Leo was right about porn

[Yimpa]

9 hours ago, Terell Kirby said:

high quality porn

 

[Nilsi]

12 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes.

Your strategy for managing frustration is to disengage from the imagination that underlies desire (and therefore lack), whereas most women will instead choose to invest themselves in it again and again, desperately hoping to find the phallus (power, satisfaction).

That is to say, whereas most girls will seek to be filled and possibly cry, stamp their feet, or whatever, in the event of dissatisfaction, you prefer (chronically, these are tendencies) to say "nope" and disengage.
As you disidentify from the turmoil of lack, the libidinal game, to achieve intensity, becomes to take someone who identifies with this lack and fill it.
Taking someone in the lack -> excitement (because it's a "threat" to your identity of lack of lack) -> dominating her to "restore order."

 

@Nilsi 

I think Lacan said that masculinity translates into the supremacy of the symbolic order. I may have misunderstood something, but I don't agree at all. For me, it's a bourgeois and patriarchal anomaly (and I'm a conservative, lol).

For me, 1) The symbolic order is always ultimately imaginary. 2) A virile man is, and this seems to be the version most intuitively prevalent in the unconscious of most people, on the contrary, someone perched in the real rather than in the torments of the prison of language.
Typically, a man who is low in stress, bearded, stoic, strong, and generous even naive.

If I believe Lacan and his supremacy of the symbolic order among men, then vegan nazis in Hugo Boss gay leather suits with masochistic fetish would be the summum of virility. 

I mean that even if you position yourself so-called, symbolically, as masculinity, the law of the father, all that, the simple fact of identifying with the image, even with the ego itself one could say, generates feminine affects and libidinal behavior in general; If you see what I mean. 

Again maybe i misenderstood something somewhere, you know better Lacan than me.

I don’t really care about masculinity one way or the other, but let’s be clear:

Lacan’s “Name-of-the-Father” quite literally refers to your surname - the name of your father - and represents law, prohibition, symbolic authority, and the entry into the Symbolic Order.

So the picture of the metrosexual man you’re painting is actually what Lacan would call a perversion - where the subject disavows the Name-of-the-Father in favor of the first name: the image, the ego, the personal identity.

For Lacan, masculinity means taking up a position under the authority of the Name-of-the-Father - under tradition, symbolic law, patriarchal authority.

But it’s important to understand that for Lacan, this position is never fully successful.

There is no pure or triumphant masculinity: it’s always marked by split, failure, and alienation, because entry into the Symbolic always entails a loss.

It has nothing to do with physiology or biological vitality. Lacan was not a vitalist.

If you want to get into these kinds of questions, you’d be better off reading Nietzsche or Aristotle first.