Des crie de jouissance

⚡ TOUTES LES INFORMATIONS CLIQUEZ ICI 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

Des crie de jouissance
Téléchargement et création de bruitages et sons.
Une série de cris de plaisir et orgasme en téléchargement gratuit ou sur abonnement.

» 4 sons ajoutés dans la série de sons "grenouille" : american green frog + crapauds communs 01 + grenouille ouaouaron 02 + grenouille ouaouaron 01.
» 2 sons ajoutés dans la série de sons "chat" : chat qui boit 01 + chat miaulement 05.
» 2 sons ajoutés dans la série de sons "chien" : pas de chien dans neige 01 + chiens huskies en meute 01.
» 2 sons ajoutés dans la série de sons "orchestral" : There can be only one + Une dernière fois.
» 1 son ajouté dans la série de sons "electro / downtempo" : You are my slave.
» 1 son ajouté dans la série de sons "samba - latin" : Soleiade.
» 1 son ajouté dans la série de sons "jungle / drum and bass" : Pandémik.
» 6 sons ajoutés dans la série de sons "guitare" : Aurore boréale + Au temps jadis + La couleur de l’eau + L’heure bleue + L’île aux moutons + Pensées perdues.
» 3 sons ajoutés dans la série de sons "jazz" : Aquarelle + La route du vent solaire + Eole.
» 8 sons ajoutés dans la série de sons "centre de soins LPO" : centre de soins LPO lavage oiseau 02 + centre de soins LPO lavage oiseau 03 + centre de soins LPO lavage oiseau 04 + centre de soins LPO rinçage oiseau 01 + centre de soins LPO rinçage oiseau 02 + centre de soins LPO rinçage oiseau 03 + centre de soins LPO séchage oiseau 01 + centre de soins LPO shampooinage oiseau 01.

00:05 Plusieurs claques / gifles / fessés + cri de douleur et plaisir d'une femme + voix - orgasme - anglais
00:15 Bruitage d'orgasme de femme - plaisir - satisfaction - gémissements - anglais
00:28 Bruitage d'orgasme de femme - plaisir - satisfaction - gémissements
00:14 Bruitage d'orgasme de femme - plaisir - satisfaction - gémissements
00:05 Bruitage d'orgasme de femme - plaisir - satisfaction - gémissements - français
00:03 Bruitage d'orgasme violent de femme - plaisir - satisfaction - cri - gémissements - anglais
02:30 Gémissement de plaisir d'une femme - orgasme
01:44 Gémissements et cris de plaisir d'une femme - orgasme


This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Reject Read More
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the ...

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

Select Page: Where to? Lacan
Freud
News
Blog
Videos
Appointments
Find a Lacanian Psychoanalyst
Links
Quotes
Join
About


