BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

The Intricacies of Degradation

  
 
Leidan
12:36 / 18.06.06
What are people's opinions / feelings / experiences on the subject of 'degradation' in sexual practice? The basic dichotomy I've come across in this area is this:

a) The deconstruction stance: briefly, degradation does not exist, since nothing is 'inherently' positive or negative. To de-grade assumes a hierarchy; to truly humiliate assumes you can be 'higher' or 'purer' than you are, or less than you are. Transgressive sexual practices are about something else; thus the very interesting BDSM thread in this forum barely mentions 'value' based emotions such as guilt or cruelty etc (indeed morpheus was shot down when he raised such concepts - rightly so of course as his posts were illconceived, but it's interesting). To generalise, it's often about postmodern-style identity-plays and power-plays; i.e, about chosen creativity over any inherent value systems.

b) the depth psychology stance: degredation does exist - people practice it and respond to it. People experience and either enjoy or are repelled by feelings of self- or other-disgust and degredation; this is the only way to explain the 'power' of words like 'bitch' and 'whore', the power of sexual practices associated with 'dirtyness' such as pissing and the enjoyment of 'using' things which are signposted as 'high'; the religious, the virginal, and so forth. The slave's enjoyment is at least partially because they are 'degraded' and 'humiliated' in their position 'under' their master; there is something 'more' here than a relinquishing of power.

The questions which arise from these perspectives are many, but I guess chiefly to do with the 'reality' of the 'low', and the association this has with the psychological.

This area is explored with great depth in the Invisibles - but the above contrary(?) views are not resolved. The agents of the outer church feed/ feed on or manifest degredation, shame and guilt. Does grant morrison signpost these things as 'negative' in associating them with the Outer Church? Or are the boundaries sufficiently blurred later in the book to destroy principles of good/bad?

One concrete example among many is Ragged Robin / King Mob; the kinky stuff they begin to do in bed ('sometimes I want to be a number') is clearly associated with control, negativity & pathology. (unless you were say they're merely doing it to draw Quimper out, and thus the sex has the aspect of a rationally chosen, value-less action.)

Lord Fanny meanwhile; "Tlazolteotl is the eater of shit, Goddess of filth and lust. She has marked Hilde as her own and will lead her through foulness and corruption."
There is a wonderful thread here, represented also in the last volume in de Sade's sexual experimentation camps by 'the semi' and its occupants - that of turning shit into gold, of traversing the lowest in order to reach the high. Beautiful, but surely this accepts the existence of both shit and gold - the desirability of gold and the 'lowness' of shit?

Similarly, from volume 1 (de sade again):
'Our time here is almost done and I remain unsatisfied. Let me commit the ultimate crime! Would that I might smear my shit across the face of the moon and soil her purity forever with my filth.'
(what purity? what filth?)

My central problem is that there is a very powerful discourse in the contemporary intellectual sphere that attacks all notions of judgement in sexual practice; i.e, no sexual practice is more 'right' than any other. This is the discourse used to justify those acts deemed as 'perverted'. However, many of these 'perverted' practices insist upon the re-installation of the 'categories' for them to work. BDSM insists on hierarchy, degradation insists on the concept of the pure.

The problem comes to a head with psychoanalysis. The logic of the argument perhaps goes: IF a mind finds BDSM/degradation arousing, then surely the categories which these practices rely on maintain a strong significance for that mind. If so, is this associated with pathology? For many psychoanalysts it appears so - even Stanislav Grof (Undoubtedly a very progressive psychoanalyst, and quoted in the Invisibles!) classifies S&M as a 'symptom' apparently on a level with 'anxiety, aggression, depression, fear of death, feelings of guilt...'

What do we make of all this, and what do we experience ourselves? Are we aroused by the 'dehumanising'? Can the dehumanising exist? If we are aroused by it, what does it say about us? Does it speak of darkness, or light, or either?
 
 
Ticker
13:52 / 18.06.06
Transgression does not need to be viewed as a state of moving across a fixed boundary of only pure/impure. Some BDSM creates lines of taboo for the only purpose of setting up a movement, setting up the transgression itself. It is the act of crossing the line (no matter what the line is) which yields up the power of self transformation, and ultimately societal transformation.

Moving from the appropriate to the inappropriate allows us to examine our definitions. The spiritual power of crossing these personal and societal is often assigned to the shamanic or priest class for the good of the greater group. For our individual health and freedom many of us cross lines imposed on us by our culture to evalute them and redefine ourselves.

There are several paths of movement and inversion. Some are based in giving away power or willfully breaking a taboo, others are taking power or willfully creating a taboo. Many more exist.

In the process of deconstruction the rigid social norms are challenged. Often the most obvious ones are about being 'dirty' 'slutty' 'indulgent' 'bad'( often experienced as a downward movement ) but many of the most profound are not. It is the act of crossing the taboo divide itself which can generate a sense of wrongness.

