Does Monster Energy Cause Bloating

Gisele Chaboudez Orleans Conference about "Sexual intercourse and sex ratio" Pierre Delion

On behalf of Patrice Ridoux
Reading workshops and studies Freud: ALI Orleans

20, Venelle Bellevoie 45000 Orléans. Tel: 02 38 55 06 96.
e-mail: alef.orleans @ free.fr
http://alef.orleans.free.fr/

Alef is a regional school of the International Association Lacanian

Conference Gisele Chaboudez , psychiatrist, psychoanalyst,

Member Space analytical

about his book (Denoël):

" Sexual intercourse and sex ratio "

Orleans, June 26, 2010

Since the book came out, I had occasion to consider the prospect a few years back, to make a kind of post deal, and that's how I write my comments today

Yes, human sexuality is anything but natural, and Freud gave a first impression with the Oedipus complex, which proved the contamination while is a celebration of sexuality prohibited. Nothing else seemed to symbolize his sexuality prohibited. The Oedipus taught nothing about what is to be a man or woman or their relationship, but yet determined, even beyond its decline. And time of psychoanalysis has been only Oedipal long she thought that the Oedipus alone gave the keys to the relationship between man and woman, once resolved. She left somewhat about it on the threshold of this report, the assumption now armed to confront it. This design has evolved massively Lacan, in the sixties, it is another foundation of causal sexual acts, in addition to Oedipus and the name of the Father, but perhaps we are beginning to take the measure until recently. It is essential to grasp, despite the difficulty of its concept, to weigh what it changes and adds to the development of Freud and those that followed, because it is the condition that psychoanalysis continues to remain relevant, that it renews itself by continuing its discoveries and additions, its adjustments, alterations in social sometimes appear to exceed it, then it has for 50 years how to think.

Father of Oedipus teaches nothing about the relationship between man and woman

It was long thought in psychoanalysis that the resolution of the Oedipus complex in childhood, according to what Lacan called the structure Name of the Father, then enough to develop a satisfactory report with a partner of the opposite sex, since it involved an integration of the Act. The law of the incest taboo, but also the sexual law that distributes the phallus as having or not, being or not, between the masculine and feminine. We now know that the law itself is not enter what would be sexual intercourse, in the sense that Lacan understands it, that is to say a ratio between the two sexes as such. She is a substitute, introducing a report that includes only a signifier, the phallus, and an enjoyment for both sexes. The gender issue has exploded in the U.S., or it was based initially on the Lacanian description of the dialectic of symbolic phallus gender, the sexual act that Lacan described in the 60s. The resolution of the Oedipus complex led to this law, which is not a report of two sexes, which has many consequences. Freud was right when identified the "most common belittling the love life, which distributes in a man's love without desire on one side and the other the desire without love, according to interpret the Oedipus complex, as a clumsy attempt to avoid incest evoked a desire for the beloved. It was thus in a sense, the absence of suspected sexual intercourse between man and woman. It was enough for it to emphasize the Oedipus effect was to sever the current tender and sensual in its infancy, so they become difficult to meet again on partner while their partner is in the meeting which could actually be called sex.

because the Oedipus complex and its resolution by the name of the Father to prepare everything but a relationship between a man and a woman as such. It symbolizes the sexual pleasure, which is symbolized so that from that which is forbidden. Hence organized enjoyments subsequent to exclude what is of the same "kind", so to say, that the enjoyment incestuous, and precisely the meeting of desire and love on one partner Freud had pointed out, is readily apparent to that nature. In addition to the Oedipus does the issue of sexual organs on the way in which they appear in this framework, ie as a symbol of the phallic organ or its absence, and simply as a masturbatory enjoyment. This is only to have the phallus for a boy, or not having and being, for a girl. Freud stated that Oedipus is abandoned by the boy to preserve vital organ to narcissism, and indeed the phallic phase of childhood that does auto-eroticism and narcissism in their report to the symbolic, not sexual pleasure as such. Masturbation is widespread, but orgasm, without exception, do not occur in childhood, and the penis, clitoris and vagina, occur only under the phallic phase, equity or not. With the onset of orgasm during adolescence that begins to produce a maturation of the object involved in the genitalia, and then adds its problems in the sexual act to that of Oedipus .

