Shame and Humiliation

[Selena_Kitt]

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

I always see the witch first. There's some unseen, unknowable magic, for lack of a better word, in that which we find hideous and repulsive.

 

[Stella_Omega]

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.
[/IMG]

In my world view, there is no religious dogma to rebel against. And I've spent my entire life rebelling against society's expectations-- gender, moral, career, parenting. And religion, every day of my life, Christian more days than all the rest combined-- 99% I'd say. Since those people do not, ever consider the garden as mythology, I'm not used to people referencing it that way, -- they tend to speak of it as fact! Unless I had an inkling, I'll get prickly about it. Especially when it's being used to bolster an argument that I think is specious in the first place.

Neither do I disregard other people's ways of seeing things. Doc however, sees one motivating force for transgressive sexuality, and I'm pointing out that there are many other motivators-- "shame" is not the entire spectrum.

Doc is using one word to cover many things, that's all. And that's fine, as far as I'm concerned, but he's speaking in these universal sentences...

Bear is right on the money in his interpretation of "trepidation."

 

[AllardChardon]

Yes, unknowable magic in the repulsive, like the Fairy's Gifts.

At a watering place, a beautiful woman is faint and the generous step-daughter of a newby household gives her a drink of water and helps the lady to revive. In return the fairy gives her a gift. Whenever she speaks, beautiful flowers and precious stones will fall from her lips.

The greedy stepmother sends her selfish daughter to the well to receive her gift as soon as the generous step-daughter returns. But this time the fairy is a disgusting old woman, complete with warts on her face. The fairy begs the selfish daughter for water, but she is too haughty to respond. In return the fairy also gives her a gift based on her merit. From her mouth falls frogs, snakes and worthless rocks.

I love a good moral at the end of a story.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Would the step-daughter have helped the disgusting old woman?

 

[Safe_Bet]

In my world view, there is no religious dogma to rebel against. And I've spent my entire life rebelling against society's expectations-- gender, moral, career, parenting. And religion, every day of my life, Christian more days than all the rest combined-- 99% I'd say. Since those people do not, ever consider the garden as mythology, I'm not used to people referencing it that way, -- they tend to speak of it as fact! Unless I had an inkling, I'll get prickly about it. Especially when it's being used to bolster an argument that I think is specious in the first place.

Neither do I disregard other people's ways of seeing things. Doc however, sees one motivating force for transgressive sexuality, and I'm pointing out that there are many other motivators-- "shame" is not the entire spectrum.

Doc is using one word to cover many things, that's all. And that's fine, as far as I'm concerned, but he's speaking in these universal sentences...

Bear is right on the money in his interpretation of "trepidation."

It turns me on when you say "specious" !!!

 

[AllardChardon]

Sure the step-daughter would have helped the disgusting old lady, she was the generous one, the one who could look past deformities and help anyway. Whereas the selfish one, who never went to fetch water, was very put off, much to her dismay.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

In my world view, there is no religious dogma to rebel against. And I've spent my entire life rebelling against society's expectations-- gender, moral, career, parenting. And religion, every day of my life, Christian more days than all the rest combined-- 99% I'd say. Since those people do not, ever consider the garden as mythology, I'm not used to people referencing it that way, -- they tend to speak of it as fact! Unless I had an inkling, I'll get prickly about it. Especially when it's being used to bolster an argument that I think is specious in the first place.

Neither do I disregard other people's ways of seeing things. Doc however, sees one motivating force for transgressive sexuality, and I'm pointing out that there are many other motivators-- "shame" is not the entire spectrum.

Doc is using one word to cover many things, that's all. And that's fine, as far as I'm concerned, but he's speaking in these universal sentences...

Bear is right on the money in his interpretation of "trepidation."

