You are allowed not to enjoy

[Oskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ZWEZNcKsc

What do you think the implications of these insights are to explaining the rise of pick-up as a mode of sexual relating since the 90s? Is the superegoic ethical injunction to enjoy in modern societies in large part behind the rise of the PUA mode of sexual relationship?

 

[trashKENNUT]

Oskar,

Can explain it easily for me? In layman's i mean..... so i can give some thoughts in the mean time.

Zac

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Zizek on a GC thread. What a day.

What do you think the implications of these insights are to explaining the rise of pick-up as a mode of sexual relating since the 90s?

Pickup has been around for ever. It's not a recent phenomena.

Is the superegoic ethical injunction to enjoy in modern societies in large part behind the rise of the PUA mode of sexual relationship?

Chasing pleasure has been around since forever. The Buddha talked endlessly about how his compatriots were so concerned with pleasure and the seeking of it.

Hector

 

[Oskar]

Zac:

The message from mainstream society is argued to be "enjoy", so people feel guilty when they don't enjoy, especially in the "right ways". It used to be restrain yourself, repress your strivings, but now its to enjoy and go to the end. Psychoanalysis's function changes because of this.

So instead of internalized paternalistic prohibitions, we have practically the opposite today, where you feel guilty if you cannot enjoy.

The speaker then argues that the message "you are not obliged to enjoy" should be the primary message of psychoanalysis today.

My hypothesis is then that PUA emerging into the mainstream at the same time as the ethical injunction involving enjoyment changed is no coincidence. There has been a construction, and reconstruction of sexual knowledge and practices. From this emerged/emerges a new form of sexual relating, with PUA (involving certain norms, standards, expectations, and so on) being relatively popular among them for men.


Hector:

There is no such thing as the history of seduction without considering the history of specific societies in which those seduction practices are embedded.

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Hector:

There is no such thing as the history of seduction without considering the history of specific societies in which those seduction practices are embedded.

Uh huh.

 

[trashKENNUT]

Oskar,

It used to be restrain yourself, repress your strivings, but now its to enjoy and go to the end.

My parents generation was all out asshole. My generation was in between, where if you listen to Backstreet Boys when you are young, you are being made fun of in school.

You are called 'gay', 'faggot'.

Today's generation is not so harsh. But it went the other extreme. It is not because of corporation alone or advertising or family structure or total lack of fundamental lifeskills being taught or lack of real leadership.

It's not really surprising if you take notice that it went the other way.

So instead of internalized paternalistic prohibitions, we have practically the opposite today, where you feel guilty if you cannot enjoy.

If you were born in the 70s and you were sold on a dream and that you will not get a fucking fat wife with values different than yours, and tinder and girls in skorts and denim shorts literally "HOE-ing" ,

is it fair to you that you want your chance to.... Just a thought

My hypothesis is then that PUA emerging into the mainstream at the same time as the ethical injunction involving enjoyment changed is no coincidence. There has been a construction, and reconstruction of sexual knowledge and practices. From this emerged/emerges a new form of sexual relating, with PUA (involving certain norms, standards, expectations, and so on) being relatively popular among them for men.

PUA has not go mainstream for non other than money. This is exploit by idiots beta males who write articles for money, and twist and turn and angle. That's advertising.

But i won't say "enjoy your life" is the cause of PUA emerging into the mainstream, other than the fact that it is a way to make money for hypocrites who bash other people, then blames society.

This is a side note: We all do this. Put people in shit situation, then claim credit. Ever since other sperms do the job, and we sneak in. and claim we the winner. I think that's the most fundamental aspect of life that everyone must know. As funny as it is, we are somewhat cunts even before we were born.

Zac

 

[Average]

Sup Oskar,

Zac:

The message from mainstream society is argued to be "enjoy", so people feel guilty when they don't enjoy, especially in the "right ways". It used to be restrain yourself, repress your strivings, but now its to enjoy and go to the end. Psychoanalysis's function changes because of this.

Is its message to "enjoy" or to "be happy"? If it's to enjoy then What do you mean by enjoy? Enjoy what? If you mean "be happy" then yeah, that is part of society's daily messages. But in a lot of cases it's so advertisers can SELL you happiness. You should check out all ads. Either the family starts of sad/angry with problems, then after using the toilet polish being sold, they're super happy all of a sudden.

