Meditations on Bersani's last paragraph. And some other stuff.

To begin with, I'd like to just go into a little bit more on some of my thoughts on that last paragraph we analyzed from the Bersani essay. I'd like to do this mostly to sort out what exactly it is I think of the concept (and also what the hell it means). I've heard before that writing is thinking, and I prefer to do both at the same time, so I am not really sure how this ends.

Bersani has a few key concepts, so let's get those out:
1. The inviolability of selfhood
2. Selfhood allows for violence as self preservation
3. Sex is dysfunctional in that it is a violent action that leaves the at least one party disenfranchised.
4. Sex as a union is a myth
5. The violence of sex is against the self (solipsistic-jouissance)

So that's established, individually none of these is controversial. Connecting the dots gets weird. As mentioned, the self and the belief by "a self" in the greater concept of "selfhood" (vis-à-vis selfishness) is how violence against another self is justified ethically. Someone else violates my selfhood, I kill them. Done. Now, to counteract that, the myth of sex arises. The myth is that this self v. self violence is put to an end by the pastoral view of sex in relation with matrimony and union and procreation and what have you. Bersani says this is a lie.

Basically Bersani is proposing then (in my interpretation) that because of the myth, people go into sex (and let's take another example than his of homosexual males, because if this is a principle it should apply all over, with a heterosexual pairing) with the maxim of unity. That is, they intend to form a union, and under this pretense the self destruction lies. Broadly consider the "insertee," Bersani's article would have that the submission and passivity of this participant is a disenfranchisement of power. Thus, the insertee submits in order to allow for the union, but in reality only allows the violence against the self, categorically destroying the self (the jouissance  is then the act, compiled with the mental violence of technical self abasement).

For the "inserter," the violence comes in the literal concept of insertion as well the deprivation of power upon said action. The inserter has the maxim, or intention, of union, but with only a dictum of submission to show for the violence exhibited, the maxim is contradicted. Therefore, the self in contradicting itself commints self-violence, thus destruction (the jouissance is again the action on one hand and the psychic violence of self contradiction).

Simply adding a hyphen clarifies Bersani's "solipsistic jouissance." Solipsism alone would not support this self shattering, in fact it is the opposite. But solipsistic-jouissance is then the intense feeling of the destruction of the self, the solipsistic self to be precise. Thus, the self is destroyed as a concept, there is no indication that Bersani is proposing sex destroys one's identity and would then have to be reconstituted afterward.


Also, as an unrelated note, and maybe this will help with posting replies because it is a question (that is kind of out there), it seems that there is something very strong being said underneath Lars and the Real Girl to some extent, to a large extent in Misfortune and also in Foucault and more so in Butler regarding masculinity and femininity. So Butler calls gender repeated actions. Meaning that "normal" is just the average, and is baseless as far as gestalt views of total behavior.  Rose seems the perfect example of this with her behaviors as a father and as a "feminine man" (scare quotes used to show impending clincher). What all these seem to be saying, is that these categories are an illusion to a very specific point. For lack of a better (and more satisfying) term, masculinity and femininity are complete and utter bullshit.