Responsible Public Humiliation

Responsible Public Humiliation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

undergroundsea -> Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 2:11:23 PM)
I am not a public humiliation enthusiast and have no idea what responsible public humiliation is. I write this thread to sort through my thoughts and invite those of others. I was once asked to go up to a sales clerk and ask for an item in a manner that seemed to me inappropriate and intrusive towards the sales clerk. The domme and I discussed the matter and agreed that I would do everything except the part that seemed intrusive, and that I would instead do something else that still achieved the humiliation objective. I work with customers and I would think it inappropriate or unfair if my customers did certain things in my presence. I wish to not do the same to others as a customer. When is public humiliation intrusive upon others and when do you say that's tough cookies for others? How is this standard for what is appropriate or not defined? Because this standard depends on subjective values, I think it is hard to achieve an absolute definition. What is the next best thing? I wonder if relevant is the question about ethics. In my opinion, an act may be deemed ethical by a person if that person feels the same way about the act with self, an enemy, or a loved in at either end of the act. Perhaps that is a place to start the discussion for how to approach the question of what is appropriate for responsible public humiliation. Any thoughts? Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 2:17:59 PM)
The same act that is inappropriate at a public place may be appropriate at a goth club. What is different between these two places? I am trying to sort whether how I feel about the public place is due to concerns about greater disapproval (internal considerations), or concerns about degree of intrusion and offense (external considerations). For external considerations, I suppose I rely on a sense of what is appropriate behavior and code of conduct. I think concerns about these external considerations have stronger basis. For internal considerations, I think it is a question of processing and, perhaps, esteem. Does anyone have relevant insights to share? Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 2:25:32 PM)
I attended a seminar by Midori which discussed responsible humiliation play. She discussed that within humiliation play, there are areas to be avoided to in turn avoid unwanted emotional effects that last beyond the play. This matter is an internal one. And conceivably a public humiliation scene could escalate into an ugly situation with respect to outsiders. This matter is an external one. Does any public humiliation expert have words to share about what to do to mitigate these two matters? Cheers, Sea

Domin8tingUrDrmz -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 2:38:34 PM)
Responsible would be not overtly involving outsiders...having them participate without consent. It would be protecting children from obvious signs of sexuality - for example, not displaying certain body parts for all to see. Responsible could be any myriad of details. Who decides what is or is not responsible? The person being humiliated? The person causing the humiliation? The people watching the events unfold? To some degree, all of the above. If you go back to the raw portion of the first statement...not involving outsiders without their consent...then basically no act of public humiliation is 'responsible'. Then again, so many people do idiotic things on their own without someone inspiring them to be humiliated and quite honestly, I do not consent to much of it. I don't consent to people driving with their cell phones in hand, to people leaving their children in cars unattended, or in grocery carts while they wander off looking for something else. Okay, so those aren't examples of public humiliation, but they are acts to which I do not consent. These acts are in my opinion far more alarming than a person walking around with a pacifier in their mouth. However, I do have to deal with it or try to do something about it. So, responsible? Well, maybe not entirely, but it sure is safer than some other things that are going on. This is just my opinion. I'm sure you are probably concerned about what you have read on the other thread of a similar subject. While I was having fun over there, I would not do some of those things...others, I would. I would not involve a store clerk - I would not directly humiliate her/him without her/his consent. Indirectly though, that is another story...if they happen to witness something such as a shirt, or pacifier, or other things...well, they can choose to look away. edited for one too many question marks

undergroundsea -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 3:48:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Domin8tingUrDrmz If you go back to the raw portion of the first statement...not involving outsiders without their consent...then basically no act of public humiliation is 'responsible'. Then again, so many people do idiotic things on their own without someone inspiring them to be humiliated and quite honestly, I do not consent to much of it. Thanks for your post. I agree that there is a gray area with respect to involving others. When others see something that is just odd (pacifier in the mouth, jeans inside out), it is not so intrusive. They might shrug, laugh, or think one lost a bet. In my opinion, having one person kneel in the mall while another slaps the person's face is intrusive. As I contrast the two scenarios, I see the difference to be that in the latter scenario, one person is enduring what bystanders might think to be abusive where it is not just a question of looking away but of whether one should intervene (as the case might be for animal abuse). So I suppose what I am arriving at is that the act begins to become intrusive as it makes others uncomfortable for thinking abuse is happening. When others see something that is sexually overt, I think the place affects how intrusive or not it is. Something that might be ok in a goth club could be intrusive in a place with a family environment. In my opinion, in a family environment, a shirt that says so and so's slave is not so intrusive but one with sexual overtones like cock sucker begins to border on intrusive. You had a witty idea for a shirt that would be great to wear to BDSM conventions, fetish nights, or a gay club but I am not sure how well it would fly at a mall ;-) And when others have no choice but to be part of the act (asking a grocery store clerk if she thinks this cucumber will fit in your ass), I think it is intrusive. So it follows that there are some types of public humiliation that are not so intrusive and some that are. I am wondering if it is possible to achieve adequate level of intensity through means that are not intrusive to others. Cheers, Sea

