TF Psychoanalytic Discussion

[brandygang]

Here's a little bit of what the world's wisest Slovian haggard, Zizek who has heavily studied Freud and Lacan has to say about Fetishes;

These objects constitute the symptom of the human being; but they can also become the opposite: its fetish. Žižek writes of the fetish that it is effectively the counterpart to the symptom; operating as a kind of sham life, it structures our entire life in order to support it. The fetish is the embodiment of a lie that enables us to endure an unbearable truth (Slavoj Žižek 2000). This is the Real itself (in the Lacanian sense), an isolated object (the Lacanian objet petit a) whose fascinating and meaningful presence guarantees the structural real, the social order. This real enables one to gain a distance from everyday reality: one introduces an object that has no place inside it, that cannot be named or otherwise symbolized - the photo collage of the beloved in the film The Truman Show, for example. What Žižek means is that every symbolic structure must contain an element that embodies the moment of its impossibility, around which it is organized. This is both impossible and real (in its effect) at the same time. The symptom on the other hand is the return of the repressed truth in a different form.

The Real tells us that identity and reality functions much like Quantum mechanics, it's unknowable and perhaps unfeasible to even be sought out if objective states are said to exist. Fiction, not even the book or show itself but more like those fringe theories you might find on message boards or chat circles about that fiction. I mentioned Goths and Bimbos but, even something as simple as "Womanhood" itself is kind of completely undefineable.

This mystique intrigues us to seek it out, but because it's ineffeable and intangible we can only express that desire in the most exaggerated and stereotypical way possible. That's why TG Fetishes are generally seen with very common cliches and (IMO pretty shallow) fantasies, because it's trying to explore that lack, the Object a Petite (That's the part that goes MAN, girls sure are weird but that makes me REALLY interested) through the signifiers of the symbolized. Like Panties symbolizing promiscuity, bows and frilly dresses signifying cuteness and innocence, ect. Or boobs and the parts, because that's what a lot of TG comes down to, an interest and curiosity for this alien physiology, and the thrill that comes with having it for ones own. One of the best examples of the arbitraryness I can think of is Pink, how the color pink is considered girly and can create desire when Pink-Girlyness used in a fetish. We know it's not real, but it still means something, symbolically, it has currency and values in our society so it can said to have weight on desire. We're not really in love with girls going giggly over pink but rather what that symbolizes.

I think Most men don't consider FtM exceptional because they're already guys and there's no mystery or unknowable interest about it. They assume their inherent maleness doesn't need any sort of exasperating over.

This psychoanalytic theory has a of interesting implications. What of woman that have similar fetishes? Of course even being female one couldn't definitively say what womanhood means for all people or be-all end-all authority on the matter but, it makes you wonder.

As for the topic of Furries, that's something even the dankest of psychoanalyist wouldn't want to touch with a 10 foot pole I imagine.

[Dark Horseman]

Might need to dial back the Psychology 401 language a bit since it's kinda hard to follow. I am trying though. The argument that it's desirable because it's intangible, however, I think that breaks down when we exaggerate it: like why only women (men if homosexual) and not a cthulu alien thing or a jet? Or even, what about a victim that's just plain unattractive - like an ugly woman (before or after)? I think it's still always linked back to basic, built-in, instinctual lust.

The TG thing is also a big topic I've always wondered about. Almost every TG fan you see on forums or galleries have their own avatar transgendered and do a sort of roleplay with it. In contrast, most of the TF perusers generally act as voyeurs, i.e. "I'm just here to see porn". That audience is very different from many of the other fetishes in that it seems to be heavily focused on involving themselves.

[Jbrey]

I'll just say I like Anthro and Partial Animal TFs and I prefer my TF's to be temporary over permanent.

yeah it's not in depth but I really cannot find the words to describe this stuff, I haven't told anyone because I just don't know how I can describe it

[brandygang]

Originally Posted by Dark Horseman

Might need to dial back the Psychology 401 language a bit since it's kinda hard to follow. I am trying though. The argument that it's desirable because it's intangible, however, I think that breaks down when we exaggerate it: like why only women (men if homosexual) and not a cthulu alien thing or a jet? Or even, what about a victim that's just plain unattractive - like an ugly woman (before or after)? I think it's still always linked back to basic, built-in, instinctual lust.

The TG thing is also a big topic I've always wondered about. Almost every TG fan you see on forums or galleries have their own avatar transgendered and do a sort of roleplay with it. In contrast, most of the TF perusers generally act as voyeurs, i.e. "I'm just here to see porn". That audience is very different from many of the other fetishes in that it seems to be heavily focused on involving themselves.

