• Received recently by email, Pt 1

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:43 pm**

gpb3aol (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:41 pm I'm sorry, it probably because I have very low T but this article gives me a headach.

Understandable. It is a piece of shit.

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:13 am**

WHAT??? Having is lacking and lacking is the lack of lack? This is supposed to be a serious psychological evaluation or philosophical exercise, but all it seems to LACK is FOCUS. The ideas are only loosely connected and the train of thought runs well off the tracks. Furthermore the writer cannot be objective because of his (must be) admitted castration fetish. Objectivity is what makes the study of psychology a scientific pursuit instead of the self-indulgence seen here. I am not normally one to criticize, but I felt it necessary to speak. If I have a desire to lack any part of my male anatomy, it certainly has nothing to do with this joissance or whatever and everything to do with lack or self-esteem, self-worth, and being on the wrong end of a molester as a child. Telling a child that his willie will get cut off if he tells keeps a kid silent, at least until his mother scares him even more. How's that for psych? How about them apples?

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:02 pm**

Buddy666 (imported) wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:13 am WHAT??? Having is lacking and lacking is the lack of lack? This is supposed to be a serious psychological evaluation or philosophical exercise, but all it seems to LACK is FOCUS. The ideas are only loosely connected and the train of thought runs well off the tracks. Furthermore the writer cannot be objective because of his (must be) admitted castration fetish. Objectivity is what makes the study of psychology a scientific pursuit instead of the self-indulgence seen here. I am not normally one to criticize, but I felt it necessary to speak. If I have a desire to lack any part of my male anatomy, it certainly has nothing to do with this joissance or whatever and everything to do with lack or self-esteem, self-worth, and being on the wrong end of a molester as a child. Telling a child that his willie will get cut off if he tells keeps a kid silent, at least until his mother scares him even more. How's that for psych? How about them apples?

To understand Joshua Dale's POV, or if you just want to be able to critique what he wrote, spend an hour or two perusing this article about Jacques Lacan, and the links therefrom: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =388528687; and this article about Lacan's concept of Lack: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =388534412. As far as I can tell, neither Dale's article nor Lacan's work addresses the issue of child molesters trying to scare their victims into silence.

Freudian theory has largely been superseded by newer science, and Dale's thesis obviously does not fit all (or even a majority of) men with castration desires or fantasies, but it makes a certain amount of sense and gives answers that some of these men, including Dale himself, find useful.

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:17 pm**

talula wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:31 am Is it still permissible for me to kill and burn and make sure such
Paolo wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:58 am nonesense is not spread Krist?

I think we are all in agreement that this fellow's observations as reposted at the beginning of this thread are nothing more than a la

rge, steaming meadow muffin. Burn away, T..

Talula, that only makes sure that it is not spread here, which admittedly could be useful in sparing the feelings of those who were quoted in the article and protecting people who might be made uncomfortable or led astray.

Paolo, shouldn't we also follow the more time-honored approach of getting the actual journal from academic libraries and having a nice bonfire?

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:26 pm**

I have just checked the download history of the article in question. I downloaded it when it was first posted. Two of my research colleagues each downloaded it. Kristoff downloaded it for posting here. I just opened the site again as the TENTH access. Consider the article dead. Just don't go in yourself to give it a higher hit count!!!

.

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:32 pm**

As one very well educated in Freudian theory, this article is what is often referred to as a POS (Piece of Shit). This article has far less credibility than Freudian theory itself.

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:51 pm**

I'd be more suprised to see a sexologist's study that wasn't blatantly fraudulent. He's neither honest nor objective, but he does make the occasional interest point.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:34 pm**

Wow, old thread.

The article still stinks, though.

Posted: **Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:44 am**

WTF was this all about. I must have missed something or just didn't understand it

I agree it is just a POS:dong:

Posted: **Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:22 am**

I don't think we should be so harsh on the article. While it certainly contains a lot of tenuous psychobabble, it is a serious attempt to understand the psychology behind genital cutting of various types, and it does so sympathetically.

I'd rather read hundreds of articles like this than one that dismisses castration fetish as being psychotic or any number of other negative mental illnesses.

I think we should applaud any serious attempt to sympathetically understand us.

Received recently by email, Pt 1

Re: Received recently by email, Pt 1

Re: Received recently by email, Pt 1

Re: Received recently by email, Pt 1

Re: Received recently by email, Pt 1

Re: Received recently by email, Pt 1

Re: Received recently by email, Pt 1

Re: Received recently by email, Pt 1

Re: Received recently by email, Pt 1

Re: Received recently by email, Pt 1

Re: Received recently by email, Pt 1