surely sex that is not an expression of a power relation is a) possible
b) desirable
isn’t this all based on a misreading of foucault? surely the primary power relation is the one of surveillance? how is it that his panopticon is never read as a refusal & a mirror for the very people who swing this proposition like a club?
i don’t deny that the interstices of sexual relationships are saturated w/ enactments of power, but the simplistic interpretation of ‘power’ as authority & force is just plain idiotic. has the beloved no power over the lover?
well, power is the rate at which work is done, so therefore cannot be a subset of either work or time.
or perhaps we’re talking about power in the sense used by foucault. “…there are manifold relations of power that permeate, characterize and constitute the social body, and these relations of power cannot themselves be established, consolidated nor implimented without the production, accumulation, circulation and functioning of a discourse.”
therefore power is not a subset of discourse, because it depends on discourse. so wtf r u talking about? lol. …just the kind of bland assertion of nothing that i started this thread to interrogate.
for something to be a subset, it must also be a member of its superset, so power must also be discourse. therefore how can power simultaneously be discourse & depend on discourse for its existence.
With sex offenders, sex is like a game of “tag you’re it” for them. So, the power is in the doing to someone else what was done to you.
A classic nonsexual example is that guy has a hard time at work, then comes home and give wife a hard time, then wife gives kid a hard time, then kid kicks dog.
Other that that I don’t believe that sex is all about power.
It’s not that it -is- discourse, it’s just a derivation from it. It’s part of it, but it’s not the concept itself. Foucault is talking about a specific type of power which becomes apparent in a discourse. If you converse with your teacher and you are more intelligent the ‘power’ there becomes apparent with the discourse, but the inital conversation was initiated by another power - the student/teacher morality.
This overarching type of power I’m talking about is just another name for disparity, something which we need to operate psychologically. Everything regresses back to this.
Sex is usually defined as intercourse between the genitals of two people. And yes… sex falls under a power disparity, with love I’ve just found it to very very subtle.
It’s all measured by science. The brutal truth is that the feeling of love is still an evolutionary function designed to prepare the individual for the sacrifices needed to presumably start a family. It is the bridge between infatuation and death so to speak.
This may come across as cold; it’s not, there is lots of room for a meaninful life and companionship and all that but I’ve found that for the most part in every relationship there is one person who loves the other more. Like I said, it can just be very subtle sometimes, and can often switch several times throughout the course of a relationship.
no. it comes across as unbearably naive & sentimental.
anyway, as an amusing aside, let’s say we actually mean something when we use the word power. outrageous? perhaps, but humour me.
force is any influence (energy) which changes the motion of an object.
work is the affect of force, over time.
power is the rate of doing work.
power is the rate of using energy.
i think the point is something is moved, against its inclination. does sexual attraction reflect an exertion of power, or is power more to do w/ muscles? just wondering?
If sex isn’t about power then why am I so powerless towards it?
Of course everything is an expression of power, since every act is a manipulation, an imposition of Will upon an animate or inanimate object.
Human interactions are, at heart, economics and economics can be defined as power exchanges.
There are, of course multiple methods for attaining power.
Some, predominately, seek it through participation in a whole (belonging, love, unity), relinquishing their claim on individuality for the search of a “greater self’.
Others, predominately, seek it in non-participation (individuality, separation), holding onto a specific unity of identity, through consciousness, and seeking self-fulfillment.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but Adler mentioned that total sexual submission can actually be a form of power even in the regard to the person that’s say beating you. It’s twisty, but an understandable concept.
However, there are people that are a lot like friends that have sexual relationships and I would guess that if there’s power there then it’s about the giving up of power somehow being an expression of power. I’m so powerful that I’m not about power, but really that’s what it’s all about, or something.