Select Category: Where to? Lacan
Freud
Blog
News
Videos
Appointments

Exploring psychoanalysis through the work of Jacques Lacan
We are at the Catholic University of Louvain in the early 1970s. The lecture Lacan is about to give is the only known recorded instance of his appearance in front of a public audience. He enters to applause, jokes with the crowd, and his performance thereafter is extremely theatrical. Later, the camera will capture some equally dramatic interventions from the audience.
When things quieten down Lacan recounts the story of a patient who, “a long time ago had a dream that the source of existence would spring from her forever more. An infinity of lives descending from her in an endless line.”
After a pause, the question he shouts at his audience, emphatically, is:
The life that Lacan talks about here is not our day-to-day lives, replete with the little dramas of our jobs, friends, and family relationships, but the excess of life commensurate with going beyond the pleasure principle. Life itself, as he describes it at one point, is simply an “apparatus of jouissance”.
Here are two definitions of jouissance as a way to orientate ourselves in this topic. We will come back to them in everything that follows:
1. Jouissance as an excess of life
2. Jouissance as an enjoyment beyond the pleasure principle.
As an ‘excess of life’ Lacan describes it in Seminar VII as a “superabundant vitality” ( Seminar VII , 18th May 1960). It cannot be correlated to affect, or to an emotion.
As an enjoyment that goes beyond the pleasure principle he describes it in Seminar X, beautifully, as a “backhanded enjoyment”. ( Seminar X , 23rd January 1963).
But in order to understand jouissance we have to understand what it ‘feels like’. Lacan expresses this in a sharp analogy in Seminar XVII: jouissance “Begins with a tickle and ends with blaze of petrol”. ( Seminar XVII , p.72).
Jouissance is a Lacanian notion, but where can we find its heritage in Freud’s work? Let’s briefly retrace this in three stages:
We can start with the idea of the pleasure principle, foundational from Freud’s early writings. It is essentially an economic principle to limit a quanta of excitation and is therefore presented by Freud as a principle of constancy or inertia. The job of the pleasure principle is to regulate an increase or decrease of tension on a pleasure-unpleasure scale. This picture becomes more complex over time, up to the point of Instincts and their Vicissitudes ( Triebe und Triebschicksale ) in 1915, where he portrays a very complicated relation between pleasure and unpleasure ( SE XIV , 121 and accompanying footnote).
From the outset the excitation, or energy of the drive, has a sexual colouring – libido. Freud sees this as its essential feature. But in the Écrits Lacan notes – in a beautiful expression – that this sexual colouring is nothing more than “the colour of emptiness, suspended in the light of a gap” ( Écrits , 851-852). We will return to this idea.
Concurrent to the theoretical orientation Freud found in the pleasure principle is another idea from the early part of his work – that the symptom is a sexual act. In other words, that it represents an enjoyment, and a specifically sexual enjoyment.
This idea seems odd. A symptom is surely a problem, a suffering. The symptom goes beyond the pleasure principle and expresses itself in a disturbance, an unlust . But Freud saw that in the early examples his hysterical patients presented with, the complaint, the suffering, expresses itself in a paradoxical way, as if two wishes were simultaneously expressed. As if, he believed, the symptom was a compromise between two contradictory desires. Take the example of one hysterical patient: with one hand she pulls off the dress, with the other she puts it back on.
There is a wonderful example of this in the Rat Man case history. As he is describing the great obsessional thought which haunted his patient, Freud observed:
Broadly speaking, in this period we have the development of libido theory in the context of the theory of narcissism from 1914, and the metapsychological papers of 1915 ( SE XIV ). Although Freud has used the term ‘libido’ since his first writings on anxiety in the late 1890s, by this point he increasingly emphasises the quantitative aspect of libido. When he comes to write the Group Psychology papers in 1921 ( SE XVIII ) he refers to a “quantitative magnitude” to libido. Freud’s project between these years is to develop an economic model in which ego-libido and object-libido are balanced against each other, with one rising as the other falls. However, the transformation of a quantitatively high degree of tension produced by the damming-up of the libido in the ego produces unpleasure. Its outlet is found in the attachment of libido to objects in the external world. As Freud summarises,
Love is thereby the antidote to a kind of caustic narcissism that we can see as correlated to Lacan’s idea of jouissance. Lacan echoes Freud’s words in these terms in the early sixties when he says that “Only love allows jouissance to condescend to desire” ( Seminar X , 13th March 1963).
In this period the two fundamental drives – Eros and the death drive – are introduced in place of the libido theory from the 1920 ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’ article onwards ( SE XVIII ). But from a Lacanian perspective we might be inclined to question the dualism this supposes. If jouissance is an experience of an excess of life, is the death drive not actually its opposite?
