Schaden Freud

Anna: [heavy sigh]
Sigismund: What’s wrong, my daughter?
Anna: They give lipservice to the involvement of sexuality, but it’s not enough, is it?
Sigismund: You are afraid they are minimizing the sexual component?
Anna: Those who take you seriously are so often focused on rebutting the caricature of your work, the whole “everything is about sex” picture. You had to work so hard to get people to see the centrality of sexuality! When they are so careful, don’t they water down your point? Recall that the It is off somewhere with the sexless bovine.
Sigismund: Given how people have so often misunderstood me, it is a correct emphasis. I do not claim that everything is about sex. It is also correct that when people emphasize this, it can serve primarily to water down–I think I would prefer ‘to TAME’–the crucial sexual component.
Anna: “Tame.” Are you thinking of The Little Prince?
Sigismund: Obliquely, perhaps. But the reason why we converse again in these masks is so that I can point out something that their conversation emphatically did NOT minimize.
Anna: And what is that, father?
[pregnant pause]

Sigismund: Not everything is about sex. But sex is about everything!
[silence]

Anna: Is that an accurate summation of my father’s thought?


Sigismund: My thought is mediated here by this mask. It is what this mask is now expressing. Beyond this I cannot say much for certain.

Sigismund: And why, assuming you wish to defend my work, does “sexless” occur to you as an accurate description of the bovine?

Replies are NOT necessarily posted, but I'll see them.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s