Re: Foucault, Freud and Sex--why the secret?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jim Jewett: "Re: how reliable is the oral tradition ?"
• Previous message: Domingo Martinez-Castilla: "Re: SCI.SOCIOLOGY ?"

In article <3ao9ur$dba@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>,
Elizabeth C Dunn <dunn_ec@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote:
>By why sex? If it's an issue of reproduction (biological or social), if
>it's an issue of fundamental human needs, why shouldn't a society miake
>something like EATING the big secret? Freud's own method, which sees
>everything as reducible to sex, could easily be turned into a discourse
>where everything is reducible to eating (consumption, famine,
>satiation--sex itself could be seen as a sublimation of the desire to eat?).

You can live without sex, but not without eating or drinking. My guess
is that sex is the option because it is something most peoples want
badly, but will survive without. It seems to be a good non-destructive
hook to manipulate peoples behaviour. Also there is the reproductivity
aspect, but it could be controlled separately too, I guess.

Pekka

• Next message: Jim Jewett: "Re: how reliable is the oral tradition ?"
• Previous message: Domingo Martinez-Castilla: "Re: SCI.SOCIOLOGY ?"