on male "lack"

the origin of the world by gustave courbet (1866)

anthony tells me this painting was once owned by lacan. i will try and refrain from making 'lac(k)an' jokes, but that wordplay is part of what came to mind in choosing to post this picture along with the post.

so, i've discussed before my utter distaste for the term 'gash' as a referent for female genitalia, and how this term reflects some psychoanalytic understandings of sexual difference -- women as 'lacking' a penis. but what about if it were the other way around?

the first time i have sex with someone new (who is male, anyway), i am always surprised that there is no vulva there. i mean, obviously i expect a boy to have a penis (unless the person in question was trans), and i am not surprised to discover that they do. however, in the back of my mind i also expect there to be girl genitals underneath there. i am not sure why this is, other than the fact that i am familiar with my own anatomy and therefore 'transpose' it onto other people. in this respect, i can understand how a man can come to conceive of a cunt as a 'lack', in the sense of lacking a penis.

by this i mean that whilst i could understand someone being shocked by the sight of female genitalia (in the sense that the 'shock' is part of is seeing something new -- and ever alluded to but rarely discussed), that is not the same as the violent and misogynistic implications of referring to genitalia as a 'gash' nor the notion of female lack on which the idea of genitalia as a 'gash' is based upon.

so, that surprise, in itself, is not overtly objectionable, i don't think. sometimes we are surprised by difference.what is more important is how we approach difference. the problem with the psychoanalysis-inspired conception of female genitalia is that it essentially pathologises this lack, reflecting the grossly (in both senses of the word) sexist framework of thinking. it is not at all open to this difference, but fears it.

in this respect, i offer irigary (as summarised by wikipedia anyway) as a corrective: just because you cannot see the full extent of a lady's sexual organs, doesn't mean they're not there.

(that said, this hoodie is a misrepresentation in the sense that there is more to female sex organs than the purely reproductive! alas, i am not a baby making machine.)

female genitalia are not lacking in anything, except maybe respectful attitude towards them (and, you know, women in general).

&

in other news, i happened upon this:

Maggie Gyllenhaal and Hugh Dancy have signed on for the Victorian-era, medical-themed romcom Hysteria. The film charts the pair's fling against the backdrop of the invention of the vibrator, apparently created by a doctor who used it to treat hysteria in women.

have to say, i am curious as to how that one will turn out... probably a bit rubbish, but there's potential for it to be interesting.

other victorian sexuality trivia (which i may have mentioned before): some victorian doctors used to believe in biological differentiation between butch/femme lesbians. butch lesbians were characterised by a larger clitoris with which they o penetrate their femme friends. i wish i could remember where i read this, but in something article related to english lit -- possibly in first year, possibly even before univeristy.

&

in other other news, this is not me but well worth reading. i think she is incredibly brave for sharing her experiences. (trolls, don't make me regret linking this).