Psychological segue

[Bramblethorn]

The very large and muscular mentally handicapped black man grabbing and holding Tom Hank's crotch as he struggled to get away while the other inmates laughed and howled was a metaphor for visiting a friendly urologist?

Nope. That's not what I said, and if you're going to put words into my mouth as opposed to engaging with what I actually said, you can piss off.

 

[SimonDoom]

Here is a well known example of a popular but subtle usage of cuckolding humiliation reasonably well done in all its complex flavors:

https://www.literotica.com/s/the-bridge-6

It's a bit too subtle for my tastes, but I get why the author might not want to have pushed it harder. Humiliation play is one of those topics that hits too close to home for many readers.

But this isn't at all about humiliation play. A humiliation play story is one in which the husband derives enjoyment from being humiliated. The cuckoldry may be with his consent, or without his consent, but the point of it is that the humiliation is a source of erotic enjoyment -- both for the husband, and for the reader.

This story isn't at all like that. This is a BTB "revenge against the wife and lover" story, pure and simple.

I don't kink shame. If people enjoy these stories, they're welcome to write them and read them, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't say, Don't write this. But the appeal of these stories mystifies me.

It's not an erotic story, in any way, although it's on an erotic story website. Sex is not in any way erotic in the story. It's not positive. Sex in the story is motivated by selfishness and callousness, and it causes misery and the breakup of a family. It's depressing from start to finish. I don't get the appeal, although I recognize I don't have to. Others obviously find it appealing.

The wife and lover are caricatures, not people. They are monstrously selfish and callous and indifferent to the husband's feelings. This is in keeping with the way the wife and and lover are always depicted in these stories.

The husband is two people, inexplicably. In the first he is a passive, weak man who lets his wife cheat on him right in front of him although he doesn't want her to. He says almost nothing to prevent it from happening. He gives her no warning, astonishingly, of the consequence of her cheating. In the second half he is a man of implacable resolve, an avenging angel who masterfully brings the lover and his wife to heel. It makes no psychological sense at all.

The nature of the revenge he gets is outlandish and improbable. He succeeds in ruining the lover/boss and with his new business acquiring his properties. This is in keeping with other stories of its ilk, where the revenge rises to implausible and fantastical levels of destructive success, like something you'd see in a Rambo movie. He doesn't just get his due; he scorches the Earth.

The subtext of this and similar stories is that men live in a world that screws them, and men who believe in this fantasy find a form of release in these stories where the jilted good man gets revenge, like Rambo, against those who have wronged him, in glorious, over-the-top, technicolor fashion, and sets the world to right.

This world is pure fantasy. Obviously, some men are cheated on, and are hurt badly. But the notion of a world where men are screwed so badly, yet somehow have it in them to become avenging angels, is a false fantasy. What's weirdest to me is it's such a sad, depressing fantasy, but so many men (as evidenced by the extraordinary 682 comments, mostly positive, that this story received) eat it up.

This, to me, is an example of a story that, while decently written, is, from a psychological point of view, a total mess, because it subordinates real human psychology to an anti-woman/vengeance fantasy.

 

[rescatooor]

Sounds like humiliation is read into a situation where it isn't exactly necessarily intended.

The example of The Green Mile seems odd to me, as neither intends humiliation, nor does anyone exactly ridicule Tom Hanks' character for what would really be a sexual assault. It might be a silly situation for an outsider but even then the humiliation aspect fails because no one is there to see it, at least not as far as the characters can tell. If no one saw it, there's no shame in it.

 

[XerXesXu]

but the point of it is that the humiliation is a source of erotic enjoyment -- both for the husband, and for the reader.

His point is that as a secondary participant the reader can derive ? (that's why I asked if he got sexually aroused) whether the fictitious parties consent or not. I can see a lot of humiliation in the BTB story he referenced, though not in TGM. His interpretation of the cleansing of the Tom Hanks character is different to mine, but why should it be less valid?

I don't question his sincerity or his right to interpret stories in his own way. I'm far from understanding why he sees things as he does and the reward he gets from doing so. His kink is not unique for me in that sense.

 

[SimonDoom]

His point is that as a secondary participant the reader can derive ? (that's why I asked if he got sexually aroused) whether the fictitious parties consent or not. I can see a lot of humiliation in the BTB story he referenced, though not in TGM. His interpretation of the cleansing of the Tom Hanks character is different to mine, but why should it be less valid?

