Shame and Humiliation

[AllardChardon]

Garden variety pervert. I can hang with that. Venus is in Sagitarrius, right next to Mercury in my chart. And Mars is in Aries. Full moon baby, Capricorn-Cancer opposition with a grand cross. A little overwhelming at times, but I love the energy.

Nothing whatsoever to do with shame and humilitation, I might add.

 

[xssve]

I can't remember all the details, but my Venus in Virgo explains a lot, maybe why so many women seem to think I'm gay, and the Svengali complex doesn't help. I'm just not a "party boy", I like to flirt, but I have to be among friends to really loosen up.

 

[xssve]

I'm almost exclusively attracted to intelligent, well educated (self or otherwise: inquisitive), submissive women, not always an easy combination to find.

I like women who like to talk, quiet women make me nervous, you never know what they're thinking, and I like to know where I stand, good, bad or indifferent.

Venus in Sag sounds like a lot more fun.

 

[AllardChardon]

I don't know about being submissive, that is not usually my style, but I can certainly act submissive, given the right opportunity...

 

[xssve]

Quickly, it's not really about submission, per se, but more along the lines of being willing open to experimentation and trying new things, as opposed to being very modest or hung up - I'm all over the map, and it just happens that submissives theoretically fit the bill in a general sort of way, moreso than the typical vanilla, but then submission is an attitude, not a "type", in my estimation, maybe even an agent. Others will argue with that, but I've found the human psyche to be far more flexible than conventional wisdom often allows.

Otherwise, I'm very comfortable with opinionated and/or outspoken women, and outside the bedroom you can be as contrary as you like, but it helps if you're on the same page in bed, and I don't have to worry about you totally freaking out if I sound you out about the shit that goes through my head sometimes - i.e., it's more about active understanding than passive endurance.

It's kind of hard to make clear the distinction between submission and open mindedness, I've basically given up trying, and just started exploring the P/E dynamic, there's no word for what I'm looking for, I'll just know it when I find it.

 

[Shwenn]

It's kind of hard to make clear the distinction between submission and open mindedness, I've basically given up trying, and just started exploring the P/E dynamic, there's no word for what I'm looking for, I'll just know it when I find it.

Does this work at all?

GGG

Dan Savage and his readers often use the abbreviation GGG. In his March 1, 2007 column, Savage summarized: "GGG stands for 'good, giving, and game,' which is what we should all strive to be for our sex partners. Think 'good in bed,' 'giving equal time and equal pleasure,' and 'game for anything—within reason.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Love

 

[dr_mabeuse]

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?

Is "When Petey Met Yuri" about a man who wants to be topped by a dyke? I think of Petey as an unusually rough dyke. Almost a sadist first, a dyke second.

Hmmm. I might be able to consult, but I wouldn't be able to put myself into the story unless I had pretty strong feelings for the dyke who wanted to be topped. I can't work BDSM without a strong emotional connection. That's where it draws its erotic energy for me, from the essential love relationship, from the little paradoxes inherent in love.

I'd always been impressed in Yuri and Petey by how cavalier Petey was about the sex between them, how emotionally uninvolved she was when they started, almost mercenary, like a hired dick. It reminds me of the kind of BDSM you see at a public play session or demonstration, where the emotions are experienced but not shared. I mean, the story's beautifully done and very powerful, but it's essentially cold, isn't it? It's supposed to be. The connection's entirely physical and more S&M than sexual. Yuri's inner conflict isn't shame or embarrassment, but what is it? A fear to open himself to her under these circumstances? Or maybe it is shame, but shame about his offering up his own masochism.

Shame and embarrassment are pretty much the same to me for the purposes of this discussion. I know, I know -- I'm defining my way to victory by making shame so all-inclusive, but really, shame, embarrassment, humiliation, and guilt: they're all internal dis-ease states over the essential perceived wrongness of one's actions or desires. They're all negative versions of pride. Embarrassment is just shame discovered, isn't it? No?

Why aren't I working?

