Appealing Appetizing pt. 2

Dearest DM,

I understand your concern over the consumable sexual. The basic idea has always disturbed me as well: do we objectify all our desires in the same way? Can we never satiate the sexual urge because we lack the ability to absorb it into our own ego ideals? Is the song "Hungry Like the Wolf" smarter than I (or anyone else for that matter) give it credit for? This last possibility may be the most disturbing of all.

I have to draw attention to Freud here to remind you of the theory of infantile sexuality; in brief, that the baby begins sexual maturation by suckling on the mother's breast. The infant rationalizes the experience as an exchange as well: it consumes (subsumes) the mother's milk and delivers back to her the resulting faeces. The exchange further begins the development of desire in the oscillation of presence and absence. So much seems to rest on this experience; its subsequent evacuation into the imaginary (and the participle residue) no doubt provides the rational for the presence of lipstick-wearing candies in the symbolic order.

This is Real.

You and I both admire the genius of Charles Chaplin, director, when in The Gold Rush the tramp is transubstantiated into a bucking chicken. Here, the conventions of social interaction are overridden by the desire to consume—symbolic order, jouissance, etc. Likewise, the sexy green M&M is the sexual object distorted by the desire to taste. Does the same mechanism that allows lipstick and mascara to distort the social object into the sexual object then facilitate the move from chicken to chocolate? Can the primal hunger instinct be deformed the same way the survival instinct can?

Yes, This too, is Real

We are members of the collective that coined the phrases "hunger-memory" and "sleep-lust." We should be able to figure this shit out, right?

Your friend always and etc.,

HCE

p.s. Oh shit! What about that terrible song "Sex and Candy" that came out when we were in high school?