Eric Responds

Eric Responds


Eric Responds to Kate

And here a lotus eater lobs back the molotov cocktail. I don’t
think that Kate’s question is answerable in Freudian terms. At least I
don’t think that it is yet, from what I’ve read. However, I think that
there is a bit of work to be done with the conceptions that Freud sets
out for the development of male sexuality. At least some kind of
starting place.

The hysterics only gave him abnormal developments to
work with, though I think that those developments were quite appropriate
given the circumastances, so he didn’t seem to need an idea of female
sexuality. No, that doesn’t make sense, let me try again. He only had
exposure to abnormal sexual development, which, it seems, would be any
development at all in the case of girls. Girls, remember, are only
supposed to be passive. No activity is expected or desired of them ( see
reader p. 90, Draft K.), so that any development of pre-marital sexual
urges should not happen, according to the logic of the society’s sexual
model.

If a girl is sexual before marriage, that can only result in
illicit sexual practices, masturbation or pre-marital sex, say, so any
sexual development is illicit. If this model is internalized,
pre-marital sexual development, which I think we will all agree is going
to happen, can only be expressed pathologically. I think this makes
sense. Tell me if it doesn’t.


Begin with Jordan’s Response to Eric’s Response, the next in a network of hot potatoes.
Eric Sternberg