I don't question his sincerity or his right to interpret stories in his own way. I'm far from understanding why he sees things as he does and the reward he gets from doing so. His kink is not unique for me in that sense.

There are 682 comments in response to the story he cited, The Bridges. I didn't read them all but I read quite a few of them. Not one indicated that he derived sexual pleasure or was aroused from seeing the husband in that story humiliated. It's obvious the author doesn't intend the humiliation to cause arousal. Of course, it's always possible that a reader sees it that way. Anything, just about, is theoretically possible. But we don't define and categorize stories by the possibility that a tiny reading minority may see something in an idiosyncratic way.

That poster cited the story as an example of a humiliation play story, and it's not that. It's a revenge story. We have no reason or evidence to believe that anyone actually DOES see it as an example of humiliation play.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that another's interpretation of a story or movie is "invalid," because I'm not sure if "validity" is the right term to use in this context, but I think it's fair to say that his interpretation has nothing to do with the intention of the author/director and is an extreme outlier, and that the story he cited is not a representative sample of the type of story he brought up.

 

[XerXesXu]

There are 682 comments in response to the story he cited, The Bridges. I didn't read them all but I read quite a few of them. Not one indicated that he derived sexual pleasure or was aroused from seeing the husband in that story humiliated. It's obvious the author doesn't intend the humiliation to cause arousal. Of course, it's always possible that a reader sees it that way. Anything, just about, is theoretically possible. But we don't define and categorize stories by the possibility that a tiny reading minority may see something in an idiosyncratic way.

That poster cited the story as an example of a humiliation play story, and it's not that. It's a revenge story. We have no reason or evidence to believe that anyone actually DOES see it as an example of humiliation play.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that another's interpretation of a story or movie is "invalid," because I'm not sure if "validity" is the right term to use in this context, but I think it's fair to say that his interpretation has nothing to do with the intention of the author/director and is an extreme outlier, and that the story he cited is not a representative sample of the type of story he brought up.

You see revenge, he sees humiliation. A work of art can be read on many levels.

Did hubby say anything along the lines of ‘You humiliated me’? Was his revenge humiliating? Did any of the commentators express pleasure? Was it sexual pleasure? Did they say? What was their catharsis? Did they say? Did they masturbate? We need to know these things, that’s why I asked the OP if he got an erection from watching what he sees as H and D play.

What’s the author’s intent got to with it? How do you know his intent, or are you imposing your own interpretation?

The OP sees humiliation play everywhere, not just in BTB stories, so do I. I don’t find it rewarding, he does. He finds it difficult to accept that others can’t see what he sees.

He sees ‘obvious’ humiliation play in TGM, others are emotionally wounded that he should see what they can’t. That’s neither here nor there. He’s as surprised that I don’t see humiliation play as I am that he does. But, on what basis do you go further and dismiss his evidence? Do you believe he’s insincere? Do you think he’s winding us up? If not – there’s your evidence.

What’s your evidence that’s he’s an outlier? He believes that you and I are outliers, I know of no evidence either way.

Why do you think that a BTB story that involves humiliation should not be in LW category? That would exclude most of them.

 

[SimonDoom]

You see revenge, he sees humiliation. A work of art can be read on many levels.

Did hubby say anything along the lines of ‘You humiliated me’? Was his revenge humiliating? Did any of the commentators express pleasure? Was it sexual pleasure? Did they say? What was their catharsis? Did they say? Did they masturbate? We need to know these things, that’s why I asked the OP if he got an erection from watching what he sees as H and D play.

What’s the author’s intent got to with it? How do you know his intent, or are you imposing your own interpretation?

The OP sees humiliation play everywhere, not just in BTB stories, so do I. I don’t find it rewarding, he does. He finds it difficult to accept that others can’t see what he sees.

He sees ‘obvious’ humiliation play in TGM, others are emotionally wounded that he should see what they can’t. That’s neither here nor there. He’s as surprised that I don’t see humiliation play as I am that he does. But, on what basis do you go further and dismiss his evidence? Do you believe he’s insincere? Do you think he’s winding us up? If not – there’s your evidence.

What’s your evidence that’s he’s an outlier? He believes that you and I are outliers, I know of no evidence either way.

Why do you think that a BTB story that involves humiliation should not be in LW category? That would exclude most of them.