Besides, how could he Oedipus prepare for sexual pleasure, which is to enjoy a Other as such and to be its enjoyment when it is resolved by exclusion of the enjoyment of the Other, the mother and not a subject that builds private enjoyment too? It allows to develop an enjoyment residual after this operation, a residue that serves as the lost enjoyment and tries to compensate his loss. So that Oedipus once resolved, with the function of the Name of the Father, only offers two routes, one which involves partner like object, lowered to be desired, perverse way, and one that manages to meet the desire and love in the partner, but at the cost of the ban. This there are two ways to enter that Freud described how each sex finds sexual pleasure disappeared in the organization of civilized sexuality, forbidden desire for the woman, being lowered for man. These observations remain just and valuable, and they continue to assign a large part of the organization of sexual enjoyment.

Thus Oedipal psychoanalysis can only deal with sex as such, and therefore it did not. The phallus, in psychoanalysis, was considered to Lacan that as he is to have or not, the only enjoyment was that according to the object or part prohibited. They seemed to consider that the Freudian theory, according to the disappearance of the Oedipus complex and dialectic phallic enough to establish what would later be a man or a woman. It was and it was enough that the boy identifies with the father as the one who has the phallus, to become a man, and the girl waiting to receive child phallus of the same father, to become a woman. But identification with the father is the desire to enjoy a partner as an object, like the mythical father of all women enjoy while waiting for the child's father-phallus eventually produced a daughter and mother not a woman. In any case this is not sufficient to establish a sexual relationship. The Oedipus complex and its resolution does not prepare the report of man and woman as such, but a report perverse or incestuous, it creates a structure likely to form a story from the infant, but not a pleasure that unites man and woman as such. This is not the same goal, they are even two opposing goals. Since the topic at the end of the Oedipus complex is formed by separation of enjoyment, it is maintained and reproduced as a separate pleasure, it can be later a path to the enjoyment of the Other, which remains prohibited as such. It is therefore surprising, as Lacan did in 1968, the exclusive attachment to the coordinates of the oedipal psychoanalysis, which are family when she says so little about the enjoyment of men and women, which is in principle the center of the sexual cause, on which he has an accent interrogative with the aphorism "there is no sexual relation."

If psychoanalysis believed that the resolution of the Oedipus complex, provided they are correct, sufficient to substantiate a report later between man and woman it also stated that our civilization for centuries this law sexual relationship between a man and woman, resulting from the Oedipus complex. Based solely on the dialectic phallic having or not and then later or may not be as phallic object of desire, this report is for the man to give it to one that did not but the east and for women to be and to receive it. It is this law that Lacan called a simplistic fiction, and summarized in terms of man "It was what was what," and he believed it had misfired. The man in this Act has the phallus as the father was in the Oedipus, and the woman is like the child was. Father, according to its meaning the name of the Father, is the only one with the phallus and enjoy, and it prohibits the enjoyment for both mother and child. The man is supposed to enjoy the female counterpart to the Father so supposed to enjoy the mother.

In sum, according to the speech of this bill, which is both that of the exchange of women or that the alliance is not out of the Oedipus complex, is not outside the system name Father: it is content to overthrow or to shift the terms. This supplementary report by having and being, links two bodies, insofar as one is supposed to enjoy each other. The definition of what would be a sexual pleasure is replaced by what is to enjoy a body. The relationship of male pleasure its purpose registers as though he were a sex ratio in the institutions of the speech at the origin of our civilization. Genesis establishes it as such, the metaphor for Adam's rib. It is a logical complement, where both partners are not two, but more something that is less than one its complement. Such a ratio seems to be sexual since it divides, is organized between two persons of both sexes. But it is not sexual in the sense that it does not affect both sexes as such, does not unite or two pleasures that would complement, but an alleged sex and enjoyment of the other. Even it is not about sex as such, enjoy as a body within the meaning of disposal is not sexual in itself.