Sorry about the density, I've been trying to break it down into metaphorical terms but like most psychology it's very Theoretical. And not to digress since it is just a theory (and not a very empirical one at that), but would that really exclude those sorts of things, considering people have fetishes for inanimate objects, Xenos and slobs? People having kinks for transforming into cars or jets, or becoming hideous isn't exactly unheard of. Or maybe I just missed something there.

One of the things about psychology (especially the Lacanian brand) is that it starts it's premise with a simple enough assumption, that instinct is self-evident. We desire in order to desire. Humans possess lust because biology, and so on. It goes a little symbolic saying this desire's incompatibility with our conscious, self-aware part of ourselves puts a hole in our hearts, a lack (the Object a Petit) and we cram things in there, physically and symbolically, endlessly to try to make ourselves whole and satiate those drives. (This part is really debatable and kind of problematic, but it's what it hinges on) It doesn't debate lust, but rather moves the the question (or would in this case) to "Okay, people are horny and lonely and born incomplete, that's basically human nature. But WHY are humans attracted to certain things? What does this or tht say about the individual? How does Human Motivation handle the praxis of it's own instincts?" These are obviously more complicated questions to answer.

I agree in that basic, raw instinct is the starting point. That's why fetishes around turning into girls are more common than Planes or Statues. Instinct certainly proceeds desire. It's something from the inner Other, the voices and our instincts calling out to us forcins us to use language and symbols to make sense of it and give it a register. (Jargon speaking we're moving the Real into the Imaginary by moving the indescribeable into language, thereby taking away it's truama and horror and appreciating it in it's sublime pleasure)

The concept of Self-Inserts is a fascinating topic that I wish was explored more. Cinema Theory places us in the gaze of the camera as the viewer, Videogames play with people wanting to identify with the character, and deviant artists interact with virtual avatars and change them abundantly. Fanfiction authors do this too of course, but the way the TG community utilizes avatars is certainly something to be looked into.

[rehtlh]

Now this is my kind of thread.

I really like that we've delved into theory a bit with this discussion. I'm familiar with Lacan, having studied him in Literary Theory, and he is really fascinating. I've written a couple papers on his early developmental mirror stage.

There is no doubt in my mind that fetishes are formed at a very young age and are directly tied to our early social construction and the way we make sense of the world around us. It seems to only make sense that these desires stem from these vulnerable, important years in our lives as we're attributing language to ideas.

Quite nearly everyone I've ever asked, "so how did you get into TF?" has answered that they've sort of always been into it since they were little. They often cite kids books, cartoon episodes, and movies with TF elements that ignited that first spark that slowly developed into a fetish as they sexually matured.

So yes, if I had to make a guess at what manifests this fetish (and perhaps even all others) it would be the ways in which we form meaning in these developmental years. The main questions that I'm left with are how traceable are these early influences? Can we go back and sort it out like a roadmap, or is it far too abstract and nebulous to attempt such a thing?

One way or the other, we've all ended up on this forum with similar interests, and we almost certainly all found TF exciting before we ever knew that it was a fetish or a subculture (whatever you want to call it) and I think that's amazing.

[Amahain]

Originally Posted by rehtlh

Now this is my kind of thread.
One way or the other, we've all ended up on this forum with similar interests, and we almost certainly all found TF exciting before we ever knew that it was a fetish or a subculture (whatever you want to call it) and I think that's amazing.

Yeah, I found that pretty neat too. I still kind of remember that fateful day when I was just browsing the Internet and stumbled upon TF Central (or maybe it was the Transformation Story Archive). I could hardly believe that not only was I not the only person alive who had a weird fascination (and by that point, fetish) with TF, but there was a thriving Internet community that had similar tastes.

It was also the day that I figured out how to delete browser history.

[Cornivious]

This isn't something I've really thought over before. I suppose I like TF for the "body horror" aspect. A woman's body transforming or acting against her will with added mind loss turns me on. Watching a woman struggle against the changes and loss of memories and personality is, to me, what TF is all about. I've always thought TF wasn't meant to be an enjoyable experience. That said, gore is kind of a gray area for me. I may or may not like it, depending on the severity of it. However, because I've recently developed a minor guro fetish, I'm probably more inclined to like it than others here.

As for furries, I absolutely cannot stand it. Something about it just turns me off immediately. Of course, I can't really judge them, as I'm into monster girls as well as weirder things than TF, but that doesn't mean it won't disturb me to some degree.

Also, looking back over what I wrote, I didn't realize I was such a freak. I suppose this is the benefit of actually discussing these things rather than avoiding the topic.