I know, Stella. Like I said, I have no charge about it. I have dealt with the folks you're talking about (have them in my immediate family, actually) and I don't get angry about their literal interpretations. (I do, on occasion, like to get them talking in rabid circles and let them foam at the mouth while I sit by and watch, though...) Like you, I only get angry when their literal interpretations start entering into places they shouldn't - like right through the separation of church and state. In other words, when they start limiting OTHER people's perspectives. Aside from that, they can literally interpret whatever they like and live their lives from that place if they so choose.

I know you're just pointing out other perspectives, and that's cool.

As to VM's comment:

It's not ecstatic transformation.

It doesn't HAVE to be. But for some people, it really can be. So it's not that it ISN'T ecstatic transformation... it's that it's not ecstatic transformation for YOU. Nor, does it sound like, you want it to be. Which is also cool.

 

[BlackShanglan]

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?

All of that works if you're raised in that ethos. I still see this as cultural, however. Sure, you can fiddle semantics and define everything that's not shame as a rebellion against shame, but I don't really think it all is.

Basically, what your first paragraph says is that sex is inherently shameful. There can be no sexuality without shame. I don't think it's true; it tells me what your experience is, not what's true for all of humanity. Innocence and sexuality are quite compatible. When one looks, for instance, at 18th century accounts of natives of Tahiti or other islands then recently discovered, one of the things one often encounters is the Europeans' astonishment at the simple innocence and lack of shame in the sexual manners of the natives.

They didn't have the same culture, and some of them didn't have the same shame. They did, however, have sex.

What I really can't quite get my head around is that we're debating whether or not sex without shame exists while someone is standing in the room saying, "Yes. I have it. Sex without shame or rebellion against shame. It's fun." What could possibly make us more qualified than Stella to determine whether she feels shame about sex?

I'm baffled by this. It's all very well to say that in our own experience, sex works thusly ... but why on earth is Stella's statement not a simple and definitive proof that some people enjoy sex without shame? Why would we not to believe her?

It bothers me. I've seen the same line of reasoning about all sorts of sexuality and emotions. "No one is really born gay"; "No one actually wants X"; "This sort of relationship is never healthy." It's never seemed to me to have logic behind it. Why assume that we know what's going on inside of another human being better than he or she does?

 

[Stella_Omega]

*is distracted*
Are we conflating innocence with ignorance here?

And what Doc is saying really, is that transgressive (and therefore hot) sex cannot happen without shame.

He's proving this point by labelling every qualm a person might feel, by one label. It's an emotional colorblindness, seems to me.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

*is distracted*
Are we conflating innocence with ignorance here?

And what Doc is saying really, is that transgressive (and therefore hot) sex cannot happen without shame.

He's proving this point by labelling every qualm a person might feel, by one label. It's an emotional colorblindness, seems to me.

Yeah. I ask what is that heightened sense of trepidation? What is it really? It's fear. It's a certain amount of closely controlled, enjoyable fear, but fear nonetheless.

Now, why should we be afraid?

Edited to add: I guess Stella and VM and Cory would say that it's just joyful anticipation. Okay. trepidation was the wrong word to use then. You people are a lot cleaner than I am and maybe don't have as much ego wrapped up in sex. I have a lot at stake in most sexual encounters -- a lot of risk, a lot of reward -- so I enter them with real trepidation.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What I really can't quite get my head around is that we're debating whether or not sex without shame exists while someone is standing in the room saying, "Yes. I have it. Sex without shame or rebellion against shame. It's fun." What could possibly make us more qualified than Stella to determine whether she feels shame about sex?

I'm baffled by this. It's all very well to say that in our own experience, sex works thusly ... but why on earth is Stella's statement not a simple and definitive proof that some people enjoy sex without shame? Why would we not to believe her?

We're trying to communicate to each other our definition of the word "shame" to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I have a much broader definition of the word than she does. To my mind, she probably never thought about what she feels in my terms before. As she pointed out, my definition includes most things that are transgressive or "dirty", and by her lights, my definition's too wide to be useful.

Most protracted discussions on the AH center around some implicit disagreement about a definition that never gets resolved, whether it's God or religion or Capitalism or Love. There's always some ambiguity at the heart of it.

