Worth dying for

[Gavin]

Wikipedia's take (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_partum_depression), which is rather noncommital, suggests lack of resources contributes to PPD -- not clear why it would affect Brooke Shields in that case, but "resources" can be pretty broad I suppose.

It made me think of the women I see on the bus, younger than me with two kids dragging strollers by themselves... I'd be depressed too in that situation! No doubt PPD is underdiagnosed in lower income women (of course if they have no health insurance it doesn't much matter any way).

That and because moms can't have sexual urges, it's against the law of boyhood logic.

Hmm...

...talk about Oedipal...

 

[nomadologist]

Wikipedia's take (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_partum_depression), which is rather noncommital, suggests lack of resources contributes to PPD -- not clear why it would affect Brooke Shields in that case, but "resources" can be pretty broad I suppose.

It made me think of the women I see on the bus, younger than me with two kids dragging strollers by themselves... I'd be depressed too in that situation! No doubt PPD is underdiagnosed in lower income women (of course if they have no health insurance it doesn't much matter any way).

Yeah, lack of resources probably contributes massively, but there's actually a lot of evidence to suggest that the drastic hormone fluctuations that are naturally occurring after pregnancy have a lot to do with it as well. I wouldn't be surprised if wealthier, better educated people with more general emotional support from partners have better coping mechanisms and more access to better doctors, so they come through the natural hormonal changes less scathed than low income mothers (who are all too often going it alone in every sense)...

 

[Gavin]

I'm thinking of doing a blog post on MILFs but I'm afraid of referring to porn too often....

 

[nomadologist]

Do it!! I'd be interested in reading an intelligent take on the whole rise of the "cougar" in our collective not-so-unconscious (a la Desperate Housewives and the like). One that isn't by Joel Stein or in the form of a Vh1 "I HEART the 80s" rerun.

Here's a transcript of the interview with Matt Lauer and Tommy C.

http://youcantmakeitup.blogspot.com/2005/06/cruise-uncontrollable.html

 

[Guybrush]

Ok but could there not be some element of proportionality involved-- ie: that the purported benefit must be proportionate to the level of offence caused. Eg: in the case of the Danish Mohammad cartoons, the actual pictures themselves were pathetic, unfunny, and not worth the anger they created by any means. It seemed like a deliberately provocative gesture without anything actually to say about political Islam at all. Those backing freedom of speech there seemed willing to defend totally inane output.

Yes, the pictures were not particularly funny, but the decision to publish them had nothing to do with their possible artistic qualities and everything to do with their being a means for examining the frontier of free speech. They were meant to provoke, obviously, but more than anything they were seen as a contribution to the Danish public discourse, aimed not specifically at Muslims but at Denmark’s political and cultural establishment. Providence had other plans, of course, but that’s a valuable lession in itself. And a very illuminating one. By contrast, I find something like Lars Vilks’ Muhammad-as-a-roundabout-dog ploy much harder to defend, mostly because the example has already been set.

 

[Gavin]

Yeah, I've read the transcript before (don't see the adderall-Hitler connection)... maybe he comes off more manic in the sound clips, but reading through it again he doesn't sound all that unreasonable, certainly not unhinged. It's obvious that Matt Lauer's tripped Cruise's soap-box wire, and Cruise isn't particularly fair to Lauer, but the mockery it's inspired (see that blog) seems incommensurate with Cruise's positions. Yes, he's a presumptuous ass, but we're encouraged by the commentary on TV, radio, and blogs to see him as absurd, insane, and irrational for daring to suggest that prescription medication has severe limitations and in many cases harmful effects, the effect of which is to close down debate and critique. And he's right that Lauer doesn't seem to know shit about the topic that he himself brought up -- he's just regurgitating commonsense wisdom about chemical imbalances which from my own meager understanding is a gross oversimplification, if not outright mischaracterization of mental illness.

 

[trouc]

All of these points are really interesting... go for a walk to Natural Foods and come back with no idea where to start...

Genghis Khan was being called a proto-capitalist in the misinterpreted "pro-capitalist" D&G sense where people believe capitalism is a system that tends toward disorder and like this idea. This could start a whole new superlong argument though so I'll wait on it.