That woman is not confined to the object of enjoyment, that man can not enjoy it as well, because it enjoys in this case only a part of himself, all in our Western societies became apparent, and was articulated in the Lacanian elaborations 60s. The resolution of the Oedipus complex only results in subjective positions constituting the fiction of the supplementary report between having and being, it leaves an outstanding relationship between two sexes within the meaning of what is in the speech but it also lets them build one in the margins of discourse, sometimes in a particular pair of partners, including the enjoyment of a woman, where the stream met the current tender and sensual, desire and love. When something radically changes in our civilization, as regards the name of the Father and of the Oedipus complex, it appeared that the report he founded between man and woman was a fiction, and there is sometimes a report that s' establishes between a man and a woman they know little, so there is not the current report, enduring them, the sense of universal discourse or proportion as it is announced. The speech included all the logic of phallic-castrated all but one of which is the logic-neurotic, for boys as for girls. Psychoanalysis can not be satisfied, for deciphering the unconscious, the Oedipus and not more than logical that he founded.

But this sexual act does not result solely from Oedipus and the Name of the Father. This is not only to prevent maternal incest as the desire of man is filled with such an object. Another basis is to consider

The other foundation of sexual law

The metaphor underlying this law and this object, in Genesis, that of Adam's rib, organizes the relation of man to woman like a whole to its part, the ratio thus symbolized For centuries under the aegis of the God of the Bible, and whose purpose now seems quaint in these days of sexual equality conquered, at least in the latitudes that inherit from this religious tradition. But it is not enough to see the end of a speech, it is still necessary to grasp the reason.

When Lacan begins to analyze the metaphor of the birth of the mythical feminine object, there first notes that the figure of the sexual act as address register between man and woman. But whereas elsewhere at the same time, he studies and develops the question of orgasm, left radically far apart by psychoanalysis, except for some marginal examples, trying to grasp how language takes hold of some anatomical and physiological characteristics of man to create a logic that organizes the desire, another metaphor appears behind him thereof. It seems that this subtraction of bone metaphorically evokes another subtraction for intercourse between man and woman, what he called a trend too early detumescence of penis under the female orgasm, which is a power enjoyment, so castration for both partners. Therefore the way a joke, it decrypts the called side is in fact precisely the bone loss of the body so that there is not too soon ...

Moreover, this cut functionality of the body that interrupts the sex act based an imaginary object: subtracts what is causing a desire to return, so reverted, constituting a value of enjoyment, and this is in lieu of an object feminine. And as is the phallus that is subtracted, the woman comes to equal enjoyment of such value. This is precisely what we see in the scene Genesis of metaphorically: Eve is formed of a bone removed, what should be the phallic body so that there is no subtraction of enjoyment of the couple. Genesis deals thus the intercourse of man and woman, and from its symbolization determines their social ties. "They will become one flesh" has several meanings, therefore, anatomic course, as metaphor, then the biblical sense of enjoyment, in fact they do have one, that of man, but also by condensation of the two, there is enjoyment than an anatomical part. Lacan says " God uses his sleep, pulling him one side, we are told, to make the first Eve. Divine intervention is extra, it results in the dialectic of the sexual act, that man is a subject dealing with a piece of his own body, leaving the door ajar evil inherent in the famous command: they shall become one flesh "May 24, 1967

The development of this process completes for himself the discovery of the object in 1963, this object consists of a value of enjoyment postponed after subtraction , causing a desire for found in one form or another. And to this extent it provides and in 1968, that the object is that in which the sexual partner must be found for man, that this truth is placed in the heart of Genesis, and c is why it is so bad since that time on that perfection would imagine that as the conjunction of two pleasures. Why that is why it is so bad since that time? The fact is that if the partner of man is thus formed, there is no possible combination of two pleasures between man and woman, one is only the value of enjoyment other. Such a relationship is not sexual in the strict sense but makes this one of the partners, such as a hand off of him, is enjoying what he thinks of himself as when he finds it. It is not sexual and it has a perverse dimension if we accept this definition entirely appropriate that the pervert is not interested in the partition between men and women, but that of the body and enjoyment. Since becoming subject, the body must be cut off from the enjoyment at the outset, it remains separate, but the pervert seeks to regain by being the object of the Other. And we understand how in a world where there is no Partition man woman who is defined as such by the speech, the perverse subject makes all the service to develop an alternative by the partition of the body and pleasure This is not a substitute for intercourse, but at least it exists and it is universal, so it takes its place for centuries and centuries, registering as a law.

