so if sexuality is socially constructed then how come that I, despite being above my facticity, simply am not attracted to males?
are there any books on sexuality better than foucault's, or should I start with him if I want to get an insight into the evolution of homosexuality throughout history?
Other urls found in this thread:
colorofcrime.com
twitter.com
You're at least attracted to penises, right?
no, why?
Here slow the fuck down, people never said that "sexuality is socially constructed", the fuck does that even mean, sounds like you're mixing it up with Gender which is another story.
Foucault's History of Sexuality is very worth reading in my opinion but one of the primary lessons of his interpretation is not that we need to open up and learn to investigate and accept some fluid notions of Sexuality to free ourselves but rather the opposite that this itself is a form of control and suppression through the Bourgeois obsession of equating an idea of essential identity with sexual identity. The proper response is to not give a fuck
>Here slow the fuck down, people never said that "sexuality is socially constructed", the fuck does that even mean, sounds like you're mixing it up with Gender which is another story.
then what is it?
Sexual orientation is a myth.
>Sexual orientation is a myth.
why?
Social constructs are a meme, everything goes back to biology.
Ok it is and it isn't, we have natural innate urges towards sexes whether the same or the opposite.
Foucault would agree however that sexual identity is a myth in that it's bogus essentialism, it's just an urge people have yet people speak of it as it marks you as some seperate species of being as if it affects the foundations of our being.
Aw thats cute he's still a positivist
>espite being above my facticity, simply am not attracted to males
Being attracted to someone requires training. The end result is a conditioned reflex.
I'm actually a platonist, I just think radical deconstructivism is fucking stupid and completely unreasonable.
>platonist
Kek holyfuck, that's adorable, what age are you?
Can you shut the fuck up with your "cute" and "adorable"? I swear to god there's some asshole who goes around calling everything here cute and adorable, either it's literally you doing all of it or for some retarded reason more than one person is taking to calling people "cute" and "adorable" on here.
Yes I'm mad.
Any man who thinks he can outgrow Plato still has much to learn.
foucault didnt want the gays to get associated with pederasty
uGHHH I'M SO FUCKING ANGRY AT A WORD SOMEONE USED ON THE INTERNET FuCK
There's a difference between respecting Plato and being a Platonist, the guy believed in Elder Scrolls tier metaphysics
What about feminine penises?
OK. I hope you work that out soon. As for now, stop using the word "cute". It's not cute at all.
Are you unironically advocating anti-science right now?
if you are bored go somewhere else
Foucault is almost complete waste of time better read something else.
You need to read Deleuzes account of emergence before parading this reductionism, it's not anti-science it's just realism in the face of positivist blindness
>so if sexuality is socially constructed then how come that I, despite being above my facticity, simply am not attracted to males?
Why would you be?
But yes, sexuality is obviously a social construct. A fairly recent one too.
So putting it in a tree is a totally normal thing to you?
If they're feminine obviously
Maybe not to him but can't deny someone out there does it
Though needless to say, there is an obvious Cultural Marxist (I know, meme term, but how else would you call it) to promote artificial lifestyles and identities that run contrary to the very principles of Western Civilisation, rea son and biology. Human familial and reproductive instincts are being diverted towards other, often highly pernicious ends.
Not but:
> it's not anti-science, it's realism in the face of positivist blindness
> Define realism
> Define positivism
Bullshit.
Sexuality is not a construct, its innate. Societies expectations reinforce that. If you took a group of kids and told them that homosexuality was the norm and that they should be homos, they would do it but they wouldn't have the visceral sexual response that is caused by innate sexuality. Except for the faggy boys in the goup, they would be in heaven
> artificial lifestyles and identities that run contrary to the very principles of Western Civilization, reason and biology
SPOOKED
Positivism is a epistemological perspective that become in high vogue in the mid to length 19th century which concerns itself only with quantifiable and testable information.
Realism in this context is a hermeneutic operating assumption that there is an underlying explanation behind phenomena, positivism fails to capture these explanations adequately due to the fact that there is much in the relationships and systems of human life that can't be adequately reduced to quantifiable and testable metrics meaning their frameworks result in crude approximations. Biology in this case can be a crude means of explaining human psychology but fails to have adequate explanative ability without referring to the various other contributors to human behaviour as a result of history, culture, Ideology so on
Veeky Forums is literally tumblr by this point. Muh gender, muh Marxism, muh feels, muh gargling on dicks makes me a patrician intellectual...
In the end you are just denying Facts and Biology and making fancy excuses for your faggotry.
apply the categorical imperative to max stirner
If sexuality is a social construct in humans is it a social construct in other animals as well?
>Facts
>With a capital F
>>>/reason.com/
>what's going on here?
