VENUS IN FURS vs. VENUS INFERS
Sex also needs some phantasmic screen -- . . . any contact with a 'real' flesh-and-blood other, any sexual pleasure that we find in touching another human being, is not something evident but something inherently traumatic, and can be sustained only in so far as this other enters the subject's fantasy-frame. . . . What happens, then, when this screen dissolves? The act turns into ugliness -- even horror.
The Real of sexual activity is disgusting, make no bones about it. The closer one gets microscopically to the body of the other, i.e., the more fully one asks the other's body to 'tell everything' about itself (its Reality), the more one runs the danger of being repulsed. The tongue is slimy and coated like a fat, crawling bug; the penis and vagina ooze and emit slimy, foul fluids; the genitals (as mentioned by both Augustine and Freud) are but a nanometer away from the urinary opening and the infamous organ of excrement; the body rots, sags, stinks, is covered with warts and pores and bumps and blemishes of all sorts; and one experiences what little beauty the body does have, and what little excitement it is able to produce, less frequently and less intensely the more one comes in contact with it (the more one approaches the Real). Yes, it attracts, but it also repels. It is the role of fantasy to allow us to experience the real that we create (i.e., the body purged of its ugliness, the body in which the beauty shines forth). Besides, most people are just plain fat, or ugly, or otherwise physically repulsive. We need fantasy, then, to get things going. Else we would forever refuse to get into bed with anyone. Sometimes the fantasy is fueled or constituted precisely by "love," which refuses to see the foulness; sometimes it is fueled by horniness (according to David Hume; see also Simon Blackburn); sometimes it is fueled by alcohol (Jerry Seinfeld); and sometimes, of course, we try to mask the ugliness and emphasize the beauty with cosmetics, clothing, and swagger -- and end up only postponing the other's frightening encounter with our Real body.
LOST IN TRANSLATION
Jesen. Četnik na groblje
Malen zdrug i trešnja
Danima sam sustavno bio maltretiran anonimnim posjetama Osaklija: sada su konačno dolijali!
Netom nakon što su Osakljani prešli u Kinu koja se na srpski kaže Bioskopija: 15ss-5s.tsinghua.edu.cn., Manđurske su im vlasti stale na kraj!
Stvarno me jebu ti azijati! Vršljaju tak mali pa im ne može čovjek nikako stati na kraj.
Očito, nastupila je zen faza.
Kad sam već blizu satorija, evo autentičnog bilogorskog zen-koana, Majstora Leba:
Zen caffe bara Mir
Caffe bar Mir smješten je pored starog Zagorca, na cesti prema Tomi Vinkoviću i Česmi, gledajući od strane Centralovog parkirališta. Zašto to kažem? Bez veze, eto zašto. Onome tko nije iz Bijelovara ti podaci neće pomoći, a onaj tko potiče iz tog pitomog gradića na bilogorskim brdima ionako zna gdje je Mir.
U Miru se okupljaju pijanci. Tamo su od jutra do mraka, svakog dana. Tamo se tješe, filozofiraju, tuku, ljube i pjevaju.
Moj prijatelj Zordan (koji je jučer bio u emisiji Prijatelj na kvadrat) rekao je kako jedne nedjelje otišao u Mir kupiti cigarete. I tako, ušao je unutra, on ima jedno dvadesetak godina, ušao je tamo i zatekao stalnu postavu srednjevječnih ljudi s rukavima zaljepljenim o stolove, kako mutna pogleda traže poticaj za otvaranje usta.
Zordan je prišao šanku i naručio bijeli ronhil i još jedne cigarete, za druga ili drugaricu koji/ja je ostao/la vani.
Pogledao ga je jedan od pijanaca, razmišljao par minuta i razbio tišinu riječima: Ja imam četiri sina i jednu kćer.
Ostali pijanci su šutjeli. Svi su šutjeli, konobarica, Zordan i pijanci. U Miru je zavladao mir. Ugodan ili neugodan, kako kome.
Nakon par minuta, jedan od pijanaca je odgovorio pijancu-roditelju:
"Kud baš kćer."
Eto, tu priču ispričao nam je Zordan
Vertebrata, ženski i muški mazohizam su dvije posve različite priče.
K tomu još: ima feminizama i feminizama.