[Dark Horseman]

@Cornivious Yeah, I've been a lurker for a few years before posting more often recently, and I never found any threads or responses that speak openly about it. Most posters say things like "this is very well done, I applaud you" or "this character and type of sequence has always interested me and is in very good taste" when in it's in reference to a rape-corruption transformation followed by more rape. The audience here avoids referring to terms such as porn, sex, or masturbation and tries to be overly polite and politically correct about everything, so completely open discussions are never brought up. In contrast, groups such as 4chan which offer anonymity have members speaking their thoughts with no inhibitions; albeit, there's a lot of immaturity like "fapfapfap" or "this gets me so hard, %@$ yes!" which is the downside. And as for being a freak, as long as you can keep fiction from affecting your reality which 99% of us can do, it's really not that bad. Otherwise we'd have to put all those guys who play GTA 5 in jail for mass murder fantasy.

@rehtlh Actually, my personal experience reinforces that theory. Mine was video games, particularly Final Fantasy, that had status effects which transformed the character models. I was at that age where I found the female characters sexually attractive, and seeing them transformed into animals and hence naked probably triggered my fetish. That probably explains why I enjoy mind-preservation, too, because I figured the characters would have to be extremely embarrassed and vulnerable. Never really consider these things until someone throws you something to grasp your thoughts onto.

[Obsidian]

I'm really tired, and just finished an assload of coursework, so I'm just going to give the bare bones here.

● I much prefer unwilling, forced transformations. The more futile resistance, the better.

● I'm neutral on mental erasure.
● Don't much care for inanimate TF's.
● I'm neutral on erotica. I like TF's that are devoid of eroticism, and I like changes that are chalk full of it.

● While I'm a proponent of strong female characters, FMG completely turns me off. I prefer female characters whom possess a keen mind and cunning, not 50-inch biceps and a lack o' neck. *shrugs*

● None of this carries over into my real life ethical and moral composition. I don't condone rape or non-consensual behavior, for example.

●That's all my brain can come up with right now.

Cool thread.

[whiteflame]

I prefer analyzing transformation in terms of Deleuze and Levinas with influences of cognitive ethology (primarily phenomenal conscious theories applied to nonhuman animal species (http://philpapers.org/rec/ALLAVO)) and zoopoetics. Zizek don't do nuttin' for me besides his critique of Dennett-Chalmers.

I find your analysis, brandygang, to be rather anthropocentric and irreconcilable with diffusion/de-centering of identity suggested by contextualist epistemology and social constructivism. That isn't to say that it isn't well-formulated, but that it is not able to incorporate alterity/irreconcilable neurological and psychological deviance (as well as sexual abnormalcy and unusual conception of motivation) as well as performative identity (not your fault, but Lacan's). It is incomplete as its conclusions are restricted to its domain of inquiry...

When I say that I identify with horses, I mean to say that this is imaginative embodiment, as such, it has reification in conception (in a sense, Lewisian possibilism but discordant with Kripke's rigid designators (par for the course)). In other words the meaning of "I am a horse" is not only contextually dependent but it is asserted as imaginative embodiment entangled with performance translating across various relational constructs of identity.

By this, transformation is not a fetish but rather a phenomenal inquiry of distinct Otherness. The sexual dimension is a corollary of such inquiry not the fixation and origination.

Exemplification:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8264245/

In general my motivations and treatment of the subject are aesthetic and amoral. I am not at all shocked nor phased by the depiction of suffering and emancipation alike in transformation artwork. And I am indifferent to the sexuality of it, that is not to say the sexuality is not signified and symbolized. The thing I find erotic is alteration of phenomenal perception and mentality, so if anything is fetishized it is the autoerotic symbolism of transformation itself, but not the ideation of the subject...

Originally Posted by brandygang

"Individual" fetishes are a term that I coin for those based on focus purely on just that, the individual. It's hard to describe but revolves on ineffable qualities, mostly subjective ones that make up a person beyond the ones above that you could go through a checklist. One's personality, feelings and experiences outside language or the describable. Transformations that involve becoming an entirely new person and killing their identity while creating an entirely new one are like this. But just playing around with an individuals identity (With "Masks" in a metaphorical sense) with less repercussions fits too. I've been really interested in this category lately, so much that I've discovered my love for tfs into new lives characters and entirely new people not ever existing before, giving the direct aspect of creation through transformation an incredible thrill.

