Catedral de Fantasmagorías

(under construction)

My articles and posts will be published here from now on. I'll reblog content on @la-chacha-gris about the eroticism embodied in industrial pop culture, the subject of that older blog, and @chacha-shitposts will continue to focus on fashion, memes, and anything that doesn't fit in the other two.

One of the first sources to promote this belief was the anonymous English treatise Onania, the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution (Holland, 1710), which presents it as "self-abuse." In 1760, the Swiss physician Samuel Auguste Tissot published L'Onanisme, Dissertation sur les maladies produites par la masturbation. According to his theory of the body's humors, masturbation is an unnecessary waste that leads to illness and death. He also condemns as wasteful "all intercourse whose objective is not procreation" and, therefore, all homosexual relations. Both books share a model of the body as a self-regulating system, a closed and finite circuit that can be jeopardized by the excessive loss of bodily fluids, such as water, blood, and semen.

Una de las primeras fuentes que promovió la creencia fue el tratado inglés anónimo Onania, the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution (Holanda, 1710), que la presenta como «abuso de uno mismo» (self-abuse). En 1760, el médico suizo Samuel Auguste Tissot publica L'Onanisme, Dissertation sur les maladies produites par la masturbation. Según su teoría de los humores del cuerpo, la masturbación es un derroche innecesario que conduce a la enfermedad y a la muerte. También tacha de desperdicio «todo coito cuyo objetivo no es la procreación» y, por tanto, toda relación homosexual. Ambos libros comparten un modelo del cuerpo como sistema autorregulado, un circuito cerrado y finito que puede ponerse en peligro por la pérdida excesiva de fluidos corporales, como el agua, la sangre y el semen.

This anticipates the view of the body as a "good" or "commodity" and the regulation of sexuality as a form of production. In this physical model of circuits, fluids, and communicating vessels, sexual energy is nothing more than energy, and pleasure a byproduct, a kind of residue. Labor and sexuality thus belong to the same ergonomic circuit in which any form of capital can be converted into sex and in which all sexual labor becomes (reproductive) capital. The anti-onanist and hygienist movements will interpret masturbation not only as an individual problem but also as a form of social pathology, the masturbator as a threat to the survival of the native white race. Sylvester Graham and John Harvey Kellogg, leaders of the industrial companies Graham's Flour and Kellogg's Cornflakes, later contributed to the expansion and application of these theories. During this period of industrialization, we see the production of various technological instruments dedicated to regulating everyday practices, from breakfast regimens to solitary sexual touch, from Kellogg's Cornflakes to anti-masturbation belts.

Anticipa esto el tomar el cuerpo como un «bien» o «mercancía» y la regulación de la sexualidad como la forma de producción. En este modelo físico de circuitos, fluidos y vasos comunicantes, la energía sexual no es más que energía y el placer un subproducto, una especie de residuo. El trabajo y la sexualidad pertenecen así a un mismo circuito ergonómico en el que cualquier forma de capital puede convertirse en sexo y en el que todo trabajo sexual se vuelve capital (reproductivo). Los movimientos anti-onanistas e higienistas interpretarán la masturbación no solo como un problema individual, sino también como una forma de patología social, el masturbador como amenaza la supervivencia de la raza blanca autóctona. Sylverster Graham y John Harvey Kellogg, líderes de las empresas industriales Harinas Grahams y Cornflakes Kelloggs, contribuyeron más tarde a la extensión y aplicación de dichas teorías. Durante este periodo de industrialización, veremos una producción de diversos instrumentos tecnológicos dedicados a la regulación de las prácticas de la vida cotidiana, desde regímenes para el desayuno hasta los el tacto sexual a solas, de los Cornflakes Kelloggs a los cinturones anti-masturbatorios.

Zebra's comment: These anti-masturbation technologies for men and women fell into disuse in the 1920s as medical beliefs about the harmful effects of masturbation were called into question. However, Preciado points out something very curious: that penis rings, cages, and piercings, limb immobilization devices, and genital electroshock treatments in the second half of the last century were technologies reinterpreted, or at least repurposed, for pleasure or BDSM rituals. This again demonstrates the tendency to redefine these technologies as fetishes, sexual preferences, or even sexuality itself. Understanding the history of sexuality involves considering the beliefs of each era, the prevailing pop culture, and the systems of production and everyday devices used in these practices.

