News - First Comic - Latest Comic - Archive - Gallery Curiosities Blog Downloads Add To Favorites - RSS

chapter 5 - page 29

July 11th, 2010, 2:24 am

Average Rating: 5.00

<< First < Previous Next > Most Recent >>

Author's Comments

dedasaur, July 11th, 2010, 7:41 am

Oh yes! That's the one! :D

BTW, yes, Lio is total Sigmund Freud... but notice how nice she is to him. I mean she doesn't just jump the poor thing and use him for sex... she listens to his problems LOL

She's a total Florence Nightingale! XDDD

Advertisement, August 16th, 2017, 4:32 pm

dedasaur, November 8th, 2010, 3:18 am

But that, to me, is more into the realm of ethology than psychology... we are thinking animals... it's what you call imprinting.
For sure Freud did a lot for psychology but some of it, you have to admit, is mumbo jumbo nowadays.

Beside he confined homosexuality to "illness"... the limits are of course not in the researcher but in the fact that the studies are based on a society that does not exist anymore and cannot be applied to a society of images.

dedasaur, November 8th, 2010, 5:07 am

That's right... that is why we need to place things in time in order to get the right dimension to it.
I don't think the mind can be explored that easily and the time he lived in were the limit.

Darwin... don't let me started on that... they still haven't found a missing link... to me if they can explain how life sparked they can also explain where the missing link is.

But I am a skeptical person to the very end: the World was born with me and it will die with me... everything else is a figment of my imagination XDDDD

dedasaur, November 8th, 2010, 6:31 am

Cannot explain, lah. XD
That's why I said... I don't believe completely in absolute hahahahaha.

User's Comments

elianthos, July 11th, 2010, 4:44 am

Aww... Lio would have worked wonders in Sigmund's Vienna ;D .

*files Wes' gesture in the top panel in mental closet* -->it's the first time we see him doing that. I remember you told me this is one of his 'emotional turmoil' signature gestures.

elianthos, July 11th, 2010, 3:46 pm

Oh, yay. For a missed mark, a bull's eye! Must keep my comprehension reading score even ;D.
---

Lio is every man's perfect dream nurse for those very reasons ;3

SecretComicLover (Guest), November 7th, 2010, 7:37 pm

Anything would have been better than Freud... Freud was pretty much projecting his own demons and ideals onto everyone else... Lio's definitely not doing that, and that's good...

elianthos, November 7th, 2010, 11:24 pm

@SCL: hey, I know you! *hugs*
I don't know how much familiar you are with Freud's work itself and his biography... but I think that's too harsh of a statement. 1) He was a pioneer, and in a very doc-like attitude he did start notomizing himself first and didn't do himself favours in that XD.
2)His texts, once you read them , to me showcase a very curious mind, very typical of his time in some aspects, but way ahead of his times in many other aspects. His studies on hysteria were revolutionary for the time, and he didn't dismiss ill (?) women as freaks or madhouse candidates like was instead the prevalent mentality at the time when they behaved in a off-standards manner. He also tend to go beyond gender and sex discrimination as his observation considered men and women as equals, because we're human beings (hysteria was considered women stuff... while Freud observed that symptoms could manifest in men as well. Heaven forbid how much scorn this earned him by other men scientists at first, how dared him XD) . Actually even when dealing with touchy matters or with fetishes, there's a lot of curiosity and thoroughness, but his writing tone is very serene and non-prudish neither judgemental at the same time. Even when dealing with fetishes. Basically one thing is actual Freud's writings... the popularization of said 'theories' (more like organizing thoughts borne out of decades of observation) is a different beast entirely... especially in the States.
Sigmund was pretty conscious of his limitations and short-comings, but he did kept his quest for knowledge and revising and updating his research 'till the end of his life. Inner demons and ideals are as unavoidable as a part of what we are and the way they are both shaped and shape our perception... but can't really fault someone for being human, can we? In terms of holding the test of time, his writings for me pass with a good mark both for work ethics and for hitting a good number of targets. Eros and Thanatos rule ;D
Oedipus? Anyone taking care of kids can see that live. You don't need to be related by blood either, as long as the kid sees you in a parental role and gets attached to you... it's a fact of life, neither good nor bad per se.
And, in his own words... psychonalisis doesn't 'cure' you. It simply helps turn the 'patient''s crippling suffering into average unhappiness, so that you can look at it, shrug and keep living your life... possibly knowing thyself better (ask the Dolphin's Syllabe ;DDD ).
----
Sorry this got so long XDDD.

