Could loneliness be part of the human gene?

[littlebabyjesus]

Women haven't historically gone for powerful, rich men because it represents their phallic power. They've historically gone for powerful, rich men because their own power has been limited and their riches have depended on that of the men in their lives.

But given that humans tend to elevate necessity into something more symbolically profound, you could say that the two are the same - ie the origin of aspects of sexuality is to be found in the social relations of human society. To what extent is human sexuality culturally determined? Quite a great extent, I would have thought.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

But given that humans tend to elevate necessity into something more symbolically profound, you could say that the two are the same - ie the origin of aspects of sexuality is to be found in the social relations of human society. To what extent is human sexuality culturally determined? Quite a great extent, I would have thought.

You have a point, human sexuality is partly determined by society, probably both on an evolutionary level (bonobos anyone?) and on a more immediate societal level. The problems with some sorts of psychoanalytic theories though is they seem to place political power imbalances within the inherent (and thus unchanging) qualities of humans.

 

[kavenism]

You have a point, human sexuality is partly determined by society, probably both on an evolutionary level (bonobos anyone?) and on a more immediate societal level. The problems with some sorts of psychoanalytic theories though is they seem to place political power imbalances within the inherent (and thus unchanging) qualities of humans.

And this is indeed one of the arguments levelled at structuralism in general. I agree that it is a combination of social and evolutionary determinism, however I think from a Lacanian viewpoint the social, or socially mediated aspect would appear as a shifting of signifiers for specific functions. (Like the phallic function) Before the rise of global capitalism and finance geeky men in suits did not signify Phallus as they clearly do now. I feel much of this is linked in with money fetishism and false conciousness but at it´s base the structure of this kind of socially mediated signification is consistant with Lacans schema.

The schema is not wholly negative either it only points out that men and women require a level of fantasmatic distenciation to become intimate. This shouldn´t be so suprising, imagine how bizzare sex would be without the basic fantasy element we all experience.

 

[kavenism]

Just saw this 0n Lacan.com, this was written by Jacques Alain Miller (Lacans son in law I think?) about Sarah Palin, it has a lot to do with Phallus!! And I seem to have been corrected, it´s not a evolutionary absolute, but in fact only a semblance!! Unless the semblance IS the evolutionary absolute, in which case those cave women were so duped its unreal!! Check it out.


The choice of Sarah Palin is a sign of the times. In politics, the feminine enunciation is hence called to dominate. But be careful! It's no longer about women who play elbows, modeling themselves on the men. We are entering an era of postfeminist women, women who, without bargaining, are ready to kill the political men. The transition was perfectly visible during Hillary's campaign: she began playing the commander in chief and, since that didn't work, what did she do? She sent a subliminal message, one that said something like: "Obama? He's got nothing in the pants." And she immediately took it back, but it was too late. Sarah Palin is not only picking up where she left off but, being younger by fifteen years, she is otherwise ferocious, slinging feminine sarcasm like a natural; she overtly castrates her male adversaries (and with such frank jubilation!) and their only recourse is to remain silent: they have no idea how to attack a woman who uses her femininity to ridicule them and reduce them to impotence. For the moment, a woman who plays the "castration" card is invincible.

In France, we were able to see Ségolène accomplish Operation "Castration" on Fabius and Strauss-Kahn, but, subsequently, she tried to give herself a motherly image and thus she neglected Sarkozy, who was able to paint her as a twit. And thus she joined the ranks of Martine Aubry or Michele Alliot-Marie, the standard models...

What is the precise difference between the women of these two generations? The first ones imitated man, respected the phallus, and performed as if they had one. The second wave knows that the phallus is only a semblance and, furthermore, one not to be taken seriously: it is the de-complexified femininity. A Sarah Palin puts forward no lack: she fears nothing, churns out children all while holding a shotgun, and presents herself as an unstoppable force, "a pitbull with lipstick".

Has Obama already lost? By not choosing Hillary as his partner – in the instances of his spouse, who is quite a pitbull herself – he paved the way for McCain to drive right in. Thanks to Palin, McCain is back in the race. Sarah impassions America, she brings a new Eros to politics. If Obama wins, she has better chances to be his challenger in four years. If it's McCain, Hillary will be his number one adversary. In any case, a new race of political women rise to power.