>*snort* it's simple biology, humans like all apes don't like being kept in confined spaces so they decided to pull down the wall, we have data to prove this dislike of close spaces in testing with bonobos
The fact that sexuality has a biological cause is not only empirical, but also rational.
No because animals don't think of themselves as hetereosexual or homosexusl, they just fuck whatever they feel like
This is the point of the social construction of sexuality
Sexuality as a drive yes is a result of evolutionary contingency of course, how people may act in response to that drive is not however, things are far more messy.
do they?
do animals fuck opposite sex members more frequently?
do animals fuck same sex members only in absence of animals of opposite sex?
do they fuck same sex and opposite sex members in similar frequency?
>Civilisation
just read Sex and Character and then kill yourself when you realize that youre a woman
>But yes, sexuality is obviously a social construct. A fairly recent one too.
if by this you mean heterosexuality/homosexuality, but if youre saying that "sexuality" is a social construct youre an absolute moron
unless youre making some pedantic argument about "words" and "definitions" in which case youre still an utter moron, just for a different reason
*applause*
Try harder. Sexuality is a choice in the moment. I can easily switch between being exclusively attracted to men and women. It's a good skill to develop, it will help you cope in times of loneliness (tfwnogf)
You are actually an idiot if you believe this.
Greeks and Romans fucked boys all day long, if that was the norm today you'd be fucking boys too. I don't know what being "above your facticity" means, but you've been conditioned your whole life. That's not to say you should be fucking boys, and that you're repressed if you don't, but you can't deny the influence of cultural norms on the formation of the subject in terms of sexuality and gender.
[citation needed]
how is this related to what you're saying?
Are you being deliberately retarded or are you just black?
retards
Let me rephrashe cuz apperently you're retarded
How does your argument that there is a degradation of western civilization proven by statistics about black crime rate?
>if that was the norm today you'd be fucking boys too
how can you prove this?
because he is the elder scrolls
Greeks and Romans had no man-made stigmas about sex other than the Roman "dominate-or-fag" principle.
Either all of them were mentally ill/special snowflakes or our conception of sexuality misses the point.
Damn son, this.
Hey, fancy faggots. /k/ here. There's Chicks and there's Dicks. Thems is your options. You like one or the other or both. You ARE one OR the other, but not both (hermaphrodites notwithstanding). Gender is not a spectrum, there's no fucking deconstruction of this concept.
My only solace is very very soon we'll be putting pieces of shit like half this thread against a wall.
What about Luna Trap?
You know nothing of metaphysics, you have the soul of a peasant.
>humans like all apes don't like being kept in confined spaces
Literally none of this is wrong.
You make a lot of assumptions, chief among them being that many of these failings were the products of positivism, not the products of an immature, under equipped scientific method. A lot has changed in the way of techniques and data analysis tools available to scientists since the days of Comte.
Although it's laughable to think complex phenomena are reducible to pure equations, I don't doubt that there exists a best-fit approximation of such events as human behavior and intellect representing nontrivial amounts of variance within them statistically.
Google doesn't need to understand the complex sociodynamic realities of your truest being filtered through DeLeuze filtered through Lacan filtered through Horkheimer to predict when we are about to take a trip, look at porn, or buy shoes. That type of predictive power in behavior would have astonished social and behavioral theorists 100 years ago. Face it: there is no mushy, unrepresentable "dark matter" of behavior and cognition. We aren't nearly as complex as our egos demand we credit ourselves as being.
>So putting it in a tree is a totally normal thing to you?
Why the hell would that be normal? It's normal for humans to fuck humans. Usually for men to fuck women and vice versa
Not really sure what you're trying to say or why it's relevant
>if by this you mean heterosexuality/homosexuality, but if youre saying that "sexuality" is a social construct youre an absolute moron
The first one. "The sexualities", as in hetero, homo, bi, w/e are social constructs. Nobody even heard of sexuality a couple of hundred years ago, it's a meme, probably invented by hack psychologists to explain why some men liked fucking other men in the ass.
yeah because science is not mob rule, right?
>fuck off Paul Feyerabend
Hardly. Where this is sort of mob rule is most notable is, unsurprisingly, social sciences where researchers have the dubious habit of attempting to make firm findings on sensitive issues using frequently statistically flawed methods to support pet theories they are professionally and personally beholden to. Their failure is less due to reductive hubris and more to do with their own expansive egos and personal biases poisoning their research hypotheses.
I know of no researcher outside of social science who would see such scholarly behavior as defensible or even worthy of being called science. I just think its funny when post-positivist types come into disciplines like psychology, produce dogshit for research, and then use their own failure as justification for why empiricism is a fundamentally flawed means of understanding behavior and cognition.
For what it's worth, the past 5 years have really seen the process of peer-reviewed publication become much more stringent in psychology. Unless it is a horse shit journal, It is unlikely that a truly awful, flawed paper could get published somewhere with a reputation to uphold. The internet and impact factor scores have really helped with that.