1. I never said this story doesn't belong in Loving Wives. You are misinterpreting what I wrote. It does belong there. I'm curious about the appeal of this story because it's not erotic, and it's depressing, and it's curious to me why there is such a large readership at Literotica for "revenge against the cheating woman" stories. I probably will not get an answer to that, because one thing I've discovered here is that with a few exceptions those who really enjoy these stories seldom participate in these threads.

2. The OP described The Bridges as a humiliation play story, but he did not say that the husband in the story saw it that way, and he, the OP, did not say that he saw the humiliation that the husband endured as erotic or arousing, and, as far as I can tell, none of the 682 commenters (a relatively large sample size by Lit standards) saw it that way. So I stand by what I said. There's no evidence that anybody thinks this story is arousing, or that they see the husband's humiliation as arousing. It is, therefore, not a "humiliation play" story as that term is commonly understood. If you want to call it that, you can, but then you are just playing the role of Humpty Dumpty in the quotation you cited from Lewis Carroll.

3. Carried to an extreme, your line of thinking could justify the position that all views are equally meritorious and nobody can critique anybody's position about anything. I don't believe that. I think it's a parlor game mentality that nobody really believes in their real lives, including you. I believe in a middle ground: there are no absolute and entirely objective standards of value, but it's also possible to say that some interpretations of a text are more ridiculous and less meritorious than others. I think interpreting The Green Mile as an erotic humiliation story, or interpreting The Bridges as an erotic humiliation play story, is a stretch, by the standards of what the vast majority of people typically mean when they use the term "humiliation play."

 

[XerXesXu]

If you want to call it that, you can, but then you are just playing the role of Humpty Dumpty in the quotation you cited from Lewis Carroll.

I did consider reposting it to remind you.

You think you should be master, so does he. When Humpty Dumpties go to war!

But not over a word, over a kink. Power Play in action.

 

[SimonDoom]

I did consider reposting it to remind you.

You think you should be master, so does he. When Humpty Dumpties go to war!

But not over a word, over a kink. Power Play in action.

No, not exactly. I'm not going to go to war over the kink. It's not my kink, but if others want to indulge in it, that's OK with me.

It puzzles me, though. I'd like to get more information about it from those who enjoy the stories, but they seldom participate here. Their attitudes pop up more in the comments than in forum posts. If you read through those comments, it's quite clear that they don't think the story is erotic, or a form of humiliation play. They are disgusted by the wife's behavior, and some of them are disgusted by the husband's behavior, because he wasn't strong enough and/or didn't exactly sufficient harsh punishment on the cheating wife. Some of them wanted him to burn the lodge down, not just the bridge, or physically attack her. There's no hint that the story is perceived as erotic.

You misunderstand my attitude toward the use of words. I don't want to be master. I believe that if we want to have a meaningful conversation we cannot simply retreat behind the position that "there is no authority" and "everybody's definition is equally true." I don't believe either of those things, and I don't think anybody else really does, either, except in the context of Internet conversations that have no consequence, like this one. We have to have some basis for a common understanding of what we mean, and I think that's attainable through the use of common sense and reference to various guides and sources. We can look at data, like comments that real readers actually make to stories.

Verycuriouswriter can add his two cents about what, exactly, he meant, but I didn't understand him to say that he actually found The Bridges to be erotic. Maybe he did. He can clarify that.

 

[XerXesXu]

No, not exactly. I'm not going to go to war over the kink. It's not my kink, but if others want to indulge in it, that's OK with me.

It puzzles me, though. I'd like to get more information about it from those who enjoy the stories, but they seldom participate here. Their attitudes pop up more in the comments than in forum posts. If you read through those comments, it's quite clear that they don't think the story is erotic, or a form of humiliation play. They are disgusted by the wife's behavior, and some of them are disgusted by the husband's behavior, because he wasn't strong enough and/or didn't exactly sufficient harsh punishment on the cheating wife. Some of them wanted him to burn the lodge down, not just the bridge, or physically attack her. There's no hint that the story is perceived as erotic.

You misunderstand my attitude toward the use of words. I don't want to be master. I believe that if we want to have a meaningful conversation we cannot simply retreat behind the position that "there is no authority" and "everybody's definition is equally true." I don't believe either of those things, and I don't think anybody else really does, either, except in the context of Internet conversations that have no consequence, like this one. We have to have some basis for a common understanding of what we mean, and I think that's attainable through the use of common sense and reference to various guides and sources. We can look at data, like comments that real readers actually make to stories.