The organizer of this metaphor of the relationship between man and woman, as the speech of our religious tradition was established and maintained, is the God of the Bible. And we could see was a simple metaphor that introduces the Oedipus by disappearing, since the formation of Eve as a partner in this mode can remove man's fear of incest. Indeed since the partner only occurs as the value of enjoyment, enjoyment in it does not, and therefore can not raise the risk of the mother. The sexual act that symbolizes this metaphor well result in that the resolution of the Oedipus complex by the name of the Father with the relationship deduced. But it is clear that this is not all. For if God intervenes to override Eve as being the man in the desire of the mother, what would he do in the subtraction command interruption of the sexual act? It is inconceivable that so literally it is first identified as one who is the agent of this interruption, and in this sense indeed removed the bone that void. This enjoyment is subtracted metaphor which would avoid it, and that would make the sexual enjoyment that would regulate only the satisfaction, therefore without castration. The Name of God is the name given to the officer that castration does not.

March 11, 75, RSI in his seminar, Lacan believes that the Name of the Father is a rut useless "This rut Name of the Father, the father as naming is emerged from the Bible, he says, and it is for man a way to wriggle out of the game phallic. " He added: "This tribal God is the add useless - ... .- that a man's body gives the asexual partner lacks. He misses how? Because it is "aphligé" of a phallus which is what bars his enjoyment of the body of the Other. "This new commentary on the myth of Genesis brings in a few words the thesis that we have just unfolded. Eve is created because the mode of use of the penis bar enjoyment that man could be a woman. Subtraction of its functionality prevents the enjoyment of the female body, which forms a phallic signifier on its removal, which then symbolizes the body, and its perverse consequences. This is why, says Lacan, "the man is married to his phallus, no other woman than that." There is no need for God's enjoyment of this subtraction is occurring because of the functionality based on the physiology of the instrument. But God is the author of subtraction, ie castration, as the resulting object. The Father is created as agent of castration, whereas this is castration does not need an agent to exist, and when it became his agent in the unconscious, it in turn influences the physiology.

Lacan seems to say that the God of the Bible, our Father's name, could have been invented as an agent for something that relates to the sexual act and not procreation, as was thought. This God would have been the first name created to serve as commanding officer at this break in the enjoyment of human copulation. It is the name of what would amount to man in order to enjoy, to ejaculate, and therefore subtracts his body, as if an order was given for it, why it is mentioned as a vocative command. And so God is the name that the castrates, and forms a value equivalent to that enjoyment has been subtracted, the principle of the object becomes the woman. Appoint an agent for something that has no need, that's basically what Lacan calls "phallic to succeed at the game." This is to ensure that the onset of orgasm is like a command, a commander with so in others in the sexual pair, which has many consequences.

The sexual symbolism of the ancient civilizations keeps track of such a hypothesis. Some civilizations as ancient China, have attempted to control male orgasm or ejaculation, so the couple back to the subtraction of sexual enjoyment, so castration. Our civilization has not tried that, she gave him a manager, an agent of divine subtraction deduced the object of desire. The effectiveness of this metaphor is great because it builds between man and woman on a report that fits the mode of complement, and it bears within it the seeds of possibility of science, but it means in consequence that this report will not be to join, not even to attempt to conjoin two pleasures, since it will issue more than one use, with its castration and its purpose. Thus, in the words of Lacan, it is so bad since that time ...

But then what about the Name of the Father of Oedipus, representative and guarantor of the forbidden incest, the mother interdicteur agent? What does he do with it? Both modes of symbolization obviously have a convergent result, since the object formed from the resolution Oedipus is the equivalent to that formed by the postponement of a value subtracted in the enjoyment of intercourse. The female phallic object formed by reduction of the Other to the oedipal object, castration once made, is homologous to the enjoyment value subtracted from forming Eve sex. In both cases, the subtraction of use is attributed to the Father, and translates into subtracting the phallus, is simply one of the other real symbolic. And in both cases the feminine object is formed by delaying the enjoyment subtracted is imaginary phallic object. Thus the sexual act has two sources, it is not only a consequence of the Name of the Father of Oedipus, who is but a subjective source, that is at stake for a subject, while the source of the sex has its place community of discourse, which would explain why it is widely present in the myths of ancient civilizations. And of course it is conceivable that what is at stake for the subject based courses in which the community of discourse, or the reverse, as the point where you ask, they linked together the to one another.

