Hi
What a fascinating issue you've raised!
"Mancuso, James C." wrote:
> I pondered on the social constructions that are relevant to this
> scene.... Why has sex been so much a center of efforts to construe
> self? Why have social commentators spent so much time attempting to
> construe this particular piece of human behavior?
> Foucault said that he wanted to attempt to explain why the topic
> of sex, which is said to be less discussed than needs be, is the most
> discussed topic in human history!!!
There's this lecture by Jung I especially enjoyed; when asked for his
opinion on Freud's theory of libido, he answered: "I have no such
difficulties in relation to desires. As a boy I lived in the country and
took things very naturally, and all those unnatural things Freud talks
about were of no interest to me".
> But, seriously, why is sex so much a part of self definition?
> I have made the claim that the purveyers of sexual competence as
> a superordinate construction in self defintion have a mercantile
> interest in having this become a superordinate. If they can convince
> people that sexual competence is a superordinate, then they can make
> all kinds of constuctions into subordinate -- hair color, bicep size,
> girth, pearly teeth, body odor, etc., etc.
>
Reminds me of Fromm's discussions about the capitalist society -where
you have to consider yourself as a product, lying in the open market of
culture, trying to sell itself to whoever comes in the way. So forget
yourself and the way you are! Enhace the culturally preferred ones! Be
handsome, have a "great personality", be a "good talker"! MAybe doing so
you'll be able to raise your price or expand your market share!
> But why choose that as a superordinate that deserves so much
> attention? Consider how much psychiatrists and psychologists have
> been involved in helping sexual competence to become a
> superordinate!! Aren't there other possible superordinates?
> Perhaps that is the superordinate of choice for the merchants
> because it is available to anyone. If self identity gains warrant
> through sexual attractiveness, then anyone can strive for
> attractiveness [although, considering western societies' standards, it
> is harder for some people]. To put it directly, any woman can get on
> her back, and any male can get it up [and for those who can't they are
> now working on a nasal spray for Viagra -- instant erection is
> possible!!!].
And, on the other hand, there is a lot of subjects tangled with "sex" in
the current cultural web: power, satisfaction, money, attractiveness
(sex-appeal?), you name it. We lift the web by the "sex" spot -in the
intersection of all those other wires, and pretend to find there the
crux of all the other problems. (At least, Freud and Reich did...) Maybe
is the oversimplification involved, the ensuing constriction, what
grants the popularity of this kind of preemption.
>
> What are some thoughts on why sexual action [and associated
> attractiveness/prowess] has been so much a center of social
> construction efforts..
>
> Why do so many people, like Dante, swoon at the thought of eternal
> punishment because of a little twenty-minute encounter? Why do 60
> percent of USA citizens swoon at the thought that WJC could be chased
> out of the presidency because he lied (perhaps) about a couple of
> twenty-minute encounters? Why would a person who has accomplished as
> much as WJC figure that his self definition demanded that he even risk
> his position in order to engage in such twenty-minute encounters?
>
> And, I hope that -- on this net -- I don't find comments such as:
> "He has a powerful sex drive."
> "He is pathologically addicted to sex.'
> "He's only human."
> etc....
>
> Jim Mancuso
>
But we're only human... :-)
Best wishes,
Esteban Laso
eslaso@ibm.net
You can respond to this e-mail online.
If you have ICQ my ICQ# is 10231215
If you don't have ICQ you can send me e-mail to
10231215@pager.mirabilis.com
You can download ICQ at http://www.icq.com/
--------------AB007E6FF1DA52545BBFA751
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi
What a fascinating issue you've raised!
"Mancuso, James C." wrote:
I pondered on the social constructions that are relevant to this scene.... Why has sex been so much a center of efforts to construe self? Why have social commentators spent so much time attempting to construe this particular piece of human behavior?There's this lecture by Jung I especially enjoyed; when asked for his opinion on Freud's theory of libido, he answered: "I have no such difficulties in relation to desires. As a boy I lived in the country and took things very naturally, and all those unnatural things Freud talks about were of no interest to me".
Foucault said that he wanted to attempt to explain why the topic of sex, which is said to be less discussed than needs be, is the most discussed topic in human history!!!
But, seriously, why is sex so much a part of self definition?Reminds me of Fromm's discussions about the capitalist society -where you have to consider yourself as a product, lying in the open market of culture, trying to sell itself to whoever comes in the way. So forget yourself and the way you are! Enhace the culturally preferred ones! Be handsome, have a "great personality", be a "good talker"! MAybe doing so you'll be able to raise your price or expand your market share!
I have made the claim that the purveyers of sexual competence as a superordinate construction in self defintion have a mercantile interest in having this become a superordinate. If they can convince people that sexual competence is a superordinate, then they can make all kinds of constuctions into subordinate -- hair color, bicep size, girth, pearly teeth, body odor, etc., etc.
But why choose that as a superordinate that deserves so much attention? Consider how much psychiatrists and psychologists have been involved in helping sexual competence to become a superordinate!! Aren't there other possible superordinates?
Perhaps that is the superordinate of choice for the merchants because it is available to anyone. If self identity gains warrant through sexual attractiveness, then anyone can strive for attractiveness [although, considering western societies' standards, it is harder for some people]. To put it directly, any woman can get on her back, and any male can get it up [and for those who can't they are now working on a nasal spray for Viagra -- instant erection is possible!!!].And, on the other hand, there is a lot of subjects tangled with "sex" in the current cultural web: power, satisfaction, money, attractiveness (sex-appeal?), you name it. We lift the web by the "sex" spot -in the intersection of all those other wires, and pretend to find there the crux of all the other problems. (At least, Freud and Reich did...) Maybe is the oversimplification involved, the ensuing constriction, what grants the popularity of this kind of preemption.
What are some thoughts on why sexual action [and associated attractiveness/prowess] has been so much a center of social construction efforts..Why do so many people, like Dante, swoon at the thought of eternal punishment because of a little twenty-minute encounter? Why do 60 percent of USA citizens swoon at the thought that WJC could be chased out of the presidency because he lied (perhaps) about a couple of twenty-minute encounters? Why would a person who has accomplished as much as WJC figure that his self definition demanded that he even risk his position in order to engage in such twenty-minute encounters?
But we're only human... :-)
And, I hope that -- on this net -- I don't find comments such as:
"He has a powerful sex drive."
"He is pathologically addicted to sex.'
"He's only human."
etc....Jim Mancuso
Esteban Laso
eslaso@ibm.net
You can respond to this e-mail online.
If you have ICQ my ICQ# is 10231215
If you don't have ICQ you can send me e-mail to 10231215@pager.mirabilis.com
You can download ICQ at http://www.icq.com/
--------------AB007E6FF1DA52545BBFA751--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%