elianthos, November 8th, 2010, 4:38 am

@Deda: sure :D. He did live and work in a different era than today, and was still a man of his time in some aspects.
Also, his studies are an hybrid of sorts, with all the pros and cons of the case... he had the empiricist approach as a neurology doctor (academically that's what he was), but then at the same time you are exploring the mind... and following what in those times were advanced theories about myths and ancient society (the anthropology branch of Darwin's evolution theories...) but by today standards are more of less outdated. In a way maybe the more adventurous speculations he did later in lifes have aged better because he wasn't relying on those scientifics fundaments that much.
On the topic of homosexuality... if he considered it an anomaly he was being a man of his time... homosexuality in itself is still a difficult topic of debates among layman people nowadays, in spite of the last decades of right fights. I mean, look at our home country XD.
At the very least Sigi considered it as one of the many shape a human can take... an off standards one, yes. But gathering how 'normal' humans for him were the exception to the norm and how everyone had something to overcame including himself, de facto this levelled ground in terms of worth, sort of XDD. Again, a prejudice of his time, but with the seeds to go beyond that.

In terms of mumbo-jumbo, yay his Moses and Da Vinci's biographies , or Totem and Taboos. But even in those I got the impression he was being a bit of a tongue-in-cheek fanfiction writer among the serious business XD. A bit like Plato and his use of myths. He did was a Plato fan after all... his Eros definition alone is testament to that.

elianthos, November 8th, 2010, 5:34 am

@Deda: why, can they explain with absolute certainty how life sparked? XD

In terms of figments of one's imagination... you know how fond I am of the mind-melding, don't you? I looove being all virtually swirly-dancing all around you XDD *imagines it fervently* dance dance daaance XD

SecretComicLover (Guest), November 10th, 2010, 6:39 pm

Sorry to prompt this... I had read all sorts of things about Freud, in Gloria Steinem's reversal, "What if Freud Were Phyllis," and he originally meant to treat the people as if sexual abuse from their parents was real (which I'm thinking it was), but abandoned it in favor of the theories that children desired to have their parents make love to them, probably because the guardians involved were so often very wealthy... it also speculated about potential abuse from his dad and other potential occurrences in his past which he never faced up to, and talked about how he tried to convince another doctor to break up with his wife and marry a rich woman he had been seeing, and how he tried to keep it all covered up between himself and his friends... All by turning him into a female and reversing that world into one where women were considered the superior sex...
I'll concede that maybe it just was the way that doctors from the U.S. interpreted it, but a lot of those views were used in damaging ways, especially towards women... I suppose the belief that the husband and the children were the only joy of the wife and mother, as a result of transformation from her member envy, so often cited there was a product of its time as well...