Usput, čini mi se smislenim pretpostaviti da ni onih preostalih 96% (straight, op.N.) ne čine homogenu jezgru nadmoćne normalnosti, nego ih valja dalje dijeliti na skupine od po 4% ove ili one denominacije.
Ima, recimo, jedna teta, zove se Pat Califia, ali u stvari nije više teta nego je sad striček, koja piše lezbijsku s/m pornografiju i teoriju i drže ju za uglednu feministkinju. A, zašto je spominjem: pa zato jer je pokrenula leatherwomen's quarterly Venus Infers. Da nije zgodno:
Venus in Furs vs. Venus Infers.
Čitala sam njezinu zbirku priča Macho Sluts, i mala nije loša.
Jedna nevolja nikada ne dolazi sama! Jasno da je Pat Califa rođena u mjestu ingeniozno američkog imena: Corpus Christi, Texas.
Nije da se ne zna, zna se. Pat je bisexual transgendered person i k tome pobornica radical sexa. Najjprije je bila biseksualna žena, da bi, nakon operacije, postala biseksualnim muškarcem. Pat je, bre, sveznajuća ko Tirezija. Neka dete uči.
Draga Nemanjice, znadem ja kako Pat izgleda, no to se nije se nepovoljno odrazilo na njezino pisanje. Lezbe ti vole taj tip vozačice kamiona, znam da ti to ne kuzis, no ti nisi lezba.
It is highly hazardous to enter this domain of the utmost intimacy, as one gets more than one asked for -- all of a sudden, when it is already too late to withdraw, one finds oneself in a slimy obscene domain. . . . Perhaps the feature which characterizes true friendship is precisely a tactful knowledge of when to stop, not going beyond a certain threshold and 'telling everything' to a friend. We do tell everything to a psychoanalyst -- but precisely for that reason, he can never be our friend.
Death drive is basically, I claim, the Freudian term for immortality. Death drive has nothing to do, as Lacan points out, convincingly, with this so-called nirvana principle where everything wants to disappear, and so on. If anything (and because of this I like to read Richard Wagner's operas where you have this), death drive is that which prevents you from dying. Death drive is that which persists beyond life and death. Again, it's precisely what, in my beloved Stephen King's horror/science fiction terminology he calls the "undead": this terrifying insistence beneath death, which is why Freud links death drive to the compulsion to repeat. You know, it can be dead, but it goes on. This terrifying insistence of an undead object.
Točkice, nisam lezba. ali sam još kao mali volio lizati marke kad smo pisali razglednice s mora. Misliš li da bi, uz adekvatan trud, mogao postati barem leatherwomen?
Kad bi ih ja polizao marke bi otpadal s razglednica: jedan liz i lepak bi skliznuo s marake kao šal Isadore D. crnim automobilskim lakom diskutabilnog Amilcara.
Moram prenesti celokupni pasus o toj bizarnoj smrti:
A habitual wearer of flowing scarves which trailed behind her, Duncan's fashion preferences were the cause of her death in a freak automobile accident in Nice, France, on the night of September 14, 1927 at the age of 50. The accident gave rise to Gertrude Stein's mordant remark that "affectations can be dangerous."
Duncan was a passenger in the Amilcar automobile of a handsome young Italian mechanic, Benoît Falchetto, whom she had ironically nicknamed 'Batti' [sic]. (The marque of the automobile is open to dispute but the informed opinion is that it was an Amilcar, a 1924 GS model. It was regularly described and filmed as a more glamorous Bugatti). Before getting into the car, she said to a friend, Mary Desti, and some companions, "Adieu, mes amis. Je vais Ă la gloire!" ("Goodbye, my friends, I am off to glory!") However, according to the diaries of the American novelist Glenway Wescott, who was in Nice at the time and visited Duncan's body in the morgue (his diaries are in the collection of the Beineke Library at Yale University), Desti admitted that she had lied about Duncan's last words. Instead, she told Wescott, the dancer actually said, "Je vais Ă l'amour" ("I am off to love"), which Desti considered too embarrassing to go down in history as the legend's final utterance, especially since it sested that Duncan hoped that she and Falchetto were going to her hotel for a sexual assignation. Whatever her actual last words, when Falchetto drove off, Duncan's immense handpainted silk scarf, which was a gift from Desti and was large enough to be wrapped around her body and neck and flutter out of the car, became entangled around one of the vehicle's open-spoked wheels and rear axle. Duncan died on the spot.