This idea seems to run counter to the whole of psychoanalytic metapsychology: what place for psychical conflict if the death drive is just an excess of life? It is as if Freudian theory has to maintain a place for a basic dualism animating internal conflict – whether that dualism is located between desire and defence; between the sexual and self-preservative instincts; between the ego, id, and super-ego; or between eros and the death drive. A conflictual dualism lies at the aetiology of the neuroses and animates their insistence. Indeed, it is from conflict that the symptom gains its strength, satisfying both sides of this conflict – for example, desire and defence – through a compromise formation. Ultimately Freud comes to believe that the struggle between different thoughts, desires, and fantasies is a reflection of a struggle between drives ( SE XI , 213).
But at the end of his life, in ‘An Outline of Psychoanalysis’, things get a little trickier. It would seem initially that the dualism is maintained at the level of the id on one side, and the ego/super-ego on the other. The id does not care whether you live or die – it just cares about satisfaction; the ego/super-ego’s job is to moderate the ways by which this satisfaction is achieved, and thus it inherently limits satisfaction. This is how Freud expresses the difference in the opening lines of that paper:
But what animates the id and the ego are instincts (drives), thereby taking the topography to another level:
So we have the Freudian dualism manifested across two levels, as it were:
Psychical agency-level – Id vs ego/super-ego
————————————————————
Instinctual or drive level – Eros vs the death drive
But then Freud says something extraordinary:
It would be too easy to think that Freud’s words here refer only to the pure satisfaction of basic biological functions, like eating to satisfy hunger, and that in the service of this need the two instincts combine. But if Freud’s work teaches us anything it is that Freud never subscribed to a definition of satisfaction as simply the sating of a need. Satisfaction is much more problematic for him. We have only to think about cases where an act that ostensibly satisfies a need exceeds that satisfaction, not just to the point of pleasure, but beyond it (in alcoholism, or binge-eating, to use Freud’s model of oral satisfaction above). The qualification Freud introduces in this passage complicates the picture greatly, as if we take him seriously it means that the dualism is really maintained only at the id vs ego/super-ego level; at the Eros vs death instinct level there is not necessarily any opposition – they can work against each other or with each other, he says. And this is why as Lacanians we can defend the thesis that the death drive can be manifested as an excess of life, correlate to the “superabundant vitality” in his definition of jouissance ( Seminar VII , 18th May 1960).
What’s more, Freud says that we don’t even have to think of the death drive as an instinct of destruction: “So long as that instinct [the destructive instinct/drive] operates internally, as a death instinct, it remains silent; it only comes to our notice when it is diverted outwards as an instinct of destruction.” ( SE XXIII , 150). This would help us understand why people who seem to be ruled by the death drive in cases of excessive jouissance are not violent or unpredictable. They can destroy themselves without destroying others.
Although people usually talk about the idea of the death drive as being a destructive or aggressive drive, Freud is careful to point out that “It is not a question of an antithesis between an optimistic and a pessimistic theory of life” ( SE XIII , 242). The two fundamental drives are much more mixed together than any simplistic duality would suggest. And this is what is expressed in the concept of jouissance, which we can perhaps see Freud struggling to articulate in dualistic terms at the end of his life.
So where does Lacan stand in all of this? Where can we locate his concept of jouissance in the issues that Freud was battling with?
Lacan maintains his dialogue with Freud on these issues throughout his life, referencing the same conceptual vocabulary that Freud used to express the complicated relation between pleasure, unpleasure, and the drives when he is developing his notion of jouissance.
The pleasure principle is his starting point, and the long discussions with colleagues such as Mannoni, Valebrega, and Pontalis on the meaning of the term are a constant feature of the first part of Seminar II .
In Seminar XIV he gives what we can view as some substance to the notion of jouissance – what it actually ‘is’. There he tells his audience that jouissance is an ousia – a term borrowed from Aristotle’s book on the Categories – to mean an essence, related to being, at the level of the body ( Seminar XIV , 31st May 1967). And we know it in relation to the pleasure principle – it marks its traits but also marks its limits.
Lacan concurs with Freud’s definition of the pleasure principle as “a principle of the least tension, of the minimum tension that needs to be maintained for life to subsist”… but, he adds, that “jouissance overruns it” ( Seminar XVII , p.45-46).
This quote from Seminar XVII in the late 1960s encapsulates the two definitions of jouissance that we started with: as an enjoyment beyond of the pleasure principle, and as an excess of life.
