/lit/ - Literature

that's that whole genitality thing. Babies get off all across their body. Zoom-zoom! it's one big libidinal skin! Then come mummy-daddy-sucky-wucky, say, "Here! Lo! this tit, lo! this prick, I will make a subject of you yet!"

>>20154349
>was a psychoanalyst retarded
You didn’t need to ask this

>>20154417
thank you for your participation

>>20154349
just skip to derrida

>>20154587
what is the link??

>>20154349
>Does Lacan really think erogenous zones are socially constructed?
Doesn't the internet prove a person can be aroused by literally anything? Why wouldn't this have mediating social factors?

>>20154349
>Does Lacan really think erogenous zones are socially constructed?
The existence of fetishes towards partial objects that have nothing to do with reproduction (the most obvious being feet) is a pretty clear indication that erogenous zones are not instinctive. We aren’t born with an attraction to tiddies- we are breastfed by mommy milkies and then weened, which creates a desire for boobies motivated by lack. Incidentally this is one of the biggest contentions for Deleuze and Guatarri in anti-Oedipus, who see desire in terms of a positive, productive force (desiring production) rather than a void to be satiated/fantasy to be fulfilled.

>>20154349
>>20154600
>>20154611
I've never understood why people seethe whenever someone points out something is socially constructed. Just because a thing is socially constructed doesn't make it a bad thing or an inherently evil thing.

>>20154634
Probably because they don’t believe in it. Imo anyone who insists on aligning themselves entirely on one side of the nature vs nurture debate is retarded and dogmatic. The people who think everything is determined by evolution or genetic code are just as bad as the people who think everything is socially constructed. There are obviously behaviours that evolve over millions of years (like breastfeeding), but the eroticisation of breasts is inessential to the reproductive process, any partial object can be an object of desire. So it should be a reasonable enough assumption that erogenous zones are socially constructed, there is nothing inherently sexual about tig ol’ bitties (gotta love em tho)

>>20154611
Unfortunately foot fetishism is a bad example. It is scientifically explained by the fact that in some people the parts of the brain related to sex and feet are both located in the sensory cortex and overlap

>We aren’t born with an attraction to tiddies
How can you say that?

>Incidentally this is one of the biggest contentions for Deleuze and Guatarri in anti-Oedipus, who see desire in terms of a positive, productive force (desiring production) rather than a void to be satiated/fantasy to be fulfilled.

Are they saying that in Anti-Oedipus? It indeed seems weird in view of their positive conception of desire...

>>20154634
Don't get me wrong i have no problem with social construction, i am just bothered with this lacanian explanation which seems weird to me

>>20154634
They are used to hearing it as an attack on their own beliefs. But social constructs are no different from jet fighters and tanks, and no country has sought to exclude them from its arsenal because they can do damage in the hands of an enemy.

I was told Lacan used a lot of math, but taking a peek he seems to use just a little of some sort of pseudo-math instead of actual math. Well, which one is it?

>>20154349
Seems more like a material production of erogenous zones based on the mixture of largely pre-representational forces. It's not as if this is a conscious construct, but more like an intermixing of flows which produce a stable structure of zones.

>>20155111
>but more like an intermixing of flows which produce a stable structure of zones
what are these flows?

all the 20th century French intellectuals are up their own asses with their dumb words and that’s just in English

>>20154903
>It is scientifically explained by the fact that in some people the parts of the brain related to sex and feet are both located in the sensory cortex and overlap
Do you have a source for this? Could it be possible that the neuroplasticity of a child’s brain could account for that overlap developing later in life, rather than being something inherent from birth?

>Are they saying that in Anti-Oedipus?
Im saying they are resisting Lacan’s definition of desire as lack (ie, we want titties because we were weened off them).

Yes

>>20155031
He uses what you might call mathemes, mathematical concepts and iconography to explain certain ideas. For example he describes desire “asymptotically”- that is to say, approaching infinitely but never reaching its fulfilment. Also, the square root of negative 1 is the phallus (apparently), but trying to explain that one is about as difficult as explaining how planes stay in the air.

There are cool concepts and terms that come from Lacan which you msotly get from reading other people who have studied him, but actually reading this dude is jsut total mind numbing retardation.
How is that possible

>>20154349
>is he retarded
Sounds like it.
>does he really think
Sounds like it. What I'm wondering is why they chose to use the term schizophrenia when it's a well established physical disease of the brain. Were they trying to muddy the waters?

>>20154349
>socially constructed
Even if he's right. this isn't social constructivism.

>>20155436
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219312424
https://www.audacy.com/kluv/latest/biologist-explains-why-some-people-have-foot-fetishes

>Im saying they are resisting Lacan’s definition of desire as lack (ie, we want titties because we were weened off them).
Ok i misunderstood you, i thought you were saying that they agreed on this special point and thus pointing a contradiction in their thought

>>20155477
Chomsky nailed the guy by calling him a charlatan commented by non-retards that actually got something productive out of him.

all psychobabble implicitly justifies hedonism.
you can get pleasure from things other than sucking on a tit.

