Discussion Group ~ January 17th 2014

Our next discussion will be held Friday 17th January 2014 at 9:00 pm EST/ Saturday 02:00 GMT ~ hosted by Miss Sett {Kuve} and guests

After popular demand again the topic will repeat, hence, tonight the topic of discussion is humiliation. What exactly is humiliation? Are there different types/forms and why do some subs like this?

I will re-run this on Sunday 19th January 2014 at 19:00 GMT this week due to demand.


We will meet in the chat room lobby and then move to a discussion room.

Anyone wishing to suggest a topic, please reply to this thread ~ we welcome all suggestions and participation.

See you there!!

I know there has been some concern that the discussion will be transcribed or copied. This is not the case, it will be summarised only, relevant points indicated for those that cannot make the discussion time. I will endeaver to post weekly, where possible.

There is no password required to enter the discussion room.

Rules of discussion
1. No meeting/greeting each other after the discussion has started, period.
2. Serious replies please, with respect afforded to each other.
3. This is a discussion room, if people wish to chat or play, please return to the lobby.
4. No disrespectful language will be tolerated at all, nor will detrimental comments, each participant has an opinion. There are others present that wish to learn.

Summary of the discussion group 10th, 17th and 19th January

This was a very popular topic of discussion which drew a lot of interest and multiple viewpoints and opinions. The topic commenced by defining what humiliation play actually was. Some deemed it to be any form of play that had the intention to make the sub embarrassed, and that this was totally intentional. Where this differed was the actual understanding of what was to occur, as if the sub was aware of the form’ of play this could actually deviate from the desired result. Humbling the sub seemed a better term than embarrassing the sub, derived either in private or in public, again this was subjective as agreed upon within the dynamic. It was determined that many dom/mes use a method that causes the sub pleasure as a means of control, to enjoy the control whilst meeting their own desires, a sub is more willing to do this if they it also means all of their own’ desires and needs as met in the process. Yet it seems that when the sub no longer enjoys the situation, the dom/me no longer enjoys the dynamic from the sub, hence they part company.


It was also agreed that the exhilaration that can be enjoyed between dom/me and sub, as often humiliation play is, both mental and physical, should include prior consent and have established limits. The dictionary definition of ‘humiliate’ make (someone) feel ashamed and foolish by injuring their dignity and pride, based on the verb to ‘humble’ was considered. It was discussed that there was a difference between humiliation and to humble another, whilst considering that humiliation seemed to be more fitting towards ‘embarrassment’ however, again this was a subjective view between those present. Words were deemed to be as painful as actual acts of humiliation, to some yet again it was asked if this was degradation and/or not humiliation play? While limits needs are to be respected, many considered it a ‘try anything once’ attitude, as it is not always possible to predetermine what or is not liked unless it is tried.

It was generally agreed that this form of play was certainly specific between the dynamics of the relationship. What one couple found interesting or exciting did not ensure that this would occur with another person(s). It was deemed to be individual and generally more successful when the communication and knowledge of another was familiar. Calling a sub your pet could be a form of humiliation or an endearment and is used both ways. It was totally agreed that humiliation play that included the reveal of a painful experience was not called for and the strength of open and honest communication very pertinent and a total requirement. All play should be, as in everything bdsm related, Safe, Sane, and Consensual.

Forms of humiliation play confirmed this thought, humiliating tasks, name calling in public or as a delight' in the confines of the play/bedroom. Some thoughts considered whether this formed a sense of degrading the sub in order to increase the feeling of dominance, yet this was countered with thoughts that concluded that humiliation was far different as degradation would appear to detract from self worth, which is not always the desired outcome, hence it is wise to start light and build as rapport as trust develops. It was noted that no*one can be expected to get it perfectly with a stranger.

Further conversation determined that domination derives from a focus of having control and that by forcing the sub to demonstrate something humiliating enhanced this interaction, as the sub enjoys being directed, resulting in a high’, a feeling of being dominated, ‘an expression of power’. Yet again, it was also considered that name calling as such, could result in belittling yet this is not considered to be humiliation but more likely enjoyed because the dominant wants and desires to feel the power of making that sub or bottom feel humiliated or the sub wants to feel that power rather than enjoying the humiliation in and of itself. It was generally concluded that people are wired differently, some people get off on pain, some get off on humiliation, and how one plays will be based on their personal needs and desires whatever those might be.

Remote control eggs were considered a form of humiliation play, which was surprising to many. To be an ‘unseen’ form of excitement enjoyed by both the dom/me and the sub. Being in public without underwear, again this was a specific desire between dom/me and sub, deemed exciting to many and not particularly humiliation play, but generalised enjoyment. Pet play, age play or objectification was described. Ultimately the need to please the dominate was evident, from a submissive point this need fulfilled as did the sense of satisfaction meet the need of the dominant. Although the thought of certain ‘play’ acts were deemed as unacceptable this was explained that each person has their ‘own’ kinks there is neither right nor wrong act, it’s subjective. What some people enjoy things that others would find, distasteful this was agreed upon. Consider that first you have to question how one can enjoy anything at all, if it gives you pleasure or turns you on then that is just what works for you, there isn't always a ‘why’ to it, some things just are. Also consider that you enter a restaurant with your sub, send him/her to the bathroom to remove their underwear and return to the dom/me in hand, therefore, handing them over in plain view of others.

An interesting scenario was described, if humiliation play is determined at the start of the relationship, would the personal level to achieve this move over time. As in, it would take more to achieve the same level or embarrassment as the sub becomes familiar of the method or words used. It was determined that the negation of levels was very important, this does have to be communicated clearly from the sub to the dom/me, again this level of communication did not always occur, resulting in a breakdown of the relationship and detracting from the actual goal that was aimed for. The real need to have clear limits agreed upon was a requirement to ensure a safe level of understanding.

Hence, is the main drive of humiliation play led by the dom/me or as is as determined by the sub was entered into the discussion. It was considered that it was enjoyed by both, often as a benign form of fore play, making another do’ what they actually didn’t want to do, but with a form of consent. The feeling of doing something more than you would normally attempt, in order to bring that pleasure to your dominant, not purely because they enjoy having their feet licked or whatever.

We all seem to enjoy, as we enjoy.