Think about it. It's true that the actress wasn't treated very well during filming, and that her character is practically reactive and secondary. However, she kills to save the protagonist's life, and he gives up everything to save her. Palmer is a woman defined by her absence, already murdered, by other characters, and the fact that men decide Rachael's fate all the time, just as they did with Palmer in life, doesn't diminish the fact that she's at least present in the story, not as a ghost, but as an agent within it, not just a subject or a corpse.

Pensadlo. Es cierto que la actriz no fue muy bien tratada durante el rodaje, y que es personaje prácticamente reactivo además de secundario. Sin embargo, ella mata para salvar la vida al protagonista y este deja todo por salvarla a ella. Palmer es mujer definida en ausencia, ya asesinada, desde otros personajes, y que hombres decidan el destino de Rachael todo el rato como pasaba con Palmer en vida, no hace menos cierto que al menos está en la historia y no como fantasma, siendo agente en ella, y no sujeto o cadaver solo.

Rachael has obvious and justifiable issues with her identity, with who she is, whether she has literally been constructed and her memories borrowed and selected. What digitally native woman reading this can deny that her taste in clothes, goals, and aesthetics comes from social media? (Which isn't the same as your social environment and your own social circles; it's an optimized funnel and bubble.) I'm sure you're reading this and have felt like a cutesy, retro little girl in a dress, sitting on the grass enjoying the breeze… only this has never actually happened; it's a dollcore aesthetic, someone else's pose, and a meme. In its own way, we have implanted memories and identities.

Rachael tiene obvios y justificados problemas con su identidad, con quien es, si literalmente ha sido construida y sus recuerdos prestados, seleccionados. ¿Qué mujer nativa digital que me lea puede negarme que gusto para ropa, metas y aesthetics no le vienen de redes social? (que no es lo mismo que el entorno social y los tuyos, es un embudo y burbuja optimizado). Seguro que me lees y te has sentido con vestido de niña cursi y retro tomando la brisa sentada a la hierba alguna vez… solo que esto nunca ha ocurrido, es aesthetic de dollcore, posado ajeno y meme. A su manera tenemos recuerdos e identidad implantada.

And you won't lack for men around you, who see you as a trophy or prey, or who, being kind and paternal, want to decide for you like President Tyrell in the film, and you have to deal with that, all while wondering who you are, how much of you is borrowed from others, and whether you deserve to be loved or are an aberration that should be ostracized from society. Do I sound tragic and excessive? Perfect! That's exactly it, and that's what early youth feels like: constantly scrutinizing you, measuring you against others to determine if you're even human, all while locked away in your room and through screens, when no one's watching and you feel safe in your refuge and prison, yearning for a life and adventure you've never had.

Y no te faltaran hombres alrededor, que te vean como trofeo o presa, o, que siendo buenos y paternales, quieran decidir por ti como el presidente Tyrell del film, y tu teniendo que bregar con eso, a la vez que te preguntas quien eres, cuanto de ti es prestado de otras y si mereces ser amada o eres una aberración de ser que debe ser apartada de la sociedad ¿sueno trágica y excesiva? Perfecto! es que eso es, y asi se siente una primera juventud examinándote continuamente, midiéndote con otras para estipular si eres humana, todo ello encerradita en tus aposentos y a través de pantallas, cuando no te miran personas y te sientes segura en tu refugio y cárcel, ansiando vida y aventura que nunca has tenido.

Rachael, given everything I've described, can be as good or as bad an icon of girl-blogger femininity as Laura Palmer. Yes, she's a pop culture figure from before we were even born, but so is Palmer. Oh, she's not a woman but a simulacrum, okay, and Palmer is a corpse, none of us are perfect… and there's something that puts her at the top of the list as a candidate: how well she smokes and dresses, so elegant, she was born (or created) to be a goddess, her aesthetics are a postmodern revision of fashion and female characters from film noir of the past, before postmodernism or these reinterpretations were commonplace. Believe me, we have to love her more.

Because of its irreverent and subversive nature, pornography represented everything the ruling classes feared about the democratization of culture. It was the first step toward destroying the established order. The term "pornography" was coined as a regulatory category, a stigma to be applied to any cultural product considered a threat to morality and social stability. The elite watched in horror as ordinary people suddenly had access to books, and with them, to ideas such as questioning power. Therefore, from the beginning of the 16th century, hunts and purges of prohibited books were carried out, including lustful texts, political essays, classical works, and a variety of other minor works.