/lit/ - Literature

> For standard feminism, at least, it is an a priori axiom that rape is a violence imposed from without: even if a woman fantasizes about being raped, this only bears witness to the deplorable fact that she has internalized the male attitude. The reaction is here one of pure panic: the moment one mentions that a woman may fantasize about being raped or at least brutally mishandled, one hears the objections: 'This is like saying that Jews fantasize about being gassed in the camps, or African-Americans fantasize about being lynched!'
> From this perspective, the split hysterical position (that of complaining about being sexually misused and exploited, while simultaneously desiring it and provoking a man to seduce her) is secondary, while for Freud, it is primary, constitutive of subjectivity. Consequently, the problem with rape for Freud is that it has such a traumatic impact not simply because it is a case of such brutal external violence, but because it also touches on something disavowed in the victim herself.
> So when Freud writes, 'If what [neurotics] long for the most intensely in their phantasies is presented them in reality, they none the less flee from it', his point is not merely that this aversion occurs because of censorship, but, rather, that the core of our fantasy is unbearable to us.
> (Of course, this insight in no way justifies rape along the infamous lines 'she just got what she fantasized about...' - if anything, it makes it more violent: what could be more brutal than to impose on someone the traumatic core of his/her fantasy?)

Does /lit/ agree?

Why do we need bourgeois Marxist intellectuals if class consciousness will arise naturally from the proletariat?

At the very least they should study law and actually help the working class rather than arguing about Lacan amongst themselves.

What if Marx and Lacan are wrong?

Can someone justify Marxists for me? Here we have socialists on the left who are trying to create a welfare state within capitalism in order to produce arguably the greatest standards of living in any political system (see Scandinavia, Canada etc).

Then we have Marxists who insist this is all very bad and we just need to sit around and wait for the inevitable ITS HAPPENING, whereby we will all revolt, probably get killed in the process, and create a new political system that no one, not even Marx, can imagine.

> A person who attended to one of your lecturers said that, ‘I believe that Zizek has taken Cocaine’. It’s a comment about your hyper animated presence. Have you ever taken cocaine or any other similar drug?

> Zizek: Many people believe that-even some of my friends. But surprisingly never in my life did I take drugs-not even soft drugs. Its not that I am a moralist or anything. Many people around me take drugs. Maybe it’s my disciplinarily-terrorist attitude. Maybe if you take drugs, then you get soft, then the enemy can attack you easily I hate drugs.

lol there's no way Zizek is not a cokehead. I'm sorry but I've watched way too many Zizek youtube videos to believe that the man is not always severely hopped up on cocaine. He's a Freudian, what do you expect?

is someone gonna tell him that marx and freud were wrong?

or are we afraid to hurt his feelings

are v-necks still /fa/