An example might be a person who is raised in station in life. They may feel 'wrong' suddenly given access to things they never had before, that such things are 'too good' for them that they 'don't deserve' the increase. In crossing a self perceived line they have transgressed against an internal anchor point of self identification independant from the value assigned to the location/direction of the movement.
 
 
Ticker
13:59 / 18.06.06
I should add the reason being able to cross societal boundaries is so important in the shamanic is two-fold. Knowledge of the self through experience of being Other and the ability to cross Otherworldly boundaries.

you may wish to read parts of this thread as well:

BDSM and Magic(k) (possibly not work safe)
 
 
Leidan
14:17 / 18.06.06
In the process of deconstruction the rigid social norms are challenged. Often the most obvious ones are about being 'dirty' 'slutty' 'indulgent' 'bad'( often experienced as a downward movement ) but many of the most profound are not. It is the act of crossing the taboo divide itself which can generate a sense of wrongness.

This is indeed the standard deconstruction argument, much better presented than my attempt - but the alternative perspective still has power - what happens to the deconstruction discourse when the narrative of the transgressing subject ceases to be that of a playful, creative transgressor, as you have presented here, and begins to be that of one who 'does' that particular practice as a large part of their sex life, as a continual 'hobby'. For this individual, is the process of deconstruction constant? Are they deconstructing the same things over and over again? Why do these symbols remain powerful for them, consistently? Are they not 'caught up' in these symbols and power relations, instead of questioning them?
 
 
Ticker
16:54 / 18.06.06
I can only say from my personal experience that some are more enduring than others. I'm constantly finding new ones or new aspects of known ones. Many of them do dissolve over time, or become absorbed into the perception of self.

For me, acclimation to my sexuality transposed the transgression back to non BDSM sex. Not the literal act of sex but devoid of the context a BDSM aware partner brings to the exchange. I was very aware of my transgression in having vanilla sex. Rather than keep pushing that aspect of transgression, I found what I believe is a more appropriate selection by selecting a kink enabled relationship. I explored the transgression and then allowed the boundary to remain with myself on the other side of the line.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:52 / 19.06.06
As someone who is not into BDSM and what-have-you I must ask: Are those taking part crossing boundaries they set or doing things which count as societal-impossed boundaries?
 
 
Ticker
15:00 / 19.06.06
Usually it starts with the societal ones and as those yield new insights the explorers may or may not choose to move onto self created ones.
Everybody is different though so I suspect there are numerous approaches.
 
 
Leidan
21:48 / 19.06.06

I've read most of the BDSM and magic thread; very interesting... what I'm trying to get at here is touched on only briefly in that thread, but significantly - I'm thinking about the practicing of degredation-sex and BDSM without an aspect of transcendence. (id)entity imagines a magickal situation in hir first post in which the bottom turns the tables on the symbolic aspect which is controlling hir life in a negative way. This sounds to me like an amazingly positive and therapeutic experience, but my experience of BDSM (personal and gleaned from The Internet) is that in a large amount of cases (in my experience the vast majority) the aim of the act is precisely the opposite; to indulge, in a masochistic or 'self-destroying' way, in revelling in the submission to the percieved 'negative' powerful force.

It appears you recognise the power of this possibility - you say "For myself personally, I would never engage in a scene with guilt/shame/humiliation/degradation unless it was for the specific task of using it for a magical outcome." - Why so strict a rule? Is it not because the act of degradation without transcendence is an act of magick equal in power to the transcendent, but with a 'negative' effect? Perhaps this is a reason why so many spiritual disciplines are wary of practices involving aspects of degradation?

It seems like we identify here the region which is invoked so powerfully in the Invisibles. The Outer Church's S&M is, it seems to me, not 'just' an aspect of society that Morrison plays with; it seems to be a very powerful symbol of 'negativity' and 'badness'. Why do we all think 'ah, oh dear' when Ragged Robin says 'I want to be a number'? Why do we not think instead, 'ah, cool, they're spicing up their sex lives'? Why when the evil white rich guys in the boardroom take control of the initiate's wife, she starts to do 'weird submissive' stuff in bed?

Of course, it isn't treated with this simplicity in the Invisibles; as mentioned, deSade's sexual adventurers 'plumb the depths of hell' and find transcendence. But the negative aspect still remains negative, doesn't it?

So what's the problem here? Surely the solution is for each individual to enter that realm and discover, as you suggest, what the limits and symbols truly mean to them. But individuals are not always this adventurous and brave. The problem comes, as I suggested in my first post, when a discipline that needs to approach psychology from the outside - psychoanalysis for instance - becomes aware of the negative potential (here I assume this negative potential based on what I've said above etc) in practices centred around degradation. The tendency here will surely be to want to pathologise it to an extent - where does this place us? Is this essentially oppressive, or necessary? Can it be done in a way that accepts sex centred around degradation as potentially powerfully positive, but also potentially dangerous (and also simply as a normal sexual practice)?

