The correct response to the injunction “check your privilege” is to deny the assertion of victimary status, the implied presence of supplemental agency beyond mere advantage, and is best captured with the rejoinder
Check your resentment.
The correct response to the injunction “check your privilege” is to deny the assertion of victimary status, the implied presence of supplemental agency beyond mere advantage, and is best captured with the rejoinder
Check your resentment.
“Always two there are; no more, no less. A master and an apprentice.” Yoda perjures himself with an air of metaphysical mystery. However, this lie conceals an important story telling secret known by all the greats: The often triangular nature of desire. It seems dyadic as Yoda says – The Master has power, the apprentice wants it – thus desire is born from the lack. However, the object – in this case power, conceals the true motivational fountainhead of desire: The relationship itself, qua model, of the master and the apprentice. The apprentice wants power as an extension of his relationship with the master, not for its own sake as object of desire. The inevitable result is rivalry – competition itself concealed by the cloak of the object of desire. Always three there are: A model, a subject and an object of desire.
In episode IV Luke was propelled down the path of the Jedi by Obi-Wan’s sacrifice. Obi-Wan’s power grew because Luke could safely use him as a role model (thus the glowie mythology) without being in direct competition with him, which in the case of Anakin lead to rivalry, envy, the dark side. Proximity and desire together inevitably lead to hatred. This is the chivalric quest of Don Quixote – in imitation of the knight Amadis – who at a safe distance could hide at least partially from the character himself the illusion of autonomous desire (Girard, 1961). Luke’s childish initial interactions with Obi-Wan later transferred to Yoda. Luke replays the same pattern of getting into rivalry with Yoda, and again the conclusion obtains with his death: Yoda becomes a safe model for Luke’s imitation when he is ferried safely away beyond the haze of rivalry. Finally, in Jedi, the transformation of Vader takes place in the triangle between him, the Emperor and Luke.
This is all to say that character is a distraction – a defensive myth to ignore the trace of desire. It only appears frozen in time for narrative effect. Han solo is presented as an incorrigible scoundrel in IV with no explanation of why he cares about his pirate life other than petty debts and rivalries. However, this is only to tee him up all the more so for the transformation of his character into the world of the hero and the lover. This transformation takes place on account of his immediate relationships with Luke, Leia and their interactions. Han’s protestations and attempts to maintain the illusion of his autonomous character serve to conceal from him his complete dependence on others for his motivation.
Enter The Force Awakens. The first and most egregiously written character is Finn – who, despite a lifetime of programming and indoctrination, spontaneously undergoes a character transformation before our eyes. It is unconvincing because there is no explanation for this move. Rather, it has been written under the romantic delusion of character. What would have saved Finn’s conversion is an obvious reference to his own experience as a child of being dragged off by storm troopers. He should have been shown participating in the slaughter at Jakku until he himself was asked to drag a child away from his family. The obvious point is that it is the child which strikes in Finn a change of heart. Instead, Finn is branded as a true character – Narcissus as a cardboard cutout of autonomous desire. Oddly enough, his fast attachment to Rey is not authentic by any means. It is sparked through the role of his model – Poe Dameron, and the obsessive interest by all parties on the droid.
The B88 droid for the first part of the movie stands as the object of desire around which all rivalries and relationships develop. But B88 is nothing in itself, it is only a sign which points to Skywalker – Skywalker who serves to motivate and rally all these forces not by his charismatic presence, but by his absence and his role in the persistence of idealizing memory. Skywalker’s return, if it happens, will mark the return to direct unmediated rivalry. Identity, the illusion of character and a true self, is a defense against the primacy of envy and in Star Wars, the dark side. The setting aside of the self and its attachments to rivalry is a precursor of the transition to mastery. Coincidentally, the illusory value of the droid is dropped in substitution for Rey in the same way that Rey herself now becomes the sign that points, and soon the mirror which reflects, back to Skywalker.