amayos -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 3:54:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea I am not a public humiliation enthusiast and have no idea what responsible public humiliation is. I write this thread to sort through my thoughts and invite those of others. I was once asked to go up to a sales clerk and ask for an item in a manner that seemed to me inappropriate and intrusive towards the sales clerk. The domme and I discussed the matter and agreed that I would do everything except the part that seemed intrusive, and that I would instead do something else that still achieved the humiliation objective. I work with customers and I would think it inappropriate or unfair if my customers did certain things in my presence. I wish to not do the same to others as a customer. When is public humiliation intrusive upon others and when do you say that's tough cookies for others? How is this standard for what is appropriate or not defined? Because this standard depends on subjective values, I think it is hard to achieve an absolute definition. What is the next best thing? I wonder if relevant is the question about ethics. In my opinion, an act may be deemed ethical by a person if that person feels the same way about the act with self, an enemy, or a loved in at either end of the act. Perhaps that is a place to start the discussion for how to approach the question of what is appropriate for responsible public humiliation. Any thoughts? I feel it's somewhat uncouth to subject passersby to any form of extreme humiliation "session" they have not consented to being a part of. I myself have no qualms playing the part of voyeur to something, but would never assume others feel the same way; there is something tremendously arrogant about thinking thus. I often say that if you must manifest dominance and submission outwardly, make it beautiful and powerful; make others wish they were in your world. Till the soil of their imaginations; get them thinking. Don't repel them with childish and vulgar acts. As for what is appropriate for responsible public humiliation, I often find contemporary common sense to be a good guide. Know where you are and the people you are dealing with.

Domin8tingUrDrmz -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 5:00:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea When others see something that is sexually overt, I think the place affects how intrusive or not it is. Something that might be ok in a goth club could be intrusive in a place with a family environment. In my opinion, in a family environment, a shirt that says so and so's slave is not so intrusive but one with sexual overtones like cock sucker begins to border on intrusive. You had a witty idea for a shirt that would be great to wear to BDSM conventions, fetish nights, or a gay club but I am not sure how well it would fly at a mall ;-) If you noticed, that shirt came about during the context of being in a place which was described as being...kink aware - of sorts. I doubt that would have popped out of my keyboard if the discussion was in reference to a playground or a zoo or an ice cream parlor.

undergroundsea -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 5:21:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Domin8tingUrDrmz If you noticed, that shirt came about during the context of being in a place which was described as being...kink aware - of sorts. I doubt that would have popped out of my keyboard if the discussion was in reference to a playground or a zoo or an ice cream parlor. Yup, I also saw your clarification earlier in this thread. I don't think our perspectives about public humiliation are too different based on the discussion in this thread. While the other thread prompted this one, my context extends to the discussion in that thread to my own experiences to others of which I have heard. I used some of the examples given in that thread and this one to give more concrete form to ideas as I am thinking about this matter. I am also pondering the flip side and what might be the draw and perspective of those who favor public humiliation that might be intrusive. Different ideas comes to mind: internal chemical rush of higher intensity, shock value, exhibitionism, different ideas for what is appropriate and not. I am interested to hear perspectives from such practicioners. Cheers, Sea

Domin8tingUrDrmz -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 5:38:58 PM)
Well, I tend to be a bit of an exhibitionist as well. And, I have desires for extremes, but some things are best left to fantasy, I suppose (sadly). It is the adrenaline and so much more. The taboo, the thrill of being caught, the look on faces of the unexpecting person...but, I'm pretty cool with knowing that being caught could happen without it actually happening, sorta.[8D]

