Well? And how did they respond?

A perfect symbiosis

To be slightly more exact, Freud writes that men marry ‘um sich gegen die Anfechtungen der Sinnlichkeit zu sichern’ (in order to protect oneself against the temptations of sensuality) ‘und dann stellt sich doch heraus, dass die Ehe keine Befriedigung eines etwas starkeren Bedurfnisses gestattet’ (but then it turns out that the marriage does not allow of the satisfaction of needs that are somewhat stronger than usual). And follows the comparison of public transport with public women.
The satisfaction of needs are somewhat stronger than usual, Freud says. Why? Freud does not say so, but obviously because they are forbidden.
Thus one could argue: marriage (or the steady relationship of nowadays) is a social bond that in the end is unable to satisfy our needs, not only because, as the saying goes, repetition suffocates desire, but simply because the satisfaction of our needs in that relationship is totally allowed (and even worse: expected, as a duty). But to satisfy what is allowed is impossible to satisfy us. Well yes, that is very freudian, man needs the law and its transgression to be able to enjoy: That is Oedipus.
From another viewpoint, one could raise the question if a relationship in its beginning incorporates this element of transgression. Yes perhaps, if you look through the narcistic happiness or foolness of the moment.
As to marriage, in the end there is no satisfaction, but there is love.
Love that could be best described with a term I just read on this weblog:
‘tender perversion’.

I'm stealing that line. It'll have the ladies swooning, I'm sure.

Johan

Re: "To satisfy what is allowed is impossible to satisfy us. Well yes, that is very freudian, man needs the law and its transgression to be able to enjoy: That is Oedipus."

Yes, it is Oedipus, and thus it raises the question if the taboo does not apply to kids, rather than to men who have reached an age where they themselves may become fathers. Whatever is forbidden is then determined by them as they are the instance from which the law emanates.
If this is true, then there is no reason to regress in order to transgress, but one may simply enjoy the things to which one is entitled.

I'm not sure what you mean by the category "love", but certainly sleeping with different women strikes me as inefficient and even less satisfying.

(Incidentally, the Tom Cruise character in "Eyes Wide Shut" never sleeps with any of the women he meets during his dream adventure. But at Christmas time, after their reconciliation, his wife, Nicole Kidman, suggests there is "one thing we should do." "What?" he asks. She responds, "Fuck". It's the last word in the movie, and a better one than "love", I think).

I have started with a cab, and I am afraid I will end under the umbrella. (A punishment for falling in love with a cab…)

Once I wondered why I mostly have a crush on girls around their twenties. I think, when the toddler falls in love with his mother, she is about that age of mid twenty. And that image of a young woman gets imprinted in his brain as desirable image. Maybe regress to progress, the spiral of life.

Jan, according to that rationale, most men today should fall in love with women in their early thirties, not twenties.

@Sandy G
Yes, or in their forties nowadays…. .There goes my theory.

@Sandy G
But on the other hand, I heard from middle-aged women (widows or divorced) that they are frequently approached by young men, very young men …

I just walk in the rain. What does that stand for in this little metaphore?

@Jan Thys

Did you ask the older women to ask the younger men how old their mothers are? This would be an interesting field experiment.

Rutger

What exactly doe you mean with
"but certainly sleeping with different women strikes me as inefficient and even less satisfying. "?

Sleeping with different women at the same time?
Being unfaithful?
Having more than two one-night stands in a month?

The word "ineffectient" might need some elaboration too.

Johan Schokker

So those of us who enter marriage or a long-term relationship must realize that they give up on satisfaction?
Is this perverse? Is love without satisfaction perverse?
Aren’t there strategies possible to turn love (i.e sex) in a long-term relation or marriage into something that can be labeled taboo?
Can this be described as tender perversity as well?

@Sandy G
No, I did not asked them, I did not thought about it then.
Indeed, maybe a subject for a student’s scripture.

To Johan Schokker

Your writings, here, on Freud and Lacan are often eloquent, and much more intelligible than most of what I so far have come across.
What happened on 12-10-2004, when you were confronted with professor Buekens? Or doesn’t the writer of the report do just to your contribution to the debate?

I truly wonder.

On a side note: who coined the term (rather brilliant) 'tender perversion'?

Omission

http://drcwww.uvt.nl/~buekens/Lacan/verslag%20lacandiscussie%20amsterdam.htm

Arnon

Do you know "The Rainy Taxi" from Salvador Dali? It was exposed for the first time in 1938 (the same year Dali visited Freud in London). It was on display years ago in Figueras, maybe it still is. It would be an excellent stopover on your next honeymoon.

Pjötr

I am sure Johan can answer for himself, but Mr. Buekens attacks strike me as an act of repression (Verdrängung) if ever there was one.

Arnon

Men who sleep with different women are often lousy lovers. I have to leave it at that for now.