However Lacan’s idea of jouissance evolves over the course of his work, and in the early Seminars he does not use the term to describe this kind of malevolent enjoyment as he will come to do later. Instead in Seminars I, II and III we largely find references to the ‘jouissance’ of the master and slave, drawn from the influence Kojeve’s teaching of Hegel’s slave-master dialectic had on Lacan. Jouissance here is presented either as enjoyment or usufruct rights over the other. It is a jouissance linked to the body, but the body of the other realised in terms of the fruits of the other’s labour. It is not until Seminar VII that we find Lacan start to talk about jouissance as malevolent or evil ( Seminar VII , 20th March 1960)
But we can see that even at this stage he is clear that jouissance is a phenomena at the level of the body. This idea continues throughout his work, and in Seminar XIV from 1967 we find Lacan stating not only that the body is the locus of jouissance, but that it is also the place where the Freudian ideas of Eros and Thanatos connect to each other, where they coincide.( Seminar XIV , 24th May 1967).
As an excess of enjoyment – an enjoyment that may not even be consciously experienced as such – jouissance is the most powerful counterforce to the work of a psychoanalysis. So what protects against or limits jouissance? The first answer is desire, and this is one of the ways that Lacan defines the latter. In the Écrits he writes that “Desire is a defense, a defence against going beyond a limit in jouissance” ( Écrits , 825). What this means is that rather than indulging a passion for jouissance, the metonymy of desire protects against going beyond a certain limit of pleasure, from going beyond what he calls in Seminar XIII the foyer brulant, or the burning hearth ( Seminar XIII , 23rd March 1966).
From early on in his work Lacan presents the symptom as a machine for ciphering unconscious desire, ensuring its repetition under a multitude of guises. Symptoms may perform different functions for different people, and perhaps a different function for the same person at different points in their life. They are not inherently a bad thing. But the symptom also carries with it a malignant jouissance. Insofar as the work of a psychoanalysis may involve supporting a symptom, or even helping to develop one that works better for a person, the criteria for a good symptom is one that will allow you to sustain your desire in its precariousness, rather than hooking you into a negative infinity around the object a (an idea we will explain below). In Seminar VI Lacan talks about these types of symptoms as “phantasmagoria”, a term which brings to mind a shifting series of illusions which are neither enjoyed too much nor too little. “Symptoms which are nevertheless so little satisfying in themselves”, as he describes them – not grossly unpleasurable, nor excessive, but simply “so little satisfying” ( Seminar VI , 10th June 1959.) The task of a psychoanalysis then would be to enable the subject to walk the line between the tickle of the symptom and the inferno of jouissance ( Seminar XVII , p.72).
However, three caveats to this idea that desire is a defence against jouissance:
If we were looking for a dualism in Lacan to parallel what Freud is trying to construct perhaps we can find it between jouissance and desire.
So, if desire can’t put a satisfactory limit to jouissance, what can?
One of Freud’s ideas is that culture itself puts a break on our ability to obtain full jouissance, full enjoyment. The exemplar of this is the prohibition on incest. But Lacan contradicts this. In the Écrits he says that jouissance is usually forbidden to the subject, but not because of “bad societal arrangements”. He calls people who believe this “fools”. The Other is to blame, but as the Other does not exist we instead put the blame on ourselves and call it Original Sin ( Écrits , 820). In Seminar IX Lacan is more explicit. The Other does not prohibit, he says. The Other – the Other as the Law – is a metaphor for prohibition rather than the cause of it. What looks like a prohibition from the Other is actually an impossibility of accessing the jouissance of the Thing ( Seminar IX , 14th April 1962).
Lacan does say however is that jouissance is prohibited [ interdite ] for he who speaks, as such ( Écrits , 821). What does he mean by this? It is not law or culture that makes jouissance forbidden to the subject, but rather a natural limit to pleasure itself. The law or culture “makes a barred subject out of an almost natural barrier”, he says in the Écrits .
The idea here is that we cannot go beyond a certain level of pleasure before we hit a wall of pain, the experience of jouissance. And what marks this limit is termed in psychoanalysis ‘castration’.
What is castration? Rather than being the removal of the genitals, Lacan sees it as a process by which a sacrifice is given a mark. This mark is a lack, something with a negative attached to it. The name Lacan gives to this is the phallus – the phallus not as the penis, but as the mark of a lack:
As the mark of a lack, the phallus allows us to enjoy only partially, with a ‘paltry’ jouissance. Lacan says that the phallus reduces jouissance to an auto-erotism ( Écrits , 822). (Whether there is another kind of jouissance that is particular to women or to the mystic is something for speculation, but not something we’ll go into depth with here. For more on that point, see this article ).
Nonetheless, Lacan hints that there is a way to use prohibition to augment this phallic, or paltry,
La petite ladyboy Alice enfonce la queue de son gars en cowgirl inverse et le branle
Célébrité se fait baiser encore et encore
Mexicaine mouillée suce une bite