Seksualno uznemiravanje i zlostavljanje žena - opšta tema

Monday at 10:32

Jacques Lacan's definition of love is "giving something one doesn't have" - what one often forgets is to add the other half which completes the sentence: "... to someone who doesn't want it." This is confirmed by our most elementary experience when somebody unexpectedly declared passionate love to us — is not the first reaction, preceding the possible positive reply, that something obscene, intrusive, is being forced upon us? This is why, ultimately, passion as such is "politically incorrect": although everything seems permitted, prohibitions are merely displaced. Recall the deadlock of sexuality or art today: is there anything more dull, opportunistic, and sterile than to succumb to the superego injunction of incessantly inventing new artistic transgressions and provocations (the performance artist masturbating on stage or masochistically cutting himself, the sculptor displaying decaying animal corpses or human excrements), or to the parallel injunction to engage in more and more "daring" forms of sexuality... In some "radical" circles in the US, there came recently a proposal to "rethink" the rights of necrophiliacs (those who desire to have sex with dead bodies) — why should they be deprived of it? So the idea was formulated that, in the same way people sign permission for their organs to be used for medical purposes in the case of their sudden death, one should also allow them to sign the permission for their bodies to be given to necrophiliacs to play with them... Is this proposal not the perfect exemplification of how the PC stance realizes Kierkegaard's old insight into how the only good neighbor is a dead neighbor? A dead neighbor — a corpse — is the ideal sexual partner of a "tolerant" subject trying to avoid any harassment: by definition, a corpse cannot be harassed...

On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol... And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight...)? Along the same lines, what the Politically Correct tolerance is giving us is a decaffeinated belief: a belief which does not hurt anyone and does not fully commit even ourselves.

Everything is permitted to today's hedonistic Last Man - you can enjoy everything, BUT deprived of its substance which makes it dangerous. This is why Lacan was right to turn around Dostoyevski's well-known motto: "If God doesn't exist, everything is prohibited!" God is dead, we live in a permissive universe, you should strive for pleasures and happiness — but, in order to have a life full of happiness and pleasures, you should avoid dangerous excesses, be fit, live a healthy life, not harass others... so everything is prohibited if it is not deprived of its substance, and you end up leading a totally regulated life. And the opposite also holds: if there is God, then everything is permitted — to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will. Clearly, a direct link to God justifies our violation of any "merely human" constraints and considerations (as in Stalinism, where the reference to the big Other of historical Necessity justifies absolute ruthlessness).

Today's hedonism combines pleasure with constraint — it is no longer the old notion of the "right measure" between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-Hegelian immediate coincidence of the opposites: action and reaction should coincide, the very thing which causes damage should already be the medicine. It is no longer "Drink coffee, but with moderation!"; it is rather "Drink all the coffee you want, because it is already decaffeinated..." The ultimate example of this stance is chocolate laxative, available in the US, with the paradoxical injunction "Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!" - i.e., of the very thing which causes constipation. And is not a negative proof of the hegemony of this stance the fact that true unconstrained consumption (in all its main forms: drugs, free sex, smoking...) is emerging as the main danger? The fight against these dangers is one of the main investments of today's "biopolitics." Solutions are here desperately sought which would reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative. The main contender is "safe sex" — a term which makes one appreciative of the truth of the old saying "Is having sex with a condom not like taking a shower with a raincoat on?" The ultimate goal would be here, along the lines of decaf coffee, to invent "opium without opium": no wonder marijuana is so popular among liberals who want to legalize it — it already IS a kind of "opium without opium".

The structure of the "chocolate laxative," of a product containing the agent of its own containment, can be discerned throughout today's ideological landscape. There are two topics which determine today's liberal tolerant attitude towards Others: the respect of Otherness, openness towards it, AND the obsessive fear of harassment — in short, the Other is OK insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as the Other is not really Other... This is what is more and more emerging as the central "human right" in late-capitalist society: the right not to be harassed, i.e., to be kept at a safe distance from the others. A similar structure is clearly present in how we relate to capitalist profiteering: it is OK IF it is counteracted with charitable activities — first you amass billions, then you return (part of) them to the needy... And the same goes for war, for the emerging logic of humanitarian or pacifist militarism: war is OK insofar as it really serves to bring about peace, democracy, or to create conditions for distributing humanitarian help. And does the same not hold more and more even for democracy and human rights: it is OK if human rights are "rethought" to include torture and a permanent emergency state, if democracy is cleansed of its populist "excesses"...

