That Humiliation Thing Again II  (11/10/98)
	This post was written by Argentium, moonlight's owner and operator. Jonathan: I read your recent post to moonlight regarding humiliation play. 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. 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. 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. If my summary is incorrect, please provide enlightenment through clarification. - - - 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. 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. 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. Harm in this usage is not the same as hurt. Harm is something that goes deep and *stays* like an injury that cripples long-term. Hurt is like when you receive pain from an injury, but healing takes place and the pain goes away. My definition of harm does seem to relate fairly closely to the one used in the religion 'Wicca', if that helps in understanding. (See the creed: 'An it harm none, do what thou wilt.') It is also interesting to note that intent does not necessarily allow one to decide between hurt and harm. I can just as easily harm someone through negligence without intent, as I can through a willful act. - - - Time for the point by point reply to your message: JKay 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? 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. JKay 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. Why do you have any level of expectation regarding how much she is willing to post back here to you in a public forum? moonlight wrote: Argentium's reasons for not doing humiliation are his own, and the two sets happen to coincide well for us. There is nothing wrong with humiliation play in and of itself. I disagree that most people know how to do it safely or well, though. I've seen *far* too many people hurt by it. JKay wrote: I would say that is true from what I have seen as well. Seems that some mix a level of control that is equateable with that of abuse that then gets in the way and destroys what fun there could be in experiencing humiliation. Are you then saying that intent and motive play a large part in whether an attempt at humiliating someone can be damaging? JKay 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. 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. 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. JKay wrote: Perhaps shifting the act of humiliation of oneself by others to that which is more of shock value to you and humiliation of the public would make it then easier for you to experience humiliation of you later. I don't quite see what you're getting at here, Jonathan. Could you perhaps elaborate? 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. JKay wrote: But do they have to or is it more about you Master that can do it - that is make it happen? 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)? JKay wrote: And aren't you really limiting yourself by somewhat restricting how much to let go to then seeing what will happen? 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. 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. JKay 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. 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. JKay wrote: Seems that if you could do this that you might be able to find some new aves[sic] about yourself and your relationship to your Master that could be really exciting. 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. moonlight wrote: I disagree that it allows most people to conquer anything or builds a person higher. It may for you, I don't know your mindset. It certainly hasn't with the people that I know, though. JKay wrote: I think a lot of what you are suggesting would depend on how well you know these people and how committed they are to each other, how well they are able to communicate with each other, and how close the really get to each other. Yes, a lot *can* depend on those factors, but an incredible amount can weigh in with the issue the humiliation is centering on itself. [ Johnathan's example of how two adults see each other in a relationship vs. how well the offspring can understand the dynamics of same snipped ] JKay wrote: What I am driving at is that what we see and what really is between two people can be difficult to see. And I would add that individually some of us tend to cloud what we are seeing by what we know only from what we understand or want to believe is going on. You're referring to the 'rose colored glasses' effect (self deception), yes? JKay wrote: I am only suggesting that what you have seen in others may have worked and may have not. Perhaps the ones you know - you know that well. It is sometimes harder to see things from the outside, yes. It is also sometimes *easier* to see things from the outside, as the participants have difficulty taking themselves out of the situation to see it as a whole, in a neutral light. moonlight wrote: I don't fear humiliation. I just don't like it. To each their own, eh? There's nothing that says it has to be a part of anyone's play. It's not a part of Argentium's or mine. JKay wrote: Nothing wrong with that. Some things just don't work. This I agree with. moonlight wrote: I didn't suffer humiliation as a child. I suffered extreme shyness and a lack of self-esteem strong enough to believe that I could do anything on my own or do it right. There's a difference. JKay wrote: That didn't make too much sense. Are you saying that you used your extreme shyness and lack of self-esteem as a kind of defense mechanism? Please explain because most people who suffer in what you described don't believe they are capable of anything let alone doing it right. Perhaps you have a typo there. I think she did make a typo. It makes more sense for there to be the word 'not' between 'could' and 'do' in that paragraph, but I'll leave that up to her to clarify. Adding 'not' here changes the meaning considerably. moonlight wrote: nor is it healthy for me. If you've gotten over your sense of shyness and humiliation (though where that is coming from I don't know....I don't understand what part of shower party games are humiliating...), then that is good. JKay wrote: So are you saying that you haven't gotten over your shyness and lack of self-esteem? I think she was referring solely to Judy's comments there. 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. JKay 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. 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. moonlight wrote: Anything that cracks that, even for a short time, is not healthy and will send me spinning back into the depths. JKay wrote: Sounds like you are not as healed yet to get to the point you need to that would allow for humiliation to work. 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. JKay 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? I'll be interested to see what moonlight has to say on that one. JKay wrote: I think that Judy wanted to rid herself of it so that she could enjoy life more and be more free. And if that's what Judy's goal was, and she accomplished it, and she's better for it, more power to her. It would be a mistake to generalize from Judy's experience and apply that knowledge to everyone's situation, since everyone's background, psyche, and circumstances are different to an extent. moonlight wrote: I don't have any preconceived notions about humiliation play. I have understandings of how my mind works. JKay wrote: At least as this present time and for what you know is 'safe' for you. Why do you put the word safe in quotation marks here? Are you attaching a different meaning to it than the standardly accepted definition? moonlight wrote: I have not seen much evidence that my mind works much different from most people. JKay wrote: Perhaps you don't really want to believe that others might be different than you because if they are then where will you be? Again, I don't see how this assertion follows. It seems to me like you're snatching theories out of the air. moonlight wrote: It is not healthy for me to play this way, so I don't do it. Plain and simple. JKay wrote: Sounds like you have a lot more healing to do and that you would rather do it on your own still. That you are not really ready to let someone else guide you. That you are still afraid. There's those assumptions again... [ moonlight replies directly to something Judy said about trying humiliation scening with 'love and care' present ] moonlight wrote: I understand it. I've tried it with love and care. Your assumption that because I don't do it or like it I haven't *REALLY* tried it right is rather condescending and stupid. JKay wrote: Your response is indicative of a defense on your part. It is a very similar response that an addictive personality would give: "I've tried, really I have. It doesn't work. I know, I've tried dammit." See what is happening here? 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. 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. JKay 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. 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? moonlight wrote: No matter how many times you say that I didn't do it right, it won't change the fact that I know my brain better than you, and it's just not wired for it. To do it with someone that is not wired for it is damaging. Get it? JKay wrote: Wired for it or just not really willing to work at it? That the effort isn't worth it? 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. JKay wrote: Sounds to me like it might be worth your Master/Dom's effort to 'break you'. Or are you afraid of that? It might be, it might not be. You'll of course understand if I critically analyze the entire situation, take time to think about it, seek input from multiple sources, weigh the facts carefully, and make a decision based on much more than just content in a newsgroup.