Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 14:54:09 -0400 From: Manoussakis John <manoussj-AT-BC.EDU> Subject: RE: [A few definitions needed.] 1)mixoscophiles = simply the voyeurists (phileo:like to, scopeo:to look at, mixis:sexual intercourse) 2)presbyophiles =those who like old men (presbytes:an old man) 3)zooerasts =(zoon:any animal, erastes:lover) or zoophiles (the same etymology- "phile" from phileo: to love) 4)dyspareunia = painful sexual intercourse (S/M), (dys:difficult, "pareunia" from pereuriskomai: to sleep with someone) 5)auto-monosexualists: able to have sexual satisfaction only with themselves (masturbating) J.M. >===== Original Message From foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ====>> I'm reading Foucault's _History of Sexuality vol.1_ He mentions a few >terms >> I cannot find, nor define (because of my poor language background). >> >> mixoscopophiles >> presbyophiles >> zooerasts >> >> I'm reading Robert Hurley's translation, if any help (p 43). >> >> Jason. > > >> I wrote: >> >> if i remember the passage your talking about, he's just demonstrating the >> obscurity of some of the terms that began to be used to describe various >kinds >> of sexual perversion with the inauguration of sexological and >psychoanalytic >> discourses on sexuality. You're not supposed to know what those terms >mean, >> although im sure we could have some fun by guessing what the terms mean. >> (mixoscopophiles has something to do with liking to look at something >> ("phile"=love, "scopos"=look at); presbyophiles are probably sexually >> attracted to presbyterians (ha ha); zooerasts are probably people who >perform >> what we would now call bestiality.) At any rate, he's just demonstrating >how >> these new discourses cooked up all kinds of new terms to describe sexual >> conditions that hadnt had much attention paid to them before. Not only >were >> these new discourses inventing new names for things which "entomologized" >the >> pervert (Foucault's wonderful analogy), but they were busy reconceiving >these >> conditions as results of psychic disturbances, bad childhoods, case >histories, >> etc. It's kind of like when Foucault remarks famously, "the sodomite had >been >> a temporary abberration, the homosexual was now a species"; the same kinds >of >> sexual behaviours had always been around and had always being known about, >but >> there was a paradigm shift in the way they were described and conceived. >> >> am i making sense? > >Phil, your making sense. I'd actually left out a few of the other terms >that I managed? to gloss: > >zoophiles~bestiality? >gynecomasts~when boys develop breasts? >dyspareunist women~painful intercourse? > >At any rate, here is the excerpt: > >..there were Kraft-Ebing's zoophiles and zooerasts, Rohlderer's >auto-monosexualists; and later, mixoscophiles, gynecomasts, presbyophiles, >sexoesthetic inverts, and dyspareunist women (43). > >I'll look up these authors on campus over the next week. > >Jason. John Manoussakis Department of Philosophy Boston College
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005