is why we need a double-loop topology, like the eight internal, used by Lacan in 1964, to think this double determination of the reports of sex and language. It helps to imagine that if these two sides appear parallel and equivalent as the two loops placed one upon the other, one is logically first, that the real watershed. It is in the gap of sex that the Name of the Father is established, falls first to a flaw in the metamorphosing enjoyment, and only then it is determined then as interdicteur mother and founder of symbolic system. So that the prohibition of incest, far from being merely symbolic because of a defect report is precisely to hide and compensate for a lack of real relationship, since prohibit the mother returns to prescribe desired, which is part of a report as an prohibited. Once appointed as agent of castration in the report, the Name of the Father, serves interdicteur. This is also the whole of the speech, according to Lacan, who stands around in the gap of intercourse, because the language does not establish the two sex, but substitutes. It is understood the difficulty of this conceptualization, but we also need designs

Psychoanalysis can no longer be content to decipher the unconscious solely from the Oedipus and his father's name. This is certainly necessary and essential as training subjective results, but provided you do not forget or ignore it is articulated to another formation, that is the metaphor of another castration, the relation sexual man and woman, the name of another name if you want. Analysis tackle always sure about the Oedipus complex, and even then it has to go so far as it can not do without the Oedipus it has therefore to be made on both partitions simultaneously, somehow, and also to decipher the impasse that the subject encounters in intercourse, in its articulation to the enjoyment of the other sex. An impasse on this issue there is, as it has developed from the Other, but an impasse that is present for all, by the solution that the speeches were introduced in front of the pleasures of disjunction man and woman, symbolizing their report on this mode. We can not therefore say that this impasse is due only to symbolic language, but not to be due to physiology : It is due to meet them, that the language has made the physiology and logic, which he founded on this basis. The analysis aims to overcome the logic of any phallic established with the name of the Father and the sexual act, and hence may allow access, in the margins of discourse, a different logic, that person does nothing to universal but only a singular relationship that has a chance this time to be sexual in the sense of having two sexes.

Become report with the deconstruction of the Name of the Father

But the speeches have largely evolved which is to define gender roles and the relationship between man and woman. With the massive deconstruction of Father Christian monotheism and the redesign of the sex ratio, the man is no longer defined in the speech which has as an object, its half or portion thereof, or a woman as if 'y summarizing. Therefore what is the current evolution has in relation to that report? We see the analytic experience how each develops its own solutions to try to find its way to the other sex, when the institutions that set out what should be the link no longer universal weight, even more weight at all. What happens when a man is not established a priori as the one with the phallus, and a woman who is so sure of being the object of desire or be castrated for doing so? What happens there beyond this dialectic phallic?

can get an idea of what Lacan thought about this issue in a fair and full of humor. The commentary in The Purloined Letter by Edgar Allan Poe, who was first to show how the unconscious is also handy, though misunderstood, that the letter was stolen, the report also addresses gender and its future. When the minister took the letter from a great kingdom of the Queen has received and must hide from the king, and he then uses to exercise power over it, nothing here indicates a priori that there is something that could affect the future of the relationship between man and woman. But when Lacan makes this letter a sign of female orgasm, outlaw speech where it is supposed to enjoy than to be the wife of the man, the scope of review changes, and Poe was probably his even wanted it. Because this letter becomes something else when is stolen for the purpose of blackmail, so clamping it becomes the signifier of the phallus. So initially we are dealing with the sign of the female orgasm, then when a man seizes for having taken on the woman, he becomes a signifier of power.

