|
undergroundsea -> RE: What is it about humiliation? (12/17/2010 6:46:00 PM)
|
A paste from a post I made elsewhere:
I think embarrassment, humiliation, and degradation lie along a continuum with respect to intensity. Each can be done within consent and a caring dynamic.
I often hear of a negative association with humiliation and, especially, degradation. And I sometimes hear of a distinction that humiliation is good type of play and degradation is bad type of play. I feel this type of play is not inherently bad, and it is not the play (whether it is humiliation or degradation) but the intention and effects that determine the good or bad verdict.
Imagine someone who feels embarrassed, humiliated, or degraded in a vanilla situation. This person is experiencing an uncomfortable feeling which, for sake of this discussion, I call emotional discomfort.
Next, imagine a submissive who willingly bows before their dominant at a play party. This submissive unlikely feels any emotional discomfort as this activity is done willingly to express subservience. This idea--that one might willingly, enthusiastically do something that could be humiliating without experiencing any emotional discomfort--can be extended to various other activities that fall under humiliation play.
Thus, I distinguish between two types of humiliation: (1) D/s humiliation and (2) SM humiliation.
D/s humiliation does not create any emotional discomfort and is done to symbolize the dominant and submissive statuses. There is little risk with this type of play.
SM humiliation (for example, play in public or mocking an attribute) does seek to create emotional discomfort. SM humiliation is a form of emotional SM and it is not necessarily damaging or disrespectful. If one can fathom physical SM, one has the tools to make the leap to fathom emotional SM. The reasons to do emotional SM are similar to the reasons to do physical SM. And, just as physical SM goes against what is considered nice behavior but can be done within consent and a caring relationship, so can emotional SM.
That said, emotional SM is much more risky with respect to unintended injury, degree of injury, and damage to relationship.
When one expresses an interest in humiliation play, I think discussing this distinction is important.
-----------------------------
If you like D/s humiliation, I expect it is the subservient status you like and acts that are potentially humiliating are one way to express that subservient status. If so, then the question is not why you like humiliation but why you like the subservient status.
I consider that question largely a mystery. There is a theory that when an infant crawls to a caretaker, the comfort experiences upon reaching the feet could somehow evolve into a fetish. I do not know how much merit this theory has. However, there is a similar theory that being under the power of a caretaker can somehow evolve into an interest in submission. I do not know how much merit this theory has.
I think a fascination with BDSM is a combination of stimuli/nurture and genetics/nature (which makes one more likely to respond to stimuli). That stimuli could be experiences that carry overtones of dominance and power.
Cheers,
Sea
|
|
|
|