>>20155538
OP is probably a nigger

>>20155527
there are things classified in the dsm that are pretty much schizo-lite or schizo-adjacent.
there are many maladies to the mind that present as schzophrenia but are not schizophrenia.
public gets hyperbolic worried about labels like "crazy" so they prime themselves to root out insanity at its first whiff.
but insanity is really a label you use when you really know someone, not for 15 minutes in a doctors room.

bros how was Freud so groundbreaking I'm in absolute awe at his output

>>20155884
He wanted to fuck his mom and projected his own internal struggle with desire and prohibition into a grand cosmology about the nature of sexuality. He was massively wrong on a number of fronts, but that kind of searing self-insight is something to behold in of itself. So while lots of freud’s ideas are inherently flawed, he did stumble onto a process of self-analysis that allows us to Illuminate the mechanisms of repression that makes us feel and think the way we do.

>>20154349
I expected you to quote some stranger text. The one you cite makes perfect sense and is pretty tame. Your conclusion about social construction can't be inferred from this passage too.

>>20156326
could you then explain to me what I missed ?

>>20155477
He had some good ideas but like Marx or Freud or whomever but he takes it too far and in his successors it devolves into unintelligible babble.

Reading any of these crit theory guys is like an exercise in archaeology. You have to dig through a lot of dirt and mud to get to some truly insightful ideas... but like in fictive archaeology, there are also booby traps. You could get led down a blind alley or brainwashed in a pseudo-lovecraftian manner.

I think that ultimately the treasure you can find is worth it, but there's a real risk.

>>20155873
Schizophrenia is a specific unmistakeable thing. Let me talk to a schizo off their meds for 1 minute and I can identify them with 100 percent accuracy.

>>20154597
>link
https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/27/teenage-girls-want-relationships-with-older-men-thats-why-its-their-responsibility-to-say-no-7032490/

>>20155884
He was a jew living in an immediately post christian culture. There was a great deal of psycho-spiritual energy floating around from the ages immediately following the Church's reign. At least where he lived Catholicism was still the norm. He was baptized secretly as a boy, etc.

Jews are generally OP and historically were actually *rigorists* in comparison to Christians, see the merchant of venice. Also see the whole phenomenon of Phariseeism—Christ's criticism of them was that they trusted in their own strength; Rabbinic judaism is the extension of Phariseeism, not the (comparitively worldly and laxist) Sadducceism.

So when Jews abruptly cease to practice their religion, they become extremely dangerous within a few generations. But this danger comes from their great intellectual and spiritual strength. As there is no tradition of celibacy in Judaism, intellectual/psychic/religious acuity gets sharpened over the generations to a degree unprecedented in Catholicism or Eastern Christianity (where the most spiritually adept join monasteries).

This is why like so many jews he was so brilliant and why, like Marx, he did so much damage to the world.

>>20154349
I can see his point but why do I hate noses?

>>20154349
He probably did, but I think it's hard to argue that human sexuality is "unnatural" in a way you don't see among animals. I think that Lacanian psych tends to focus on this dimension, probably to the point where it neglects whatever is purely animalistic. But on the other hand the two are ultimately inextricable, as everything animal gets caught up in the internal void where God is absent (original sin); all are stamped with concupiscence which is not lost until death or paradise (whichever comes first).

>>20157160
>is *NOT "unnatural"

>>20157160
Moreover the French are well-known drama queens. It's more interesting (more dramatic) to frame sexuality as this tragic drama rather than some tedious and horribly static "given."

The struggle against it is the only real drama, and that only if motivated by some higher goal. Otherwise it fades into the background

>>20157151
Noses = dicks. Take this as you like

>>20155588
You have to be naive to believe these voodoo correlations. Neurosciences are fraudulent.

>>20154611
>The existence of fetishes towards partial objects that have nothing to do with reproduction (the most obvious being feet) is a pretty clear indication that erogenous zones are not instinctive.
Not really. How would you prove that? You're just making an assumption with no evidence. Show us the logical connection between some stupid weirdo masturbating to pictures of feet and erogenous zone somehow being purely socially constructed.

>We aren’t born with an attraction to tiddies- we are breastfed by mommy milkies and then weened, which creates a desire for boobies motivated by lack.
There's no proof for this. Again, this is a made up assertion. It's a just-so story.

Idk. Didn't the guy say that jealousy is also pathological? Like, even if a guy's suspicions about his wife sleeping with other men is true he would still just be pathologically jealous because he shouldn't "use jealousy to maintain his self-identity." These psychologists use a lot of assumptions and biases to their own analysis in order to prove their own preconceived point.