 

[Xelebes]

On the original question, I can honestly say I've never given it much thought and probably use the two words interchangeably without a thought. As a noun though.

Verbs, I can imagine, would be used for something else. To shame is to degrade with intent of ceasing the motivation behind something and humiliation is to almost beckon them back for another round.

 

[xssve]

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?

That lack of sexual heat is itself a myth, from Augustine, in fact - i.e., in the anoetic state of Edenic innocence, Augustine reasoned that passionless sex for procreational purposes alone would have been possible, and it would have left women "virginal".

From an evolutionary standpoint, this is just silly, something that resembles "passion" is part of sex for all mammals, who also often tend to become quite jealous - i.e., the male will become protective of the female, attempting to drive any other males away, and this sort of protection/nurturing of the primitive pair bond presumably is the anoetic basis for contemporary relationships, including the institution of marriage.

I get plenty hot without guilt or shame, but it can add a touch of the old AHOR, which can really make it tough for some people to maintain their mental equilibrium: it can involve tremendous psychic energy, since guilt and shame are closely connected with "social death", a phenomena that can literally cause people to die of mortification - the "uncompensated death wish", i.e. you can die of shame, and there are a number of cultures that have considered death preferable to shame.

It is, BTW, my theory that all ideologies, religious or otherwise are an conceived as an attempt to return to the Edenic anoetic state - noble, but futile, as physical reality is fundamentally flawed, by definition - and we've already eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we can't pretend to be innocent, it usually just leads to acts of violence as the "innocent" attempt to eradicate the "other" that which revels in the corporeal reality of the flesh, and reminds them that they too are physical, and flawed.

Fucking religion really complicates things sometimes, I really get sick of superstitious fools and their magical thinking - how much injustice has been perpetrated by these ridiculous fantasies of Augustine?

While I'm on the subject, I've been wondering about the difference between guilt and shame, found a webpage with this on it:

"Guilt says I've done something wrong; shame says there is something wrong with me.

Guilt says I've made a mistake; shame says I am a mistake.

Guilt says what did was not good; shame says I am no good."

Bradshaw (1988).

The Difference between Shame and Guilt

Not sure I entirely agree with that, I think I might have reversed that possibly, I dunno, have to think about it.

Here's more from another site:

What Is Guilt? What is Shame?

Guilt is a feeling that everyone is familiar with. It can be described as "a bothered conscience"[1] or "a feeling of culpability for offenses."[2] We feel guilty when we feel responsible for an action that we regret. There are several types of guilt. People can feel ashamed, unworthy, or embarrassed about actions for which they are responsible. In this case, we refer to true guilt -- or guilt that is appropriate. However, true guilt is only one form of guilt. People can also feel guilty about events for which they are not responsible. This false guilt can be equally destructive, if not more so. Feeling guilty for events which are out of our control is often unproductive and detrimental.

Although shame is an emotion that is closely related to guilt, it is important to understand the differences. Shame can be defined as "a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety."[3] Others have distinguished between the two by indicating that "We feel guilty for what we do. We feel shame for what we are."[4] Shame is often a much stronger and more profound emotion than guilt. "Shame is when we feel disappointed about something inside of us, our basic nature."[5] Both shame and guilt can have intensive implications for our perceptions of self and our behavior toward other people, particularly in situations of conflict.

Guilt and Shame By Phil Barker

...which seems to agree with the first one, and I suppose it makes sense.

 

[xssve]

From that first website:

Punishment leads to shame which then leads to anger, then rage, and finally violence. Like a broken record, this tragic song plays itself over and over again each day. For example, I just read in a recent letter to Ann Landers (22 May 1997):

"One prison psychologist told of an inmate who, as a child, forgot to feed his father's dogs one day. His father beat him, stripped him naked, fastened a dog collar around his neck and tied him in the backyard with the dogs. As the boy sat crying and shivering in the backyard, he saw his mother and sister watching from the house, also crying but too frightened to intervene."