As the New York Times noted in its obituary of the dancer on 15 September 1927, "The automobile was going at full speed when the scarf of strong silk began winding around the wheel and with terrific force dragged Miss Duncan, around whom it was securely wrapped, bodily over the side of the car, precipitating her with violence against the cobblestone street. She was dragged for several yards before the chauffeur halted, attracted by her cries in the street. Medical aid was summoned, but it was stated that she had been strangled and killed instantly."
Isadora Duncan was cremated, and her ashes were placed in the columbarium of Pere Lachaise Cemetery, Paris, France.
Vladamo gradom uz pomoć orgazma & sarkazma.
Da. I provodimo kulturnu strahovladu.
Nemanja, svi smo mi leatherwoman.
A možemo li onda, ako smi svi mi leatherwoman, ti i ja biti lezbe? Mislim, to me pitanje muči već duže vrijeme...
Ja mislim da je 'Sebastiane' film za pedere. To mi se nekak ne sviđa. Upravo sam ušao u svoju lezbijsku fazu i za pederastiju i Svete čete nemam nikakva afiniteta. Bez obzira na njihovu velicanstvenu žrtvu. Pusti ti to.
Onda ispada da sam ja peder. I to ortodoksni.
Može onda tako? Ti budi lezba, ja ću biti peder i stvar štima.
Ili možemo biti superjunakinje Leatherwoman i Venusinfurs.
E, može, to je sjajno: ja sam lezba, ti peder, a ja se furam na Leatherwoman a ti si Venusinfurs! Ti imaš muf od kriptonskog zeca! A ja Atilin bič od volovske žile (jebome ti ako ja znam koja bi to žila bila, ali stipu, u filmu sam!). Ja se hvatam jezikom za zgrade kao Spiderman paučinom, a ti ulaziš na stražnje ulaze i izazivaš strah i drhtanje! Mmmmm, razradit ću ovo, uslikati nas i posvetiti nam cijeli blog. Vartebrata može biti Robinja (neka vrst Batmanovog Robina). On ima čarobnu knjigu iz koje za svaku prigodu zlikovcu prije egzekucije pročita adekvatan citat! Vladamo gradom uz pomoć orgazma & sarkazma.
According to the Jewish tradition, Lilith is the woman a man makes love to while he masturbates alone in his bed during the night - far from standing for the feminine identity liberated from the patriarchal hold, her status is purely phallic: she is what Lacan calls La femme, the Woman, the fantasmatic supplement of the male masturbatory phallic jouissance.
Bondage can be divided into six main categories:
• Bondage that pulls parts of the body together (rope, straps, harnesses).
• Bondage that spreads parts of the body apart (spreader bars, x-frames).
• Bondage that ties the body down to another object (such as chairs or stocks).
• Bondage that suspends the body from another object (suspension bondage).
• Bondage that restricts normal movement (hobble skirts, handcuffs, pony harness).
• Bondage that wraps the whole body or a part of it in bindings such as cloth or plastic (saran wrap or cling film "mummification") as well as sleepsack bondage.
Some of the large variety of restraints used in bondage:
• Rope, often preferred because of its flexibility. Rigging, however, requires considerable skill and practice to do safely.
• Chains, including police handcuffs, thumbcuffs and belly chains.
• Institutional restraints, including straitjackets.
• Purpose-made bondage gear, such as monogloves, sleepsacks, bondage hooks and bondage tables.
Some simple bondage techniques:
• Verbal bondage, in which (as the name sests) the top simply tells the bottom to do something.
• Simply tying the hands together in front or behind.
• Anchoring the hands to the front, back or sides of a belt at the waist.
• A spread eagle, with the limbs splayed out and fastened by wrists and ankles to bedposts, door frame or some other anchoring point.
• A hogtie securing each wrist to its corresponding ankle behind the back (wider, padded restraints such as bondage cuffs are recommended for this).
• A ball lock involves fastening a padlock around the male testicles, leaving the male at his partner's mercy for what could be a prolonged period, in private or concealed in public.
• The crotch rope involves pulling a rope between the labia to apply pressure to the female genitals. Sometimes a knot is placed in the rope at the position of the clitoris to intensify the sensation.