>>20159004
As opposed to Lacan's schizobabble screeds?

>>20155884
The nose knows...

>>20159660
>How would you prove that?
Why do people get off on candlewax being dripped onto their body despite it being painful? Because they've received some kind of conditioning to make it so.

>Show us the logical connection between some stupid weirdo masturbating to pictures of feet and erogenous zone somehow being purely socially constructed
Rewiring of neural pathways in the brain leads certain stimuli to induce sexual arousal, or outright pleasure. Mass neural rewiring leads to masses viewing, and indeed having, certain seemingly unsexual parts of the body as an erogenous zone. Girls in particular are really susceptible to this, you can make a woman do whatever the fuck you want in the bedroom if you ease her into it.

>There's no proof for this.
We can look at other societies and compare them to ours.

The problem with this theory is of course that humans are the way we are because of parts and mechanisms and Lacan's theories derive from reacting against the Continental garbage of the 19th century (like Kant and Hegel) which was still holding onto the idea that the brain and body were blackboxes whose inner workings could not be understood; to that end, men like Lacan took the opposite route, that the body and brain are totally malleable and very easily changed. The obvious problem here is that we're born with certain erogenous zones and can't change them (it doesn't matter how much you meme yourself into liking scalps, a scalp doesn't have as many nerve endings as a finger), so while Lacan is correct that social behavior can influence how we view sexuality, it will be constrained by the limits of biology (this is why men have always liked big titties, wide hips, thin waists, even in societies where female beauty standards say otherwise).

All you want is to go back to the days of Hegel's "hurf durf you can't observe your own brain durrr" garbage so that we can reinforce certain moral structures for the purposes of Jewish capital), as this allows you to ignore the effects that society has on people and instead place it entirely on some kind of fabricated "individual" who is immoral ("you're immoral for wanting to suck on toes ignore that Shlomo is shoving crap in your head that makes you want to suck on toes").

>>20159828
>Why do people get off on candlewax being dripped onto their body despite it being painful? Because they've received some kind of conditioning to make it so.
Again, you're just making an assertion. A just-so story.

>Rewiring of neural pathways in the brain leads certain stimuli to induce sexual arousal, or outright pleasure. Mass neural rewiring
"rewiring of neural pathways" is a bunch of sci-fi buzzwords. You sound like a schizo on /x/ talking about how microwave ovens and radio stations beam energy waves into their head. You're not making any specific, credible claim here. "neural rewiring" LOL like what, you build a new conduit rack and pull number 10s and demo the romex?

>>20159828
The only thing you give a shit about is the fact that people think you are weird for being a foot fetishist. Nobody disagrees that society has an effect on the individual but They usually mean in terms of beliefs and ideas.
What kind of conditioning would it take to make a man like having hot wax dripped on his body? What would it take for a man to like to eat literal shit? Then there's the problem of whether eating shit, no matter how much you may like it, should in any way be accepted or tolerated, maybe it's just objectively bad? There is absolutely nothing about Lacan that proves that the reason men like boobs is because we used to suck on them as infants, a period from which we remember absolutely nothing about ourselves.

>>20159856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurology

>>20159863
I'm not into feet, but foot fetishes are actually a really good example of what I'm talking about because people aren't just memed into them, they're born with them. It's unironically hereditary.

>What kind of conditioning would it take to make a man like having hot wax dripped on his body? What would it take for a man to like to eat literal shit?
Porn addiction, combined with a community that supports it, seems to be a big culprit. While we can assume that there are just fucked up weirdos who are always cropping up in incredibly small numbers (yes "one dude" in a country of millions is "small") these two factors (porn and fetish communities) do seem to play a role in spreading them. Trannies and gays (if we ignore the religious baggage trannies are just crossdressers and fags are just dudes who fetishize other dudes) both openly talk about "spreading" their sexual proclivities. Pedophiles do the same.

>Then there's the problem of whether eating shit, no matter how much you may like it, should in any way be accepted or tolerated, maybe it's just objectively bad?
I don't disagree at all, and that's precisely the point I was making at the end of my post. The reason people hold onto blackbox-brain stuff is because it introduces a radical subjectivity. If you were born a shiteater, who is anyone else to judge? It can't be changed, that's just the way that you are. But if you were made to eat the shit, then that's an effect which had at least one cause, and we can fix it, and prevent it.

>There is absolutely nothing about Lacan that proves that the reason men like boobs is because we used to suck on them as infants, a period from which we remember absolutely nothing about ourselves.
Right, and that's why I said this, there are some things that aren't you just getting memed into getting hard for something dumb, but are in fact just simple biology that you were born with.

>>20159877
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurology
More sci-fi buzzwords. Come back when you have an argument.