Electra?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Sefter, Jul 18, 2003.

  1. Sefter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    The female version of a deep rooted psychological complex must surely be very different to the male version. Given the difference in biological apparatus females will not attempt to dominate the male parent, but they will attempt to seduce him. They will also attempt to outdo the female parent by continuing in the same manner. The child will attempt to become more and more cute and sweet to attract one parent, while outdoing the other in this same way. I beleive this is not culturally based because it must come from the biological make-up of the sexes.
    However the gender roles we see around are biased by society, and it seems to me that it is somewhat backwards in this part of the world.

    Anyone got any thoughts?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    (I bet the girls daren't reply to this, and I won't blame them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. omega Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    typically it is thought that through female development, the Oepdipal love object switches from the initial mother contact to the male father's, whereas the boy's would remain the same. she does this to establish her independance from her mother, but cannot (usually) develope the same freindship and indentify with the father because of obvious reasons (lack of penis). he is more likely, as you said, to treat the daughter as a cute seductress.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Sefter:
    You..*snigger*...give credence to Freud?

    How is this? I mean, even if you're stupid enough to believe cokehead's nonsense, what's the difference between "seduction" and "domination"?
    Nada.

    *Chuckles*
    And here you have the point where cokehead's inane gibbering is smashed to pieces by the brick wall of reality.
    The behaviour you outlined isn't universally observed, yes?

    Our parents, bless them, try to craft us in their image. It is, of course, necessary for proper development for us to reject this influence.
    Freud observes this, but, being Austrian and thus a heir to the German sexual legacy (c'mon, just look at the porn they make) assumes a sexual basis to this rebellion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sefter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    Yeah I give credence to Freud. The only way that I can see masterbation being in existence is if there are guilty thoughts and an objective self-regulation of some kind comes into play, or if there are advances by the child that are shunned. Either way the complex is true (in the second example there are advances!) unless anyone can think of another way that masterbation has come about.

    With the biological apparatus that there is then it must be in the sexes nature to act differently; the male had a 'rod of power' that is for penetration and dominance, while the female has a flower and as such females become like a flower and try to attract the seed rather than chase it.

    Women should not be given dominance over men because the above is biological fact that is almost psychological fact, however in certain societies women are not only given equality (which isn't so wrong) but they are given dominance which is wrong! No wonder there are certain problems that exist today in these societies; why else would men go out to take out their anger and aggression on women/girls? It isn't taken out on men (largely, I would say).

    Surely 'hysteria' comes from deep-rooted fantasies that become reality otherwise why would such people be so happy? This is not always the case however: a young male that is forced to identify with a father, who himself is hysterical, could be the source of some such hysteria, but in terms of the root of hysteria I would say that the initial foundations are true. I would also like to add that it is only in countries where 'freedom' and 'liberty' are boasted that such people are allowed to have parenthood; in other such places it would be weeded out!
    Having said this the countries whose laws allow freedom and liberty could have some foundations built on deeper insights. If the following is true; that we have a conscience (we all know the difference between right and wrong), we have free will/choice ( unlike the vegetables and minerals we have the choice of how to act and interact with(in) the environment) and we all have deep-rooted fantasies, then a child (in most cases) will only come to harm if it goes against what it knows to be wrong, and if it therefore is interested in the pursuit of evil! If these people are then 'bred-out' by sending them to prison or putting them to death etc then eventually all that is left is 'angels', or purely good people.

    Having said this these countries that allow such liberties and whose laws etc are based on the notion of free-will could be fooling themselves. For a hysterical person to be allowed to become a father and for a child to then have to imitate this, or be faced with the prospect that caused such a hysteria in the first place is wrong! For a child to have to imitate hysteria and go out into the world like this will do more harm than good!!!

    Libertatious (if that's a word) countries would be correct with their assumption that a child will not want to imitate their father no matter who they are, but for a child to be forced to imitate something that in essence is wrong, and something that is allowed to exist, is wrong in itself. These countries breed evil themselves by setting such strict boundaries that a child is not allowed to change, and because we are all born naturally evil then this is what they create; evil bodies. This is probably the reason their kids go into school and shoot it up.

    Isn't it?
    Why is it neccessary?

    Get lost! I didn't write that and you know I didn't!

    The girl (being a flower) will always try to attract a mate because that's how it's biologically preset, and the sexes both have such natural defaults. Girls will always be seducers because that's their nature; they attract (se-duce).
     
  8. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    "Rod of power"?

    Am I, perchance, typing this to a very coked-out Ron Jeremy?

    Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, wanking feels good?

    Dude. Seek help.

    P.S:
    Women have a vagina, not a flower blossoming about their nethers. A man has a penis, not a "rod of power". Seek out a decent anatomy textbook.
     
  9. Sefter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    Yeah and how is it discovered to be good? What starts the masterbation?? I am right and you are wrong, so fuck off!

    Any argument that those who masterbate have a reduced risk of prostate cancer in later life and that this could be how such a habit is in existence is also wrong! The cancer in question is in much later life (~fifties) and children will have been conceived long before this. There isn't really any argument here! There is no argument that can be given for the existence of masterbation except if the complex is true!

    And women do have flowers!!!
     
  10. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Since humans are naturally curious, we start to touch ourselves early. Certain regions feel better, especially when stimulated in certain ways.

    No, they don't. Unless they buy them at florists.

    Actually, I'm right and you are severely delusional.
     
  11. Sefter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    But people know it's wrong! If it's just the 'stimulation of a region' then why is it such a taboo?
    Yes they do!
    No, I am right.

    p.s. an ammendment to your signiture: "Stimulation, coitus, wine, cheese, and weed."
    --The Marquis
     
  12. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Sefter:
    Because the Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity, hate pleasure. Masturbation is wrong because it is simply enjoying one's body - while these religions believe that the body should not be enjoyed.
    The taboo is not universal. Tahitian women used to masturbate with the heel of their foot while talking to each other.

    *Sighs*
    Cherry.
     
  13. Sefter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    No, the religions don't like it because it's an abuse of the body. That part of the body has a use namely reproduction and the disposal of bodily waste.
     
  14. koolmodee I'm alive! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    43
    Indeed it is used for the disposal of waste. And when a guy is not having sex then masturbation is a way of getting rid of the unused sperm (or waste). The longer the sperm stay inactive within the body the more likely that it becomes infertile. Just because society tells us that it is taboo doesn't mean that there was never a reason for it. It's not abusing your body....it doesn't hurt you.

    And more to the point:
    humans are not plants and I don't know why you have tried to describe the behaviours of humans as an equal to the functioning of a plant.
     

Share This Page