elianthos, November 11th, 2010, 9:18 am

@SCL: ah, well, it's a bit clearer where your info come from now. And indee as you say people don't grow in a void, the social and historical context is key.
In this case, and to an extent in case of other influential/famous/popular/controversial figures, going to the original source and consulting some non-biased bio is the best thing.
There are people judging Jane Austen's writings tripe chick-lits based on movies, superficial readings... or judgement based on wikipedia summaries. My goodness. Study her times, study her life, READ some of her novels, then you can start judging on fairer basis instead of following the herds, regardless of ending liking the writings or not... NOTE: A-hem... if Sigmund is a bit of a grandpa figure in my family , Jane is my grandma XD.
Let's pick... Jesus. Unfortunately we have no writings penned by him directly.. the closest source to his teachings and ideas are the gospels. But when you start examining what both some of his followers and the institutions based on his teachings did... Jesus,for instance, seemed to respect women. The same can't be said for many theologists and for the church itself, even pre-Reform church (women are inferior, they're Eve's daughters, they tempt you and corrupt you... and the witch hunts...). One thing it's what Jesus said, eveything else built upon him after his death is another thing entirely, isn'it? One doesn't need to be a religios person to see the discrepancy ^^. And I think it would be pretty unfair to judge the Jesus based on the church anf its dogmas. Son of God or not, Jesus was a very cool fellow ;D. Church history and its view have given ground to such hate and discrimination is not even funny instead.
I picked a novelist and a religious figure on purpose. They're popular in their own ways... many people have at last heard of them and have an opinion of sort. Bot how many of them have actually studied them just a little bit? If you have to call a judgment, especially a negative or dismissive one, a better familiarity with the concept should be required IMO.
Back to Freud... judge what the man himself has to say and with your own excellent brain ;D.
---
From what you're metioning I'm afraid miss Steinam was erring on the side of 'Freud=sexist sex sex' in her presentation... Oedipus included. Admittedly a very common misunderstanding. Frankly speaking, the common view of his Oedipus theory is a gross misinterpretation. A child in Freud's view is not a sick or perverted creature, he/she is simply a creature who in his/her earky years has a lot to learn and try, included what is considered right or wrong... there will be playing with stuff that adults consider disgusting, eating and touching anything and swinging from intense affection to intense hatred XD. In my babysitting experience (younger relatives and children) I've seen eating poo, kissing butts between brothers/sisters and switching from 'hitting' a parent to kissing said parent everywhere the kid could reach (as a parental fugure of sort myself I had to alternatively rub my bruised shins and guard my buttocks from being smooched XDDD). Were they abnormal children? Did they turn into incest machines after being all touchy-feely with their closed ones? Not in the least XD. They were simply being children. Learnign and growing up has a lot to do with boundaries and limits... rules... in their early years they still haven't grasped them.
Basically... making love to their favourite parent is not really something kids have in mind *unless adults expose the kid to sex in the adult sense of the world*, at that stage it has more to do with claiming the parent's attention and being close to him/her. Oedipus (the myth) is an example of extreme bad case scenario of children-parents relationships, but its persistence in culture and literature was to Freud an hint of that universal wish to be loved and love your parents (related by blood or by function) that also included a streak of jealousy and rejection *and it worked both ways as well! Unsettling, but it happens*... and an invitation not turn a blind eye (ha! ;D) on the topic of children's sexuality <--- wherein sexuality is the whole affection+learning by exploration thing. Children's 'multiple perversion' per se mean simply "going through many different experiences, learning through those".
Without rules and an appropriate education those experiences can turn into actual perversions and lead to a big giant oedipical mess later in life... but Freud was the farest you can imagine from calling children 'demons', or humans a band of sickos. If anything, he was contesting the common view - still pretty popular nowadays - that childrens are innocent angels (and here I remember something similar was already in the Bronte sisters writings and real life. Children can be adorable but also as mean and cruel as the adults, both intentionally and not. Take WH, Heahcliff: he has been defined in many ways by critics and readers alike. I agree with the interporetation of him - and Cathy - as children who refused to bend to the rules... they were not bad, they did not mean to destroy. They weren't immoral, but pre-moral... put them in a moral and regulated world, while they still refuse to grow up, and they end up looking and becoming 'bad' ).
To Freud, children are neither angels nor demons. They're just children.

