcosmic retelling of the Kabbalistic creation story.

You see how useful myth is?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You see how useful myth is?

Oh yes.

 

[AllardChardon]

My father taught me about reincarnation, which I still agree with. I chose flesh, again, on purpose, so that I could have sex, here on this planet.

It did not work out as expected, a basically sexless marriage and all, but I am still alive and kicking, so it is never too late to meet the next great sex partner. God gave me this great body and off the charts sex drive for a good reason and I intend to fulfill by obligation. With four intelligent children to my credit, I feel that human duty has been met. Now it is my turn to take my sex drive, without any threat of pregnancy, to its heights, with the assistance of an attentive lover, of course.

Innocence or knowledge? I choose knowledge every time. I agree with Doc, innocence looks boring.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Trepidation to me is a type of shame. Because what are you afraid of in a new sexual situation? It's doubtful anyone's going to walk into a situation where they're actually frightened for their physical safety, so what they're usually afraid of is being taken past their limits and being embarrassed or humiliated. They're worried about their personal integrity, their perceived status. They're afraid of being shamed. When you play with a new partner you're nervous because you wonder if this person's going to make you cry Uncle, whether they're going to see your vulnerabilities and pierce your defenses, what they'll think of you. Isn't that fear of shame?

I see all transgressive play as involving shame. That's what makes it transgressive, isn't it?

I just pointed out to you, that people who worry when I suggest getting dirty-- they are afraid for their safety. They worry about germs, and they worry about the cops. And the ropes or whatever else we bring out there with us-- but then, I'm usually playing with players.

Of course you can have open, loving sex between two people, but how boring is that? No one forced to expand their boundaries, no one pushed to test their limits or sacrifice for the beloved? Everyone firmly ensconced in their comfort zone?

You misunderstand me, I think. You think I'm talking about sexual guilt, and I'm not. I'm talking about the ego-risk you subject yourself to when you give yourself to another sexually, when sex is more than just genital friction. If you want to keep it at the dermal level, then no, no shame or any other emotion is involved. But when you get into the area of ego negotiation regarding sexual love I think it's a little naive to assume it's all butterflies and roses.

I think "shame" has become your all-purpose word for any sort of discomfort or disquiet. To me the word has very specific meanings, and it's only one of a spectrum of negative motivational forces.

Like you, I find no real interest in comfort zone sex-- at least, not to write about. but I see many other emotions and motivations that can be played with. Nope, butterflies and roses it isn't-- and almost never in my writing either.

I have one story, "Jessamine" where my character gets caught out for a past misdeed. She's sorry, and she wants to not have her tops angry at her, but when they call her a slut she says; "No, fucking is what I do, like you build bikes, and like Sheba dances." She'll let them punish her according to their sets of values, but she does not internalise them. She does not feel shame.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You know... that sort of rebellion AGAINST shameful behavior... is really just the shadow of shame itself. Or vice versa....

Hmm. That's the point of view of a believer, I suppose.

It seems to be very difficult for people to understand what the lack of something they consider so intrinsic, might mean. People often translate the non-existence of say shame, or gods, as a rebellion against those things. I understand that for you, these things exist and you would have to rebel, and I understand that's true for many of my partners as well. But I'm watching you guys travel laboriously around a mountain that is a mirage. When there are so many mountains out there already-- real, empirically existing ones...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Damn, it turns me on when you get all intellectual like that, Selena.

When there are so many mountains out there already-- real, empirically existing ones...

It's just the difference between seeing things literally (empirically) and metaphorically... there's no sense arguing who's right or wrong. It's really irrelevant. It's just a different way of viewing the same mountain. Whether it's invisible or not. I can't "prove" it's there. You can't "prove" it isn't. A rather strange empirical quandry, isn't it?

But I do find it rather amusing to be called a "believer."

 

[Shwenn]

Shame is possible if and only if you have a set of ethics or a heirarchy of values to which you attempt to adhere.

These ethics and values differ across cultures as well as across individuals, so one person's shame could be another's honor.

You might feel shame about a certain sex act where I don't feel shame about the same act. That says nothing about our capacity for shame; it only speaks to our differing values or ethics.

There could, at the same time, be certain lies that would cause me shame if I told them but not you. Because, perhaps, I value honestly over protecting my loved ones' feelings while you value your loved ones' feeling over honestly.

So, you have a situation where we both value the same things but our heirarchy is different.

Ethics and values are not empirically proveable. We have centuries of philosophers' attempts to nail those slippery little bastards down. No one has been successful, yet. We come close to agreement on some things, murder for instance. Most people agree that murder is wrong and murderers should feel shame. But, we don't even have 100% agreement on that one.

So, you see, when you begin talking about what exactly causes a person shame, you enter into a quagmire.

And it's pretty muddy in here right now, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's just the difference between seeing things literally (empirically) and metaphorically... there's no sense arguing who's right or wrong. It's really irrelevant. It's just a different way of viewing the same mountain. Whether it's invisible or not. I can't "prove" it's there. You can't "prove" it isn't. A rather strange empirical quandry, isn't it?

But I do find it rather amusing to be called a "believer."

You're the one who brought up the garden of Eden, after all...

It's not a talking point that would ever occur to me!

And my point is that you seemed to assume that I'm rebelling-- against something that doesn't exist for me, so how can I rebel against it?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I am singularly unimpressed with the intense intellectualization going on here. While the primary erogenous zone may well be the brain, all this 'spin' is giving mine a headache. We may write about superannuated sex but what I, at least, experience most often in comfort-sex. We like it. Sometimes we get hotter but most of the time we're making each other feel good, we are bonding again and again.

Trepidation is shame? Uh-uh! Trepidation is the excitement of the new, the tension before the race, the duck approaching the blind, the ball approaching the strike zone. Shameful? I don't think so. Unless, that is, one is so intrigued with the word that its meaning gets twisted to include whatever one wants to do at the time . . .

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You're the one who brought up the garden of Eden, after all...

It's not a talking point that would ever occur to me!

And my point is that you seemed to assume that I'm rebelling-- against something that doesn't exist for me, so how can I rebel against it?

To me, it's just mythology. I could have used any applicable myth, it just happens to be the one, in this culture, that is most easily recognizable.

And you see, I have no "charge" around the Christian mythology, positive or negative. To me, it's just another way of seeing the world, another tool, another lens. That's all. I don't disgard any way of seeing, although I personally value some ways over others. But that's preference. They're all valid.

Even the rationalists and empiricists.

In your world view, there's nothing to rebel against. Through the lens I'm looking through, there is, and that's what it looks like. The picture is, actually, the same. It just depends on what you see.

http://www.music.sc.edu/fs/bain/vc/musc726a/MUSC%20726%20Lecture/Gestault/old-or-young-woman.gif

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And we, the non-guilty, claim the pretty girl. You shamed ones get the hag.

 

[AllardChardon]

Volupt,

Are you a grumpy bear this morning? We love you no matter if you prefer comfortable sex with your wife without shame, after church, so cute BTW, or not? It is whatever floats YOUR boat, not ours, that matters.

We are an odd lot, after all.

Allard

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Volupt,

Are you a grumpy bear this morning? We love you no matter if you prefer comfortable sex with your wife without shame, after church, so cute BTW, or not? It is whatever floats YOUR boat, not ours, that matters.

We are an odd lot, after all.

Allard

I'm not grumping, I'm guffawing! http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/1volupturary_manque/lol.gif

It's just sex, hon, not ecstatic transformation. Sheesh!

And it all started with Dr. M's (to my mind) rather silly suggestion that one had to feel shame and guilt to enjoy it. That would be like having to get indigestion to enjoy food.