In our era of over-sensitivity for "harassment" by the Other, every ethical pressure is experienced as a false front of the violence of power. This stance gives rise to the effort to "rewrite" religious injunctions, making them adequate to our specific condition. Is some command too severe? Let us reformulate it in accordance with our sensitivities! "Thou shalt not commit adultery!" - except if it is emotionally sincere and serves the goal of your profound self-realization... Exemplary is here Donald Spoto's The Hidden Jesus, a New Age tainted "liberal" reading of Christianity, where we can read apropos of divorce: "Jesus clearly denounced divorce and remarriage. /.../ But Jesus did not go further and say that marriages cannot be broken /.../ nowhere else in his teaching is there any situation when he renders a person forever chained to the consequences of sin. His entire treatment of people was to liberate, not to legislate. /.../ It is self-evident that in fact some marriages simply do break down, that commitments are abandoned, that promises are violated and love betrayed." Sympathetic and "liberal" as these lines are, they involve the fatal confusion between emotional ups and downs and an unconditional symbolic commitment which is supposed to hold precisely when it is no longer supported by direct emotions. What Spoto is effectively saying is: "Thou shalt not divorce - except when your marriage 'in fact' breaks down, when it is experienced as an unbearable emotional burden that frustrates your full life" - in short, except when the prohibition to divorce would have regained its full meaning (since who would divorce when his/her marriage still blossoms?)!

https://www.lacan.com/passion.htm

Edited Monday at 10:34 by Verterdegete

Monday at 10:35

@Venom

Sa ogradama tipa "ako mu autentično kaže" samo dokazuješ da su sive zone gigantske. Eno ti citiran SMS u tekstu pa ti baždari da ustanoviš da li je autentično mislila da hoće u kom slučaju koga briga, ili je mislila neautentično u kom slučaju silovanje.

Eksternog autoriteta možeš da se užasavaš ako živiš kao sam svoj gazda na nekoj planini negde, ali ako ne živiš onda mu se podređuješ svakodnevno. Taj autoritet se zove država; određuje ti sve od toga gde smeš da parkiraš bicikl do kog tinejdžera smeš da pojebeš (ako autentično hoće, naravno).

Monday at 10:48

15 minutes ago, Verterdegete said:

Jacques Lacan's definition of love is "giving something one doesn't have" - what one often forgets is to add the other half which completes the sentence: "... to someone who doesn't want it." This is confirmed by our most elementary experience when somebody unexpectedly declared passionate love to us — is not the first reaction, preceding the possible positive reply, that something obscene, intrusive, is being forced upon us? This is why, ultimately, passion as such is "politically incorrect": although everything seems permitted, prohibitions are merely displaced. Recall the deadlock of sexuality or art today: is there anything more dull, opportunistic, and sterile than to succumb to the superego injunction of incessantly inventing new artistic transgressions and provocations (the performance artist masturbating on stage or masochistically cutting himself, the sculptor displaying decaying animal corpses or human excrements), or to the parallel injunction to engage in more and more "daring" forms of sexuality... In some "radical" circles in the US, there came recently a proposal to "rethink" the rights of necrophiliacs (those who desire to have sex with dead bodies) — why should they be deprived of it? So the idea was formulated that, in the same way people sign permission for their organs to be used for medical purposes in the case of their sudden death, one should also allow them to sign the permission for their bodies to be given to necrophiliacs to play with them... Is this proposal not the perfect exemplification of how the PC stance realizes Kierkegaard's old insight into how the only good neighbor is a dead neighbor? A dead neighbor — a corpse — is the ideal sexual partner of a "tolerant" subject trying to avoid any harassment: by definition, a corpse cannot be harassed...

On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol... And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight...)? Along the same lines, what the Politically Correct tolerance is giving us is a decaffeinated belief: a belief which does not hurt anyone and does not fully commit even ourselves.