kinkyATL -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 5:53:39 PM)
I find a lot of validity in the comments of others about non-consensually involving observers and the possible negative effects that humiliation play might have on children who observe it. Given that, I'm still conflicted on this topic for a few reasons. Regarding consensuality of observers, dependent of course on what specifically we are talking about, generally the option exists for an observer to just look away. I think about making an analogy between my predilections for D/s and another persons homosexuality. I think it is wrong to say that homosexual people should not be allowed to express their affection for each other public because it might offend some observer. By extension then, isn't it wrong to say I can't express my D/s style affection in public? Conflicted, for certain. Not black and white. Also regarding children, I have a couple of sources of uneasiness with these objections. First, I refute the idea that our entire soceity should be made palatable for children. That I should be restricted in what I can do, see, read, enjoy, or say to those things that will be children appropriate because of the chance that a child might be around and that they might be "damaged" by it. I think adults (particularly those of us who chose not to have children) should have the right to live in an adult world. Also, why did someone elses choice to have a child obligate me to behave in a way that someone else has deemed child appropriate. Second source of uneasiness is that I personally don't buy into the whole idea that children are so fragile. I think that kids are hardy creatures and this idea that seeing something peculiar is going to leave them scarred for life seems specious to me. I think the reaction of adults to whatever activity can have more influence on the kids than the activity itself. Kids see parents being upset, shocked, or whatever are going to think something is wrong and get confused and upset themselves. Much like kids who will get knocked down on pavement, scratched up, skinned up, etc. and not miss a beat if no parent or adult is around, but will cry up a storm if someone comes running to coo over them. I don't offer either of the above as a definitive refutation of the very valid concerns others have expressed. I just don't think it is cut and dry or black and white, even though it is often presented that way.

undergroundsea -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 6:33:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos As for what is appropriate for responsible public humiliation, I often find contemporary common sense to be a good guide. Know where you are and the people you are dealing with. Thanks for your post. That is a good, succinct guideline. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 7:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kinkyATL Regarding consensuality of observers, dependent of course on what specifically we are talking about, generally the option exists for an observer to just look away. I think about making an analogy between my predilections for D/s and another persons homosexuality. I think it is wrong to say that homosexual people should not be allowed to express their affection for each other public because it might offend some observer. By extension then, isn't it wrong to say I can't express my D/s style affection in public? Good point. I approached a thought somewhat similar in spirit from the other direction. I thought about overt sexual acts (fondling of genitalia, oral sex, intercourse) in general public, and that if I were to see such acts, I would not be offended but would think it to be in bad taste. It's the why-don't-you-two-get-a-room feeling. So I extended this thought to some aspects of D/s which I would not think to be in good taste in general public--they are not so harmful or offensive but fall outside my sense for what is tasteful behavior. Like Amoyos, I agree that the location and people around you influences whether an act is appropriate or in bad taste. I think it is fine for gay couples to express affection in general public. I think it is fine for D/s couples to express affection in general public which carries a D/s flavor (one person kneeling or squating before another seated for a kiss). I think it is not fine for gay couples to engage in affection which becomes overtly sexual. Similarly, there are gestures of D/s affection that I would find inappropriate. I recognize this aspect of one's perspective about D/s gestures including public humiliation--whether it is in good taste or not--is largely subjective, which leaves more room for tolerance. Then there are aspects of public play that are comparatively less subjective because they deal not so much with tasteful behavior but with fair behavior. I can imagine examples that most would find fair enough. I can imagine examples that most would find completely unfair. I can imagine examples that would fall in a gray area. I am interested to discuss qualitatively and roughly what is common amongst each type. For instance, in my example of activities in general public, one qualitative metric for unfair behavior is whether it makes people uncomfortable as you and I would feel if we witnessed abuse. The discomfort I am describting there is not due to seeing something odd that one can relieve by looking away and thinking the behavior to be in bad taste, but the type of discomfort where one feels bad for another and wonders if there is a need to help or intervene. Regarding children, the principle I rely upon is the idea I describe for my definition of ethical behavior in my OP. If the act is something I would not want my children or children of my extended family to see, it is reasonable to extend the same thought to children of others. While there is some subjectivity involved there, at least I am consistent and fair within my own standards. I agree it is not a black and white issue. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Cheers, Sea

LadyPact -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 9:36:31 PM)
Funny thing about this is, there are two threads about humiliation going just now. This one about responsible, don't involve others against their will, humiliation is only getting a fourth of the responses as the other one. Anybody have any thoughts on that little tid bit?