SecretComicLover (Guest), November 11th, 2010, 3:35 pm

Well, whether or not they did fantasize about it as children, I just repeat what I heard from that not-so-impartial source that Freud denied the women's real troubles and claimed they imagined it all, and used the symbolic interpretations to make very different diagnoses from what several of his patients actually had... Freud's biographers were also major allies of his in constructing his history, and he never really analyzed himself as a psychiatrist was supposed to do...
Also, what do you think about the idea that a woman envies a man's member, should joy in her traditional place and should only feel pleasure from entry alone, without any extra stimulation, to be considered sexually mature (according to many statistics, there are relatively few women who can)?
Sorry to get into such a heavy discussion, but I really want to know about this...

SecretComicLover (Guest), November 11th, 2010, 4:43 pm

I guess I felt it in the very least implied implied that Freud's theories were highly colored by the prevailing view of what is right and wrong, especially regarding sexuality, since some seemed to imply that children's explorations led to habits and problems manifesting later in life...
In that train of thought, I was praising Lio for not telling Foxy something like his branding was a fantasy brought on by too much... childhood self-exploration; that was the sort of diagnosis that it was implied Freud made to patients...

elianthos, November 11th, 2010, 8:57 pm

@SCL: I admit I'm a bit lost on the branding comparison here. Lio has nothing to interpret here, as human branding was something forced on him upon a charge of thievery , possibly related to him belonging to a family of huguenots.
What Freud wrote in his Three Essays On Sexuality was that: in hindsight the roots of not standard (normal/socially accpted) behaviour can be traced back to the early years+puberty of people. But this doesn't mean that children explorations automatically lead to those. The number of variables and factors (individual inclination-->inborne disposition/internal factors , external influences: environment, cultural habits, family, the very people you meet and interact with on a deep enough level...) are such than you can have a lot of different outcomes. Also because childhood is a set up phase... but the second phase starts when you enter puberty. Biologically one can be born male or female , but gender orientation and gender identity can take much longer to stabilize. Basically, you might be born female , male or (in nowaday terms) intersexed in body, but in mind you become one of these later. Some of the non standard outcomes in terms of sexuality are not necessarily bad or socially rejected either, as one of the ways sexuality manifests itself, according to his vision, is on a intellectual and artistic level. Some of the most notable individuals in history in the aforementioned areas were not 'normal' in the... carnal sexual aspect of their lives<--- definitely you can smell Plato here. Sexuality and libido in Freud's context are akin to Plato's definition of Eros in the Symposium tale: the wish and the draw to bodies, spirits, and/or knowledge, ad the pleasure both pursued and gained into grasping them. In Plato's times and cultures homosexual love - between *males* - was the ideal one. In a non pagan society about 2.200 years later - aka Freud's time - het was the rule, Darwin was all the rage and biology considered females a sort of emasculated males genitals-wise, while role-wise women were mostly seen fireplace angels. Oh, and active lesbians ( as in , the active role person in a lesbian couple) were considered kinda butch looking for a very feminine partner XD.
Penis envy and assorted lovelinesss: see biology theories about females lacking ze peen. There are a few corrections Sigmund made to this view and confessions of not being really able to understand the matter (both for a lack oh wider data and because he couldn't switch sex), while still standing by it. Take my following words with a pinch of salt, as I'm fighting a double language limitation&barrier issue here: I'm familiar with the Italian official translation of the German text, but I'm not familiar with the English equivalent official translation of it... I'm translating from Italian and admittedly here it's 2 a.m., I've spent a couple of hours to reread the passages of interest of those Freud's essays in order to reply to you, but my brain is a tad fuzzy. My apologize in advance.
