sexual relationship (rapport sexuel) Lacan first proposes his
Lacan first proposes his famous formula: il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel in 1970 (see Lacan 1969-70:134), and takes it up again in his seminar of 1972-3 (S20, 17).
134), and takes it up again in his seminar of 1972-3 (S20, 17). This formula is
usually translated into English as 'There is no such thing as a sexual relation-
shipThis 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 havesex! The formula might be better rendered 'There is no relation between the sexes', thus emphasising 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.
sex! The formula might be better rendered thus condenses a number of points in Lacan'There is no relation between s approach to thequestion of SEXUAL DIFFERENCE:
sexes', thus emphasising that it is not primarily the act of sexual intercourse that1.
Lacan There is referring to but no direct, unmediated relation between the male and female sexual position, because the question Other of the relation language stands between the masculinethem as a third party (S20, 64).
sexual position 'Between male and female human beings there is no such thing as an instinctive relationship' because all sexuality is marked by the feminine sexual positionsignifier (Lacan, l975b). The formula thus condenses a
number One consequence of points in Lacan's approach this is that it is not possible to define perversion by reference to a supposedly natural form of the question of SEXUAL DIFFERENCE:sexual relationship (as Freud did).
1. There Heterosexuality is no directthus not natural but normative (Ec, unmediated relation between the male and female223).
sexual position, because the Other of language stands between them as a third
party (S20, 64). 'Between male and female human beings there is no such
thing as an instinctive relationship' because all sexuality is marked by the2.
There is no reciprocity or symmetry between the male and female positions because the [[Symbolic]] order is fundamentally asymmetrical; there is no corresponding signifier (Lacan, l975b). One consequence of this is which could signify [[Woman]] in the same way that it the male sex is not possible tosymbolised.
define perversion by reference to a supposedly natural form of There is only one signifier, the sexual[[Phallus]], which governs the relations between the sexes (E, 289).
There is thus no symbol for a symmetrical sexual relationship : 'the sexual relationship cannot be written' (as Freud didS20, 35). Heterosexuality is thus not natural but normative
(Ec, 223).
2. There is no reciprocity or symmetry between the male and female
positions because the [[Symbolic]] order is fundamentally asymmetrical; there is3.
no corresponding signifier which could signify [[Woman]] in the same way that theRelations between men and women can never be harmonious; 'The most naked rivalry between men and women is eternal' (S2, 263).
male sex Love is symbolised. There is only one signifierno 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, the [[Phallus]]or in psychoanalytic terms, which governsas in Balint's concept of GENITAL œOVC).
the relations between the sexes (E, 289). There is thus no symbol for a
symmetrical sexual relationship: 'the sexual relationship cannot be written'
(S20, 35)4.
3The sexual drives are directed not towards a 'whole person' but towards PART-OBJECTS. Relations between men and women can never be harmonious; 'The most
naked rivalry There is therefore no such thing as a sexual relationship between two subjects, only between men a subject and women is eternal' a (S2, 263partial)object. Love is no more
than an illusion designed to make up 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 absence man as a [[Real]] subject, but only as a fantasy object, the cause of harmonious relationshis desire (S20, 58).
between the sexes (whether presented in mythical terms, as in Plato's Sympo-
sium, or in psychoanalytic terms, as in Balint's concept of GENITAL œOVC).
45. The sexual drives are directed not towards a 'whole person' but towards
PART-OBJECTS. There is therefore no such thing as a [[Woman]] cannot function sexually qua [[Woman]] but only qua mother; '[[Woman]] begins to function in the sexual relationship betweenonly as mother' (S20, 36).
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
(S20, 58).
5. [[Woman]] cannot function sexually qua [[Woman]] but only qua mother;
'[[Woman]] begins to function in the sexual relationship only as mother' (S20,
36).
6. As something rooted in the [[Real]], sex is opposed to meaning; and 'sex, in
represents a radically different way in which the SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP CAD
misfire (S20, 53-4).
sexual relationship (rapport sexuel) Lacan first proposes his
famous formula: il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel in 1970 (see Lacan 1969-70:
134), and takes it up again in his seminar of 1972-3 (S20, 17). This formula is
usually translated into English as 'There is no such thing as a sexual relation-
ship', 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 emphasising 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. The formula thus condenses a
number of points in Lacan's approach to the question of SEXUAL DIFFERENCE:
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 (S20, 64). 'Between male and female human beings there is no such
thing as an instinctive relationship' because all sexuality is marked by the
signifier (Lacan, l975b). 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
(Ec, 223).
2. There is no reciprocity or symmetry between the male and female
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 symbolised. There is only one signifier, the [[Phallus]], which governs
the relations between the sexes (E, 289). There is thus no symbol for a
symmetrical sexual relationship: 'the sexual relationship cannot be written'
(S20, 35).
3. Relations between men and women can never be harmonious; 'The most
naked rivalry between men and women is eternal' (S2, 263). 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 Sympo-
sium, or in psychoanalytic terms, as in Balint's concept of GENITAL œOVC).
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
(S20, 58).
5. [[Woman]] cannot function sexually qua [[Woman]] but only qua mother;
'[[Woman]] begins to function in the sexual relationship only as mother' (S20,
36).
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 commu-
nication' (Copjec, 1994: 21).
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' (Copjec, 1994: 21).