Verycuriouswriter can add his two cents about what, exactly, he meant, but I didn't understand him to say that he actually found The Bridges to be erotic. Maybe he did. He can clarify that.

I looked at the comments. The word ‘humiliation’ occurs reasonably frequently. Most of the commentators seem very aroused, very angry. I have the impression that many find the humiliation of the husband particularly egregious, some expressly say so. They also suggest their behaviour is addictive, rereading stories and seeking out many similar stories. I suspect they find their arousal erotic and addictive and get their catharsis through masturbation. That’s why I asked the OP if he got an erection, his answer was evasive.

It’s unlikely that you’ll find an answer to the fundamental question raised by the OP in The Chicago Guide, or elsewhere. One can raise a hypothesis on conjecture, anecdote and inference, but the reality can only be determined empirically.

 

[MillieDynamite]

This thread reads like conflicting dissertations presented in segments to the faculty and only one will get his doctoral degree!

 

[XerXesXu]

This thread reads like conflicting dissertations presented in segments to the faculty and only one will get his doctoral degree!

I wish I'd gone to your university.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I wish I'd gone to your university.

Um, wish I'd gone to any university! LOL I have had a total of two, count them, two college courses, English and creative writing.

 

[rescatooor]

You see revenge, he sees humiliation. A work of art can be read on many levels.

Did hubby say anything along the lines of ‘You humiliated me’? Was his revenge humiliating? Did any of the commentators express pleasure? Was it sexual pleasure? Did they say? What was their catharsis? Did they say? Did they masturbate? We need to know these things, that’s why I asked the OP if he got an erection from watching what he sees as H and D play.

What’s the author’s intent got to with it? How do you know his intent, or are you imposing your own interpretation?

The OP sees humiliation play everywhere, not just in BTB stories, so do I. I don’t find it rewarding, he does. He finds it difficult to accept that others can’t see what he sees.

He sees ‘obvious’ humiliation play in TGM, others are emotionally wounded that he should see what they can’t. That’s neither here nor there. He’s as surprised that I don’t see humiliation play as I am that he does. But, on what basis do you go further and dismiss his evidence? Do you believe he’s insincere? Do you think he’s winding us up? If not – there’s your evidence.

What’s your evidence that’s he’s an outlier? He believes that you and I are outliers, I know of no evidence either way.

Why do you think that a BTB story that involves humiliation should not be in LW category? That would exclude most of them.

Since I too spoke of intent, I suppose I should response too.

Like the verycuriouswriter's theory is interesting, and all. Not too different from some of my wildest dissertations I've written. The only issue is that he does see things that are not there. The inmates "laughing and howling" are nowhere to be seen in that clip. We have one character crying for help on Hanks' characters behalf. And he doesn't seem to be seeing anything more than that prison guard is being attacked by a prisoner. Maybe they're in the book? I do not know. Still, I do not see any obvious humiliation here.

Intent may matter. It depends a lot on how whether it's a Lynch film or a Favreau film.

 

[verycuriouswriter]

Nope. That's not what I said, and if you're going to put words into my mouth as opposed to engaging with what I actually said, you can piss off.

Fair point, though I thought your response was fairly hostile as well.

But let me ask you, sincerely - what was the scene a metaphor of? As a writer, I simply can not accept that Stephen King or the directors of this movie deciding to randomly include such dramatic and crucial scenes for no reason at all.

There are a thousand different ways an act of faith healing could proceed. The guard leader could have had a broken wrist or other limb. He could have been suffering from some eating ailment. And why not stop at simply being able to finally urinate properly? Why the follow up with the very sexual scene between Hanks and his wife?

 

[SimonDoom]

? Why the follow up with the very sexual scene between Hanks and his wife?

What's sexual about those scenes? Be specific. I saw that movie a while ago -- at least 12 years or so -- but I remember both those scenes, and I don't remember anything about either of them that was sexual or erotic. Coffey obviously is a Christ figure ("JC," after all). I see nothing sexual about him, or his interactions with anyone in the story. On the contrary, he is a figure of straightforward purity and good intention in a dark, twisted world. He takes on the burden of others' illnesses (sins). He literally dies for the sins of others (the real killer). The Hanks figure is a kind of disciple or apostle. Nothing about it seems sexual to me.

