Difference between revisions of "Sexual relationship"
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Top}}rapport sexuel{{Bottom}} | {{Top}}rapport sexuel{{Bottom}} | ||
| − | + | [[Image:Graph.of.Sexuation.jpg|thumb|right]] | |
==Jacques Lacan== | ==Jacques Lacan== | ||
===There is No Relation Between the Sexes=== | ===There is No Relation Between the Sexes=== | ||
| − | [[Lacan]] first proposes his famous formula: ''il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel'' in 1970,<ref>{{L}} ''[[Seminar XVII|Le Séminaire. Livre XVII. L'envers de la psychanalyse, 1969-70]]''. Ed. [[Jacques-Alain Miller]]. Paris: Seuil, 1991: 134</ref> and takes it up again in his [[seminar]] of 1972-3.<ref>{{S20}} p. 17</ref> | + | [[Lacan]] first proposes his famous [[formula]]: ''il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel'' in 1970,<ref>{{L}} ''[[Seminar XVII|Le Séminaire. Livre XVII. L'envers de la psychanalyse, 1969-70]]''. Ed. [[Jacques-Alain Miller]]. [[Paris]]: Seuil, 1991: 134</ref> and takes it up again in his [[seminar]] of 1972-3.<ref>{{S20}} p. 17</ref> |
| − | This formula is usually translated into English as "There is no such thing as a sexual relationship", which is misleading since [[Lacan]] is certainly not denying that people have sex! | + | This formula is usually translated into [[English]] as "There is no such [[thing]] as a [[sexual]] [[relationship]]", which is misleading since [[Lacan]] is certainly not denying that [[people]] have sex! |
| − | The formula might be better rendered "There is no relation between the sexes", thus emphasizing that it is not primarily the [[act]] of '''sexual intercourse''' that [[Lacan]] is referring to but the question of the relation between the [[sexual difference|masculine sexual position]] and the [[sexual difference|feminine sexual position]]. | + | The formula might be better rendered "There is no relation between the [[sexes]]", thus emphasizing that it is not primarily the [[act]] of '''sexual intercourse''' that [[Lacan]] is referring to but the question of the relation between the [[sexual difference|masculine sexual position]] and the [[sexual difference|feminine sexual position]]. |
===Sexual Difference=== | ===Sexual Difference=== | ||
| − | The formula thus condenses a number of points in [[Lacan]]'s approach to the question of [[sexual difference]]: | + | The formula thus condenses a [[number]] of points in [[Lacan]]'s approach to the question of [[sexual difference]]: |
====Other of Langage==== | ====Other of Langage==== | ||
| − | 1. There is no direct, unmediated relation between the [[sexual difference|male]] and [[sexual difference|female sexual position]], because the [[Other]] of [[language]] stands between them as a third party.<ref>{{S20}} p. 64</ref> | + | 1. There is no direct, unmediated relation between the [[sexual difference|male]] and [[sexual difference|female sexual position]], because the [[Other]] of [[language]] stands between [[them]] as a [[third]] party.<ref>{{S20}} p. 64</ref> |
| − | <blockquote>"Between male and female human beings there is no such thing as an instinctive relationship' because all sexuality is marked by the signifier."<ref>{{L}} l975b</ref> | + | <blockquote>"Between [[male]] and [[female]] [[human]] beings there is no such thing as an instinctive relationship' because all [[sexuality]] is marked by the signifier."<ref>{{L}} (l975b) "[[Conférence à Genève sur le symptôme]]." ''Les Block-[[Notes]] de la [[psychanalyse]]''. Brussels.</ref></blockquote> |
One consequence of this is that it is not possible to define [[perversion]] by reference to a supposedly [[nature|natural form]] of the [[sexual relationship]] (as [[Freud]] did). | One consequence of this is that it is not possible to define [[perversion]] by reference to a supposedly [[nature|natural form]] of the [[sexual relationship]] (as [[Freud]] did). | ||
| − | Heterosexuality is thus not natural but normative.<ref>{{Ec}} p. 223</ref> | + | [[Heterosexuality]] is thus not [[natural]] but [[normative]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 223</ref> |
====Asymmetry==== | ====Asymmetry==== | ||
| − | 2. There is no reciprocity or symmetry between the [[sexual difference|male]] and [[sexual difference|female sexual positions]] because the [[symbolic order]] is fundamentally asymmetrical; there is no corresponding [[signifier]] which could signify [[Woman]] in the same way that the [[sexual difference|male]] [[sex]] is [[symbolize]]d. | + | 2. There is no reciprocity or symmetry between the [[sexual difference|male]] and [[sexual difference|female sexual positions]] because the [[symbolic order]] is fundamentally asymmetrical; there is no corresponding [[signifier]] which could [[signify]] [[Woman]] in the same way that the [[sexual difference|male]] [[sex]] is [[symbolize]]d. |
There is only one [[signifier]], the [[phallus]], which governs the relations between the [[sex]]es.<ref>{{E}} p. 289</ref> | There is only one [[signifier]], the [[phallus]], which governs the relations between the [[sex]]es.<ref>{{E}} p. 289</ref> | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
====Love==== | ====Love==== | ||
| − | 3. Relations between men and women can never be harmonious; "The most naked rivalry between men and women is eternal."<ref>{{S2}} p. 263</ref> | + | 3. Relations between men and [[women]] can never be [[harmonious]]; "The most naked [[rivalry]] between men and women is eternal."<ref>{{S2}} p. 263</ref> |
| − | [[Love]] is no more than an [[illusion]] designed to make up for the [[absence]] of harmonious relations between the [[sex]]es (whether presented in mythical terms, as in [[Plato]]'s [[Symposium]], or in psychoanalytic terms, as in Balint's concept of [[love|genital love]]). | + | [[Love]] is no more than an [[illusion]] designed to make up for the [[absence]] of harmonious relations between the [[sex]]es (whether presented in [[mythical]] [[terms]], as in [[Plato]]'s [[Symposium]], or in [[psychoanalytic]] terms, as in [[Balint]]'s [[concept]] of [[love|genital love]]). |
