You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
According to Lacan, the sexual relationship does not exist: “Il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel.” In contrast to this rather depressing statement, let us start with the definition by Freud of a normal sexual life. In his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, we read, “a normal sexual life is only assured by an exact convergence of the affectionate current and the sexual current both being directed towards the sexual object and sexual aim. It is like the completion of a tunnel which has been driven through a hill from both directions” (Standard Edition VII 207). If we combine the two statements, the net result is that obviously the tunnel does not get completed and the two currents do not converge, so that the relationship doesn't succeed. As a matter of fact, usually one ends with two tunnels—that is, two relationships—one for the affectionate current and the other for the sexual one.
Moreover, as a further illustration of the problem, there seems to be a gender-specific divergence in the choice of chunnel. Women are said to have a preference for the affectionate one—that is, for love—while men are supposed to be more interested in sex an sich. As the saying goes, “In order to have sex, women need a reason, men only a place.”
My question for today is twofold. First of all, how can we understand this difference between men and women? And second, what are the consequences in terms of neurosis and perversion? As there appears to be a difference between Freud and Lacan in this respect, the answers could be quite important for clinical practice.
The major Freudian works of reference will of course be the Drei Abhandlungen, but also his Jenseits des Lustprinzips, and his last papers on femininity. The Three Essays are the starting-point. In the first essay, it is quite obvious that Freud is continuously using an implicit norm for the sexual relationship. He never gives an explicit definition of it, but we can deduce it rather easily, and it sounds very Masters-and-Johnson-lik