"Later, as an outlet for his rage, the boy killed the dogs. The boy grew up to become a rapist, the only outlet he could find for the rage he felt toward the women in his life who had witnessed his humiliation and done nothing to help him."

The presence of shame is the absence of love or the loss of love, and leads to the destruction of self-esteem.

Shame

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yeah. I ask what is that heightened sense of trepidation? What is it really? It's fear. It's a certain amount of closely controlled, enjoyable fear, but fear nonetheless.

Now, why should we be afraid?

Because getting butt-fucked for the first time is said to be painful-- no matter how badly we want it?

Because the rubber might break anyway?

Because we really don't know our bar pickup all that well?

Because we've been raised to fear dirt-- and she's got a rope in her hands as well?

Edited to add: I guess Stella and VM and Cory would say that it's just joyful anticipation. Okay. trepidation was the wrong word to use then. You people are a lot cleaner than I am and maybe don't have as much ego wrapped up in sex. I have a lot at stake in most sexual encounters -- a lot of risk, a lot of reward -- so I enter them with real trepidation.

Yes, you have a lot of ego wrapped up in this single trigger-word. And you're exceptionally good with it.
But when I say "trepidation" I do NOT mean "Joyful anticipation."

We're trying to communicate to each other our definition of the word "shame" to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I have a much broader definition of the word than she does. To my mind, she probably never thought about what she feels in my terms before. As she pointed out, my definition includes most things that are transgressive or "dirty", and by her lights, my definition's too wide to be useful.

Oh, please. I am well aware of what I feel, and what the terms are for these things. I am surrounded by Christianity.

I am well aware of the emphases on shame that our society places on sexuality. I've already mentioned tops who love to dwell on my shamefulness as a bottom-- and how wrong they've gotten it. In a scene, I tend to say; "whatever man, but you don't get to be the boss of me again."

I've thought about your terms before, trust me. And have had to reject them because they were so imprecise-- and so inaccurate. It's as if you've decided to call every color in the lower range, green. For me, your definition is too wide to be sexy.

 

[AllardChardon]

Stella comes from the genes of people who bear no shame and the Doc does not. There has to be room for everyone with the genetics to back it up. Otherwise, the odd balls on either side would never find a mate and eventually the type would be bred out of the race. You are both living proof that your kin are alive and well and did their duty of being fruitful and multiplying.

I feel shame, at times, but shun guilt. That is a trip not worth taking or sharing.

 

[Corylea]

I agree with Stella that trepidation isn't the same as joyful anticipation. Part of why many people do BDSM is because it allows us to role-play scary situations. I'm not really abducting my lover at knifepoint -- really doing it wouldn't be any fun for her at all. But the situation is so scary that she's able to be scared even though she knows she's safe with me. It's like riding a roller coaster -- you wouldn't get on if you thought the damned thing would actually hurt you, but you scream anyway. I'm 99% sure my top won't decide to take out on me every frustration s/he has ever experienced with every woman s/he's ever encountered. My bottoms are 99% sure that I'm not going to do something they can't handle. That 99% is what allows us to play; that 1% is what supplies the edge of fear.

I've already mentioned tops who love to dwell on my shamefulness as a bottom-- and how wrong they've gotten it. In a scene, I tend to say; "whatever man, but you don't get to be the boss of me again."

I'm reminded of the time a new partner and I agreed that he would spank me. He started spanking me and said, "You are a very, very bad girl!" I was indignant. "I am NOT!" He looked puzzled and confused. "Why am I spanking you, then?" "Because we both want you to, silly."

It's as if you've decided to call every color in the lower range, green. For me, your definition is too wide to be sexy.

Great analogy!

*sigh* I should just stop posting and put a line in my sig that says "Stella speaks for me."

 

[Stella_Omega]

I bear no shame for my sexuality or its practice, Allard. I certainly know the emotion in many other situations.

