This one already has all the context necessary, it's a councilman - what more do you need? Does a devil need to sin for you to beat them up and sit on them?
Alternative context: Everett has to get some money for his wife, the only person he fears, and gets into some fetish shit with the local corrupt politicians for pay.
Wer wie ich vielleicht etwas mehr interessiert ist - hab diesen Vortrag gefunden: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NLcnbvJQopw
EDIT: Hier auch nochmal eine kurze Präse, die mal die eigentliche Suite zeigt: youtube.com/watch?v=A7OtAEDQkE8
Yeah, I am too attached to my account because it's several years old and was made when there were next to no instances running. But I can only shake my head at the amount of Marxist-Leninist nonsense that is at times pushed there, that unironically elevates what was a development of "Marxism" out of the material conditions of the Eastern Bloc as an imperialist sphere bent on market expansion and accumulation of national capital, into a religion-like orthodoxy.
No, ideology that is nominally Marxist, and having an educated caste of decision-makers highly trained in your interpretation of it at the top won't prevent capitalist dynamics and bring about communism, only the material base and changing it will, and your ideology will follow what your material base demands. And that had been expansion of national capital for the Eastern sphere since the revolution failed to link up with any industrialised nations in the 1920s. The elevation of Marxism into a basically teleological ideology, claiming that with subservience to the interests of national capital, there will be communism at the end (a promise broken over and over again), is completely understandable by looking at the Soviet and Chinese spheres of influence from a Marxist perspective.
And even the structures put into place by Lenin were explicitly designed as for his own time and the conditions within the Russian Empire, not as an infallible orthodoxy, and things like Democratic Centralism explicitly contained open and free discussion before unity of action, which was just completely pushed away. Urgh, it's sad to me, because I think a new, invigorated and organised communist movement is needed more than ever, but by redirecting it to the national interest of states like China (and even Russia, which isn't even nominally communist, and just opposes western imperialism to impose its own imperialism - like choosing Germany over France in WWI, the exact shit Lenin fought against) instead of the international proletariat, just weakens it overall.
I mean, sort of. Not on its own, and as always, every kind of ND-behaviour is also something found in neurotypicals, only in different contexts and with different intensity and frequency. But yeah, doing it compulsively, maybe even without noticing it, is a form of self-stimulatory behaviour.
Hm, lets see if I can still get it together, it has been years since I read Lacan. All of this should be viewed as just from the top off my head the way I remember/interpreted it.
The phallus for Lacan is the imagined omnipotence and agency of our parents (or other caregivers) as we are a very young child and completely dependent on them, turned into a fundamental aspect of the unconscious. Further, it is some desirable aspect, that we imagined makes our caregiver desire other things more than our own needs. (Think: A mother may not immediately feed a child because she is occupied with something else, like the father.) It is the idea of having something, that can fulfil your needs - but is also intimidating and unpredictable, powerful yet volatile. In sexuation, Lacan argues, the "male" sexuation (note that Lacan already did not completely tie this to sex nor even gender as such, more to sexual roles that develop more broadly but have tendencies) projects this onto the proper phallus, i.e. penis, and desires to control it and use it, i.e. overcome the unconscious concept of castration (the realisation of your own powerlessness and dependency). Whereas the "female" sexuation starts to project onto the phallus the primal desire of getting back the symbolic phallus - fetishising it as something powerful that takes control of you and ultimately will enable you to reach the object of desire. Note that this object of desire to Lacan is a complex concept in the unconscious, and I can't get it all together (and assume I already misremembered some stuff along the way), but at its core, it is an unreachable, unimaginable part of the unconscious, around which the rest of the unconscious circles, never quite reaching it.
The original image was just an image of a possessive gf holding up a guy by his dick.
*Dryena
Brb, gonna give a transfem euphoria by telling her she's darting about like a chicken with its head cut off.
Frivoles Fakt: Er hatte wirklich "breimäulig" geschrieben, ich schätze die Implikation ist, dass sie alt, zahnlos und senil seien.
Yupp, the very fact it is still a product of its time is the main reason I find the strips that still feel so very relevant today utterly fascinating. Everett remains the hero we need in our times, with only a little bit of a catch-up to the current day.
Ah, reacting to neurodivergent behaviour with violence, now that takes me back to my childhood and parents, the good old times.
For anyone wanting a single click link: !poetry@lemmy.world - some good stuff there