In a similar vein Kylo Ren self-consciously imitates Darth Vader as a role model. What he doesn’t realize is that he got this from his parents. In other words, he was raised to be everything Vader was not, and out of rivalry and disillusionment differentiated himself from being an object of his parents rivalry by his imitation of Vader in a dark transcendence of family ties. What renders him impotent is the psychic master/slave relationship which expresses a position of inferiority in having an imaginary idol instead of a real life flesh-and-blood rival or role model. This reflects his ambivalence and hidden fear of actual conflict and approaching his idolatrous god. He resolves this through the murder of his father. What they should have done was make him more powerful after this happened. Rey and crew should have escaped by the skin of their teeth to salvage any sense of threat from the enemies. Ren is a disappointment to the audience because we wanted him to be stronger so that the passion of rivalry may grow between him and Rey, instead of making her a priss who swats a naughty boys hand.
That brings me to Rey, a decently developed character. Rey is looking backward in melancholy, attached without knowing to model objects long past. As such, she is impotent by virtue of being passionless. She hungers for new objects of attachment – new models, first in Han as a father figure (note the dark side knows our objects will disappoint us, and it is the eternal struggle itself which constitutes motivation) and then to Luke. It is the bar owner as model for meaning which gives Rey her first taste of the transcendence of the force – escape from the endless tyranny of object rivalry. This frees Rey from her attachment to past objects and allows her to awaken her power in terms of her new role model, the Jedi way. The light side of the force is characterized by a conscious commitment to a transcendental value system of the memory of distant intermediary mentors to channel desire and passion safely without slipping into ever present competition, rivalry, envy and destruction. The true nature of the darkside is that it is this dark passion itself, not any victory, which is at the heart of the matter. The nature of the light side is learning how to care without envy (or attachment if you will).
What would really save Star Wars is this:
Leia, as figure head of the new Republic, has become convinced the Empire and First Order have created too many superweapons. As a prophylactic measure the new Republic becomes convinced that they themselves should create a superweapon, for purely defensive purposes. Of course you would find that in the efforts of mopping up the remnants of the Empire that they have gone to ground on planets throughout the solar system. After the devastation of the preceding war it only makes sense to spare casualties and use the new super weapon as part of the mopping up effort. This process of course causes great unrest among some factions in the new republic and stricter measures have to be imposed. Leia falls to the dark side, banishes Han and Luke, and proceeds to raise their son as a new dark apprentice. This all happens behind the scenes until the child ultimately kills Leia who is weak in the force but full of hatred for the destruction of Alderan, and takes control for himself. The search for a new apprentice leads to seizing children throughout the galaxy, with the new Jedi order founded by Luke-on-the-run set to battle against the new dark dyad and their former allies.
Or you should have just made the Thrawn series.
Star Wars has become pornography: All of the action, none of the feeling. The difference between a sexy movie and a sex movie is that in the former you are watching a story with characters you can identify with, the latter is that you are consuming a product which defines your character.
One reason people can’t write stories anymore is because the culture of individuality and authenticity has clouded their understanding of motivation and ruined many peoples ability to understand let alone tell a good story. You want what you want based on the emotional impact of significant figures in your life, not because of who you really are. Then again, that lie keeps you from turning to the dark side.
This is all to say that the proliferation of media combined with the closeness via social media to creators of content means that there are still authors and an audience, but no more characters. The criticism of *Awakens* as trite fan fiction misses the *in situ* character of this phenomenon: The movie is now about relationships to real life people, including the creators and the actors – not about relationships to the imaginary characters within the movie.
Dr. Meg Jay, a psychotherapist and author of The Defining Decade, tells us 30 is not the new 20. I agree – it’s the old 20. By this I mean that despite the freedoms and liberation of postmodernity we are still human, all too human.
In my response to her work I will engage post-structuralism, gender theory and the history of psychotherapy – hitting on my main point that Dr. Meg, Judith Butler and most people miss the function of the superego and wind up motivating themselves and others through negativity, often not realizing they are doing this or that there is another way.
Her popular book and TED talk (and a healthy dose of click bait) brand her as an expert at dealing with the problem of “twenty-somethings.” What is the problem of these Twixters? Their problem is that they don’t take their 20’s seriously – by which Meg means they aren’t being productive (This means immature, which means bad).
To Dr. Meg’s credit she does soften the blow through a parental instilled fear of future loss, though most people still hear it as “they should grow up already” because explaining the uncomfortable presence of this judgmental thought is why they looked for the book in the first place. Meg helps other people feel less bad about judging 20somethings.