Happiness has become a product itself, rather than something one can achieve inward or through experience. Which is a lie.

Ok, going back to the title of the post.

You are allowed not to enjoy.

Well....yeah. Human beings are complex creatures with complex emotions. Emotions are what we use to understand what's happening around us based on our perspective created from our up bringing.

For example, fear is used to keep us safe from dangerous situations. Anger is used when something bad is happening and aggression is the appropriate response. Etc.

So instead of internalized paternalistic prohibitions, we have practically the opposite today, where you feel guilty if you cannot enjoy.

The speaker then argues that the message "you are not obliged to enjoy" should be the primary message of psychoanalysis today.

Again.....enjoy what?

Enjoy the norm? Enjoy freaky stuff? You should dislike whatever you don't like and pursue the stuff that you actually enjoy (unless you enjoy the disappointment of receiving said dislikes. In that paradox you are actually getting what you like).

There is no such thing as the history of seduction without considering the history of specific societies in which those seduction practices are embedded.

Are you saying that the events of a society influences the norms in seduction. Coz if that's what you're saying then I guess I can agree. I mean, if the society makes sex less slut shamey then lots more people would do it. And if the society made sex illegal then people would be more subtle about it. They'd still do it of course, but the orgasms wouldn't be as loud

There are still some core things that would never change however, such as a persons need for sex, value, status, etc. So there are some constants in the equation to consider.

What do you think the implications of these insights are to explaining the rise of pick-up as a mode of sexual relating since the 90s? Is the superegoic ethical injunction to enjoy in modern societies in large part behind the rise of the PUA mode of sexual relationship?

Is the question: Did pua's cause the need to enjoy?

If that's the question then:

Pickup has been around for ever. It's not a recent phenomena.

In fact, you could say that Pick up Artistry is created and maintained because of the need to enjoy.

And finally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ZWEZNcKsc

The video kinda confused me

But it sounds like he's saying that society says that you are allowed to enjoy, but only if you meet a bunch of criteria:

Perfect health, proper marriage, etc.

And that he's conclusion is that you should be allowed to find whatever you find enjoyable, enjoyable. This is true, but in the end, balance is the key. Because your actions have an impact on the people around you. So if you find destructive behaviours enjoyable, you could hurt others and then end up having to face the consequences on top of that.

If you eat like crap then of course you'll feel bad because your body won't be able to operate at 100%. But if you're willing to sacrifice that for the amazing taste which the food gives you, then why care?

In conclusion:

You can enjoy. You can also not enjoy. Why would a person do something which he/she does not enjoy? Only he knows. For it might look like he does not enjoy it, but he could be sacrificing some joy in order to receive a bigger more ultimate joy which he finds important. But in the end, the only thing that lasts as long as/longer than our own mortality, are the consequences that result from it.

I hope I contributed at least a little to your question/statement . Because it truly did confuse me thoroughly.

 

[Average]

Lol. Sorry, that was a bit of a long post.

XD XD

 

[Richard]

It's Okay To Feel Sad Sometimes

 

[Oskar]

Is its message to "enjoy" or to "be happy"? If it's to enjoy then What do you mean by enjoy? Enjoy what? If you mean "be happy" then yeah, that is part of society's daily messages. But in a lot of cases it's so advertisers can SELL you happiness. You should check out all ads. Either the family starts of sad/angry with problems, then after using the toilet polish being sold, they're super happy all of a sudden.

The original French term the speaker is referring to is jouissance, which is a technical psychoanalytic term. It is distinguished from pleasure, in how pleasure obeys the law of homeostasis, whereby the psyche, through discharge, seeks the lowest possible level of tension. Enjoyment goes beyond the pleasure principle in the sense that it fundamentally involves its transgression. Think of the symbolic prohibition of enjoyment in the Oedipus complex (the incest taboo), and how it functions. It paradoxically is a prohibition that is already impossible; its function is therefore to sustain the neurotic illusion that enjoyment would be attainable if it were not forbidden. The very prohibition creates the desire to transgress it.

Two technical definitions of enjoyment Zizek is using are:

1. Jouissance as an excess of life.
2. Jouissance as an enjoyment beyond the pleasure principle.

As an “excess of life” we can think of it as a “superabundant vitality”. As such, it cannot be correlated to affect, or to an emotion.

As an enjoyment that goes beyond the pleasure principle, we can think of it as a “backhanded enjoyment”.


