"The cultural burden of signifying futurity..."
Lee Edelman argues that it is heterosexuality which has conferred upon it the "cultural burden of signifying futurity" in the shape of the Child, and I'm really glad I can revisit my unfinished thesis now without puking and so finally put Edelman in his place. Edelman's argument around the temporality of desire relies on the "fact" of female sexuality always embodying some lack; I argue that woman qua woman has access to that destructive, meaning-smashing jouissance which Edelman reserves for homosexual men--a structural position he names "sinthomosexuality" (see: Lacan, sinthomes, symptom, or Slavov Zizek's definitions).
I specifically invoke the subject of abortion to prove that a.) woman's sexuality is political and b.) women's structural position in the symbolic universe renders her the fattest sinthomosexual of the lot, making access to abortion look a whole lot like access to jouissance.
IN SHORT: Ladies is Sinths, Too.
I specifically invoke the subject of abortion to prove that a.) woman's sexuality is political and b.) women's structural position in the symbolic universe renders her the fattest sinthomosexual of the lot, making access to abortion look a whole lot like access to jouissance.
IN SHORT: Ladies is Sinths, Too.