I will return to this key point because what Meg is avoiding is the knowledge that you can’t be motivated by future loss if you haven’t grieved the past. You will instead remain motivated by past loss – which usually means not motivated, the problem in question. Meg is well aware of this, as evidenced from her doctoral work on melancholy, specifically as related to identity formation. I will form a speculative case for why this apparent irregularity may exist.
Docteh-Jeh’s message is that kidults need a swift kick in the abject-horror to counteract a societal zeitgesit which states or implies “your 20’s don’t matter.” This is where I start my critique. The question, as always: “Is this true, or does she wan’t it to be true?”
Meg wants it to be true that 20fuckthings are being told by society that their lot in life is inconsequential, that these same people are incorporating this message, and that they should reject it in favor of leaning into life because your 20’s are a golden opportunity (to work and prepare for the future).
Unfortunately I polled the collective unconscious of history about this subject and discovered what I already knew: nobody is telling them this. Do a google search for “your twenties aren’t important” or “your twenties don’t matter” and ask yourself how a psychotherapist could conclude that this is a rampant problem? The majority of the links are either (1) to Dohktuh Jaighs book, or (2) other articles about how critically important your 20’s are, usually with a product to sell about how to solve the problem.
Twenty somethings are telling themselves their 20’s don’t matter, like a child leaving a carnival with no iced cream who can’t really believe there will be a next time.
There are at least two ways for your life to matter: to yourself and to others. The reason young adults can’t tell the difference is because old adults can’t tell the difference. Neither can most therapists.
The Ambivalence of Crossing the Street
They can’t understand because they don’t want to understand. Understanding is horrifying.
How do you think children learn to cross the street (or not)?
You can remember not to cross the street because you are afraid of father and his punishment. You could also remember because you love mother and want to show her. Or, you can cross the street and look both ways, remembering that mother and father love you no matter what.
All of these are easier than being alone in the yard thinking about death and realizing that mother and father are gone.
Harder yet may be to know that they fear death, too, and can’t tell the truth about it. Perhaps your fear used to be their fear. If you show them you aren’t afraid… even this connection you will have to lose.
Nevertheless, on the other side of the street lies another yard full of happy children to play with. If you cross the street will you be happy, too?
How this turns out for you depends on how much you already enjoy playing in your yard right now.
Crossing the street is scary, but do you have faith it is worthwhile? Will it be good enough? Is it worth looking both ways – all the way down the street and to the end of time?
Perhaps you had better check with mother, or wait quietly until father returns.
The Brief-Therapy of Dr. Meg Jay
The best way to sell people a solution is to create a problem bigger than the one they say they have, but smaller than the one they fear they have. Begin with a narrative that shocks them and accounts for the presence of disavowed fear, inferiority, guilt and shame. Then reify the narrative into a thing, spun anew. The narrative about the problem makes people feel bad and the narrative about the solution makes them feel excited. Kind of like church, only you can’t deduct it on your taxes.
Then they buy the product to feel good about trying, relieving their anxiety about the underlying issues and enjoying the catharsis of participating in the ceremony.
The best way to do brief therapy is to offer a solution to a problem you created which is bigger than the one the client says they have, but smaller than the one they fear they have. Begin with a narrative that shocks them…
Dr. Jay presents the vignettes of two women: Alex and Emma, who are dating two “knuckleheads” – men who aren’t good enough for Dr. Meg’s father…er for Dr. Meg…I mean for her clients… Meg’s talk is also peppered with the fear of not being able to have a baby when you get old. Wait a minute, I thought this is about psychotherapy and 20 somethings (presumably persons of both genders, errr, sexes, I mean…oh fuck it…) not “Lean In 2: Return of the Killer Superego.”
The Depth-Therapy of Dr. Meg Jay
Judith Butler’s seminal article on gender identification called Melancholy Gender: Refused Identification, is a real classic. But Butler misses why.
Butler identifies that Freud changed his concept of grief between Mourning and Melancholia and The Ego and the ID. In the former, grief was resolvable through the remaking of broken attachments. In the latter, he notes that melancholic attachment is required to let an object relationship go. You have to mourn the loss.
As Butler notes, he also changed what he meant by letting an object go. In MM he meant the Id detached from it (you stopped giving a shit, and could therefore give a shit about other things).