Everything is permitted to today's hedonistic Last Man - you can enjoy everything, BUT deprived of its substance which makes it dangerous. This is why Lacan was right to turn around Dostoyevski's well-known motto: "If God doesn't exist, everything is prohibited!" God is dead, we live in a permissive universe, you should strive for pleasures and happiness — but, in order to have a life full of happiness and pleasures, you should avoid dangerous excesses, be fit, live a healthy life, not harass others... so everything is prohibited if it is not deprived of its substance, and you end up leading a totally regulated life. And the opposite also holds: if there is God, then everything is permitted — to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will. Clearly, a direct link to God justifies our violation of any "merely human" constraints and considerations (as in Stalinism, where the reference to the big Other of historical Necessity justifies absolute ruthlessness).

Today's hedonism combines pleasure with constraint — it is no longer the old notion of the "right measure" between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-Hegelian immediate coincidence of the opposites: action and reaction should coincide, the very thing which causes damage should already be the medicine. It is no longer "Drink coffee, but with moderation!"; it is rather "Drink all the coffee you want, because it is already decaffeinated..." The ultimate example of this stance is chocolate laxative, available in the US, with the paradoxical injunction "Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!" - i.e., of the very thing which causes constipation. And is not a negative proof of the hegemony of this stance the fact that true unconstrained consumption (in all its main forms: drugs, free sex, smoking...) is emerging as the main danger? The fight against these dangers is one of the main investments of today's "biopolitics." Solutions are here desperately sought which would reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative. The main contender is "safe sex" — a term which makes one appreciative of the truth of the old saying "Is having sex with a condom not like taking a shower with a raincoat on?" The ultimate goal would be here, along the lines of decaf coffee, to invent "opium without opium": no wonder marijuana is so popular among liberals who want to legalize it — it already IS a kind of "opium without opium".

The structure of the "chocolate laxative," of a product containing the agent of its own containment, can be discerned throughout today's ideological landscape. There are two topics which determine today's liberal tolerant attitude towards Others: the respect of Otherness, openness towards it, AND the obsessive fear of harassment — in short, the Other is OK insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as the Other is not really Other... This is what is more and more emerging as the central "human right" in late-capitalist society: the right not to be harassed, i.e., to be kept at a safe distance from the others. A similar structure is clearly present in how we relate to capitalist profiteering: it is OK IF it is counteracted with charitable activities — first you amass billions, then you return (part of) them to the needy... And the same goes for war, for the emerging logic of humanitarian or pacifist militarism: war is OK insofar as it really serves to bring about peace, democracy, or to create conditions for distributing humanitarian help. And does the same not hold more and more even for democracy and human rights: it is OK if human rights are "rethought" to include torture and a permanent emergency state, if democracy is cleansed of its populist "excesses"...

In our era of over-sensitivity for "harassment" by the Other, every ethical pressure is experienced as a false front of the violence of power. This stance gives rise to the effort to "rewrite" religious injunctions, making them adequate to our specific condition. Is some command too severe? Let us reformulate it in accordance with our sensitivities! "Thou shalt not commit adultery!" - except if it is emotionally sincere and serves the goal of your profound self-realization... Exemplary is here Donald Spoto's The Hidden Jesus, a New Age tainted "liberal" reading of Christianity, where we can read apropos of divorce: "Jesus clearly denounced divorce and remarriage. /.../ But Jesus did not go further and say that marriages cannot be broken /.../ nowhere else in his teaching is there any situation when he renders a person forever chained to the consequences of sin. His entire treatment of people was to liberate, not to legislate. /.../ It is self-evident that in fact some marriages simply do break down, that commitments are abandoned, that promises are violated and love betrayed." Sympathetic and "liberal" as these lines are, they involve the fatal confusion between emotional ups and downs and an unconditional symbolic commitment which is supposed to hold precisely when it is no longer supported by direct emotions. What Spoto is effectively saying is: "Thou shalt not divorce - except when your marriage 'in fact' breaks down, when it is experienced as an unbearable emotional burden that frustrates your full life" - in short, except when the prohibition to divorce would have regained its full meaning (since who would divorce when his/her marriage still blossoms?)!

https://www.lacan.com/passion.htm

Kul. Ti veruj u to, imaš pravo na to. S metapozicije posmatrati stvari....