Ericus1 -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 10:20:39 PM)
i have been humilated publically on many, many occasions. almost all of them have been adult places. rarely in open public areas. also, it depends on what is being done. what is humilating to one person isn't to another. i agree with kinkyALT, children are stronger than most people think. use common sense. don't do the overly sexual stuff with kids around. ericus

kinkyATL -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/2/2007 10:39:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea Regarding children, the principle I rely upon is the idea I describe for my definition of ethical behavior in my OP. If the act is something I would not want my children or children of my extended family to see, it is reasonable to extend the same thought to children of others. While there is some subjectivity involved there, at least I am consistent and fair within my own standards. Not to be pedantic, but the above standard is not something that involves "some subjectivity." It is an entirely subjective rule. You are basing your code of behavior entirely on how you feel about something without any external, universally measurable, standard criteria. There is no portion of it which is not subjective given that it basically boils down to "if I feel that my children shouldn't see it, then it shouldn't be done." Obviously subjective standards are fine for guiding your own actions. But to often I see folks say "I feel my children shouldn't see it, so you shouldn't do it." Frankly, in my opinion a person referencing their children doesn't add any weight to their desire to restrict my activity. The reference to children is a red herring. They are a "because," as in "I don't want you to do it because my children shouldn't be exposed to that... " But if you drop the "because," it becomes just "I don't want you to do it." That is not a compelling reason in my mind for a person to curtail their activity. Saying a person cannot show their genitalia in public is a clear rule. It is clearly defined, everyone understands what is expected. Don't do things that you wouldn't want a child to see is completely ambigous. Some people think that a women's face and ankles are overtly sexual, is it reasonable to restrict those from being shown in public?

undergroundsea -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/3/2007 4:34:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Funny thing about this is, there are two threads about humiliation going just now. This one about responsible, don't involve others against their will, humiliation is only getting a fourth of the responses as the other one. Anybody have any thoughts on that little tid bit? That thread has been around a bit longer. Also, this is a heavier, cereberal thread and that thread is a lighter one about play--I expect that thread will draw more interest. And this thread has potential to come across as negative and limiting, or to create cognitive dissonance for some people who enjoy public humiliation. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/3/2007 5:16:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kinkyATL Not to be pedantic, but the above standard is not something that involves "some subjectivity." It is an entirely subjective rule. You are basing your code of behavior entirely on how you feel about something without any external, universally measurable, standard criteria. The amount of subjectivity there likely is greater than my words make it out to be. Like you, I see some areas that are clearly defined and some not. The context of my statement is that if I engage in public humiliation, what ideas can I use to try to be fair to others? If I do something in an environment with children which I would not want my children to see, then I would be unfair and hypocritical. If I use this idea as one means to define what I do, it will not suit everybody but it will be more fair than if I were to disregard this principle. I would then at least be consistent within my subjective standards. Cheers, Sea

DiannaVesta -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/3/2007 7:37:14 AM)
Some forms/levels of humiliation is not novice play. If ever there was a time to adhere to “safe, sane and consensual” humiliation would be it. It applies to any and everyone that is witness to what you are doing.

thetammyjo -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/3/2007 9:01:39 AM)
I have general concerns with humilation both in private and in public. Part of what is humilating though is dependant upon the people doing it. For example some men might consider it humiliating to go into the female hygiene section of the store and get a product for their partner -- Fox thinks of it as something you do for your female partner (so does the husband by the way). However I know they would be appalled if I told them to go to a sales clerk and start asking all sorts of questions about products in that aisle. Not only do they as men not need these products but if they are getting them for a female partner she should have told them what to get. At that point I would be caling unnecessary attention to what they are doing, probably pissing off or annoying the clerk who has other things to do in their job, and potentially annoying other cutomers. I don't care how "hot" or "aroused" that makes someone, I think it crosses the line into being rude. This scene above was played out in a novel I reviewed last month. I didn't get it, I didn't understand why anyone would do that and I highly doubted that the female clerks got turned on by it. Interesting fantasy but I think it is inappropriate to play out in meatlife. It also runs a risk of getting the store manager involved and depending on how conservative your region is or how worried the manager is about the other clients and employees, you might get tossed out the store. In my opinion, the person who acts out their public humiliation fantasies that cross the line into rudeness partly deserves what they get; unfortunately the person who deserves the other part of that is probably just watching from somewhere or outside waiting for a report. There are times when you have to say "no" to your sexual drive and think about common politeness and legal issues. Now on the other hand, you can do things in public that no one need know about -- whispered phrases, decreet clothing, and looks or subtle gestures can work too. If one feels the need to crank it up, maybe one should consider why and think about role-playing it out instead of involving others whose consent isn't being sought. And no, I do not believe that simply because someone is a clerk or a server or works in a business where they deal with customers that they have consented to be treated however the customer wishes.

Unrepentant1 -> RE: Responsible Public Humiliation (5/3/2007 11:41:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Funny thing about this is, there are two threads about humiliation going just now. This one about responsible, don't involve others against their will, humiliation is only getting a fourth of the responses as the other one. Anybody have any thoughts on that little tid bit? Thats because you girls are turned on by getting us guys to do all you desire, no matter what we think!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875