Sooo... it goes like this: children are pretty curious about how and where babies come from, and build theories about that, based on their own observation and plays, body exploration included. One of the favourites thoeries is about babies coming out from the anus. In their very early childhood they don't make difference between the sexes because they can't really see a difference. Initially the genital looks difference is not a big deal to them. But the more they grow up the more this difference is brought up also by education matters (we could say, by cultural conditioning of what males and females should do/can't do). And then it becomes an issue. Actually, penis envy for Freud seems to be related to the fear of loosing it: male children (and sometimes adult males as well) can turn smug and treat the females with contempt becasue they're supposedly missing something males still have (with the pesky fear their little friend can leave them all the same, ahah XD). And in turn female children feel robbed and resentful for beign viewn under that light... At the same time, while submitting to outdated biology theories of his time, Freud highlights how the clitoris is the equivalent of the penis and how pleasant the stimulation seems to be, as female children had been observed masturbating that area of their genitals only. The focus on clitoral stimulation in childhood masturbation, if I understand it correctly, is a *possible* obstacle to vaginal sexuality later on (wherein the best situation for the woman - as in: the woman who has accepted men and women are different and that there is a component of receiving and 'passiveness' in the feminine [traslated: compassion, empathy, non aggressiveness] - is a combo of both: the channel is the ultimate aim, but the clitoris is the fuel to its fire, so to speak). 1) He has oserved that is pretty common for women not to be sensitive to vaginal stimulaton 2) even in such cases tough they're sensitive to stimulation of the clitoris and of other erogenous zones 3) and in his eperience such cases often contemplated intense clitoral stimulation in the childhood and/or puberty phases.
He's not saying anywhere that women should feel plasure from entry alone, just that clitoral stimulation is a blessing and a curse for women, as both their genital body structure and the ideal model of femininity are more complex, dual. And to achieve a certain womanly status feels - is - a sacrifice. Is that certain status worth the sacrifice? is it sexist? Outdated? That's for the modern reader's sensibility to decide.
Also... a good deal of this sacrificial switch women go through is rooted into the late XIX century education ans society: women are gentle and remissive,and graceful, eliciting the protectin of the men and their attraction the more they conform to their gender stereotype. Is Freud simply describing/reporting this or does he actually support this? Ha. IN these writings innpartcicular he seems to do either and neither at the same time.
For sure Freud , both in the texts above and in his dealing with women IRL, was a mix of traditional views and forward ones. He married a very traditional and well.mannered Jew girl that was family&children caretaker and wnever really got involved in his husbsnd's studies... actually she wasn't too fond of his non-traditional views it seems, and the less she knew the better she liked it XD. Yet as a couple and in family matters look like their marriage worked fine. On the other hand, some of the more brilliant collaborators he had were women, he respected them and admired them greatly: his own daughter Anna, Marie Bonaparte, Lou Andrea Salome, Melanie Klein. And said women didn't really belong to the traditional feminine stereotype... Lou Salome especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Andreas-Salom%C3%A9 .
--
Last thing, and then I'm closing this looong post XD. If you wish for any other info, I totally suggest you to grab the Three Essays On The Theory of Sexuality (they're about 100 pages total, for children sexuality and penis envy check essay #2 and #3) written by the man himself, he can explain his stuff much better than my poor Italian speaking self will ever be able to.
From what I've gathered online the 1920 English tl by Brill is quite bad, pick another one if available.

Freud was not a psychiatrist, and being a pioneer also meant he had to be both the analyzed and the analyst. In the early years though he had two doctors and close friends that de facto were the analyzing role figures for him... even if they didn't realized it at the time. XD
The ones that followed and true psychonalysts 'till today are required to go through&under 12 years (12. YEARS) of analysis themselves on top of the 'theory' preparation, before they can even think of *maybe* being able to be of help to others. Also... they don't prescribe pills or medicals of any kind. And are periodically required to have an analysis session check themselves, preferibly with the analyst they went to during their aforementioned 12 years minimum. SRS BSNSS.

