[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/feels/ - Advice & Venting

Talk about relationships of all kinds, ask for advice, or just vent
Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)


Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021

20240404_194340.jp…

Father/daughter relationship Anonymous 112453

I hate to give into that whole "daddy issues -> worthless woman with issues" pipeline conspiracy theory (because it's a way for pathetic men to feel a sense of worth for just being born male as if the feat of being a sperm donor is that great) but I can't help but find myself overthinking father/daughter relationships, especially lately.
For myself, I have a good and I'd say healthy relationship with my father. Recently (like 4 years) though, it's gone from just him being a financial provider to more and more of a father figure since I started living away from home for uni. I figured it's him just missing me back at home, but the more I think about it, and the more I apply my experiences and observations to other women around me, the more I've started to form a theory. Could be entirely wrong though.
Basically, the premise is: I feel like every man has a bit of misogyny in him. And most men derive more misogyny from engaging in sexual acts. To them, being penetrated sexually is degrading and shameful and gross, hence why it was historically used as a punishment in ancient times, or why so many heterosexual men despise gay men. And, well, that applies to women too. Even their wives. And men grow jaded with time, developing this idea that women are dirty, sexual objects..that all of them are like that, their coworkers, bosses, wives, friends, etc… even those that act entirely non sexually/professionally in work environments. And men despise that facade of purity.
but there's one exception; their daughters. I mean, they've raised them, or watched them grow since they were at the epitome of purity and innocence… they can't possibly visualize that their daughters are like these other women.
So, it can be hard for a father to let go of this innocent image of his daughter as his babygirl… Just… Y'know. Food for thought.
My father treats me very nice, but almost in an infantilizing way. Almost more than he did when I was a child. He makes comments about me being too skinny/tiny and needing to eat more, makes me sandwiches and buys me snacks almost every evening, explicitly calls me "his little girl" and such terms of endearment. And that's not the case for my sister who's had boyfriends over, who's visibly been in relationships before. My status of a femcel makes my father subconsciously love me more than her.
And not just me, many, many other women I've seen in real life go through a similar thing.
Obviously not all fathers, but there could be a correlation. Or I could be nuts.

Anonymous 112494

I get what you are saying 100% because the virgin and mother are the only women that deserve respect in mens eyes. As soon as you are sexualised you lose all human rights. You are just an objectified vessel for their use. It becomes about what you can do for them, how pleasing you are to their eye. Objectification = men trying to control you like a possession. Some men see their daughters as a kind of possession though- their offspring kind of thing? he sees you as innocent and pure probably ..it’s like when the daughter becomes a stripper or something and then the family disowns her because of a lack of purity/innocence

Anonymous 112497

>>112453
If we take the Freudian remark seriously, "Daddy issues" just means that you want to be like the girls who satisfied your father because they got his attention, not that you want to bone daddio. If you don't know your father, then either you'll imitate your mother or you'll be like the girls who get paternal affection from men, but because those other men aren't your father then that "paternal affection" often comes with sex, which means it's not actually paternal affection because obviously paternal affection should be non-sexual (hence the stigma around 'daddy issues'-types being 'broken'; they want what they can't get, because what they want doesn't exist and even if it did exist, by getting it they would no longer want it. This is most people, it's just easier to identify in archetypes).

>>112494
And here we see the root cause. People can't want or desire something just because they want or desire it. It has to have some other motive - men being attracted to women cannot just be because they desire women, it has to be a secret ploy to subtract our power. The same is true for us; we can't simply want to be with a man. There needs to be an explanation/excuse for our sexual conduct outside of "because I wanted to," for example, "I just wanted to use him (for his money, or for his status, or for his power)," or "I had sex but it was because I wanted children," or even the highly controversial "I was drunk so I didn't know what I was doing (i.e. I deflect all responsibility, he should have known better, nevermind if we were both drunk [NB: I'm not a MRA but we have to accept our own hypocrisies if we want to grow])." I have never heard: "Yeah, we had sex, but it was only because I wanted to." This is a sin, and it's equally a sin for men, so we instead construct narratives about why we do/don't want the thing, because the alternative is to think that sometimes we just want things and there's no explanation, there's no free-will controlling it. We are told how to want, and we are therefore unhappy.

Fathers instinctively know that young men don't want to "posses" or "strip the rights" of their daughters, but they do know that the young men have carnal desire - fathers were once those young men. On one hand this is hypocritical, and on the other hypercritical (of themselves). To the father, the daughter is a reflection of him - a "good father" would show his daughter what a gentleman is like so that she doesn't fall for the ungentleman. If the sister fails at this (demonstrated by multiple boyfriends), then she is rejected (either overtly, or in the manner that OP describes). If the daughter falls for a gentleman, then the father has "fulfilled his role". Hence the tradition of asking for the daughter's hand - the father accepts the husband as an extension of the family because the husband reflects and symbolises what he would like others to think of the family. It is not that the father "possesses" the daughter and is the only one able to give her over to another (because there are enough counterexamples of women eloping), it's entirely symbolic of our desire for the illusion of power, not over each other, but over ourselves.

Anonymous 112499

>>112494
objectification is not inherently wrong. its only wrong when exercised in a way that limits peoples actual freedoms (namely political) and happiness. like, have you never consumed media in which the woman is "objectified" in some way, albeit, in a way that's much more romantic and complex than what the average pornsick/regressive male thinks about objectification? something i've come to terms with is, to some degree, most women enjoy playing the "role" of femininity, just not in a way that hurts other women or takes away their freedom.

Anonymous 112502

>>112494
>I get what you are saying 100% because the virgin and mother are the only women that deserve respect in mens eyes. As soon as you are sexualised you lose all human rights.
That's in line with traditional Freudian theory. There is an idea that it is crucial to male development to develop a superstition that his mother is a virgin and that this superstition / willful selfdeception is maintained violently. So 'fixing' this delusion damages the development of the male character often to the point of psychosis or perverse disorder and a society can pick either a delusional but socially functional male or a sexually realistic but defective/violent one. The Lacanians criticized this aspect of conventional Freudians by arguing that the "perverse" development of internalizing the sexuality of the mother is just as capable of being socially functional as the "neurotic" type who denies it and only the "psychotic" type that cannot reconcile perceived realities is genuinely dysfunctional.

I have to say I think the Lacanians have a point. "The virgin and the mother" - if we were to take "virgin" and "mother" and set them as tags on a hentai/booru site I think we would soon discover that these are extremely sexually charged terms, possibly moreso than many others. This sexual charge might be conventionally "perverse" in the Freudian sense and in the sense of a society whose judgements are largely formed from a neurotic male type perspective, but, that's not really an argument that it is socially dysfunctional. Since the virgin and the mother are both sexualized terms, if both deserve respect in men's eyes including the eyes of the Lacanian pervert, then being sexualized does not revoke respect or all human rights. But maybe the Lacanian pervert does not really exist and only the dysfunctional Freudian pervert is real, and all who sexualize the virgin and the mother break out of social functionality and emotional and sexual regulation and live along the edges of criminality and psychiatry. I don't really know. But if the Lacanian pervert is not real then it is pretty surprising how frequently socially functional men are able to shock and scandalize others with a closeted perverse side that they are able to keep hidden.

Anonymous 112507

>>112502
Any recs on where to start with lacan? I've seen people say he's complicated but idk

Anonymous 112519

>>112507
Zizek's "A Pervert's Guide to Ideology," which is lacanian but anchors itself to culture in a very approachable way.



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]