Doc, in my opinion, has eroticised the word "shame" and that's okay-- what I object to is his seeming insistence that the entire world likewise do so. It's a matter of conversational sloppiness.

I mean-- I can't look at a piece of clothesline without a little frisson-- but when I talk about bondage, I try to make it clear that's my personal preference and your mileage may vary.

(edited to add;
Thank you for the compliments Corylea!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Stella comes from the genes of people who bear no shame and the Doc does not. There has to be room for everyone with the genetics to back it up. Otherwise, the odd balls on either side would never find a mate and eventually the type would be bred out of the race. You are both living proof that your kin are alive and well and did their duty of being fruitful and multiplying.

I feel shame, at times, but shun guilt. That is a trip not worth taking or sharing.

I'm usually one to accept socio-biololgical explanations for many phonomena, but not this time. I have deliberately discarded shame or guilt as motivations for personal behavior. That's a choice I've made, not a feeling I was born with.

 

[Corylea]

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

*laugh* That's great, bear!

Actually, the hag looks like a more interesting person to me. I bet she has stories to tell, an interesting psyche to explore.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Poetry will always fall apart in the face of the empirical. Put a poem on the "Pritchard scale," or turn mythology into fact, and you've missed the point.

What we are really talking about is kneeling before something greater than we are at the altar of sex itself.

The root of humiliation is humility. Which at its base is insignificance, feeling our smallness in the vastness of things.

That is what we seek and find in transcendent sex (which is the sort of sex Doc is talking about and VM's guffawing over ) It isn't the only version of sex available to us, or the only experience - as many have said.

I happen to agree with Doc, that for me, it's the most interesting and worthy of exploration. And that says much more about me and my psyche and my makeup than it does about sex or even the culture at large, as I'm sure Doc's view says about him, and Stella hers, etc.

But I forgive Doc his broad brush strokes in his excitement - he's already admitted his tendency to speak for "everyone," that he's often guilty of not including the usual p.c. "Well, for ME," disclaimer so as not to be perceived as speaking for the whole.

I want the picture painted for me in full from the heart of the artist, in colors of their choosing.

But hey... that's me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

*laugh* That's great, bear!

Actually, the hag looks like a more interesting person to me. I bet she has stories to tell, an interesting psyche to explore.

During mytime inChicago there was a woman, Mistress Carol. When I met her she was close to 80 years old, walked with a cane, wasn't the most affluent individual-- had trouble with her false teeth once in a while.

She was the single most respected top I have ever heard spoken of. Babydykes were proud to have bottomed for her, gay men straight male tops. People were proud to have trained with her, and she always had her pick of handsome young men.

She looked like an old hag but she was royalty in the scene.

 

[Corylea]

During mytime inChicago there was a woman, Mistress Carol. When I met her she was close to 80 years old, walked with a cane, wasn't the most affluent individual-- had trouble with her false teeth once in a while.

She was the single most respected top I have ever heard spoken of. Babydykes were proud to have bottomed for her, gay men straight male tops. People were proud to have trained with her, and she always had her pick of handsome young men.

She looked like an old hag but she was royalty in the scene.

That's. So. Cool!

Thanks for sharing that with us.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

During mytime inChicago there was a woman, Mistress Carol. When I met her she was close to 80 years old, walked with a cane, wasn't the most affluent individual-- had trouble with her false teeth once in a while.

She was the single most respected top I have ever heard spoken of. Babydykes were proud to have bottomed for her, gay men straight male tops. People were proud to have trained with her, and she always had her pick of handsome young men.

She looked like an old hag but she was royalty in the scene.

I can imagine that Chicago will be a truly interesting home-coming for you. Might some of the rest of us tag along? I may be a deep-down skeptic but admit to curiosity.

 

[Corylea]

What we are really talking about is kneeling before something greater than we are at the altar of sex itself.

And you need shame to do that? I don't think so.

Tapping into the universal life force through sex has been one of the very best things in my life. I find this is easier when approaching it in playful innocence, not harder.