By the Ego and the Id Freud means detachment of the drive qua incorporation of the object. You never let it go. It becomes part of you. You can’t have what you never wanted, and you couldn’t want it because you couldn’t have it. Tag – you are it. Enter the super-ego (punitive ego, negative self talk, inner critic, stinking thinking, deep negativity, critical inner parent, damaged sub-selves, persecutory objects, original sin, demon posession and so forth).
This means that to be able to give a shit about your life now you need to remember you gave a shit about it in the first place, which means dealing with the loss of what you first gave a shit about and your feelings about why you had to give it up.
If you don’t do this what you get instead is melancholy – incomplete grief and the apathy which hides it from you. You hide it because you can’t take it seriously because you are ashamed of it. You are ashamed of it because nobody else took it seriously either.
In Butlers terms female gender is only not being a man and the sorrow of the lost love of women (and the feelings you have(and can’t have) about it)). Melancholy gender is the unknown and unknowable grief of having to give up the same-sex relationship. You can’t mourn it because you can’t know you have it because it’s existence threatens you, since all you are is not-it. (Men and homosexuals work the same mutatis mutandis).
Dr. Meg wrote an award winning article engaging with Butler in 2005. (Meg Jay Ph.D. (2007) Melancholy Femininity and Obsessive—Compulsive Masculinity: Sex Differences in Melancholy Gender, Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 8:2, 115-135)
She proposed that this melancholy gender is worse for women since their primary relationship with the mother is same sexed vs. opposite sexed for men. In short – why more women are depressed than men (Which isn’t true, by the way. When you include aggression, substance abuse and risk taking behavior in the diagnostic categories. By the way, the belief that women are more depressed might be evidence of masochistic drives of the superego.)
She also notes men (knuckleheads) are more likely to become obsessively compulsively masculine than to experience melancholy gender.
Men can avow the love (libidinal or embodied cathex) of the mother to some minor extent, and its loss, but cannot avow the love of the father and instead obsessively try to be like him. They cannot mourn the loss of the love-for because they are forever acting it out, the energy or drive of this same love having become invested into the ego. In laymens terms, they put the energy of love-for into being-like.
Women cannot avow the love (libidinal or embodied cathex) of the mother and thus cannot grieve its loss.
What Butler and Meg miss is the profound difference between Freud’s two books in that Freud was working with two radically different models of the Psyche. In MM Freud was operating under the assumptions of Id Analysis, the Drive Model. In Ego, Freud introduced the Structural Model. The key difference between the two is the existence of the super-ego and the nature of repression.
*Freud never used the term ego analysis. After 1923 and the publication of Ego and the Id he spent most of the rest of his life dying of cancer and running from Nazis, so he was a little too busy to elaborate. This distinction was first noted by Otto Fenichel in Principles of Psychoanalytic Technique, and was then mostly forgotten outside of some obscure circles, never to fully return. People preferred the drive model and it lives on in public understanding because it lets them explain, express, and avoid awareness of the superego by blaming people.
The reason this matters is that Butler and Jay draw most heavily upon MM, missing the distinctions offered by the superego in the later work. This is all very obtuse, thought I suggest you read the linked articles for a real roller coaster.
What you need to know is that the Psyche does not have the character of drives and conflicts but of relationships between wishes and ideas about other people. The fact that these relationships seem like reality is the hiddenness of the superego. It hides in plain sight.
What lead Freud to this realization after decades of analysis was his attempt to explain the negative therapeutic reaction – why psychoanalysis didn’t work for most people and made lots of them worse.
If love goes unavowed and unavowable it means you are ashamed of yourself with respect to caring. The experience of the broken attachment, the withdrawal of a libido cathex (giving a shit), is often one of shame and guilt or the defense against it. The way you can remember you once loved at all, if you had to stop, is by internalizing guilt you can’t explain and shame you can’t admit.
Consider Derrida on The Secret: To have a secret you must always remember it, so as not to tell it. To hide it from yourself, you must put it somewhere else.
The place you put it is into explanations for why you can’t enjoy yourself, the labyrinthian and myriad justifications for disavowed agency.
There are only two sexes, which is a shame, since we want them to mean so very much more than they do.