SecretComicLover (Guest), November 12th, 2010, 7:36 am

I really hope this is the last thing... I was really focusing on his stated idea that interpretation (of dreams, gestures and other things) is ALL, contrary to any spoken truth of the matter... maybe a better comparison is that if Foxy had received a different punishment in the past besides his all-too-visible branding, then that could have been written off as a fantasized memory... I only referenced the branding because it was an abuse that actually happened to him, and it would have been wrong to say otherwise, just as it was wrong to assume that people who might have actually been abused dreamed up childhood abuses out of the matters of attachment and rejection...
I guess the idea of envying a member could seem silly, since it may more often excite disgust (especially if you see crude sketches of it)... maybe the woman could envy a man's ability to just point and go when he needs to relieve himself, and the power that society so often implies goes with it (but ought to just as easily belong to a woman now, and by the way, in that time, they probably didn't even consider that the male may have been derived from the female rather than the other way around, which explains the male mammal's superfluous mammae as well as other things). On the other side of it, an alternate suggestion is that men envy women more: women's areas are well tucked away and safe, and they need not fear damage, and there is no all-too visible sign of their genitals acting on their own, so men could envy that, and maybe men envy women their wombs and ability to give birth, which seems like a very special power indeed... why else would they see women as a threat for several centuries?
For me, the man's member is still a great unknown, and I'm curious and yet fearful--after all, I hear tell that it can be a fearsome shape and angry color, and how much it can hurt if it is the only thing focused on, rather than taking measures to prepare the channel first, including extra stimulation, which can broaden it...
Also, about "surrender" being key to the woman (I'll admit that in my mind, it does sound thrilling, though I don't know if that alone is enough for total pleasure), it could be colored in a way that either one could have the surrendering role, i.e. that it could just as easily be the female drawing in the male and enveloping him as the male chasing down and penetrating the female (the former is especially true for the couple there)... there could be even cases for equal levels of ardor and surrender in both... after all, in the context of a relationship, it can involve emotional surrender on both sides...

elianthos, November 12th, 2010, 10:05 am

I hope is the last thing for me as well... nothing can substitute the direct reading of the source writing to have a better opinion on the matter.
Sorry in advance for any typos!
As you can see I broke this thin into two chunks, the second relating more to the latter part of your comment (with a bit of TMI on the account of both of us I believe XD. If you wish you can PM on FB on more personal matters... also not ot hog Deda's page further than we already did )
1) Interpretation is all?

Ah, interpretation is all actually, on this point we'll have to agree we didsagree. Even the spoken truth are the fruit of how the person speaking/stating them interepreted certain perception of an event... This goes for sciences as well as for any activity and experience of man imo. I dont't believe much in absolute and spoken 'truths' myself... but at the same time these very sentences of mine above can be seen as absolute truths of sort. There are a few POV that appeal to me and/or I consider more believable than others, nothing less and nothing more... until, a better ' truth appears. See astronomy theories... observation data, percepions, beliefs... geocentrism was spoken truth for millenia,then heliocentrism tookits place. Yet, stirctly speaking, heliocentrism states that the Sun is the center of the whole cosmos... such is not the case anymore. But a common trait to these theories is that we have planets, orbits, stars... whose movements obey some specific rules, and they're sort of round celestial bodies that can be studied in certain ways... these elements by now can be considered spoken truth probably.
As subjects we're bound to subjective preceptions, perceptions shape beliefs... and one person's beliefs and truth are another person's lie. Same as in terms of right or wrong... One things I *think* Freud got right and still stands is: we're complex, and we don't even realize how much and how far this complexity can reach. The truths we speak can be true to a certain part of ourselves and related to a certain moment of our lives, yet be inadequate for the rest.
Like icebergs, you see the tip and a bit of what's right bekow the surface, but everything else is underwater. yet it's the same entity, the hidden part is not less importatnt than the top in keeping the iceberg afloat. You can claim to know the iceberg from top to bottom and anything inbetween, but the syntomps and dreams gave Freud the impression it was not really so for humans. Interpretation of those hints and traces to him were a chance at finding out more of such depths.
We're the same and yet we're unavoidably different from one another. There must be some common ground allowing us to interact though, and the things we dream or do can be an insight of that complexity we carry inside. Is there a pattern to them? Do they carry a history somehow? Freud based his 'guidelines' on what he believed he had understood both of himself and of his patients, with the help of every scientific and artistic input that pointed at some of that aforementioned common ground across space an time. He did change his mind along the way and even then some of his hypothesis seem not plausible anymore a century later. <--- he often reminded the readers and himself that everything, even the most acclaimed discoveries, could be subjetc to change. But *to me* this is not really the point - as much as I appreciate the man never forgetting a reality check and the possibility ofbeing wrong - . Some of the things he wrote relate well with both my experience and the things I've observed myself, hence I value them as plausible enough, as long as they seem to 'work' for me. Even if they are not necessarily an absolute truth. If some of his thoughts allow me to better understand the others and myself, then I welcome them. Being able to understand yourself and a fragment of reality better... well is already a lot XD.
Interpretation is not really putting some neat and fixed labels on reality in boxes... it's a mindset to investigate with some tools based on observation. The Book of Nature for the ancients was a multilayered cosmos. The Book of Human's Psyche is amultilayered microcosmos ( yet how big and mysterious it can be all the same when you try to see something more). Interpretating it is not necessarily discarding the value of the surface, but remind us of to go further and beyond... even beyond some of the discipline's main statements if observation data are pointing in that direction.




