1. Freud keeps bringing up the notion of love in relation to sexuality, and I am wondering how such an abstract emotion fits into the formation of sexual objects and fetishes.
2. How do we go from the taking of nourishment to the orgasm?What is the connection between eating and sex, and is there any validity to or conclusion to be drawn from the link between the two?
3. Does pleasure always give rise to a need for greater pleasure?How does this fit in to a discussion of commodification and object desire?
4 (Essay on Fetishism). Freud describes the fetish as standing in for something (the mother's imagined phallus) that a boy once believed in and doesn't wish to forego. How does this fit in to a discussion of nostalgia?
--Marguerite
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I was interested in the third question, too, trying to find an analogue between the tension, the shifting focus from eye to hand to genitals, in commodification.
Honestly, I don't think it holds water, simply because there's no biological imperative and established end-goal of commodification. Unless it's advanced, in a given capitalist, to the point of something like a gambling addiction, there's no hormonal buildup, no tingling of the nervous system. I think the best example of this would be: if we aren't presented with something to buy for a long time, there's no equivalent to a wet dream. Unless there's a whole secret economy being kept under wraps, I don't think anyone has nocturnal acquisitions.
But re-reading your question, I'm way off topic. I think commodification and object desire work as imperfect sublimations of the desire for sexual pleasure. There's no physical elation, but there's still, in our society, depending on your level of thriftiness, a sense of something being accomplished when you buy. I wonder what Freud's "normal" state of consumerism would be, and if thriftiness would count as a perversion? Or vice versa?
Post a Comment