 

[AllardChardon]

I like that! Good, Giving and Game. I will adopt this saying immediately. Thanks. And they all start with G, just like the G spot. G is certainly sexy and the first letter of my real name.

 

[AllardChardon]

Doc, I agree with your view of shame and embarrassment.

I am not working because I feel like playing, instead. Something sexy would be nice. The sun and moon are both in Scorpio right now.

 

[Shwenn]

I like that! Good, Giving and Game. I will adopt this saying immediately. Thanks. And they all start with G, just like the G spot. G is certainly sexy and the first letter of my real name.

Me Too!

It's Gwendolyn.

 

[xssve]

Does this work at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Love

Which?

Oh, and, just a heads up, I'd avoid using GGG unqualified if I were you - it's also an acronym for German Goo Girls, a gonzo German bukkake website, and you might find that they're into giving, or rather receiving... a lot. Lol.

 

[Shwenn]

Oh, and, just a heads up, I'd avoid using GGG unqualified if I were you - it's also an acronym for German Goo Girls, a gonzo German bukkake website, and you might find that they're into giving, or rather receiving... a lot. Lol.

Yet another reason I'm glad I'm off the market.

The perv search for love is so very frought with pitfalls and land mines.

 

[xssve]

Lol, it's a minefield for sure.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Is "When Petey Met Yuri" about a man who wants to be topped by a dyke? I think of Petey as an unusually rough dyke. Almost a sadist first, a dyke second.

Hmmm. I might be able to consult, but I wouldn't be able to put myself into the story unless I had pretty strong feelings for the dyke who wanted to be topped. I can't work BDSM without a strong emotional connection. That's where it draws its erotic energy for me, from the essential love relationship, from the little paradoxes inherent in love.

I'd always been impressed in Yuri and Petey by how cavalier Petey was about the sex between them, how emotionally uninvolved she was when they started, almost mercenary, like a hired dick. It reminds me of the kind of BDSM you see at a public play session or demonstration, where the emotions are experienced but not shared. I mean, the story's beautifully done and very powerful, but it's essentially cold, isn't it? It's supposed to be. The connection's entirely physical and more S&M than sexual. Yuri's inner conflict isn't shame or embarrassment, but what is it? A fear to open himself to her under these circumstances? Or maybe it is shame, but shame about his offering up his own masochism.

Other people have mentioned the lack of contact between them as well-- I didn't see it that way when I wrote it. I ended it with her becomeing intrigued with the guy and knowing that she wanted to explore further with him-- perhaps teh beginnings of a better relationship than she's been having. I didn't go into her past history, and I suppose i could. Ohhhh goooodddd another novel, I'll never finish! i did have Yuri mention that some woman didn't want to play with petey, and her horrified reaction was what made Yuri ask her to top him.

Yuri didn't seem to have any conflicts at all, did he? he wanted, the pain and to be fucked. I never really came up with any interior motive for his desire, beyond general stress-- hey, it's always worked for me. And he's based on a real person who, likewise, never gave much input to his emotional state.

Shame and embarrassment are pretty much the same to me for the purposes of this discussion. I know, I know -- I'm defining my way to victory by making shame so all-inclusive, but really, shame, embarrassment, humiliation, and guilt: they're all internal dis-ease states over the essential perceived wrongness of one's actions or desires. They're all negative versions of pride. Embarrassment is just shame discovered, isn't it? No?

Why aren't I working?

Hmm, yes, the negatives of pride-- I still do separate shame from embarrassment, but maybe the demarcation is fuzzier than my kneejerk reaction made me think. Guilt leads to shame, and those are interior ans self-induced emotions, although of course, maybe guilt means an acknowlegement of society's expectations. I can do guilt as a motivator, as I did in "Jessamine" She knew she'd hurt someone else entirely by her actions. that she felt ashamed of. But as far as Sheba was concerned, Jess was admitting guilt and requesting punishment for that. She didn't-- I, at least, who wrote it-- Didn't think the whipping releived her shame for the way she'd hurt that third party. It merely allowed her to get her end off wiith Sheba.
Embarrassment and humiliation are only produced in relation to other people-- witnesses or that Greek Chorus called society.