2) Foxy... and fearsome organs :D.
A psychonalist would not judge Foxy for the branding or its psychic equivalent, nor he would consider him a liar and go all: "aaah, you are such and such because such and such must have happened/happened not" (that is not an analyst, is an ass XD). Because at worst the analyst would take into consideration that regardless of a 'X' event happening, as long as the person affected believes it , its effect on said person can be the same of a ' something that actually happened' scenario XD. A placebo effect of sort? The analyst task, if any, is to be there for the person - sometimes with a quetion to help said person remember, but sometimes just being a silent pillar of non-judgemental strength - while said person lets out reflections or memories about what he/she feels are a problem.
While the professional benefits from the tools and 'theories' and his own experience under analysis, there's no passpartout or pre-cooked answer/solution. Every person is a world of his/own ... the road to self-knoweldge is different every time. There are a few landmarks to help, spoken truths - the one told by the patient- included ;D, but the direction and the twists and turns are a thing in the making, wherein the patient is the one tracing his/her own road. Spoken truth might end up being different than the beginning... but it's the patient himself making the journey and discovering this in case.
Also, even full adult are subject to different perception of the same event... *if and when* you accept that childhood is a momentuous phase for shaping a personality and deep beliefs, then you can see how children as likely to be insightful as to totally miss the mark on things (the way adults live, where babies come from... behaviour of their parents. Children don't understand adult sex, casual exposure to it leave them very curious but also very puzzled, and they sees it as something violent and not exactly pleasant. I have some actual memories of something similar, later confirmed to me by the adult(s) involved. They reasuured me no harm had been done to the other person and explained me a bit of the mechanics of making love, telling me it was something happening between adults when both body and mind are mature to do so... the day after in my classroom I started a rain of question about ovaries and reproductive organs, to the amused embarassment of my elementary school teacher XD. She gave the glass a first bit of SexEd exlanations that day. Love that teacher still today, she had the heart and the wording skills up to the challenge. Before the double row of exposition though I still remember going ?_? and being a tad afraid of what I had interrupted XD. That purple ...banana?! What was THAT? and the moans and the sweat! is she in pain? is she ill? I barged in sort of worried XD ).
Aw, is not like I am an expert of the masculine mushroom as well (XD) but unless it's randomly shoved to my face (internet porn, I'm looking at you XD. Curse you for burning my retinas with your creepy popup ads XD)I have no special problems with it, aestetically or not. I mean, I've been a Michelangelo Buonarroti and Renaissance fans since I was little, fine arts histiry is chockfull of uncensored nudity. Art histiry asides, random vaginas aren't any prettier than a penis either XD. But if and when they belong to a beloved one, they're a part of that person and as such worth treating as the rest of the person, from the tender end to the spectrum to the more wanton one :D.
Dont fear the penis itself, it's the owner of he penis who makes the difference between the creepy and the loving/desiderable. And this relates also to the required preparation to the reception of said organ. If he's sensible he'll do his best to put you at ease... and the suppleness of our females muscles there is pretty reliable. I mean... if a child can pass through them, there's more than enough space for something *in any case* much smaller than an infant to enter eventually XD.
On the tipic of stimulation to broaden the entrance and lessen the pain: pain at first penetration is also higly subjective... some women barely feel it. If it hurts at first then you take it easy... as long as you tell sincerely your partner of your unease before and during the act you'll find a suitable rythm and strength of moves to adjust to your needs. In the long run if there's love things like apprehension and 'normal' pain work themselves out. And it's not like intimacy means going straight for the jackpot... foreplay is fair play :D. Fair play also because it helps the male as well. Sharing intimacy is a already an act of surrender... you don't bare your body alone, you bare your soul... you're in a vulnerable position regardless of your gender. If anything, a man might feel the pressure more (the old but still alive prejudice of females being weak, while men have to be strong...) . Furthernore a woman can pretend to be aroused and orgasming, a man not really :p.
Surrendering: I agree with you on a mutual surrender of sort... if you want to really share a part of you - all of you? - with another person you must let go :>.

