A Lacanian Approach to Perversion

[@1300marie]

Fabulous lecture, Derek. Thank you for referencing Ruth Stein in a Lacanian presentation. Her article on the “perverse pact” has been invaluable for me in these encounters.

[@stoneneils]

I have waited years to find a video on lacan's perverse...I'm saving this for later. Thank you Derek.

[@RonanConlon-vj7bb]

Fantastic Lecture, accessible clear and concise. Thank you Derek.

[@dethkon]

I love this guy he’s like a mad scientist

[@atarthur3519]

Thank you for this 👏👏. Get the results you deserve = P R O M O S M !!

[@corneliusharris2955]

If everyone chooses a partner and stick with them, there would be no discussion on what is perverse or not. Humans want to make this so complicated when all you have to do is be monogamous, and allow the forces of nature predict what acts are considered a transgression.

[@Synodalian]

_"forces of nature"_ _There's_ already your first problem. By what means can you discern between physical "law" and _your_ prescriptive desire on how we _ought_ to desire?

[@Synodalian]

@@Joe-sg9ll Nice projection there.

[@Synodalian]

@@Joe-sg9ll You literally just projected that fans of anime promote "unnatural relations", which in itself is quite ironic considering that Japan is a very traditionally conservative country. I'm only still engaging with this thread because 6 months later my question still hasn't been answered: What does _nature_ have anything to do with social desire? There's plenty of shit going on in the wild that we _wouldn't_ standardize our norms on, so why is that suddenly the measure by which we determine what is and isn't let alone _politically_ acceptable?

[@Synodalian]

@@Joe-sg9ll It's interesting that you frame it that way, because gender and dating literally _do not_ exist as concepts in nature. As far as animals are concerned, their sexual existence in the domain of kin selection serves the sole outcome of biological reproduction. There is no such thing as a "girl" or "heartbreak" in nature, yet we developed these _cultural_ categories in addition to notions like "woman", "marriage", and "monogamy" to domesticate ourselves as a species towards more socially amicable ends that go _beyond_ the fragile relations of animal behavior. By your _own_ logic, we should be _empowering_ the Darwinian forces of nature by bringing back dominance hierarchies and competitive mating. The Red Pill community for one is keen on that model.

[@Synodalian]

@@Joe-sg9ll That's a lazy response. _How_ do we mean "naturally" in this context? _Which_ culture is being referenced here? The nuclear family has only existed for a century due to the modernizing conditions with the arrival of the North American suburbs, and extended families all throughout history have had varying roles and expressions for its members oftentimes totally independently of their genitalia. Especially _now_ after the Sexual Revolution with the invention of the birth pill and _soon_ the invention of the artificial womb, familial relations will _continue_ changing as we figure out how to compose a family unit in preparation of its members for civil society at large alongside all these innovations. Unless of course your goal is to ban all of those scientific, political, and technological developments in which case: Do you live in a theocracy? Do you _want_ to? Do you know how much it takes in this day and age to handle a society as complex as ours, let alone to _redesign_ it in the image of _dated_ ideas about family, civil society, and the state?