I think.

 

[xssve]

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.

I guess I should read Paglia, I jsut somehow never found one of her books in my hands, and that's how I read, I just pick stuff up. I did read some Faludi, and found her pretty straightforeward, I detected no major issues that weren't well documented.

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.

The whole thing fascinates me: once I decided to try to find someone who identifies as a submissive, I sort of had to learn the ropes, so to speak - a lot of stuff I'd done at various times, but never really thought of as a way of life or anything, I thought it was just sex!

In any case, I wasn't surprised to find that it means something different to just about everyone involved in it, sometimes slight, sometimes vast - if I had to make a generalization, it would be that there are a lot of people into kinky sex which is great, it's very cathartic in itself to transcend those socio-political boundaries and come out with a smile on your face, it's play, and play is very good for you both mentally and physically, of but there are definitely deeper issues involved for a lot of folks, it's is a very spiritual thing for a lot of people, and it was like I uncovered this hidden population of hopeless romantics, very cool.

Thing is, I see very few subs who are really into objectification/humiliation - my sample is probably skewed, confined to those who can access the internet unimpeded, but I've found it to be relatively infrequent, and usually it's younger (to me) ones, the ones my age much less, which makes sense, and I hate to say it, but I think for a lot of them it's just annoying - I get a much stronger sense that many of them desire to serve - humility, as opposed to humiliation, which is a little subtler than overt degradation - if there's a shame, it's a secret shame, and one they are maybe even a little proud of.

Transcending the socio-political boundary of individuality that worships strength, independence, and zero-sum competition (reality TV) and mocks any emotion deeper than avarice. I love that in BDSM because you can do that in such an apolitical manner - and then there are Goreans, lol.

You want humiliation, try Fear Factor - the things people who are ashamed of being naked will do for money...

Not sure how much help that is in storytelling, just my impressions.

 

[AllardChardon]

"I get a much stronger sense that many of them desire to serve - humility, as opposed to humiliation".

XssVe, thank you for stating so simply the thought that has eluded me. Service. Yes. I was made to serve man, in all ways, and I love doing it. I love cooking, taking care of loved ones and making love. I love creating, birthing and nuturing babies that come from my womb. I am a woman who loves to serve. To serve is submissive by its very nature. Therefore, I am a natural sub, with definite dom overtones. LOL But a sub, nonetheless.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Thing is, I see very few subs who are really into objectification/humiliation - my sample is probably skewed, confined to those who can access the internet unimpeded, but I've found it to be relatively infrequent, and usually it's younger (to me) ones, the ones my age much less, which makes sense, and I hate to say it, but I think for a lot of them it's just annoying - I get a much stronger sense that many of them desire to serve - humility, as opposed to humiliation, which is a little subtler than overt degradation - if there's a shame, it's a secret shame, and one they are maybe even a little proud of.

Transcending the socio-political boundary of individuality that worships strength, independence, and zero-sum competition (reality TV) and mocks any emotion deeper than avarice. I love that in BDSM because you can do that in such an apolitical manner - and then there are Goreans, lol.

You want humiliation, try Fear Factor - the things people who are ashamed of being naked will do for money...

Not sure how much help that is in storytelling, just my impressions.

Yeah. This is something i wanted to get into regarding Stella's previous post involving humiliation and shaming as motivation in BDSM -- the kind of sexual shame that asks for punishment: punitive shame. This is really something different than what I'm talking about in my central paradigm, but it's probably more understandable and more like what most people think of when they think of shame in regards to sex. What you and Stella are talking about here is outright sexual shame or humiliation, the kind that begs for punishment as redemption. I'm talking about something more subtle.