Why then the kick in the pants?
Maybe what helps Meg’s clients is the fact that she shows them it is OK to act like a man and not be a lesbian. (Ok, to be nicer: how to just model a well-integrated female psyche.) Hell, I didn’t say this, Meg did in 2005. Much like Lacan thought the way to cure impotence was to make women wear strap-on dildos under their dress. (Shit-you-not: Ecrits, 825).
Wait, it’s OK to be a Lesbian, too, right? Sure, but why all this talk about babies? Well, according to her publishers, lesbians, gays and men aren’t really in the target demographic for self help books authored by professional women.
But we’re all still talking about 20somethings, right?
So why write the book?
If you humor me by agreeing that the book is not for 20somethings, but for 20something women then consider why Meg needs to hide this fact from her clients and possibly herself.
One possibility is that Dr. Meg went through these issues herself, resolved them, and has learned a lot from her practice. This fits the narrative of her story. I’ll leave you to speculate on her motives for going into therapy and gender studies as a career, then subsequently turning away from deep gender issues to promote brief therapy and self help.
Another possibility is that Meg herself has unresolved melancholy gender issues. Listen to her voice and watch her gestures in her TED talk: Can you hear the echo of the sadness and see the uncertain-but-carefully-polished lack of comfort in her own skin?
Her motivation in writing the book and pretending it is about 20somethings (as opposed to women) is that she is still struggling with her shame and doubt about doing what she is doing in life and is trying not to. It’s an attempt to quiet anxiety by becoming a public expert – a demonstration of her benign narcissism about having worked through these issues herself. Much like starting a cult, religion or self-help group (if there was ever a difference between the three). Or a blog….fuck me!
She knows that young women wouldn’t buy the book if it was about the psychological problems of young women so she pretends it’s about something else.
They wouldn’t buy the book because of a defense against shame, which is largely their problem to begin with. And they can’t see their shame because people like Meg can’t see it either.
They keep the secret for each other, from each other.
Being a 20something man rules unless your father was a pussy and your mom was a hysteric- which unfortunately is most men. Your dad was afraid he’s gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that), which is why you’re afraid to be masculine (isn’t there supposed to be something wrong with that?).
To Meg, starting a career and family of your own is a behavioral strategy, a way to foreclose the unresolved grief beneath the melancholy of identification and ambivalence. In being like your parents and other adults you can in that way be an adult and perhaps bypass the super-ego. This makes entry into adulthood the world of being like.
What Meg cannot convey in her book or brief therapy is the difference between being and being like. According to Dr. Jay it is identity capital – object relationships which prove who you are. I say that whether this works or feels phony depends on whether you can enjoy yourself and can give a shit about anything (Whether your ego is contaminated by super-ego effects).
The problem with her approach is that it will work decently with those who struggle with guilt but less so with those who struggle with shame. In the case of the former it will reinforce negativity as a way of motivating the self and others. For the latter it will become grist for the mill of self hatred and striving, yet another book in the heap of self-help. This is so because they are already telling themselves and the Dr. Meg’s of the world that 30 is the new 20.
What you miss is the experience that being an adult can be a lighthearted game big kids play.
The Ego-Analytic Alternative
If you want to improve your sense of what works vs. what doesn’t in psychotherapy study sex and violence. Two of my favorite and most often cited sources are Bernard Apfelbaum, a sex therapist in the Masters & Johnson lineage, and James Gilligan, a therapist and violence scholar who spent his career in criminal justice. To understand their work in a nutshell see the links above.
Apfelbaum & Gilligan show us the shame and guilt underneath the problems that bring people to therapy or worse. Shame and Guilt tend to disappear into the unconscious. They are hard to realize we have because they are hard to express and have accepted in the public discourse or empathized with (mirrored) by others. This is because everybody else is trying to avoid guilt and shame in themselves and as a result tries to avoid it in us. If they see ours, they feel theirs, so they avoid ours.
This pattern reinforces shame and guilt about shame and guilt. To a large extent this is the problem with life.
The old twenty meant being an adult. It meant being accepted into an ordinary world of normal adult satisfactions and entitlements. Thirty, the new (old) twenty, means adults hate you for an additional ten years before they take you seriously.