Some more complex techniques:
• The reverse prayer position (not recommended unless the subject has flexible shoulders).
• An over-arm tie, in which the arms are brought over the head, and the wrists fastened together behind the head and then by a length of rope, chain or strapping to a belt at the waist.
There are also some common fantasy settings in which bondage is often played:
• Rape fantasy: The top fictitiously abducts the consenting bottom and has complete control to do what he/she pleases.
• Domination/slavery: A training session occurs in which rewards for obedience and punishment for defiance are given. Humiliation is usually involved.
• Predicament bondage: The bottom is given a choice between two tortures. For example, caning on the rear or flogging on the chest. If the bottom cannot stand one any longer, the top will start the other. This can also be done mechanically, like having a bottom squat and rigging a crotch rope to tighten if they attempt to stand.
Bondage is often combined with other sexual and BDSM techniques. See list of bondage positions and list of bondage equipment for more details.
Technique in self-bondage is more complex, involving special methods to apply the bondage to oneself, and also to effect a release after a lapsed period of time. Self-bondage is also notably risky: see the safety notes below.
Jouissance (as opposed to plaisir); the disruptive rapture experienced when transgressing limits.
In BDSM, the safeword is generally used so that the 'bottom' can scream "no, stop", etc. as much as he/she wants without really meaning it, and still have a way of indicating a serious desire that the scene stops. Accordingly, a safeword is usually a word that the person would not ordinarily say during sex, such as red light, big tree, scrambled eggs, mercy, uncle or even aardvark. Commonly the word safeword itself is used as a safeword. It is the default at many play parties.
With the range of safewords in common use it is important that the safeword be negotiated beforehand.
The Interpassive Subject
Fetish between structure and humanism
According to the classic Althusserian criticism of the Marxist problematic of commodity fetishism, this notion relies on the humanist ideological opposition of "human persons" versus "things." Is it not one of Marx's standard determinations of fetishism that, in it, we are dealing with "relations between things (commodities)" instead of direct "relations between people," i.e. that, in the fetishist universe, people (mis)perceive their social relations in the guise of relations between things? Althusserians are fully justified in emphasizing how, beneath this "ideological" problematic, there is another, entirely different — structural — concept of fetishism already at work in Marx: at this level, "fetishism" designates the short-circuit between the formal/differential structure (which is by definition "absent," i.e. it is never given "as such" in our experiential reality) and a positive element of this structure. When we are victims of the "fetishist" illusion, we (mis)perceive as the immediate/"natural" property of the object-fetish that which is conferred upon this object on account of its place within the structure. The fact that money enables us to buy things on the market, is not a direct property of the object-money, but results from the structural place of money within the complex structure of socio-economic relations; we do not relate to a certain person as to a "king" because this person is "in himself" (on account of his charismatic character or something similar) a king, but because he occupies the place of a king within the set of socio-symbolic relations; etc.etc.
Our point, however, is that these two levels of the notion of fetishism are necessarily connected: they form the two constitutive sides of the very concept of fetishism; which is why one cannot simply devalue the first as ideological, in contrast to the second as properly theoretical (or "scientific"). To make this point clear, one should reformulate the first feature in a much more radical way. Beneath the apparently humanist-ideological opposition of "human beings" and "things," there lurks another, much more productive notion, that of the mystery of substitution and/or displacement: how is it ontologically possible that the innermost "relations between people" can be displaced onto (or substituted by) "relations between things"? That is to say, is it not a basic feature of the Marxian notion of commodity fetishism that "things believe instead of us, in the place of us"? The point worth repeating again and again is that, in Marx's notion of fetishism, the place of the fetishist inversion is not in what people think they are doing, but in their social activity itself: a typical bourgeois subject is, in terms of his conscious attitude, an utilitarian nominalist — it is in his social activity, in exchange on the market, that he acts as if commodities were not simple objects, but objects endowed with special powers, full of "theological whimsies." In other words, people are well aware how things really stand, they know very well that the commodity-money is nothing but a reified form of the appearance of social relations, i.e. that, beneath the "relations between things," there are "relations between people" — the paradox is that, in their social activity, they act as if they do not know this, and follow the fetishist illusion. The fetishist belief, the fetishist inversion, is displaced onto things, it is embodied in what Marx calls "social relations