Punitive shame involves people with so much guilt about their sexuality that they ask for punishment as redemption before they can even enjoy sex. They have to punished as a way of paying for their pleasure and redeeming their 'sinfulness'. Often their own desire to be punished is reason enough for them to want punishment. They see it as a perversion, a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: I want to be punished, therefore I'm sick and need to be punished. These are the people, it seems to me, who are into heavy abuse and degradation; abuse for its own sake. I often associate this kind of thing with pure masochism, though of course it's not pure at all. It's punitive: I'm bad. Degrade me.

The shame paradigm Ive been talking about as essential to hot or dirty sex is more subtle. It simply has to do with the idea of transgressing one's own self-imposed boundaries. When punishment is used, as in the context of BDSM, the punishment is coercive, not punitive, intended to force the person past their limits.

I don't use humiliation in the D/s stuff I write because it doesn't fit the dynamic. My characters aren't suffering from sexual guilt, just self-imposed inhibitions, so making them crawl around and drink from dog bowls isn't going to do anything for them, and they probably won't stand for it. They won't see the point. Punitive shame isn't going to work.

Back when we were talking about abject sex, I was thinking about this, about why the abject had no real appeal for me, and I think it's because I'm not interested in that whole punitive shame angle. For abject sex to work, you really have to have a highly developed sense of shame, don't you? Or what's the point? If feces is nothing but dirt, then who cares if someone wipes it on you? It's only if you're capable of being shamed that an act that like becomes emotionally devastating.

 

[xssve]

Well, a lot people do have that guilt, and feel that need to be punished, although it presumably comes out in subtler ways - I suspect it's due to being raised to the old school "moral" standard, and then required to adapt to a larger society that is, in many ways, a free for all, at least w/regards to sexual behavior - I don't care where you are in America, and probably much of the world, you'll find a guilt free zone somewhere if you look very hard, and in fact the guilt zones themselves are more like guilt ghettos, i.e., it doesn't reflect the dominant culture as much as some people would like to think, at least under the surface, kids will be kids, that sort of thing.

I have a lot of friends like that, raised in very repressed homes, and watched them make the transition with varying degrees of ease and success. Wouldn't be surprised at all if some of them needed to be spanked once in while.

 

[xssve]

"I get a much stronger sense that many of them desire to serve - humility, as opposed to humiliation".

XssVe, thank you for stating so simply the thought that has eluded me. Service. Yes. I was made to serve man, in all ways, and I love doing it. I love cooking, taking care of loved ones and making love. I love creating, birthing and nuturing babies that come from my womb. I am a woman who loves to serve. To serve is submissive by its very nature. Therefore, I am a natural sub, with definite dom overtones. LOL But a sub, nonetheless.

Thank you Allard, it's a touchy subject, I can totally relate to it, but clearly it doesn't suit everyone, and I see no reason to be militant about it, but it happens nevertheless.

Politics is a crude and indifferent beast, it is - in many ways, that ancient horror lurking in the dark, waiting to rip us apart if we wander too far from the herd.

On the other side, there is something always pushing us onward and outward, urging us into new and unknown territory.

 

[xssve]

And, ultimately, such service serves reproductive values, rather than male prerogative, man comes a distant second as many men who've married Phillipino women can attest to - prized for their unswerving devotion and loyalty to their men, their dedication to giving sexual pleasure, when their kids are threatened these demure, diminutive women turn into wildcats, I've seen them beat down full grown Marines twice their size, no contest.

So it it's far from one sided, and what unattached subs in BDSM often long for, is a man worthy of their service, and they tend to be, as a group, very picky, and not at all meek about it.

Subs who speak of their "submission" as a "gift" in debate are often mocked - for the most part, BDSM is about sex, not reproduction, and it seems to give the submissive too much power perhaps, but reproductive values permeate the entire subject, we serve them even when we have no intention of procreating, the desire of both sexes to serve it is ingrained, traits selected over millions of year of evolution, and the same Dom's who mock them for calling it a gift, care for them and nurture that gift all the same.

