The phallic position : The core of Masculinity

[Schizophonia]

Behind every object of desire (a tall Slavic woman in a garter belt 😏, love, drugs, a Häagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream, watching and breathing in nature, a BMW...) lies the inclination to use these as a mirror of your identity, in order to maintain a degree of ego inertia. I could delve further into the non-dual dimension, but that's not the focus of this thread.

Libido, not just in the sense of sexual arousal but of energy in general, the "will" of "doing things", is a phenomenon of intensification, of densification of usual dualities.

Someone talking about "seminal retention" or taking stimulants might say to me, "But Valentin, if libido has an inertial purpose, then why do I want to do different things when I have more energy?" The answer is that by intensifying this inertial drive, certain mediocre, even habitual activities will be abandoned in favor of activities that are actually more fundamental to human egotic structures.
It's because your life isn't threatened that you bother to be lazy—in a way, lazy people are very meditative, lol—but if your ego is threatened, then you'll need, and therefore want denser objects to maintain your ego structure. This isn't a revolutionary phenomenon, but rather a reactionary one; It is actually easier for someone with low energy to take truly revolutionary actions (like taking psychedelics, for example).

 

This idea of being "in the right place," the ultimate signifier hidden behind every object of desire, is what Freud called the "phallus."

The term phallus isn't even patriarchal or anything like that; it refers to children's tendency, when they discover that girls don't have penises, to interpret the difference between the sexes as a litteral castration.
Thus, in psychoanalysis, when we speak of "castration," of "losing the phallus," we are indeed talking about the possibility of losing objects to which the ego is attached or identifies.

 

What is the difference between men and women in their relationship to the phallus and to the object of desire?

The main idea is that men are usually so attached to the idea of possessing the phallus that they prefer to look "down" to prove to themselves that they do, by contrast.

Conversely, a woman (or even a man in the case of neurosis, which I'll come back to) who doesn't consider herself phallic, or only slightly so, will look "up" to try to benefit from the phallus above.
It's a mirroring effect: the man will reassure himself that he is the phallus by making jokes, giving money and flowers and cie to a woman, and the woman will feel that she possesses this phallus by receiving these gifts.

 

Men : "Oh she is not phallic compared to me so it means i am phallic".

Women : "Oh he is so phallic compared to me so it means i get the phallus".

 

I'm talking about giving flowers lol, but the phallus can also take on a negative form; being an asshole and a neo-Nazi can be phallic, and you can attract certain women that way.
The central idea is that women find in men tangible objects to which they like to cling, again as a mirror of their ego.

If a woman's obsession is being persecuted, she's not going to like a guy who doesn't.

It's not "Oh, this woman has suffered so much, she'd be happier with X." The reality is that some women enjoy suffering, some women appreciate kindness, and everyone finds something to suit them. Very often, a horrible person can be more phallic and more attractive to most women.

And this isn't unique to women; a man will also choose a mean and/or crazy but very sexy woman over a kind woman who looks like nothing.

And men, often the ones who complain about women's choices btw (I'll come back to that), also frequently choose activities that generate a lot of negative emotions (politics, religion, personal development, fighting, sports...) rather than "kind" activities; it's exactly the same.

 

As you can see from the topic, the man prefers to have the phallus (therefore on the positive part of the graph) even if it means perceiving less in absolute terms (smaller surface area).

There's no point in being paranoid about it, but that's why "simping" doesn't work and is even ultimately repulsive, because by doing that you're identifying with the lack of a phallus.

In other words, you have an object of desire in your imagination that you don't possess and you act accordingly, which is inherently anti-masculine.

It's even infantilizing, because in reality, girls also look downwards to some extent.
What's attractive is acting without threatening your feeling of losing power/control (the phallus), even if it means losing the girl (which is an illusion, because in reality you're pushing her away anyway by wanting het (what means you need her, and so you don't have the phallus, you are in danger), that is, acting out of pure love/pleasure; with complete "egotistical modesty."

 

I look upwards, I conquer what "I should/want to have" = Feminizing.

I look down, I tend my vegetable garden as Candide said = Masculinizing.

 

An overview of obsessive-compulsive neurosis.

It's a psycho-sexual mechanism that everyone, and especially men, uses to varying degrees.

When you were a child, you were more like a woman and you acted in such a way that you projected the phallus outward (usually onto your mother) to "woo" her, up to the Oedipus complex or the phallic phase in general.
It's when you annoyed your parents saying things like, "Oh, look, Mom, this video!" or "Oh, look, I'm doing cartwheels!" while pretending not to understand that it bothered them.