I'm with the anti-psychiatrists in that I think that "mental illness" and "pathology" are not the self-same thing. I think certain mental illnesses lead to less pathological states of mind (or states of being) than the average or person whose life aligns with normativity perfectly. On the other hand, the problem with mental illness, and the reason I believe studying it and treating it is important, is more about the danger the suicidally depressed or mentally ill pose to themselves (rather than society).

Ugh, no. That was not my "interpretation," in fact I believe I laid out specific ways in which he promoted new/different modes of order.

To whoever brought up D&G and pedophilia (I know this is pushing the conversation back several pages), I think Foucault would be more relevant. He discusses the issue in the History of Sexuality, and comes out in a book of interviews I read a couple years back (put out by Semiotext(e)) as pretty much against all age of consent laws, going so far as to join some organization dedicated to their abolishment in France (basically a non-fictional NAMBLA). This seemed pretty fascinating at the time to me, but I'm having difficulty working through his motivations for it at the moment.

On PPD, everything mentioned above makes sense, but I think there's also a simple element of "What the fuck did I just do?" I'd imagine it's pretty easy to get through 9 months without realizing the actual consequences/life-changes that are inescapable once they've become real. This shows up elsewhere too, as in the first couple of months after marriage often being the worst.

 

[Mr. Tea]

(basically a non-fictional NAMBLA)..

Hate to break this to you, but NAMBLA is a non-fictional NAMBLA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla
(Sometimes truth is stranger than South Park.)

 

[Gavin]

(basically a non-fictional NAMBLA)

NAMBLA ain't fictional; in fact, to uncharacteristically pick up a previous point in this topic, I believe the ACLU has supported their right to speech (if not kidfucking).

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

 

[Mr. Tea]

Hahaha, we sure know our political nonces on the forum.

Also, I put it you that the correct plural of milf is milves.

 

[trouc]

Hmm, I thought it was a hoax, perhaps it was some other group...

 

[Mr. Tea]

Hmm, I thought it was a hoax, perhaps it was some other group...

I heard the Spartacist League (I mean the International Communist League, not the original SL) were said to endorse the abolition of all age-of-consent laws, but a lot of people think the whole organisation is so nuts it must have been set up by the CIA to discredit socialist organisations generally.

 

[nomadologist]

Ugh, no. That was not my "interpretation," in fact I believe I laid out specific ways in which he promoted new/different modes of order.

To whoever brought up D&G and pedophilia (I know this is pushing the conversation back several pages), I think Foucault would be more relevant. He discusses the issue in the History of Sexuality, and comes out in a book of interviews I read a couple years back (put out by Semiotext(e)) as pretty much against all age of consent laws, going so far as to join some organization dedicated to their abolishment in France (basically a non-fictional NAMBLA). This seemed pretty fascinating at the time to me, but I'm having difficulty working through his motivations for it at the moment.

On PPD, everything mentioned above makes sense, but I think there's also a simple element of "What the fuck did I just do?" I'd imagine it's pretty easy to get through 9 months without realizing the actual consequences/life-changes that are inescapable once they've become real. This shows up elsewhere too, as in the first couple of months after marriage often being the worst.

I really don't want to ruin a good thread with another rehash of the pro-capitalist D&G "theorists", so please, let's not discuss this here. If you'd like to lay out "specific" ways in which "he" (who is this? Do you mean Deleuze AND Guattari?) thought "capitalism" promoted new/different modes of order, do it in a new thread please? Thanks.

We weren't talking about D&G in particular re pedophilia, Noel Emits asked how the Oedipal related to pedophilia. This has as much if not more to do with Freud than it does D&G in the context in which we mentioned it.

Re PPD: There may be some "what the fuck did I just do" component, but as biochemists and other biologists have recently discovered, depression is a complex mechanism that works on a very minute level in terms of biochemistry--without genetic potential (p11 proteins play a big role in all kinds of depression) and the literal brain malfunctions (which can be easily and heavily influenced by hormones), PPD would not exist.

 

[trouc]

Here's a question for those that know - when people like D&G discuss schizophrenia as a resistance to being fully 'oedipalised', do they ever talk about the paedo thing as possibly being a similar response? I mean it clearly is, no? At least in some cases. Or is that unthinkable?