SecretComicLover (Guest), February 6th, 2011, 6:56 am

@Elia--I hope you don't mind me starting this again... James Strachey's translation of Freud's "Femininity" that's in the start of Michael Kimmel and Rebecca Plante's book Sexualities says, after making that observation of girls masturbating around their equivalent organ to the males' for sensitivity, not noticing their passage, "We are entitled to keep to our view that in the phallic phase of girls the clitoris is the leading erotogenic zone. But it is not, of course, going to remain so. With the change to femininity the clitoris should wholly or in part hand over its sensitivity, and at the same time its importance, to the vagina. This would be one of the two tasks which a woman has to perform in the course of her development..." (It was just the first few paragraphs I saw in a preview, but that's a start)
Does your translation say the same thing? I don't know what it says to you, but it does read to me (maybe because of what I read before) like asking the impossible of a woman as a feminine necessity, like asking her to derive all her pleasure from PIV alone... you can hardly transfer the nerve endings in the clitoris to the inside of the vagina, so I don't see how it can get any more sensitive than the little it has, so it might as well be just the usual state of claiming that females are by nature not supposed to feel pleasure at all (except the joy of closeness, if even that)... That discovery might have also been late for me, my discoveries may have even been in reverse order, I never touched that area except while wiping when I was young and discovered what was all there only recently... What does your translation say to you? (As a further note, I read in another book by that pair or at least the first author, The Gender of Desire, that in counting amount of sex, men counted the orgasms while women counted the whole encounters, so men did not count foreplay as actual sex, just intercourse--I wonder if it's still like that today that sex means different things to us)

dedasaur, February 6th, 2011, 7:50 am

I think it's different for every single human being on this planet... because we are 6 billions individuals and if it's already true that we all see colors differently... while we might have a 70% or 80% or 90% in common with the same members of our species... That remaining part which is entirely us is unpredictable even to ourselves.

You won't know how things will develop like until you ARE in that situation. Speculating makes you believe you will be ready, then stuff happens and you flip or fail or succeed because we are not who we think we are.

When it comes to orgasms you can have both vaginal and clitoris ones. That depends on many different things... sometimes girl like quickies too or reach it very fast, especially if they are very aroused and even if there is no foreplay. At least, for me, it's like that.

FarStar (Guest), June 17th, 2011, 7:34 am

I like Lio in this page somewhat.



Post A Comment