If you are going to claim that his interactions are sexual, then back up the interpretation with references to specific things about those scenes that make them sexual.

 

[verycuriouswriter]

Some people are more easily aroused than others, and people interpret situations differently. I’ve never found watching others being humiliated arousing, I’m surprised you think it self-evident that many people would. I may be wrong, since I’ve never conceived it, I’ve never explored it.

Most people have explored the concept via some act submissiveness during sex. Letting their partner go on top, or ignoring their own desires in order to simply pleasure their partners.

My suspicion is that this might not feel like humiliation play to some because they are used to surrendering their ego and being submissive outside of the bedroom.

For such individuals, I would encourage them to try humiliation play with their partner, but engage in the dominant role. Done thoughtfully, leaving their comfort zones in these safe experiences with their partners can help erode inequality and remove unhealthy imbalances.

Balancing is important in all aspects of our lives. The concept of balance goes partially to the heart of my thesis here. Obscenity, porn - this is neurotic media which doesn't utilize revealing context to provide crucial balance to the more erotic elements depicted.

Optimistically, I would expect as writers we would try to encourage a more healthy, balanced perspective through our creative works.

 

[verycuriouswriter]

What's sexual about those scenes?

Relatively speaking to the obvious themes of the movie, they were very sexual. It's all about context.

If you're interested in having an educated dialogue about this topic I recommend that you first do the required reading - watch the movie.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Fair point, though I thought your response was fairly hostile as well.

Not sure which of my responses you mean here.

If you're referring to my "Hmm. I've read the books..." post, then I reject that characterisation.

OTOH, if you're referring to the post where I invited you to "piss off": yes, it was hostile, because somebody who falsely puts words in my mouth forfeits the expectation of courtesy.

But let me ask you, sincerely - what was the scene a metaphor of? As a writer, I simply can not accept that Stephen King or the directors of this movie deciding to randomly include such dramatic and crucial scenes for no reason at all.

I don't think anybody's suggesting "no reason". That scene is a key part of the shift in how Coffey is seen, from the violent predator he's been made out to be, to the gentle healer that he actually is.

The stronger the fear at the start of the scene, the greater the shift that can be accomplished by the end. Being grabbed by the dick by a huge man - supposedly a murderer - is a pretty good way to communicate that fear to the audience. Stephen King is first and foremost a horror writer; he understands how to scare people and he understands how a scare can be used for many different purposes.

As Simon and I (and many others) have noted, the film has strong echoes of Christian spirituality. Coffey is shown as effectively casting out demons (he expels Paul's sickness as a cloud of flies, commonly associated with demons - cf. Beelzebub) and the branches of Christianity that are heavily into faith-healing and casting out demons tend to portray divine power as a terrifying thing. Angelic visitations within the Bible are represented as striking great fear into those who receive them, and God has angelic messengers because humans couldn't cope with seeing him directly.

There are a thousand different ways an act of faith healing could proceed.

Indeed. And from what I can recall, at least three different ones are explored in the story.

Of the other two, one concerns healing the warden's wife of her brain tumour (which is portrayed in a way that's also consistent with suggestions of demonic possession). I have known several people with brain tumours and it's not a condition I would think of as sexy, nor can I recall it being portrayed as such in the story. Coffey heals her via a kiss, which is something that shows up many times in the Bible as a non-sexual gesture of friendship/goodwill.

The third act of healing, which I don't think we've mentioned in this conversation, is when Coffey brings a pet mouse back to life after it's killed by a sadistic warder. That seems even harder to tie into any kind of cuckoldry motif - but raising the dead is one of the things Jesus is famous for.

The guard leader could have had a broken wrist or other limb.

But then he would not have been assigned to deal with a death-row inmate considered to be a violent murderer, and the scene could never have happened.

He could have been suffering from some eating ailment.

Maybe, but then how does the scene play out? Touching Paul's belly doesn't provide the same scare to the audience as grabbing his junk.

And why not stop at simply being able to finally urinate properly? Why the follow up with the very sexual scene between Hanks and his wife?