I don't want at all to attack BDSM etc here, but I feel like the powerful potentially negative psychological aspect of them are often 'skated over' in 'postmodern' discourse, of which this forum is a prime example.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
22:13 / 19.06.06
The Outer Church's S&M is, it seems to me, not 'just' an aspect of society that Morrison plays with; it seems to be a very powerful symbol of 'negativity' and 'badness'. Why do we all think 'ah, oh dear' when Ragged Robin says 'I want to be a number'? Why do we not think instead, 'ah, cool, they're spicing up their sex lives'? Why when the evil white rich guys in the boardroom take control of the initiate's wife, she starts to do 'weird submissive' stuff in bed?

Well, a) in the Ragged Robin example, if we do think "oh dear" then we're being successfully misdirected, and that's all I'll say in order to keep things relatively spoiler free for now, and b) Grant Morrison is not necessarily an infallible guide to how one should approach/understand/represent BDSM.
 
 
*
22:25 / 19.06.06
The references to the Invisibles trouble me. My experience is that this work tends to function for some people as authoritative, when in fact not only is it a mere work of fiction but it is a work of metafiction, in which certain fictional tropes are further twisted and manipulated in order to function in certain ways which the author deems appropriate for a magical goal. Thus, attempting to use it to reflect any actual experience of human behavior is deeply problematic in a number of ways.

It appears you recognise the power of this possibility - you say "For myself personally, I would never engage in a scene with guilt/shame/humiliation/degradation unless it was for the specific task of using it for a magical outcome."

I apologize if I'm being dense, but... Who said this again? I'm having trouble finding it. It sounds familiar enough to have been something I said, at one point, but I don't recall. Can you link to the specific post? (The time and date next to a post functions a post-specific link)

Also, what do you mean by "postmodern" discourse?

Now that the questions are out of the way: I think submission, of which degradation can be considered one form, can function in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I tend to avoid attempting to define what makes such experiences unhealthy, because I feel that whenever I have done so I have been generalizing my own experience to others. For instance, I tend to feel that raceplay is inherently unhealthy, but critically speaking I also realize I'm creating an absolutism based on limited experience and knowledge, which is almost never effective at reflecting the complexities of real experience.

Degradation— activities which focus on producing a feeling of humiliation and shame— is not very much a part of my practice. Humiliation and shame are real dangers for me, and they act as triggers which shut down my sexuality and make me close off, which is counter to my goals in practicing. So I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion. However, I do engage in activities which force me to confront feelings of vulnerability, which is another kind of submission. It can look very much like degradation. I might be stripped naked in front of strangers— for me, this could be undesirable and genuinely frightening degradation, or it might induce a beneficial feeling of vulnerability, depending on the situation and the intent of the actors and spectators.
 
 
Leidan
23:47 / 19.06.06
Apologies for not referencing the quote id, it's from xk in this thread: http://www.barbelith.com/topic/21269/from/70 - I was meant to be talking to xk when I used it, hence the assumptive use.

The references to the Invisibles trouble me.

Flyboy also feels so - but here I don't use the Invisibles as a rational text, a set of beliefs that are either true or false - it's not inherently 'authoritative' - but I think literature is a potentially very useful tool for discussion; I'm trying to think about it in a symbolic way... with a shared text we all have equal access to a complex set of symbols, which we can refer to easily. Each person's reaction to the text is of course different, but that in itself is interesting - why do we react the way we do; in what ways do the symbols work, why do they work in that way?

So, I'm not saying 'GM says degradational sex is bad so it's bad' (he doesn't, even, which is something I've tried to introduce) - i'm trying to explore the subject with the help of shared symbols. I don't think considering the text as a true/untrue representation of human 'reality' is helpful, personally - it's as true a representation of human behaviour as any other, and has enough sophistication to be used creatively in discussion.

Also, what do you mean by "postmodern" discourse?

My use of this word is horribly over-generalising, of course - just amend it to "My experience with this forum, and also with various writers who can be vaguely categorised as belonging to the 'poststructuralist' tradition".

I tend to avoid attempting to define what makes such experiences unhealthy, because I feel that whenever I have done so I have been generalizing my own experience to others.

This is indeed the problem - hence my raising of the issue of psychoanalysis; in a discipline where the psychological - to an extent - must be generalised, to the degree that informative books are published, where does this place discussion of sexual practices? I believe the discourse around sexuality created in Barbelith and so forth is extremely positive and empowering, but does this preclude certain other forms of discourse? Are we unable to discuss certain areas?
 
 
*
01:58 / 20.06.06
The Invisibles is still not necessarily a shared text here, though. There are a great many people here who haven't read it, and among those who have, I venture to say not two of them internalized it in the same way. ("Sexual submission in 'The Invisibles'" would make a great thread in its own right, though.)