I think you are looking for "fetishization of transrational phenomenal perception"---(alteration of phenomenal perception experienced subjectively from a privileged intersubjective perspective of prior and ultimate states (example: http://www.davideagleman.com/descent.html)). Which might be kind of an oxymoron depending on the theoretical grounding of these terms. Regardless, I don't really care for Lacan and most psychoanalysts' self-indulgent claims to explain a universality of generation in individual thought. 'No one was around for the mirror stage.' Furthermore, the recognition of one's representative image is not a prerequisite for imagistic metacognition. It is theoretically possible for nonhumans without such recognition to experience second order awareness, and preprioception with instrumental cognition of environmental signs may be enough. Lastly, there is no distinct mirror stage in philosophy of psychology: analyses of early development illustrate a plethora of disparate developmental stages, including object permanence, false predication and moral reasoning (the later two Piaget and Kohlberg et al demonstrated).

I am sorry for being a harsh critic, but the intent is not maleficent.

[brandygang]

@Cornivious

I agree, there's definitely something to be said about our desires developing in early infancy. It's when we're at that impressionable age that the Real, that being the sublime and surreal that our minds cannot symbolize or handle yet confronts us the most. Without language to push it deep down the syntactic register of reasoning cannot do away with all the trauma a developed mind might be able to reason out and otherwise do away with.

What you said about the struggles of woman's changes struck a chord with me, since it describes a lot of my attractions, pertaining to changes physically and moreso mentally. Maybe it's just my neuroses but the other, alien concepts and foreign sensations entering one's mind against their will, with the very cognitive abilities to confront them being hijacked as well, it's such a traumatic and yet exciting event that one cannot help but fixate on it.

@Dark Horseman

If there's a lack of engagement here it might be in part due to the nature of forums and us being registered users and all. I appreciate 4chan and imageboards anonymity, since it lets people speak their mind and allows for easier criticism and feedback. Sadly it' also a lot more democratic than most internet communities, which isn't always beneficial for the lone oddity looking to get a second opinion or any exceptional views.

@whiteflame

Of course Psychology and a psychoanalytic theory is going to be anthropocentric, since it's made exclusively for humans. Actually that's really understating it, it's for subjects and puts the conscious phenomenal experience before rational discourse. It doesn't take society or even sociology into account, because it wants to focus purely on Identification of the individual, as defined by that subject and not by convention, ideology, or higher causes.

Originally Posted by whiteflame

By this, transformation is not a fetish but rather a phenomenal inquiry of distinct Otherness.

This doesn't necessarily contradict the theory I've put forth. It really is phenomenal, desire and fetishes are inherent even before their signifier and often aligned. We as individuals give them their meaning and choose how they're signified, Existence precedes essence here. We cannot actually ever truly 'know' the Other, only rationalize and inquire on it. The moment we do it's Other-ness ceases, as your story demonstrates.

However I'd digress where the mirror stage is not a stage. It is metaphorical yes but not bound to our youth. It's a developmental process throughout our entire life and is ongoing as we redefine our identities, and reshape realities as we see fit. In this, awareness is an ongoing process as well. Insects, Animals, higher-level animals, even humans can vary in it. Within levels, it's malleable, subjective and yet utterly unknowable. Hence the Möbius strip Lacan used. It doesn't claim human universality, just a framework to look through and explain through a lense of structuralist thinking. It's incomplete. Always developing as the mirror stage is. Lacan devised it to talk with subjective experiences, via language and symbols.

Shame too, maybe it's because my fetishes are so geared towards being under people but I'm curious if such a Transformation could make you into another individual, body, personality, feelings and entirely mind but keep your memories and assume intelligence is approximately the same, could you fulfill your desire of obtaining the qualia of the other? Probably not, since your awareness of the differences between 'yourself' and the 'you' you're in would distract and deny you a true experience, and erasing your memory would separate ties with that desire. But it's something to ponder about .

No need to apologize, we're from different schools of thought afterall. In spite his weaknesses, I like to approach Lacan from purely a theoretical standpoint. There's no contention between civil disagreements.

[Peanutt_Buta]

Originally Posted by Dark Horseman

And I feel the best mental aspects of a TF are when the woman finds out its permanent. When they reverse, I always get that feel that a cop has come over and started waving people away: "All right fellas, you had your fun. Show's over folks."

I can respect that, but I do not feel the same way about reversions. Once a permanent transformation is done and if their human mind is overwhelmed and taken over by baser instincts, the story for that character is pretty much over.

While reversion can be a bit of a cop-out, as you so accurately described , I feel with enough creativity that reversion can be done well. For example, after someone has changed and returned to normal, are they really normal? Did their opinions change about becoming something other than human? Will they change again based on some kind of cycle or based on a specific trigger; and will they now have to take precautions to prevent these changes? When they revert, do they revert back completely human or does some lingering mental or physical cue remain... like their new instincts, a tail, their ears, thicker hair, longer fangs, etc.

Not trying to force reversion on ya', just giving you some pros to what can be often looked at as a con.