Nomad, you quoted this yourself. Looks pretty "in particular" to me.

Anyway, I was referring to Genghis Khan, to clarify that I did not suggest capitalism promotes disorder (ie "I laid out specific ways in which he (Genghis Khan) promoted new/different modes of order") or that such would be a good thing (ie, by sending the rich into the streets) . I'm happy not to derail this thread again, but please don't misrepresent my positions.

On PPD/depression, I agree that it's a complex issue, just pointing out one aspect of it that seemed relevant to me.

 

[noel emits]

Nomad, you quoted this yourself. Looks pretty "in particular" to me.

I hope it's clear that what I was wondering about there was if those theorists that discuss schizophrenia as being a mechanism of resistance, do they ever think about the other thing because it seems like it obviously needs covering. You mention Foucault - what does he have to say about causes / mechanism?

I think Reich's - The Invasion Of Compulsory Sex Morality might be relevant to this too.

It was really just a digression on my part though. Nomad's answer was relieving in the sense that it's easier not to have to include pedophilia in the set of resistance strategies.

Seems like it's easier to think about sociopathy

 

[nomadologist]

It's an interesting question Noel in light of the whole Burroughs/D&G connection, where Burroughs certainly delighted in the shocking nature of his own pedophilic inclinations.

When I was considering your original question, I was looking at the anti-Oedipal, of course, as a reaction to Freudian psychoanalysis. It would be very difficult to ignore Freud in any answer to the question you posed.

 

[trouc]

I hope it's clear that what I was wondering about there was if those theorists that discuss schizophrenia as being a mechanism of resistance, do they ever think about the other thing because it seems like it obviously needs covering. You mention Foucault - what does he have to say about causes / mechanism?

I think Reich's - The Invasion Of Compulsory Sex Morality might be relevant to this too.

Yeah, Noel I think I understood, and as I said I don't think D&G have much to say on this. I did dig up some online versions of the Foucault interviews I mentioned

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/danger.htm

And I guess he's not exactly valorizing pedophilia so much as 1) advocating for the rights of the child, which does strike me as a little naive, and 2) discussing the issue as it relates to the criminal system (should we punish criminal acts or should we attempt to eliminate dangerous persons). In tHoS he does suggest though that it has been valued (Greeks) or ignored (pre-victorian Europe) in different societies, so while he might not view it as resistive, I think he sees its current demonization as illustrative of issues within our sexual regime (obsession with consent/the contract and ghettoization of child sexuality).

 

[nomadologist]

Foucault has interesting things to say about pedophilia, but I have some issues with the idea that normativity determines whether pedophilia is psychologically harmful (i.e. the Greeks example). While I think the denial in a lot of Western societies (and Eastern ones for that matter) of infantile sexuality is downright damaging in and of itself, I don't know whether I think flipping the norms would make it 100% ok to promote completely "free sexual trade" among generations. The assymmetry of power is too great between people as the age gap widens for sexual encounters to be psychologically, er, healthy.

 

[trouc]

It was really just a digression on my part though. Nomad's answer was relieving in the sense that it's easier not to have to include pedophilia in the set of resistance strategies.

Seems like it's easier to think about sociopathy

You added this later, so I'll extend and say that, you know, things can be resistive without being positive. Things like regional racism in the US, religious terrorism, or "going postal" all serve as "resistance mechanisms" in their own contexts, but I don't think that means they need to be valued. Resistance by itself isn't necessarily ideological.

On D&G in particular, I think it's important to realize that they've picked the schizophrenic because he/she engages in a particular function, not merely because they've chosen mental illness (they don't privilege the neurotic or sociopath).

 

[trouc]

Foucault has interesting things to say about pedophilia, but I have some issues with the idea that normativity determines whether pedophilia is psychologically harmful (i.e. the Greeks example). While I think the denial in a lot of Western societies (and Eastern ones for that matter) of infantile sexuality is downright damaging in and of itself, I don't know whether I think flipping the norms would make it 100% ok to promote completely "free sexual trade" among generations. The assymmetry of power is too great between people as the age gap widens for sexual encounters to be psychologically, er, healthy.

Maybe he's looking for a relaxation rather than a total reversal? I think that I'm pretty much in total agreement with you though.