This Desire Which is Not One

I read several interesting quips this week for my feminism class which got me thinking about desire. The reading which stood out most to me was by the Belgian psycho-linguist and philosopher, Luce Irigaray, an excerpt from This Sex Which is Not One. Admittedly, I didn't understand everything she posed, so this post may be a bit premature (In class tomorrow, I will hopefully find some clarification), but I found many of her ideas intriguing, perhaps for no other reason than that they were worded so ethereally. First she ventures to explain that,

"Woman...is only a more or less obliging prop for the enactment of man's fantasies. That she may find pleasure there in that role, by proxy, is possible, even certain. But such pleasure is above all a masochistic prostitution of her body to a desire that is not her own, and it leaves her in a familiar state of dependency upon a man. Not knowing what she wants, ready for anything, even asking for more, so long as he will "take" her as his "object" when he seeks his own pleasure. Thus she will not say what she herself wants; moreover, she does not know, or no longer knows, what she wants."

Aside from the fact that her fourth "sentence" there is really a fragment, I am irritated by Irigaray's assertion that I don't know what I want. Now, I can admit that I don't know what I want, but I don't want anyone else telling me that. Besides, how does she know what I want? Actually, the whole bit reminds me of Romans 7 when Paul describes his spiritual battle between what his carnal desires seek and what his soul longs for. I love her response later in the paper:

"Thus what [women] desire is precisely nothing, and at the same time everything. Always something more and something else besides that one--sexual organ, for example,--that you give them, attribute to them. Their desire is often interpreted, and feared, as a sort of insatiable hunger, a voracity that will swallow you whole. Whereas it really involves a different economy more than anything else, one that upsets the linearity of a project, undermines the goal-object of a desire, diffuses the polarization toward a single pleasure, disconcerts fidelity to a single discourse..."

Got all that? I guess what frustrates me most is that this whole piece blabs on about how women are confused by their own desires. I think feminists mostly attribute this to social conditioning and sexual repression...yada yada...men are the enemy...so on and so forth. But aren't we all a little confused at times about what we want? I don't think it's just women.

Maybe it's just Christians and women...because I don't talk to enough non-Christian guys about these kinds of things...but it seems that a lot of people deal with internal dichotomies--opposites that they equally desire. Feminism often bashes binaries--discussing how society has constructed everything in terms of "normal" versus "other," to the detriment of all involved. This is a whole different topic, but basically you have man, who is normal, and woman may only be represented in terms that discuss her as "not man." Human is normal and animal is non-human, therefore, not normal. The list goes on. The French think it's a language thing--that we learn to view things as normal vs. non-normal because that's the only way we know how to talk about them. I think I don't really care. Point being, it seems that people have all sorts of binary ideals--differing desires that compete for prominence and attention. For instance, I want to be beautiful in the eyes of the men in my life, but I don't want to be objectified. Sort of contradictory, no? And I want to be smart, but I don't feel like studying. I want to have a great relationship with God, but I don't always feel like opening my Bible to read about Him...to get to know Him better.

What baffles me more than binaries, though, is how Irigaray suggests that women's plurality of desires is unique to our gender, as if men do not understand, cannot comprehend a more complex system. Do yall really have such a one-track mind? Her definition goes into some really awkward descriptions of anatomy that I'd rather not venture, glorifying the sex organs by suggesting their ability to define the essential nature of a man and a woman. Man is singular. Woman is multiple. Man is simple, woman complex.

My question still lingers: what do I really desire? According to Irigaray (and I LOVE this), the only reason I want a baby is because I'm sexually unfulfilled. And feminism tells me that the only reason I want a man is because society has conditioned me to believe this. Even some of my Christian girlfriends tell me that I am too young to desire a serious relationship--that I should enjoy my freedom (because marriage = enslavement) while I still have it. The feminists are right about one thing: I am certainly confused about what I want. It's hard to navigate my own emotions while so many outside sources yell out nautical coordinates. (Now I've got Garth Brooks singing in my head about how a "dream is like a river...") Class tells me that I cannot look to my patriarchal religion for the truth about how to feel--that its a socially constructed tool for subordinating women. But where else am I to find an anchor, a star to guide my way?

Enough sea puns and Christianese. These last weeks have been busy, and what I love (and simultaneously hate) about being busy is that it prevents me from having to answer my own questions. It doesn't matter what I really want if I establish a schedule packed enough that I never have the time to think about it. And when a free moment arises, which might lend to self reflection, I write complex, theoretical blog posts about it. Problem solved.

Final note: I'd love to hear anyone else's thoughts on the Irigaray quotes. Perhaps I'll reel in some fresh ideas tomorrow at sea...er class... (couldn't resist a couple more...I almost titled this piece "The Old Mere and the Sea"...seriously done now)