====Drives==== | ====Drives==== | ||
| − | 4. The [[drive|sexual drives]] are directed not towards a "whole person" but towards [[part-object]]s. | + | 4. The [[drive|sexual drives]] are directed not towards a "[[whole]] person" but towards [[part-object]]s. |
| − | There is therefore no such thing as a [[sexual relationship]] between two [[subject]]s, only between a [[subject]] and a (partial) object. | + | There is therefore no such thing as a [[sexual relationship]] between two [[subject]]s, only between a [[subject]] and a ([[partial]]) object. |
| − | For the man, the [[objet (petit) a|object a]] occupies the place of the missing partner, which produces the [[matheme]] of [[fantasy]] (SOa); in other words, the [[Woman]] does not [[exist]] for the man as a [[real]] [[subject]], but only as a [[fantasy]] [[object]], the [[cause]] of his [[desire]].<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> | + | For the man, the [[objet (petit) a|object a]] occupies the [[place]] of the [[missing]] partner, which produces the [[matheme]] of [[fantasy]] (SOa); in other [[words]], the [[Woman]] does not [[exist]] for the man as a [[real]] [[subject]], but only as a [[fantasy]] [[object]], the [[cause]] of his [[desire]].<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> |
====Woman and Mother==== | ====Woman and Mother==== | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
====Sex and Meaning==== | ====Sex and Meaning==== | ||
| − | 6. As something rooted in the [[real]], [[sex]] is opposed to [[meaning]]; and "sex, in opposing itself to sense, is also, by definition, opposed to relation, to communication."<ref>Copjec, Joan. 1994: 21</ref> | + | 6. As something rooted in the [[real]], [[sex]] is opposed to [[meaning]]; and "sex, in opposing itself to [[sense]], is also, by definition, opposed to relation, to [[communication]]."<ref>Copjec, Joan. 1994: 21</ref> |
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| + | <div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"> | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| + | </div> | ||
[[Category:Sexuality]] | [[Category:Sexuality]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:05, 20 May 2019
| French: rapport sexuel |
Jacques Lacan
There is No Relation Between the Sexes
Lacan first proposes his famous formula: il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel in 1970,[1] and takes it up again in his seminar of 1972-3.[2]
This formula is usually translated into English as "There is no such thing as a sexual relationship", which is misleading since Lacan is certainly not denying that people have sex!
The formula might be better rendered "There is no relation between the sexes", thus emphasizing that it is not primarily the act of sexual intercourse that Lacan is referring to but the question of the relation between the masculine sexual position and the feminine sexual position.
Sexual Difference
The formula thus condenses a number of points in Lacan's approach to the question of sexual difference:
Other of Langage
1. There is no direct, unmediated relation between the male and female sexual position, because the Other of language stands between them as a third party.[3]
"Between male and female human beings there is no such thing as an instinctive relationship' because all sexuality is marked by the signifier."[4]
One consequence of this is that it is not possible to define perversion by reference to a supposedly natural form of the sexual relationship (as Freud did).
Heterosexuality is thus not natural but normative.[5]
Asymmetry
2. There is no reciprocity or symmetry between the male and female sexual positions because the symbolic order is fundamentally asymmetrical; there is no corresponding signifier which could signify Woman in the same way that the male sex is symbolized.
There is only one signifier, the phallus, which governs the relations between the sexes.[6]
There is thus no symbol for a symmetrical sexual relationship: "the sexual relationship cannot be written."[7]
Love
3. Relations between men and women can never be harmonious; "The most naked rivalry between men and women is eternal."[8]
Love is no more than an illusion designed to make up for the absence of harmonious relations between the sexes (whether presented in mythical terms, as in Plato's Symposium, or in psychoanalytic terms, as in Balint's concept of genital love).
Drives
4. The sexual drives are directed not towards a "whole person" but towards part-objects.
There is therefore no such thing as a sexual relationship between two subjects, only between a subject and a (partial) object.
For the man, the object a occupies the place of the missing partner, which produces the matheme of fantasy (SOa); in other words, the Woman does not exist for the man as a real subject, but only as a fantasy object, the cause of his desire.[9]
Woman and Mother
5. Woman cannot function sexually qua Woman but only qua mother; "Woman begins to function in the sexual relationship only as mother."[10]
Sex and Meaning
6. As something rooted in the real, sex is opposed to meaning; and "sex, in opposing itself to sense, is also, by definition, opposed to relation, to communication."[11]
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XVII. L'envers de la psychanalyse, 1969-70. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991: 134
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 17
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 64
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. (l975b) "Conférence à Genève sur le symptôme." Les Block-Notes de la psychanalyse. Brussels.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 223
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 289
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 35
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 263
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 58
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 36
- ↑ Copjec, Joan. 1994: 21