Don’t blame them for this, it’s the economy.
They don’t take you seriously without an education and they don’t take your education seriously (Because they don’t take themselves seriously, and are threatened by you.)
This leaves me at the fundamental question: If others don’t take you seriously how can you take yourself seriously? For the first time in history neo-liberal youth have a protracted period of relative freedom. Asking why 20somethings can’t grow up is the wrong question. Why can’t twenty somethings enjoy what everyone has always been fighting for? Maybe they believe (or can’t consciously believe) that adults are spiteful and jealous and still want (can’t consciously want) our approval?
Some conclude the problem is we have too much freedom, which I think is unfortunate. I say we can be more than dogs who sleep in open cages.
To return to the illustration of crossing the street: Your 30’s are the other yard across the street. You will get there eventually, even if father has to make you. Whether you enjoy yourself when you get there or not, all things being equal, can be well predicted by whether or not you are enjoying yourself now. What is it that makes you not enjoy yourself now?
Why isn’t your life good enough? If you think the answer is that you’re not working hard enough to plan for the future you might be in trouble.
Dr. Meg Jay’s moral lesson is reminiscent of the Ant and the Grasshopper, so I’ll leave you with Apfelbaum’s analysis of it:
Like the ant and the grasshopper. The ant constantly works, all summer long, storing up food for the winter. Now the grasshopper, he just sings all summer long. He makes no provision for winter. So winter comes and the ant does fine, but the grasshopper starves to death. Do we feel sorry for him? Is that the point of the fable? That the poor grasshopper has this slow agonizing death from starvation? Of course not. It’s his own fault! We don’t waste sympathy [note: sympathy can be wasted] on him; he has forfeited his right to it. No one says. “Pity the poor grasshopper.” Because he asked for it.
That’s blame logic. Outside of blame logic we should be able to see that if you are responsible for your own suffering, you are even more in need of sympathy. If you have only yourself to blame that’s a much worse punishment than if you can blame someone else. And the reason for that is that we relate to ourselves according to the logic of blame.
The poor grasshopper not only has to starve to death in the snow, he has to blame himself for it. He has to beat himself up for not being practical and responsible like the ant. “Why, Oh why did I have to be such a jerk? What is the matter with me? What is such a big deal about singing that I couldn’t at least take a little time to put aside a little food?”
In other words, negative self-talk is the same as negative other-talk.
Not only does the grasshopper have to starve to death, he has the added misery of having to blame himself. It could even be that he was pretty depressed all summer so he had to keep singing to keep up his spirits. And every day he thought he would put aside some food, but he just never got around to it, and before he knew it, it was winter. It just got away from him.
But he wouldn’t be able to spare himself with that explanation. He’d be just as self-condemning, telling himself: “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that after summer comes winter, for Chrissake!” How stupid can you be?” That’s negative self-talk. There are no extenuating circumstances. Just like negative other-talk.
So we don’t even have any way of knowing how much we are suffering from living in this world of blame, and forfeiting our right to suffer[sic]—no way of knowing how stressed out we are, living in the courtroom, and how much our thinking is limited by having to work up a case for ourselves.
Dr. Meg Jay might help you store up for winter. I say the ant and the grasshopper can both learn to whistle while they work.
For the apathetic, here is a bit of original fill-in-the-blank poetry:
Apathy, my weapon!
Apathy, my crutch!
Apathy is all I have
For I have so very much _____!
Jezebel reported that Taylor won’t sign a prenup because it’s unromantic. Whether her marriage (if it happens) will last or not depends upon what she means by romantic.
If she means romantic as an ideal love bubble, she’s in trouble. However, I am reminded of my favorite quote by Alfred Adler: “The chief danger in life is that you may take too many precautions.”
In one sense a prenuptial agreement can be viewed as a lack of trust in the partner. In another, it can imply a lack of commitment, hedging your bets.
A prenuptial agreement can reflect a lack of trust in yourself. In the boxing world, Bernard Hopkins famously bet $100,000 on himself in a fight against Felix Trinidad. What would it take for you to bet everything on yourself? How much would it be worth to you to actually believe in yourself? I dare say it can be worth everything, even if you lose, to know you really fought.