Monday at 10:49

U državi u kojoj ja želim da živim, država reguliše da bi ljudi mogli da funkcionišu u zajedničkom životu. To znači da ne mogu da parkiram bicikl gde hoću, jer postoje recimo ljudi u kolicima kojima blokiram put. Kakve to veze eventualno ima sa odnosom dve osobe, ne znam.

Ako pak doživljavaš državu kao nešto gde neko dominira nad drugim ljudima da bi zadovoljio svoje potrebe, onda to objašnjava tvoje stavove. Ali mislim da bi ti koristilo da nađeš neku osobu nad kojom će da ispoljiš svoje potrebe za dominacijom u nekakvom odnosu na zadovoljstvo svih.

Monday at 10:49

Just now, Svemir Zeka said:

Kul. Ti veruj u to, imaš pravo na to. S metapozicije posmatrati stvari....

pa dobro, za razliku od standarda foruma na koje smo navikli, lepo je imati i jedno ozbiljno teorijski da ne kažem filozofsko /no pun intended/ utemeljenje.

odličan verter.

Monday at 10:54

Just now, Eleniko said:

pa dobro, za razliku od standarda foruma na koje smo navikli, lepo je imati i jedno ozbiljno teorijski da ne kažem filozofsko /no pun intended/ utemeljenje.

odličan verter.

To je samo jedno mišljenje. Mogla bih da krenem da se razbacujem kako s teorijama koje podržavaju, tako i onima koje osporavaju, ali ovo mi deluje kao metapozicija: s višeg nivoa i s ideološkim uplivom komentarišeš da nešto ne može da bude.

Prva stvar u toj filozofiji jeste biti kakav jesi i kako možeš da postojiš, a možeš postojati i biti na mnogo više načina od ovoga kako nam je predstavljeno.

Monday at 10:55

Što se tiče filozofije, da sam filozof, meni bi bilo zanimljivije da analiziram taj odnos iz ugla da je potlačeni taj koji kontroliše šta se dešava. Ali za to ni morali da se spustimo na zemlju i pokušamo da razumemo ljude. Sva sreća pa sam ja stolar.

Monday at 10:55

sista, imamo diskusiju, bez vređanja za početak - čudo za ovdašnje standarde.

Monday at 10:58

3 minutes ago, Venom said:

odnos iz ugla da je potlačeni taj koji kontroliše šta se dešava.

Upravo tako.

Monday at 11:14

18 minutes ago, Venom said:

Što se tiče filozofije, da sam filozof, meni bi bilo zanimljivije da analiziram taj odnos iz ugla da je potlačeni taj koji kontroliše šta se dešava.

Za to bi ti trebao neko ozbiljniji od brendiranog stand-up komičara Žižeka.

Edited Monday at 11:14 by Amos

Monday at 11:28

41 minutes ago, Verterdegete said:

In our era of over-sensitivity for "harassment" by the Other, every ethical pressure is experienced as a false front of the violence of power. This stance gives rise to the effort to "rewrite" religious injunctions, making them adequate to our specific condition. Is some command too severe? Let us reformulate it in accordance with our sensitivities!

https://www.lacan.com/passion.htm

Evo samo ovaj deo: pa upravo je religija prepuna "može sve" momenata. Od oko za oko, do "okreni drugi obraz".

Jedno od objašnjenja može da bude da je religija za ljude i pošto su ljudi kompleksni, onda imaju različita osećanja i različite potrebe od trenutka do trenutka. I onda su jedan dan u raspoloženju za osvetu i pročitaju "oko za oko" i sve je u redu. Naredni dan se osećaju miroljubivo, pročitaju "okreni drugi obraz" i to je isto u redu. Ljudi koji zadovoljavaju svoje potrebe su zadovoljni ljudi.

S druge strane kad pokušavaš da filozofiraš u prazno nevezano za potrebe ljudi, završiš sa rigidnim pravilima šta može, a šta ne može u svakom smislu i to doživljavam kao oblik mentalne masturbacije.