Viveiros de Castro would say that animals DO have their own social construct on those matters. But nevermind that now.
is it not?
whom are you trying to attract sexually with this configuration of neurovisual stimuli?
>whom
>at the beginning of a sentence
Only inncorrect if you're
A
FUCKING
LEAF
>all the posts itt
that's not cultural marxism, (a total bogeyman)
that's neoliberalism
literally, trying to sell identity and 'lifestyle' to people
I love how Lefties STILL try to blame degeneracy on capitalism.
The reality is that BOTH are to blame. Capitalism is, in a way, the more honest side of the coin; profiteers don't give a shit about culture/tradition/etc. The existence of cultures/nations/etc is a serious pain in the ass to them; an obstacle to the dream of an entire world comprised of totally interchangeable consumers and producers, who have no discernible differences. Were this dream established, there'd be no need for all the things that businesses hate; different products/marketing strategies in relation to the tastes of a given nation, etc. The whole world would be a singular market with singular tastes.
Lefties, conversely, see culture/tradition/etc as a major obstacle to their 'one world' utopia. Socialism/etc have always been internationalist at heart; borders/nations/etc are likewise an obstacle to them. The only fault with 'cultural marxism' as a term is that it implies an *organized* conspiracy; whereas the reality is an unconscious one, with people who may not be conspiring together, nonetheless working towards the same goal. They believe that by eliminating these differences (which they ironically exacerbate with their means, but that's another matter), they can achieve some sort of utopia whereby all war/disease/conflict is eliminated
Meanwhile, those of us who are sane keep trying (in vain) to remind both sides of the same coin that utopia can only be reached across a sea of blood.
Neo-Liberals and 'Critical Theorists' (if we're not using 'Cultural Marxists'), or else Moral/Cultural Relativists, Internationalists/etc, all have the same goal; though their means may differ.
You're completely right except for looking at it from the perspective of a butthurt traditionalist. Socialism or capitalism, your variety of whinging nostalgiafaggotry is going down the toilet. That's my favourite part - that /pol/ loses no matter who else wins.
You're looking at it all wrong.
I've got nothing left to lose; and besides, if you knew the first thing about Evola's definition of 'Tradition' then you'd know it's anything but nostalgia. He would dismiss the nostalgia you're thinking of, or rather, the things people would be nostalgic about, as 'bourgeois residues'. Under the Evolian definition of Tradition, I could create a new art form tomorrow and could easily be *more* traditional than those of the 18th century, for example, provided it was true to the eternal and metaphysical values entailed in 'Tradition'.
I am the conservative with nothing left to conserve, and so I will laugh as everything goes to shit. I've got everything to gain; and as demonstrated, all sides of the aforementioned argument are at my mercy.
people on the left comprise a lot of different thoughts between people who seek different ends. i'm not even on the fucking left, and cultural marxism is a well known spook anyway
and i wasn't responding to talk about 'muh degeneracy' i was simply speaking to what user said about promotion of artificial lifestyles and identities at least here in the U.S. the pattern matches the same pattern always seen at small and large scales, the monetization of some social trend to fit into the way power already operates
>people on the left comprise a lot of different thoughts between people who seek different ends
And those on the right don't?
I'm talking about capitalists and moral/cultural relativists specifically. It just so happens that most of those on the Left are of the latter.
>cultural marxism is a well known spook anyway
Not a spook; it simply implies a conscious conspiracy where there is only an unconscious one.
>i was simply speaking to what user said about promotion of artificial lifestyles and identities at least here in the U.S. the pattern matches the same pattern always seen at small and large scales, the monetization of some social trend to fit into the way power already operates
And you still don't see how this also plays into the hands of the Left.
>And those on the right don't?
i never said they didn't you fucking retard
>I'm talking about capitalists and moral/cultural relativists specifically. It just so happens that most of those on the Left are of the latter.
i'm not, since i thought this thread was about sexuality
>Not a spook; it simply implies a conscious conspiracy where there is only an unconscious one.
okay
>And you still don't see how this also plays into the hands of the Left.
what are we talking about here.
if you want to have a thread about social trends and how they may or may not be wielded by those in power, go ahead
...
...
>i will not have the platonic form of kawaii diminished
:3
Nigga are you stupid? Never read Bible?
a platonic form can't be diminished :3
Laughable. Just because google ads and government surveillance programs know what we want to buy doesn't mean they know our "truest being". Seriously man? I know this is Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums went down the drain but LOL.
>social science is actually more guilty of mob rule
>they use bad stats
>every scholar would say that what they think of science is actually not science
>based psych has been really stringent lately and gud
Wow, no one is going to take your little rant on literally all the social sciences seriously. Jesus what a fucking massive chip on your shoulder you have there.
>He think Social Sciences are a serious or respectable field of study