If someone asks you for a prenuptial agreement, tell them they can have everything you own right now, and if they don’t apologize, leave and don’t turn back. This is neither practical nor sober, but it might be worth it in a world where very little else is.
I’m not saying marriage should be this serious for you, or even that it is good. However, it can be this way. And if it isn’t, then I hope you find something else that is. If you do have something else that is this important to you, then that is a very good reason for a prenuptial agreement.
Being able to talk about the possibility of a future separation can be a good demonstration of maturity – akin to being able to talk about money, sex, family and other adult responsibilities. However, what people ultimately feel is fair cannot be decided in advance. Moral feelings supervene on actions, what others actually do. The prenup is an effort to preempt this, ironically, to commit to something that may not feel fair in the future. The value of this I suppose depends on how much you trust yourself and how you think your emotions represent the reality of your experience.
The possibility for the romance of marriage in the 21st century is to acknowledge that dreams aren’t real, but that awake, you can dream nonetheless. No commitment, no promise, no obligation exists without your living into them. Marriage is not and never was sacred, but the good news is that you already always are.
Yes Means Yes – affirmative consent – is an unrealistically high standard for how people talk about sex in relationships. I’d go so far as to say it is a flagrant denial of reality in that people almost never have a straight-forward conversation about sex, not to mention anything else. This sham of a law will shift blame, not solve problems.
The insanity of this position is obvious if you consider the impossibility of uttering the phrase “Do you consent to having sex with me?” Without having any feelings about saying it. Would you feel bold? Would you fear rejection? Does it feel, somehow too direct and matter of fact? Would you resent having to ask like some panhandler? Would you rather just tell your partner “I want you” and see how they react? Or would you be afraid they would feel objectified? Maybe you don’t even realize whether or not you really want to do something until you start doing it. These feelings are what constitute our lived experience of the meaning of the situation, not the narrative used.
And how about the recipient of that question? What if he answered:
“Well, I did feel like having sex with you before you asked. But now I’m kind of self conscious and not really feeling turned on.”
“Does that mean you do or do not want me to try and help you feel turned on, or less self conscious?”
“Yes. I mean both, but I feel kind of like I shouldn’t need your help.”
“Huh. So you’re not turned on, but you want to be. Does that mean you don’t want to have sex with me but feel like you’re supposed to be enjoying this, or that you do want to have sex with me but don’t feel like you can say so?”
If people only have sex when they wanted to, they would have a lot less of it. Having sex to avoid confrontation, rejection, conflict, embarrassment or shame are among the many reasons people have sex. After that you could list performing, meeting expectations, anxiety, self loathing, revenge, and insecurity.
To this admirable list add all the things people do to avoid having sex and to avoid being direct add: Getting drunk, working late – or even pretending to be drunk, busy, stressed, headache, sick, tired, etc.
We must understand that the same psychology that makes it impossible for some women to adequately say “no” is what will prevent Yes Means Yes from working. People do not yet feel as free as they are and I think we all deserve a little more sympathy and a little less blame. (a Nietzschean second innocence). As always, where hearts fail us we substitute with omniscient ritualistic bureaucracy.
Not to mention, the only possible way a college student could remember to have this conversation is if instead of enjoying the moment they were preoccupied with worrying about punishment from the government. I wonder why you would be thinking such things at a time like this? Perhaps your existential guilt can no longer be laid at the feet of dead gods so now you need a living one.
Masters and Johnson (1979, pp. 64-81) studied 307 heterosexual couples chosen specifically because they functioned well sexually. These were the “healthy” ones. Women in the study almost universally complained about uncomfortable breast and clitoral touching. Men constantly complained about uncomfortable or dissatisfying penile stroking. The key is they claimed this to the researchers. Out of thousands of observed encounters only three women ever mentioned this to their partners and no men ever said anything.
It’s nice when people can be direct, open or vulnerable. But the assumption that people should be able to talk this way will be more damaging than the alternative. All that will happen is that men can be more effectively blamed and punished and actual raping will continue unabated. This will happen because people rape on purpose to overcome feelings of powerlessness and disrespect. You know, like the kind of powerlessness you feel when you’re supposed to be able to stand up for yourself in difficult conversations, fail, and wind up feeling resentment and the desire to punish others in an effort to avoid hard to dispel self hatred.