Rutger

This is your own experience?

Arnon

Touché.
Obviously, however, I came to this conclusion by means of deduction.

Jan and Sandy

You could check this with Arnon. If your theory makes sense ,Arnon should have a preference for women in their mid forties.

Rutger

It seems biologically efficient for men to sleep with many women.
Culturally it is is questionable.
And an a small biological scale, the one of your body, it may be very uneffecient. Luckily we've found a way to protect ourselves and others from HVI, Hep.B.....
In eyes wide shut, Kubrick new how to end the movie quite well. But love could have been an answer in other occasions, just as gardening or to seperate.
I think we are all partly unidentified flying objects when other parts of us are functioning like recognizable beings, like unities. We are made for not wanting an umbrella when we still want one and keeping desires. And the sad thing is that we often feel lonely when we think our umbrella had its best time but we will feel lonely again when we have been in public transport for too long. Sitting in the back of a bus watching people come and go... Loneliness and desire are two sides of a single affair.

Excuses for the may typos and bad lines...

Hannah

Thanks for your reply. I don't know if I follow you all the way but I appreciate what you write.
Let me start with addressing your first comment. I am not sure if biological concerns still apply in today's world. It's very 19 century to my ears. Survival of the fittest? The unfit survive just as well nowadays.

Surely, gardening or separating could have been good answers in other movies. In this movie, however, it really comes down to a good fuck between a husband and a wife. It is what they need, what they have been looking for. It's easy to say, after a while, "Oh, this doesn't work, let's try somebody else", but the same question will come up. We have no obligation to fuck everybody, we need to fuck ourselves; the rest can take care of their own. Or, thatis my position on the matter. In other words, if it doesn't work, try a little harder.

Arnon

Love is not at all the same as perversion, even ‘tender perversion’; it was a mistake – my mistake – to suggest it was. For the simple reason that in order to love – beyond the temporary, ordinary narcissistic domain – one needs to expose oneself, to show a lack, a need, which is not pervers at all (perversion is a man who needs nobody, only the need to lay bare the weakness of the other).
Not that there is not a close connection.
‘A perfect symbiosis’, Aristophanes dream, that is the great illusion man cannot get rid of – you see, I have read Adam Phillips – and the path towards this unlimited love, can easily leads to this cage for two, a scene of destruction.
This is more or less obvious.
Thus an unlimited love will not last long, as to marriage a third party is often needed.
To take childeren is often the usual way, and the most effective. At least, satisfaction has to be found in a mutual cause.
As to sexual satisfaction, I am not sure, perhaps some elements of masquerade are here effective.
Anyway, I have the impression that in the end Freud overrated the sexual factor – in spite of all the theoretical refinements – but perhaps I am wrong.

Pjötr

Mr. Buekens: against stupidity I am defenceless. It is some while ago, but I was not well prepared to fight the cheap rethorics of that glory hound. For such debates one needs boxing gloves.
I do not mind, the only problem is that Mr. Buekens has a position at the university which is not without influence.

Johan Schokker

I never thought that love equals perversion, not even tender perversion.
There is in the last Woody Allen movie a nice bit about the “third party” (i.e.) another woman who is “the missing ingredient” in the relationship between the painter and his wife.
To me, but I’m not yet an expert on perversity, this would qualify as tender perversion.
Last night I informed my girlfriend about your definition of a pervert, as somebody who doesn’t need anybody except to lay bare the weaknesses of others.
She answered smilingly: “Oh, it’s you.”
The complicated thing is the need to lay bare the weaknesses of others is quite a need. In other words the definition is a paradox.
And I would argue that in any love relationship, especially when sex is involved, there is always the need to lay bare the weaknesses of the other.

People frequently leave umbrellas in cabs, don't they? But only if it isn't raining.

Paradox

Why a paradox? Perhaps I have missed the point.
Even the pervert has a need, ah a modest figure, just one need, only one need, it is not too much, almost humble: to lay bare the weakness in the other.
My idea is that man is a social being, there are indeed a few exceptions, and we call them Saints - interesting figures, perhaps they are not as rare as we think they are.
And yes, it is true, a pervert says: “I do not need anybody” but why believe him at his words?
Of course, he has to say so. Otherwise, he chances to lay bare weaknesses would diminish immensly.
But the pervert is an attractive figure. Like a strong statue so happy in his own world, so full of self-confidence: I am just here to serve you and show you the nerves – open in the air – that cause you so much pain.
A doctor of the soul.
That is what I – as a true neurotic, indeed, suffering from the imp of doubt to the point of immobility (like a statue indeed, but not as strong as mentioned) – admire in this ‘doctor’: his willingness to help.
But there is a catch of course: does he know the answers in advance?
Perhaps not necessarily so: perhaps it is possible to inform without knowing what the answer will be. If so, I would not call him pervert.

Johan

The "answers" of the patients?