That Humiliation Thing Again III  (11/10/98)
	Argentium wrote: If I understand it correctly, you were trying to get to the root of why humiliation play was something that neither her, nor I had an interest in, though you definitely focussed on her motivations rather than mine. Well, it *was* in repsonse to me...:) That would tend to focus it a bit more on what I felt and responded. :) Course, JK and I also have a...erm...history, to an extent. Argentium wrote: You seemed to be rather forcefully pushing your perspective that the reason she doesn't want to do humiliation play is that she wounded/damaged by it, and thus fears it. Well, see, essentially this boils down to an underlying attitude that all women want to be submissive and that the Master knows what is best for the slave. And that the slave should submit to it all, regardless. At least, this is my understanding of JK. Argentium wrote: You also suggested that she face this, which would result in healing of some type and an increased capacity to withstand, and desire to be subjected to humiliation play. He may have a point, for some people. I won't argue that it appears to have worked for Judy. I *will* argue that it's going to work for everyone. [snip] Argentium wrote: First I'm going to show you from my perspective why humiliation play is not going to be done in this situation, then I'll respond to your key points. It is also very likely you will be receiving an individual post/reply from moonlight as she wrote to me to point out your post, and ask me if I wanted to reply in addition to her. Well, I just thought you might be interested. :) I don't like speaking to your reasoning and likes or dislikes *too* much. Better to get it from the...erm...horse's mouth. :) Argentium wrote: My perspective as to why humiliation play is not going to be done in this situation is two-fold, but wrapped up in one concept: I don't wish it. Which, in the end, is reason enough, regardless of whatever else you say in the rest of the post. Argentium wrote: 1. Humiliation play holds no inherent appeal to me. 2. I have a goal to avoid any lasting harm to moonlight. I feel so strongly about this that I instituted a negotiated rule between us that can over-ride my wishes and orders if either she, or I feels what either of us is doing could cause lasting harm. Negotiated hell. You told me it was not negotiable. :) [clip of discussion about hurt and harm] JK wrote: I would have to ask then what other may be questioning in their own minds reading this: why do you let some things get to you and not others? And what would it take to get past those things that bother you? Wouldn't you be more free if you could get past those things? Argentium wrote: My take on this: Because she, just like me, and just like the rest of us, have different histories that affect what bothers us and what doesn't. Perhaps she would be more free, but there is something else to consider here: Since changes to one's self have ramifications all *over* the place in other areas, would such a change be for the better or for the worse? More 'free' is not always the most wise criteria for evaluating this. This is also a part of it. It would affect a lot of different parts of my life, most of them adversely. While it may or may not make me a "better" slave (Which is debatable), it would adversely affect my job, my relationships, and a host of other things that I do. JK wrote: I am suspecting there are just some things you don't wish to face. And I am not expecting you to get into the details, just the surface. Argentium wrote: Why do you have any level of expectation regarding how much she is willing to post back here to you in a public forum? Because he is a dom...'scuse...a Master...and I am a slave. 'Least from my point of view of him. This is common enough with JK. In this instance, I chose to indulge him. Some other time, I may choose not too. JK wrote: But at the same time sometimes you have to try some things a few times before you can get it right. And granted sometimes the energy just isn't there for one or both of you. Argentium wrote: This may well be true in this instance. Lasting damage/harm is not what I'm after. I will not say that in future I could not gain a taste for humiliation, but if I gain a taste for causing lasting harm, I have gone beyond what I see as reasonable and safe. If, in the future, you choose to, that is your right. We talked about this in regards to some *other* issue I think. I do expect, however, that you will keep me in one piece :) As per your own rules for me. I don't think that I'm being out of line in that expectation. :) Argentium wrote: In moonlight's specific case, I know that humiliation *will* result in harm, and that dampens down any remote curiosity I might have had with regards to this style of scening. Does this mean I don't get to be a wench anymore? *pout* moonlight wrote: Strangers can't humiliate me. Not unless I *LET* them. They don't have enough understanding of me to know how to do it. JK wrote: But do they have to or is it more about you Master that can do it - that is make it happen? Argentium wrote: Realistically, it's probably a multiplied effect of three things: 1. How important is the issue being raised? 2. How close is the person to her raising the issue? 3. How strong is the presentation (either in the negative or positive)? To some extent. The most important aspect is how important it is to me and how closely I hold the thing or how much I value it. I value you considering me a wench, for example. :) This, therefore, is not humiliating. I would be struck dumb to hear you call me a bitch, knowing what *you* consider to be a bitch. Regardless of whether *I* revel in being a bitch since I have a different definition. JK calling me a bitch would either earn a snort of derision, or me letting fly with some unknown amount of ire, depending on what mood he caught me in. :) JK wrote: And aren't you really limiting yourself by somewhat restricting how much to let go to then seeing what will happen? Argentium wrote: And if she is? Restrictions are not necessarily a bad thing. Imagine the recovered alcoholic who knows that if they take a drink, they will head back down into the darkness of their disease, so they restrict themselves from ever taking a drink again. There is no great push to find a solution to alcoholism that allows the alcoholic to drink without losing control, the solution is to not engage in the behavior that will lead one down into darkness. This is generally accepted as a bad thing. I don't know of many people that support AA members just having one drink to get over the addiction. :) Similarly, just a little humiliation will knock me off the wagon, so to speak. Argentium wrote: I guess what I'm saying is that 'letting go' in this case may do far more damage than any potential benefit warrants. It is quite possibly beyond the point of diminishing returns. Most likely it is. Dunno about the future. that remains to be seen. JK wrote: It would seem that the goal should be to totally let go and feel what can happen instead of working only toward what you can reasonably expect to happen - that of which will fall exactly within your realm of limitations and of what makes it for your relationship to work. Argentium wrote: As nice as this sounds in a vacuum, it isn't this