People used to do rely on roles to live a predictable life. With the collapse of socially defined behavior, interpersonal anxiety abounds and one solution is to find another way to make people predictable. Unfortunately, there is some evidence that we are using the government to make people more predictable.
In a fit of insanity I have tried to ask partners in the past if they wanted to have sex with me. The universal response has been “Why would you ask me that?”
Another part of who we are as humans has slipped away into the ausland.
*Note: Much closer to reality is Swann’s courtship of Odette (Proust, 1913). Proust’s portrayal of the interlocuteurs illuminates how we mutually use behavior to convey meaning about that which we can’t communicate directly. The reason for this, I would say, is that much of the meaning of what we do exists in mutually constructed illusion. In the vignette of Swann’s courtship, he conveys both his interest and the permission for his advances through the subterfuge of adjusting flowers on the bodice of Odette. I would further my claim by saying that the attempt to be direct (yes means yes) will itself become a new metaphor. The question again: Why are you asking? Are you asking because you don’t know, to convey respect or to avoid blame?
TLP relates the story of a man going through some relationship troubles and notes who at one point flattered him with the following:
4.a. I had noticed narcissistic behavior in me before several times and I’ve been trying to change. For instance, somehow I thought I’d look ridiculous giving someone a gift so I didn’t usually did that, no matter the circumstance. I originally thought giving a gift was about me, a reflection on me, not about the person receiving the gift. When I came back from Denver I brought a Broncos jersey for my little brother, but I was worried about what my father would think of me and about my choice of a gift, and stuff like that, but I focused on how my brother would feel receiving the gift. It may sound silly but for me that was a big deal. It pisses me off that I forgot to pay attention to her feelings in this situation.
This is obviously self critical. Perhaps TLP would identify the superego effects in play with all this negative self talk? Perhaps he could point out that giving gifts is always partially self interested (See The Gift, Mauss, or Derrida, Given Time or The Gift of Death). Furthermore, he could point out that it’s natural to worry about how other people will react to a gift, and similarly to feel like you shouldn’t be so worried about it.
Instead of offering any of these TLP offers a developmental explanation which I will summarize “You want my approval, just like your fathers, and are tricking me into giving it to you with this story, and in general, by the way you are acting it out in your life.”
This is a developmental explanation tinged with the assumptions of Id analysis and commonsense moralizing. Patients are seen as crafty adversaries, childishly trying to get one over on their analysts. Or, at best, to be stuck at a developmental stage.
TLP rightly did not give his full scooby-doo explanation (why you’re really doing what you’re doing) because it would be taken as a confrontation. The analysand would be left with either:
To see the super-ego effects you should look for what both TLP and the analysand don’t bother to question: It’s bad/wrong/evil/childish/immature to want approval, and worse to try and get it indirectly from others.
Given that we can assume they both agree on this point, it is doubtless that the client was already dealing with repressed shame about wanting approval – and thus acting it out in the transference and his life. The key to this distinction is that TLP felt disapproving. That is how I look at this. It is not in the words. The words are the content. It is in the relationship someone has to the content that you will find transference feelings, which are a clue to how the client relates to the content. Something is standing between TLP and his ability to be empathic with his client. What that is, in this case, is his client.
Not only do I think approval from important others is an ordinary adult need, I think it is normal to feel bad about wanting it. What might help this client experience some relief would be to become able to experience and talk about how he feels ashamed about wanting approval from TLP.
The traditional path to this kind of insight is to withhold response – in the old days they would call this intensifying the transfer neurosis. This is, unfortunately, a long a troublesome process. It eventually infuriates narcissists and makes borderlines feel abandoned.
Objectivity from the standpoint of the analyst/analysand dyad is not possible, as TLP correctly notes. However, an interpretation that is neutral from the standpoint of the client is possible to the extent it is ego analytical (identifies and relieves superego tension). It is never easy to arrive at this kind of thinking, but it might eventually look something like:
Even this may still just enrage or shame the client, who couldn’t help but feel accused of being childish. Then again, perhaps the client would feel this way naturally because it is exactly what TLP actually believes. TLP prevents TLP from being neutral from the standpoint of the client because of his explanatory framework and the transference effect of the clients unspoken shame about his dependency needs.