The commentary in the preface to the paperback edition of the Writings in 1969, allows us to think that Lacan developed the tale on that date as a metaphor for how the relationship between man and woman in Western society is changing. Indeed, if one considers that the Greek Patriarchate and the Roman had a signifier of the phallus power of man, after he has long been the symbol of the enjoyment of the goddess, the wife-mother incestuous, a metaphor emerges. The phallus was going so incestuous enjoyment phallic enjoyment, in the order of narcissism. And at a time when deconstructed patriarchal signifiers, this letter is in fact now being taken to continue with this metaphor, except that she does not belong to anybody, a priori, it must be conquered one by one. The phallus is no longer in effect, in our countries, the same status as it is now obvious to all, or nearly so, it is not superimposable the penis and enjoy the phallus is not necessarily having to own, within the meaning of narcissism, the enjoyment of such a woman is to enjoy it without having it. Phallic jouissance for now so obvious that women and men, since it is heavily at work in the achievements of each other. But the commentary on Lacan's The Purloined Letter goes further, considering that he plays it is not catastrophic for the Minister that he resumed the letter, because it is contrary to the letter when he in his possession he was feminized. No longer having castrates him, somehow, but especially the relief of the femininity he had suffered for having seized the sign of the female orgasm. This makes its dimension of man "who dares to do anything." The fate of the men in our society seems to say it, makes us think about this, as if in fact want to be the God of the woman, the man found himself, during all these centuries, equivalent to woman of God.

The current relationship between man and woman might thus, like this comment, be designed as freeing a man he had put on femininity paradoxical to have adorned the sign of the female orgasm as a narcissistic membership. The loss of the phallus today that God gave him before, while exempting him, castration would be beneficial, it opens the way towards the realization of a woman rather than what is just trying to enjoy an imaginary object. When this occurs enjoyment in doing so it gives it another phallus stronger if we can say, because it is specific to this couple, and not the fact of a universal meaning he would to represent. This Lacanian perspective of the evolution of sex ratio opens up many ways.

course there are some mourning to do with the current revisions of the report. Lacan says for example that in 63 man must do his mourning for the castration he seeks to produce in women and that is their own concern, as lack at home is not at this level, and it is not enough that he has for the castrated phallus. No longer having the phallus as established a priori by the mere fact of being a man, he must conquer. A woman was also in mourning to do, because Nor is it more a priori the phallus, the object of desire, she has to conquer this desire is the price it pays to be no longer be forwarded with dot. One way might be easier to open an additional report, which effectively binds both sexes and not just a sex object and as the supplementary report. A woman is naturally subject in all its accomplishments, but we also know that it also be the object of desire, and thus its enjoyment is at stake in the report. From there she can enjoy the Other, and from there only. This includes castration for man, but also gives it back again a phallus.

sexuality in psychoanalysis should now be addressed also from the impasse of sex and not only through the Name of the Father of Oedipus, who founded a subject. Of course the deadlock for each subject is made to its mode of use and its signifiers, it is quite another thing to consider also the point of view of the stalemate that exists for everyone this impasse that the speeches of Civilizations have symbolized, hidden, and also produced, which is a real discourse excludes while building it. Sex does not report, then mainly expected him to do, and everything in the speech is set to hide the central fact. The discourse tends to supply this defect by establishing a stand-in report, but in doing so it increases the defect report, and it perpetuates. Years, decades perhaps, that will be needed to pass this knowledge in the real, but it will be ignored. Nothing serious can be advanced on this issue in psychoanalysis, can we think, without going there. The fundamental question is whether psychoanalysis is or is not able to move over there

Certainly more can be done by reading an analysis of Oedipal sexuality, but it is only valid if it does not stop there, if not the whole basis of the sex ratio. We are not beyond the Oedipus complex because we see how it remains central, but we're at that Oedipus is not everything. Each is tested in her love life with failure to report the opposite sex, according to the Oedipus concludes that there is falling short of its share and blames the other. Castration that everyone encounters in the sexual act is referred to his own failure, his lack of being at the height of what is to be the phallus for a man and a woman to be. This defect is readable by the Oedipus complex, but does not summarize it. Castration is the real prize of all in sex, like lack of enjoyment that would unite them, that translated into the unconscious body of subtraction as the Genesis.

That's what today is revealed when the ban on sexual pleasure has ceased, when the whole system which has supported the deconstruct present when this proved not so fragile that it seemed tough, as useful as it seemed bad, also luring it seemed necessary. And behind this prohibition appears a point of impossible, in which all are compelled, in fact, since it is the relationship between the two sexes is something that is not written in the law of the speech, which is written nowhere and probably will not do, and which therefore is to write to each and ever, which explains why some succeed and many give up.