šta čitate?

ćaća wrote:I ja ovo opisao ne bih nazvao fetisima (quirky things that spice things up), vec nekakvom skoro bazicnom seksualnom arhitekturom

bela maca wrote:

ćaća wrote:Iz ličnog iskustva i iskustva nekih ljudi koje poznajem, trauma znacajno oblikuje seksualni identitet.

za gomilu ljudi, da, ali ne obavezno. inače bi svet bio pun žena koje traže da ih neko kontrolisano zlostavlja

ćaća wrote:

bela maca wrote:
za gomilu ljudi, da, ali ne obavezno. inače bi svet bio pun žena koje traže da ih neko kontrolisano zlostavlja

Pa i jeste pun. I žena i muškaraca.

From the choices made by French writers under the Occu-
pation can be derived a more general law: The more a cultural
producer is autonomous, rich in specific capital from a given
field and exclusively integrated into the restricted market in
which the only audience is competitors, the greater the incli-
nation to resist. Conversely, the more producers aim for the
mass market (like some essayists, writer-journalists, and popu-
lar novelists), the more likely they are to collaborate with the
powers that be-State, Church, or Party, and, today, journal-
ism and television-and to yield to their demands or their
orders.

This law also applies to the present. The objection will be
raised that collaborating with the media is not at all the same
thing as collaborating with the Nazis. That's true, of course,
and obviously, I do not condemn out of hand every kind of
collaboration with newspapers, radio, or television. But, from
the viewpoint of factors inclining the individual to collabora-
tion, understood as unconditional submission to pressures de-
structive of the norms of autonomous fields, the analogy is
striking. If the fields of science, politics, or literature are threat-
ened by the power of the media, it's because of the presence
within them of "heteronomous individuals," people from the
outside who have little authority from the viewpoint of the
values specific to the field. 

To use the language of everyday life,
these people are already, or are about to become, "failures,"
which means that they have an interest in heteronomy. It is in
their interest to look outside the field for their authority and
the rewards (however precipitate, premature, and ephemeral)
they did not get inside the field. Moreover, journalists think
well of these individuals because they aren't afraid (as they arc
of more autonomous authors) of people who are ready to
accept whatever is required of them. If it seems to me indis-
pensable to combat these heteronomous intellectuals, it's
because they constitute the Trojan horse through which
heteronomy-that is, the laws of the market and the econ-
omy-is brought into the field.

Had he, during his sojourn in Venice, peeked into the State Archives at the Frari or the Marciana Library on the Piazzetta San Marco, Kaplan would have discovered a hive of international scholars digging into the fascinating and complex history of this unique republic. Without those insights, Kaplan’s medieval Venetians are flat, lifeless and too easily defined. “Pragmatism, of both the ruthless and the enlightened variety, was the guiding spirit of medieval Venice.” Really? Can any people, particularly one as diverse as the Venetians, be so summarily dismissed? Realism, Kaplan reports, “was the one true religion of Venice.” Why then did they build over a hundred churches and monasteries? This is one part of the famous “anti-myth” of Venice, that the conniving Venetians were a nation of Shylocks ever demanding their pound of flesh.Kaplan does not go that far, as his approach to Venice and its empire is generally one of benign indifference.