simple. If something goes horribly wrong, it won't be you or the readership of SSBB who are picking up the pieces, it will be moonlight and I and others close to us aiding as possible. And this, more than anything, is why I sometimes still go at JK. And why other people on SSB do as well. No matter how many times he says things, some quantity of them *are* unsafe because those actions do *not* exist in a vacuum. He is correct in saying that some people can be healed this way. He is not correct in thinking that *everyone* should do this or think this or can be healed by this. Which is my whole point in even discussing some of this. *I* know he's not going to change his stance and will most likely go on telling me that I am not facing things. But, I also know that there are people out there that are being hurt in this very same manner, and if one person can be brought out of it, then it's worth it. JK wrote: Seems that if you could do this that you might be able to find some new aves about yourself and your relationship to your Master that could be really exciting. Argentium wrote: Yes, this is true, we could. It's my job to do risk analysis on this situation though, and decide if the extra excitement is offset by the potential risk or not, and in this situation, I am seeing things being on the 'far too much potential risk' side of the fence. Which, in the end, is why it is not done. I have told you explicitly that you can do as you wish. I trust you. I also trust your evaluation on what is too risky for both yourself and me. moonlight wrote: I don't view it as an attack on me. I view it as ripping away the sense of self worth that has taken me decades to build up. JK wrote: ahhhh...So what you are saying really is that you haven't the strength as of yet to play on your strengths as Judy does. Argentium wrote: Let's put the brakes on right there, shall we? She was writing about the exact effect humiliation play has on her psyche, and you somehow concluded that she somehow doesn't have enough strength? Jonathan, that simply does not follow. A lot of things that he says just don't follow. A lot of them are wild speculation. A lot of them are assumptions. And a lot of them are applying one person's response to a whole group of people. Or a small group of people's responses to a larger group as a whole. While humiliation is an integral part of some people's d/s play, it is far from universal. I will repeat this statement until every last person has heard it and understood it :) If a slave is not starting from a position of control and power and giving it up, she is not consenting to what is happening to her. Plain and simple. moonlight wrote: Anything that cracks that, even for a short time, is not healthy and will send me spinning back into the depths. JK wrote: Sounds like you are not as healed yet to get to the point you need to that would allow for humiliation to work. Argentium wrote: You are making two very large assumptions here: 1. She is not fully healed from her last interaction where humiliation of her was involved. 2. Humiliation will work once she is fully healed. Whereas (1) _may_ be true (she can comment), (2) simply does not follow. For the most part, I am healed, in no small part thanks to you. The worst that I have left to work on is just engrained responses that don't seem to fit what you're looking for. :) And *that* can be taken care of with time. I don't think humiliation will "work" in either case. I just don't think I'm wired to play with it. Some people aren't. I can cope with it if you choose to play with it in the future. But I don't imagine that it will get the responses that you're used to getting from me. :) JK wrote: The real question is then - do you want to be rid of your shyness and lack of self-esteem or hold on to it for whatever reason? Argentium wrote: I'll be interested to see what moonlight has to say on that one. Well, I'm not certain what he sees as my shyness and lack of self-esteem as. If he means in the sense that I could become an exhibitionistic nymphomaniac, no, I'm not interested. If he means that I would beg to be humiliated in front of people, no, I'm not interested. If he means do I want to be able to please you and do as you bid me, regardless of what it is, then yes, I would be interested. But, I don't really see myself as unable to do that now. So I don't know what needs to be healed. moonlight wrote: I don't have any preconceived notions about humiliation play. I have understandings of how my mind works. JK wrote: At least as this present time and for what you know is 'safe' for you. Argentium wrote: Why do you put the word safe in quotation marks here? Are you attaching a different meaning to it than the standardly accepted definition? No, I believe that he's indicating that he doesn't believe that what I think is "safe" for me is actually what *is* "safe" for me. In other words, he knows better how to fix me than I do. Argentium wrote: I see it as moonlight does here. When you make an assumption that your experiences will automatically map to what everyone else _should_ experience (the laws of physics notwithstanding), you're on thin ice. She may well be a bit defensive, not with regards to her stance on humiliation scening in particular, but of a more broader issue of "Allow me to interpret the world in terms of my experience and perceptions, NOT YOURS." In that regard, I can completely understand her reaction. Which is pretty much what my response meant. I understand that her experiences lead her to believe that it helped her. And for her, I'm glad. But I expect to be given the same benefit. I understand myself and what will "fix" me or what is "good" for me, and that they don't necessarily know what is best for me. Nor do I see the need to fix what isn't broken. moonlight wrote: You've taken a leap that isn't there. And as for my not understanding it, I do. Been there, done that, not healthy for me. JK wrote: I'd say cop out. Easier to quit then to try to win over your insecurities. I'd say try harder till you have beaten it to death. Argentium wrote: And if she tells you that is not the case, will you accept that, or will you persist in what looks to me being a mindset that you know her better than she does herself? He hasn't in the past with other people, and he's insisted that he knows what people are better than they do. Or that they just don't want to claim the title of what they are....dozens of things that all boil down to the idea that he knows better than anyone else does what is going on in their head. I don't see him giving me any more leeway in that than anyone else. JK wrote: Wired for it or just not really willing to work at it? That the effort isn't worth it? Argentium wrote: Either way, if she's not wired for it, or the effort is beyond the point of diminishing returns, the conclusion is the same. She won't go there, and you can't make her want to. Essentially correct. Certain people *might* be able to convince me of that. JK certainly isn't one of them. I can think of a small handful of people that might be able to convince me because they know my brain well enough to know whether it could stand to be pushed there. I respect their evaluation and trust them to put any pieces that break off back where they came from. I don't trust anyone enough to know that over a newsgroup.