Let’s take Coke as an example, to see more closely what is being referred to:

Its strange taste does not seem to provide any particular satisfaction, it is not directly pleasing and endearing; however, it is precisely as such, as transcending any immediate use-value (like water, beer or wine, which definitely do quench our thirst or produce the desired effect of satisfied calm), that Coke functions as the direct embodiment of "IT," of the pure surplus of enjoyment over standard satisfactions, of the mysterious and elusive X we are all after in our compulsive consumption of merchandise. The unexpected result of this feature is not that, since Coke does not satisfy any concrete need, we drink it only as a supplement, after some other drink has satisfied our substantial need - it is rather this very superfluous character that makes our thirst for Coke all the more insatiable: as Jacques-Alain Miller put it succinctly, Coke has the paradoxical property that, the more you drink it, the more you get thirsty, the greater the need to drink more of it - with its strange bittersweet taste, our thirst is never effectively quenched. So, when, some years ago, the publicity motto for Coke was "Coke, that's IT!" we should discern in it the entire ambiguity: "that's it" precisely insofar as that's NEVER effectively IT, precisely insofar as every satisfaction opens up a gap of "I want MORE!"

In the same sense, recent changes in seduction norms seem strongly tied to the transformed ethical injunction of society to enjoy (beyond the pleasure principle). PUA seems to operate psychically on the same principle. It's not really about pleasure -- about psychic homeostasis -- but about your ethical duty as a human, as granted by "the big Other", to use Zizek's term. The typical PUA is like a Coke (as in Coca Cola) addict. He experiences sexual relationships more and more as "enjoyment" and not merely "pleasure", in the sense outlined above. From a broader, societal perspective then, could not the the rise of 21st century PUA be an expression of this increasingly neurotic, pseudo-transgressive mode of experience?

 

[Rain]

That's really interesting.

its function is therefore to sustain the neurotic illusion that enjoyment would be attainable if it were not forbidden. The very prohibition creates the desire to transgress it.

That is like, once you get an attractive woman, then you get homeostasis but you still want 'enjoyment' which transgresses pleasure, so you search out even more beautiful women or other women? Or like a woman pulling away oneitis comes from it being now forbidden? Are these things tied in with what you're saying here?

And is that also tied in with advertising, eg beautiful women, and wanting that.

Or is it just a lot of people who get into seduction happen to be wired a certain way eg to transgress beyond pleasure, towards enjoyment, which then goes back to 'pleasure only homeostasis' once you 'get/have' new woman?

But beautiful women don't necessarily have a "strange" taste that provides no particular satisfaction[like what your quote was saying about Coke]?

 

[Oskar]

Rain:

To answer your questions sufficiently would require us to get in to some pretty technical psychoanalytic discourse. The nature of desire would need to be examined.

So, for starters, here is an article that goes in to greater detail than I can about the operations of desire:

http://www.lacanonline.com/index/2010/0 ... ut-desire/

What I can say now is that the "beautiful woman" as object of desire should not be taken at face value. Man has no object that is constituted for his desire without some mediation. And as I was talking more about the mediations of desire than the objects of desire in themselves, the 'homeostasis = having a beau' vs 'tension = being on the hunt' doesn't further enlighten the psychic function of desire and jouissance, as I see it, though it may be a topic worth looking in to on its own, regardless.

Nonetheless, I think you are on to something when you talk about the parallel between consumer goods/advertising and the typical PUA attitude towards the sexual relationship, though I haven't thought much about the details of that parallelism. There certainly seems to be a strong phantasmagorical aspect to it though.

I don't think PUAs mental models are wired to be extra transcendence-focused, but, more cynically, I think it's more an inclination, due to life circumstances or traumas or opportunism, to construct for themselves a space that feels transgressive within the pre-established rules of social norms - which is why it emerged so much more since it was possible to monetize teaching through the development of internet marketing in the late 90s. That's why one of the core messages in PUA has always been so adamantly pro-business/entrepreneurship. It's like PUAs take the inner logic of the system more literally than the system itself takes itself. It's power lays in its highly marketable (simple, enjoyment justifying, etc.) ethical structure/constellation, and verbalizing/rationalizing the previously unspoken inner rules/norms of modern social relations, to be leveraged to re-center ones relation to the rest of society, both psychologically and through actions.