In some people, the abandonment of this pattern was too weak, which leads to infantilizing/feminizing behaviors.

The hallmark of neurosis is misogyny and disdain stemming from the contradiction between your self-centered, idealistic self-image (seeking a penis that's elsewhere) and the demands of others; not just women, but people in general, but also your own body. Imposing a diet on yourself, for example, is neurotic and contradicts both your own body and the expectations of others (for instance, if it's a celebration).
Finally, a diet can be a necessity (for health and attractiveness), but deep down, it's very often at least partially neurotic.

Personal development often attracts particularly neurotic men because a normal man would simply be working on his own little empire/garden. It makes no sense to want to "progress," to want to be rich for the sake of being rich, even to torture yourself with psychedelics, etc. It only makes sense if subconsciously you do not identify with the phallus and consequently try to use makeup to obtain it, which is again in line with what people expect from an adult man, which makes many people in this environment unsociable and even more or less misogynistic as i said before.

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Judy2]

have you read Lacan and Rivière? this reminds me of their reading of Freud.

 

maybe i'm simply too dumb to understand any of them though

Edited 1 hour ago by Judy2

[Schizophonia]

39 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

have you read Lacan and Rivière? this reminds me of their reading of Freud.
 

I don’t know Riviere but indeed I looked at some Lacan works, my paradigm here is probably influenced by him even if I mainly stick to Freudian language elements

39 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

 

maybe i'm simply too dumb to understand any of them though

Ahah no it’s complicated in general.

Deleuze is even way worst 😬

[Hojo]

@Judy2Change the word phallic with an external object you desire. The object dosent matter, its the desire to have the object. Almost like the word love or contentment.

Edited 52 minutes ago by Hojo

[Judy2]

1 minute ago, Hojo said:

@Judy2Change the word phallic with an external object you desire. The object dosent matter, its the desire to have the object. Almost like the word love.

it gets a bit wacky in Lacan's reading because there it goes that women are the phallus and men have the phallus, because women serve as the "dialectical confirmation of [masculinity]". which i guess is true, but then Butler criticises how this view still originates in a matrix based on masculine desire alone and dismisses the idea of a preexisting feminine structure. which is as much as i can parrot from my university lectures; it's not like i understand the implications or if there'd be any alternative.

[Hojo]

@Judy2Maybe you could look at it as the quality of being a king or queen. Its kind of like God created man, man didnt want anything but a woman. God created woman, they wanted more than a man and now we have society and everything we have. If there were no woman men wouldnt do anything.

Edited 39 minutes ago by Hojo

[UnbornTao]

 I was starting to get worried - I hadn't heard you say "phallic" in a while.

[Judy2]

4 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Judy2Maybe you could look at it as the quality of being a king or queen.

yeah, i like that:)

but then i don't get why so many people interpret others' interpretations of someone else's interpretation, and what their point is in doing that.

[Hojo]

@Judy2Just confusion because the you wont get meaning of the word. Its like a short form for that. The desire must originate somewhere and it has to originate from man needing something material cant give him. If there is a king in a castle with no queen to share his value and value him then he dosent feel like  king and all the material is useless. The queen has to indulge in the kings power to feel like she has something, without the kings materials she dosent have anything. If she gets it herself she wont be satisfied she needs the inmaterial king to give it to her to feel its value.

Edited 29 minutes ago by Hojo

[Judy2]

@Hojo ok:)

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

I've read a fair bit of your posts describing these Freudian theories and I've always wondered how to extract some unique value from them and translate the value into reality, and I keep wondering lol Like, what's the idea? That you as a man, should ideally aim to view yourself and your activities/hobbies as the phallus/object of desire/power? That you should be a quasi narcisist and not care about them h03s? What's the idea here?

[Judy2]

24 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

I've read a fair bit of your posts describing these Freudian theories and I've always wondered how to extract some unique value from them and translate the value into reality, and I keep wondering lol Like, what's the idea? That you as a man, should ideally aim to view yourself and your activities/hobbies as the phallus/object of desire/power? That you should be a quasi narcisist and not care about them h03s? What's the idea here?

men care about "them ho3s" to know themselves as men is the main idea. but i guess there'd be smoother ways of saying this. ways that show appreciation for both the feminine and the masculine position. 

Edited 1 minute ago by Judy2

[Hojo]

@NewKidOnTheBlockIts telling you how to feel like a king. Be lazy and when people call you lazy/worthless tell them, thank you. If you take offense you develop and ego which you must go out and search for an object you didnt want, to feel like a man or king. When you originally already felt that way.

Edited 3 minutes ago by Hojo