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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =====
>> 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
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =====
>> 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