revolt. Family nudity is innocent, it isn’t done to “get attention”; however, in public nudity is perverse because it’s showing something. The penis shown according to dad-mom’s orders is a cut-off, missing pee-pee, whose very presence demonstrates its inexistence; the penis shown according to the child’s initiative is a cock, a real one, autonomous, aggressive, desiring.
By what roundabout means, actually, does a child, “deprived of affection,” open his fly in public? Is it really by means of it that you obtain another’s affection? That would be too choice, in fact. Marriage agencies would close up shop, and the advice columns would change their tune.
I see two levels of explanation for this kind of child’s behavior. You can show your prick either to suppress it, or to make it exist. Considering the sexual system for children, it’s probably that the majority of those who show their cock, far from being unbalanced, abandoned or unfortunate, do it from a naive hope, from pride and from desire: my dad, my mom, my brother, my sister don’t want my cock, what about you?—that is all that is meant by this fine gesture, and it’s a proof of great health, because it expresses the feet that such children aren’t guilty enough to refrain, nor oedipal enough to makedo with the very platonic family-style of fondling. But these kids scandalize; and their frank and innocent way of acknowledging that they desire to be desiring and desired will be called pathological.
In the same way, until the age of seven or eight, little children spontaneously express, with sensuality and an extreme eroticism, their liking for others; and it’s not that they are begging to be mothered by every Tom, Dick and Mary; it’s that their desire, immediately, crudely, invests itself in every affection that an older person’s inspires in them—and that they secretly hope that the sources of pleasure that are called neither mom nor dad won’t oppose their body with the oedipal flat refusal, which, through the prohibition of incest, teaches prohibition, plain and simple.
But since the Encyclopedia has denied the sexuality of the child, it refuses to interpret the display of it in terms of desire, autonomy, freedom. All it has left as explanation is a paltry pattern of regression. However, this will reveal the system of sexual alienation and the family-centric deal with which the child’s desire is struggling.
We have followed, on one hand, the description of a boy spoiled by parental affection, but who castrates himself for the right to it; and on the other hand, a boy “neglected” because his parents don’t love him and no one else has the right to love him. If he shows his cock in public, it’s for it to be cut off like all children’s and for him to receive, in compensation, his share of affection.
Little Jean, whose cock has been sacrificed to his family in exchange for tenderness, obeys that very law; and his innocence, his dreadful preadolescence, is actually a sign of the mutilating adaptation of his pleasures to the very specific erotic-castrator context that his parents are imposing upon him. That his penis is a detached, foreign object for him goes without saying, because that’s its only currency of exchange: give your prick (he has learned),you’ll get a sweet, a kiss, a day without trauma, one less spanking, some good sentiments, you’ll be fondled, your nice mom will hug her “big sulky boy” again.
In conformity with the logic of this deal, a kid who is feeling helpless will offer his excrements or his pee-pee, one way or another, to pay for the affective benefit that his family circle is refusing him. The little exhibitionist, who moves our mater-analyst to pity, is like a brat who has peed in bed: he reproduces an outmoded organic market deal, a giving-to-get that’s the first relationship to others that his parents have inculcated in him. He “continues to live like a baby,” in fact: but no more
By what roundabout means, actually, does a child, “deprived of affection,” open his fly in public? Is it really by means of it that you obtain another’s affection? That would be too choice, in fact. Marriage agencies would close up shop, and the advice columns would change their tune.
I see two levels of explanation for this kind of child’s behavior. You can show your prick either to suppress it, or to make it exist. Considering the sexual system for children, it’s probably that the majority of those who show their cock, far from being unbalanced, abandoned or unfortunate, do it from a naive hope, from pride and from desire: my dad, my mom, my brother, my sister don’t want my cock, what about you?—that is all that is meant by this fine gesture, and it’s a proof of great health, because it expresses the feet that such children aren’t guilty enough to refrain, nor oedipal enough to makedo with the very platonic family-style of fondling. But these kids scandalize; and their frank and innocent way of acknowledging that they desire to be desiring and desired will be called pathological.
In the same way, until the age of seven or eight, little children spontaneously express, with sensuality and an extreme eroticism, their liking for others; and it’s not that they are begging to be mothered by every Tom, Dick and Mary; it’s that their desire, immediately, crudely, invests itself in every affection that an older person’s inspires in them—and that they secretly hope that the sources of pleasure that are called neither mom nor dad won’t oppose their body with the oedipal flat refusal, which, through the prohibition of incest, teaches prohibition, plain and simple.
But since the Encyclopedia has denied the sexuality of the child, it refuses to interpret the display of it in terms of desire, autonomy, freedom. All it has left as explanation is a paltry pattern of regression. However, this will reveal the system of sexual alienation and the family-centric deal with which the child’s desire is struggling.
We have followed, on one hand, the description of a boy spoiled by parental affection, but who castrates himself for the right to it; and on the other hand, a boy “neglected” because his parents don’t love him and no one else has the right to love him. If he shows his cock in public, it’s for it to be cut off like all children’s and for him to receive, in compensation, his share of affection.
Little Jean, whose cock has been sacrificed to his family in exchange for tenderness, obeys that very law; and his innocence, his dreadful preadolescence, is actually a sign of the mutilating adaptation of his pleasures to the very specific erotic-castrator context that his parents are imposing upon him. That his penis is a detached, foreign object for him goes without saying, because that’s its only currency of exchange: give your prick (he has learned),you’ll get a sweet, a kiss, a day without trauma, one less spanking, some good sentiments, you’ll be fondled, your nice mom will hug her “big sulky boy” again.
In conformity with the logic of this deal, a kid who is feeling helpless will offer his excrements or his pee-pee, one way or another, to pay for the affective benefit that his family circle is refusing him. The little exhibitionist, who moves our mater-analyst to pity, is like a brat who has peed in bed: he reproduces an outmoded organic market deal, a giving-to-get that’s the first relationship to others that his parents have inculcated in him. He “continues to live like a baby,” in fact: but no more
Similar Books