I'd guess to reinforce what a big difference Coffey's healing has made to Paul. Coffey has restored health, including sexual health and marital happiness. But empowering a married man to sexually satisfy his own wife really seems like the opposite of cuckoldry/humiliation; if there's any sexual humiliation present here, it's caused by the infection which Coffey cures.

Put another way, if one was trying to tell this as a "black guy cuckolds and humiliates the white man" story, wouldn't it make more sense to have Paul's embarrassing affliction, and inability to have sex with his wife, come as a consequence of Coffey's intervention?

What's sexual about those scenes? Be specific. I saw that movie a while ago -- at least 12 years or so -- but I remember both those scenes, and I don't remember anything about either of them that was sexual or erotic. Coffey obviously is a Christ figure ("JC," after all).

Indeed, IIRC King's foreword to the books explicitly states that he chose Coffey's name with that in mind, so we have Word of Author on this one.

If you are going to claim that his interactions are sexual, then back up the interpretation with references to specific things about those scenes that make them sexual.

JC's healing of Paul does have some sexual after-effects. But as per my comments above, not ones that fit neatly into a cuckoldry interpretation.

 

[Bramblethorn]

What's sexual about those scenes? Be specific. I saw that movie a while ago -- at least 12 years or so -- but I remember both those scenes, and I don't remember anything about either of them that was sexual or erotic.

If you're interested in having an educated dialogue about this topic I recommend that you first do the required reading - watch the movie.

Here, again, you're mischaracterising the person you're responding to. It's not an attractive habit.

 

[Djmac1031]

Fascinating discussion going on here lol.

All I'm gonna add is that I've watched The Green Mile dozens of times (and read the book) and never saw it as a cuck/humiliation story.

Because, um...it's not lol.

Others above have stated why far more eloquently than I ever could.

But hey, to each their own I guess.

 

[verycuriouswriter]

I see that my initial attempt at humorous hyperbole regarding the movie being about cuckold humiliation didn't translate very well over the internet.

I'll say that was my mistake. I did provide a more serious description of the movie later on in the thread and I invite anyone sincerely interested to revisit it.

That said, I believe we've exhausted our collective capability to productively discuss this topic - at least as far as I am concerned.

Taking a step back, I was reviewing some papers written about humiliation in the media and how widespread it has become. Myra Mendible has done some work in this area and raises some thoughtful points of concern - if you are so inclined.

 

[verycuriouswriter]

This double posted for some reason. Please delete.

 

[SimonDoom]

This double posted for some reason. Please delete.

Alas, it doesn't work that way. You can edit your post to delete all the text, and it looks like you edited it to replace it with this text, but usually these posts remain.

I agree we've said what there is to say about humiliation in the context of Green Mile, but by no means has the broader subject of sexual humiliation and its psychology been exhausted. You could easily write a book on that subject.

What would be especially challenging would be to write a "first-time" humiliation story in a convincingly plausible way -- telling the story of a person who at the beginning has no experience with sexual humiliation as a kink (although perhaps in a not obviously kinky way when younger) and by the end of the story has gone totally over to wanting humiliation. Explaining a sexual conversion is always tricky to do in a plausible way, but I think this one might be harder than most.

 

[verycuriouswriter]

Simon, I looked over your popularly rated hotel exhibitionist stories.

I will say it has strong elements of straightforward humiliation play. The second paragraph:

""Kymberly thought about what Robert had made her do. It embarrassed her, a little, to know she'd put her figure so boldly on display before so many people, and it was doubly embarrassing that these were people in her industry, people with whom she did business or from whom she would try to solicit business, people that she would be socializing with over drinks and dinner later that evening. But the exposure excited her, too. And it was doubly thrilling that she'd put herself in Robert's hands, leaving it to him to decide how and when she would be exposed."

Given some of your statements, I was surprised at this. It's a long series and takes up a fair portion of your submissions.

Perhaps you don't think it as humiliation play because it's happening to a woman?

I have a belief that men who humiliate women do it as a way to safely enjoy humiliation without bruising their fragile egos. They have been humiliated themselves and this is a format in which they can relive those experiences minus the pain. Much like how a victim of abuse grows up to become an abuser themselves.

This is also similar to how being submissive can be a way of sensitively enjoying dominance. In certain relationships, a dominant individual may recognize the insecurity of their partner. By allowing themselves to be humiliated they can vicariously enjoy acts of dominance through their partner's eyes without the guilt of potentially causing emotional discomfort.