When it comes to reproduction, the costs rest almost exclusively on the female: from the vulnerability of pregnancy, to the physical trauma of childbirth, to the care and nurture of the child, it's historically, the central focus of a woman's existence, why men expend so much effort sometimes to get them to do it.

It makes it complicated politically, since this is the source of the stereotypes that irritate so many, and which society has reinforced with Draconian social controls beyond any practical necessity, often to the point of dysfunction, i.e., reproductive politics, in which shame and humiliation are the only the most benign forms of coercion.

It works, for a lot of people, but the male's costs are theoretically zero, which is where the choice issue becomes critical: the costs are all on the woman's side, and ethically, the decision should go with the cost/responsibility, there is no other way to look at it and remain reasonable. Just for the record.

Once reproduction is off the table, reproduction politics become superfluous, except for that role "model thing" and it seems that for the most enculturated, reproductive politics are clung to with an unshakable resolve (re: the Dr. in another thread - "I'll pass", lol), or, on the other side, playing within the dynamic because it scratches that itch; it's no longer a matter of life and death, but a game that nevertheless plays on deep and often powerful emotions that go beyond simple operant conditioning, challenging our deepest convictions about our identity, to the point of flirting on the edge of sanity/identity/ego itself.

Scary stuff, even theoretically, symbolically - maybe even scarier than the thing itself, which you eventually realize you'll live through, but transformative experiences through sexual ritual were central to a number of ancient mystery cults, including possibly Christianity - death and rebirth - the tale of Lazarus is thought by some to refer to such a rite.

I'm talking too much, I'm sure, but I've been thinking about all this lately, because two of my pack of feral Chihuahua's have mated: the alpha has been very protective of her, and extremely hostile towards the other male, a tiny puppy only Two months old, but who nevertheless tried his luck too while she was in heat. Fascinating.

 

[Shwenn]

Thing is, I see very few subs who are really into objectification/humiliation

I am. That's my bread and butter, right there.

But, and I want to be very clear about this, I don't experience it as objectification/humiliation. It doesn't make me feel humiliated. It's just exciting and hot and fantastic.

I am, as a human, pretty difficult to humiliate and I would never want to play like that with somebody unless I felt certain that they actaully love and respect me.

For me, what is amazing about it is the complete abandonment of boundaries.

But they have to be irrelevant boundaries. Like, I'm up for all manner of play with urine but I won't go near anything poo related. See, there is actually a good reason to avoid poo and I intend to avoid it as much as I can.

It is very much that impulse to laugh in church. It is the one place you should't laugh so you really want to.

As a woman, I am supposed to protect my body from the devious, sick desires of men. I'm supposed to make it this sacred temple that men must prostrate themselves to gain entrance to. My whole life I've been instructed to be this way.

Makes me want to say, "Fuck it! It's just a body and it's fairly resiliant. Let's get crazy."

 

[xssve]

Thank you Shwenn, that is my understanding; it's an existential experience, and respect for it, respect for you as a social being is fundamental to the balance within the dynamic, and I can also see where that might be difficult to explain, men don't think so deeply about this, on average, as women do, I don't think.

And we do have those desires, and we too are trained to suppress them, to sublimate our Dionysian physical/psychological urges to social ends, punished for admitting them, which for both sexes often only serves to increase them to the point of madness. Women have fewer acceptable outlets, and why, re: The Story of O, the confusion over the dichotomous seeming doublespeak of submission=freedom.

 

[xssve]

I can't stop rewriting, lol.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The shame paradigm Ive been talking about as essential to hot or dirty sex is more subtle. It simply has to do with the idea of transgressing one's own self-imposed boundaries.

Okay, this makes it all much clearer to me.

Once again, we have that definitions issue-- "self-imposed boundaries" and "shame" just mean such extremely different things to me. I would say embarrassment, humiliation, trepidation, pride, a host of terms.

So we seem to be on the same page-- even if they are written in different dialects.

 

[Shwenn]

men don't think so deeply about this, on average, as women do, I don't think.

I don't know about that. I didn't think about it much at all until I started writing my stories.