Does Zizek say that sex is a bad thing?
I'm sorta confused by a few things i had posted to me in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/zizek/comments/1ntwswr/what_exactly_is_the_goal_of_alenka_zupancics/
Namely:
I'm just lost as this sounds more like personal projection than an accurate commentary on what's up with sex with human beings. Like is desiring someone because you find them hot projecting a fantasy then? The word violence seems kinda hyperbolic to describe sexual desire though, like yeah there is the initial physical attraction but the language seems excessive.
Right now this has got me feeling like me being attracted to folks is bad because I'm just projecting onto them, I'm not really sure what to make of what he says about sex.
Namely:
Sex isn't "bad" but it is always violent. Honest consent is accepting the responsibility for this violence. Allowing violence to be done to you and to accept that you are being violent towards another person.
Honestly, the book raises a lot of questions. I'd suggest a book club if it's bothering you.
Edit: Zizek has said that ideally, for him, sex arises from a lack of control (incontinence of the void) and that he believes it can only be "honest" under such conditions of a loss of control for both parties. Consent takes on an entirely different meaning.
It represents who this other person must be for you to know who you are (what you are attracted to).
What is lacking is what is cut off by the sexual fantasy. If you think of fantasy not as what you don't have so you desire but instead as the coordinates or constellation of desire, and a desirable person is someone who happens to fill that cypher at that particular moment, then projecting a sexual fantasy onto someone is to reduce them to your masturbatory desire.
For example, if I were to tell you I purchased a new vehicle, that's better than any other, and you were to ask what about it is better and I were to answer "the spark plugs" you'd think I'm mad. But that's exactly how a sexual fantasy works. You desire a person insofar as they fullfil your sexual fantasy, in that moment - which has nothing to do with who they actually are. In this sense, where you reduce a subject to masturbatory fantasy, it is violent.
As Lacan said, ask a [straight] man what a woman is and you'll hear his fantasy.
"This role of fantasy hinges on the fact that, as Jacques Lacan put it, "there is no sexual relationship," no universal formula or matrix guaranteeing a harmonious sexual relationship with one's partner: every subject has to invent a fantasy of his own, a "private" formula for the sexual relationship - for a man, the relationship with a woman is possible only inasmuch as she fits his formula."
The sense of unity so common in sexual "non-relationships" is indicative of a functioning fantasy. There's nothing wrong with this - you absolutely need the fantasy to enjoy it. Sex is a nightmare without a fantasy, at worst, or alienating, at best. Sex does not bring people closer (from this perspective), it merely brings you closer to your own fantasy which you are projecting onto your partner.
Zupancic and Zizek both repeatedly make the point that the only way to get to know someone (become closer) is to talk to them.
I'm just lost as this sounds more like personal projection than an accurate commentary on what's up with sex with human beings. Like is desiring someone because you find them hot projecting a fantasy then? The word violence seems kinda hyperbolic to describe sexual desire though, like yeah there is the initial physical attraction but the language seems excessive.
Right now this has got me feeling like me being attracted to folks is bad because I'm just projecting onto them, I'm not really sure what to make of what he says about sex.
Comments (16)
The instinct for sex is as strong as the instinct to eat at times. Eating is inherently violent. Animals consume other beings to sustain life. Sex is like a propelled act of consumption to reproduce. Unlike eating it is unnecessary for the survival of the individual, but there are ramifications to the repression or fulfillment of that desire.
In nature it can get quite ugly. Female sea turtles may be drowned by an unintentional swarm of horny males, who weigh her down in the competitive act of copulation. Female ducks have the famous labyrinthine vagina as a covert means to defy the generative power of an unwanted sex act, what a human might consider rape. Many males above and below the class mammalia compete for access to females by fighting, which comes with the inherent risk of injury and death, assuming it goes beyond the softened formality of dominance/aggression theater (like a game of sparring).
This is an interesting idea but I am not sure I understand sex without fantasy. Who would ever consent to sex without fantasy, if consent implicates fantasy as present and operating?
Silly. Ive made love at least [deleted] times and this doesnt match my experienceor my partners. Perhaps someone couldnt get a date to the prom.
Erm ... what?
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Your confusion is understandable. Incontinence will result in voiding, and so causes the void. But the void isn't itself incontinent.
I'm not sure that's what he's getting at.
I asked the question on the sub reddit but the answers seem either vague or inconsistent.
Anyways, I don't think sex has to be mediated by fantasy, it just is often in a modern context, since much of our lives involve mediation via images, advertising, pornography, etc. I'm not terribly familiar with Zizek, but it seems within his line of thought that he would talk about sex in that context. Sex doesn't need to be violent either (it can certainly be gentle, even to the point of tantric acts which basically involves staying still after penetration), but some prefer that it is violence either consensually or non-consensually.
To say that "sex is violent because you are projecting a fantasy" to me is a strange argument that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Consensually projecting a fantasy, or projecting without expressing it, doesn't imply any sort of violence unless you're trying to change the other person in the process.
This is contradictory. Masturbation can't be done with another's body. Sex is 'objectively' not masturbation in any sense.
More evidence Zizek is divorced from reality it seems here.
"what an odd thing to say".
It's weird. When people reveal that they are unable to conceptualize basic concepts like mutual consent (which requires quite distinct control for both parties) we maybe should take their opinions on consent-derived activities as less important.
Quoting AmadeusD
Obligatory "yeah, well, he's famous and you're not, so..." :razz:
That's not really objective, that's just a subjective interpretation of what's going on. Also like someone else mentioned a contradiction. Sex is interacting with another you find attractive, you're not necessarily projecting.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Well from the page it seems he's using a different definition of violence.
Quoting Outlander
I mean so is Donald Trump.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
It was weird when I read it, like you're cutting away their subjectivity by projecting a sexual fantasy onto them, which is a wild take on what's happening. I think it's more that the chemicals in you lead to that when you are attracted to someone but it's not really projection, you're attracted to them.
Quoting Darkneos
Yeah. The kind of definition that works for him, and makes no sense. Like the old 'words are violence' nonsense. They are categorically not violence. Neither is sex, tout court. You have to add in violence. Although, one could etymologically say that any form of sex which isn't truly consented (coercion, for instance) is violent by way of "violate" being a root.
They're not Zizek quotes.
Stop starting discussions to discuss discussions you've been having on Quora and Reddit. I'm closing this.