between things." And the crucial mistake to be avoided here, is the properly "humanist" notion that this belief, embodied in things, displaced onto things, is nothing but a reified form of direct human belief: the task of the phenomenological reconstitution of the genesis of "reification," is then to demonstrate how original human belief was transposed onto things… The paradox to be maintained is that displacement is original and constitutive: there is no immediate, self-present living subjectivity to whom the belief embodied in "social things" can be attributed, and who is then dispossesed of it. There are some beliefs, the most fundamental ones, which are from the very outset "decentered," beliefs of the Other; the phenomenon of the "subject supposed to believe," is thus universal and structurally necessary. From the very outset, the speaking subject displaces his belief onto the big Other qua the order of pure semblance, so that the subject never "really believed in it"; from the very beginning, the subject refers to some decentered other to whom he imputes this belief. All concrete versions of this "subject supposed to believe" (from small children for whose sake parents pretend to believe in Santa Claus, to the "ordinary working people" for whose sake Communist intellectuals pretend to believe in Socialism) are stand-ins for the big Other. So, what one should answer to the conservative platitude according to which every honest man has a profound need to believe in something, is that every honest man has a profound need to find another subject who would believe in his place…
PARADOX OF MOVING STATUES
As if to acknowledge this problem, the most frequent metaphorical vehicle used in representing fetishism is the image of the object that comes to life. Karl Marx explains, for example, that fetishism occurs when "the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their own" (Capital 165). In commodity fetishism, products appear transformed by their entry into exchange relations. A wooden table is just a table:
But as soon as it emerges as a commodity, it changes into a thing which transcends sensuousness. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than if it were to begin dancing of its own free will. (163-164)
Using the same metaphor, Comte represents fetishism as if the material world were alive in every tree and rock. Similarly, Tylor illustrates fetishism with a story (originally from Charles Darwin) of "two Malay women in Keeling Island who held a wooden spoon dressed in clothes like a doll; this spoon had been carried to the grave of a dead man, and becoming inspired at full moon, in fact lunatic, it danced about convulsively like a table or a hat at a modern spirit-seance" (2: 152).21 All of these are examples of what Zizek, in "Fetishism and Its Vicissitudes," calls the "paradox of moving statues, of dead objects coming alive and/or of petrified living objects" that comes into play when "the barrier which separates the living from the dead is transgressed" (Plague 89, 88).
These objects constitute the symptom of the human being; but they can also become the opposite: its fetish. Žižek writes of the fetish that it is effectively the counterpart to the symptom; operating as a kind of sham life, it structures our entire life in order to support it. The fetish is the embodiment of a lie that enables us to endure an unbearable truth (Slavoj Žižek 2000). This is the Real itself (in the Lacanian sense), an isolated object (the Lacanian objet petit a) whose fascinating and meaningful presence guarantees the structural real, the social order. This real enables one to gain a distance from everyday reality: one introduces an object that has no place inside it, that cannot be named or otherwise symbolized - the photo collage of the beloved in the film The Truman Show, for example. What Žižek means is that every symbolic structure must contain an element that embodies the moment of its impossibility, around which it is organized. This is both impossible and real (in its effect) at the same time. The symptom on the other hand is the return of the repressed truth in a different form.
Žižek explains this objet petit a—the MacGuffin—in the following way: "MacGuffin is objet petit a pure and simple: the lack, the remainder of the real that sets in motion the symbolic movement of interpretation, a hole at the center of the symbolic order, the mere appearance of some secret to be explained, interpreted, etc."
Jouissance: it is the shocking and transgressive enjoyment that attends the subject's involvement with experiences that normally are not talked about such as death, sex or violence. In addition to a more or less coherent set of discursive claims about the wrld, ideologies structure the subject's relations to "the Real of jouissance", if they are to reproduce themselves. Finally, Zizek contends that these two registers of the Real are not the deepest: actually he combines them under the term "ideological fantasies" or "phantasm". Ideological fantasies are the necessary supplement to the tenets of any given ideology. These ideological fantasies, however, that subjects are interpellated into, in fact misrepresent those same tenets: in its deepest register the Real does not name anything that heterogeneously exceeds the terms of an ideology. So in the last resort the Real indicates the inherent and necessary finitude of the ideological fabric, which ideological fantasies serve to distort as contingent and as emanating from some agency external to the political community.