I believe the discourse around sexuality created in Barbelith and so forth is extremely positive and empowering, but does this preclude certain other forms of discourse? Are we unable to discuss the 'dark side' of things?

I think we can, but I still think we have to do so with the awareness that generalizing can be a trap, especially when it comes to producing a heuristic for determining whether a particular act or dynamic is "healthy" or "unhealthy". Because I have no psychology background to speak of, I'd personally prefer to confine my remarks to my own experiences as far as possible. I've rarely engaged in play I would describe as degradation, and that might make for a sort of limited contribution.

Certainly I think of BDSM play in terms of its health or unhealth for me, when deciding how I might play, which is why I tend not to play with degradation— I've decided it's unhealthy for me, in most cases. I would be happy to talk about how I think I go about making that judgment, if you think that's within the remit of your thread, Leidan— if not I'll put it in the other BDSM thread.
 
 
Ticker
14:29 / 20.06.06
Leidan

For me a magical outcome is not necessarily transcendent. I work with a lot of visceral dark stuff not to transmute into something opposite and therefore light but because it is dark and sometimes harmful. I only use degradation/shame/guilt in the pursuit of productive magical work not to just engage with those states for the sake of those states.

The details of those magics are best discussed in the Temple as they are very subjective experiences.

Relative to this thread I will say in my experience there are places of human experience that are very powerful while being very unpleasant. Some of us voyage there only when we can do so in a manner that respects those that do not wish to go with us.
Which is a fat mouthful way of saying BDSM gives me an approved structure by which I can explore my destructive aspects while not taking a destructive role in the over arching society.
 
 
Leidan
20:15 / 20.06.06
Thanks xk - and if you feel further questioning about the character, experience and functioning of a 'dark side' is not suitable for this forum then that's cool, though kind of a pity.

I would be happy to talk about how I think I go about making that judgment, if you think that's within the remit of your thread, Leidan.

That would be very interesting, thank you... unfortunately this would be left hovering in empty space for a while as I have to abandon the forum for 10 or so days; I'm going to a vipassana meditation thingy... but if that's ok then post away!
 
 
Ticker
17:24 / 21.06.06
Leidan,

I'm happy to discuss those aspects, however my langauge for it tends toward the spiritual, and so I think it more apropriate to the Temple thread than to the Head Shop's.

I can say here that many BDSM folks I know don't go 'down' into the depths to transcend the darkness, but to embrace it.
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
19:31 / 27.07.06
I would agree that this should be in "Temple." Or is this an elaborate attempt to 'top from the bottom'?
 
 
*
00:38 / 28.07.06
There already is a BDSM and Magick thread in Temple; if you have thoughts of a Templey nature on this subject you're welcome to post in that one.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
12:36 / 01.08.06
Leidan, I've been reading and rereading this thread for a while, wanting to post but unsure how to go about doing so. You raise some interesting questions, and they deserve more discussion than we've had so far. At the same time, people posting to this thread seem unwilling to really 'go there'. Perhaps this is because you're not being quite upfront with your questions, or why you're asking. Is this thread to do with something you've actually experienced in your life, which you think may be unhealthy or too scary, or are you simply asking out of intellectual interest? If it's the former, maybe you could go into some detail -- subtly, perhaps -- about what you're concerned about. Then perhaps others posting will feel as if they can go a little deeper too.

For myself, I know that shame/humiliation play can have a really powerful effect on me, as a bottom. At the best moments, it makes me almost completely content, powerfully content. At the worst, most frightening moments, it can make me close down entirely. The difference seems to depeond on my mood and the precise triggers involved; and, I guess, how much I'm able to trust that the top knows what ze's doing.

I've thought quite deeply about whether it's always 'healthy', whether it acts to support or expel fucked up self-esteem issues, and so on. That said, I'm quite suspicious of labelling anything that anyone gets desire or pleasure out of as evidence of a 'dark side' or of pathology. It would also be wrong of you to assume that people who see BDSM as a kind of play, and who treat it as a way to cross particular boundaries, also see their practices as a meaningless game. Play is powerful itself, and deep.

To quote the Invisibles, Lord Fanny turns shit into gold, she becomes an alchemist. I assume this is one of the moments you're thinking about? But I don't think this part of the Invisibles is merely about sexplay: it's about using risk-taking as a way to live through extraordinary pain, violence and degradation, and coming out the other side with one's pride and self intact. I've been through BDSM play where that process is enacted, symbolically, or playfully: but the most important thing for that kind of play, for me, is to either bring someone else 'up' into pride, at having survived both the filth of the past and the symbolic filth of the scene, and a sense of selfworth, or be helped to surface that way myself. And yeah, it's not 'safe', but what sexual practices are?
 
  
Add Your Reply