Monday at 11:30

27 minutes ago, Venom said:

U državi u kojoj ja želim da živim, država reguliše da bi ljudi mogli da funkcionišu u zajedničkom životu. To znači da ne mogu da parkiram bicikl gde hoću, jer postoje recimo ljudi u kolicima kojima blokiram put. Kakve to veze eventualno ima sa odnosom dve osobe, ne znam.

Ma znaš, samo se praviš.

Povlačiš oštru distinkciju između regulisanja odnosa dvoje ljudi koji jedno drugom prepreče put biciklom, i regulisanja odnosa dvoje ljudi koji jedno drugom guraju penis u dupe. Jedno ti je sasvim razumna svakodnevna stvar, a drugo ti je užasavajuća borg asimilacija.

Dok u stvari vrlo dobro znaš da država uveliko radi i jedno i drugo, samo je pitanje mere.

27 minutes ago, Venom said:

Ako pak doživljavaš državu kao nešto gde neko dominira nad drugim ljudima da bi zadovoljio svoje potrebe, onda to objašnjava tvoje stavove. Ali mislim da bi ti koristilo da nađeš neku osobu nad kojom će da ispoljiš svoje potrebe za dominacijom u nekakvom odnosu na zadovoljstvo svih.

Ne znam šta ti sad treba ovo trapavo postavljanje dijagnoza i unsolicited advice.

Pričali smo sasvim normalno o slučaju Gaiman/Palmer, moj zaključak je bio da uterivanje consenta vodi takvim ishodima, da društvo/država delegira odgovornost na pojedinca koji nije uvek sposoban da donosi izbore smisleno i slobodno kako se zamišlja.

Ti ne bi da se otvoreno zauzmeš za NG, zato zauzimaš "koga briga, consenting adults" poziciju iza koje se upravo on uspešno krije. Kažeš da te užasava ideja da neki eksterni autoritet reguliše odnos dve osobe.

A kad ti ja kažem da upravo to svaka država radi, ti nepametno zaključuješ kako ja u stvari želim da dominiram drugima putem državnog autoriteta, pa mi preporučuješ da te potrebe zadovoljim drugde, na ličnom nivou :isuse:

Kontroliši malo te izlive liberalizma u mozak, najučtivije te molim.

Monday at 11:37

Ako si iz svega zaključio da bih ja da se zauzmem za Gajmana, ne znam šta da ti kažem.

Mogu samo da ponovim: ne želim da živim u državi koja se bavi time šta rade dve odrasle osobe u svoja četiri zida. Distinkcija između te dve osobe i dve osobe koje moraju da dele prostor je očigledna. Između jednih postoji konflikt ili potencijalni konflikt, između drugih ne postoji. Dakle država kao neko ko rešava ili sprečava konflikt između ljudi, a ne kao arbitar šta je prihvatljivo a šta nije.

Monday at 11:44

3 minutes ago, Venom said:

Ako si iz svega zaključio da bih ja da se zauzmem za Gajmana, ne znam šta da ti kažem.

Mogu samo da ponovim: ne želim da živim u državi koja se bavi time šta rade dve odrasle osobe u svoja četiri zida. Distinkcija između te dve osobe i dve osobe koje moraju da dele prostor je očigledna. Između jednih postoji konflikt ili potencijalni konflikt, između drugih ne postoji. Dakle država kao neko ko rešava ili sprečava konflikt između ljudi, a ne kao arbitar šta je prihvatljivo a šta nije.

To što ponavljaš je 1/1 Gaimanova odbrana: dve odrasle osobe, četiri zida, šta ko ima tu da se meša.

Stvari nisu tako jednostavne kad jedna od dve odrasle osobe kaže da se predomislila, što smo videli bezbroj puta.

Sistem evidentno ne funkcioniše, a ti sležeš ramenima i užasavaš se pomisli da bi ikakav drugačiji mogao da postoji.

Monday at 14:00

Nope.

Sign In

Seksualno uznemiravanje i zlostavljanje žena - opšta tema

Recommended Posts

Verterdegete

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Valk

Posted Images

Weenie Pooh

Svemir Zeka

Venom

Eleniko

Svemir Zeka

Venom

Eleniko

Svemir Zeka

Amos

Venom

Weenie Pooh

Venom

Weenie Pooh

Venom

Browse

Activity