jouissance

In other words, she can only enjoy (&) because it is not at its place, at the place of her jouissance, where her jouissance can be realised.

If undoubtedly it did not represent it to you as easy, could you ignore in it the access for man to jouissance.

At this level there is posed the question of jouissance. It is a question and, as you see, it is even a scientific question.

It is there, it is at this place, that there ought to be posed the question of jouissance.

Since the characteristic of a sexual act that is grounded, is supposed to be precisely the fact of this lack of jouissance, somewhere.

The jouissance that he aims at is that of the Other, in so far as he is perhaps the only remainder of it.

I cannot see, if it were otherwise, why this jouissance should be marked by this sort of veil.

Jouissance-value, I said, is at the source of the economy of the unconscious.

What is at stake here obviously is to attack something which is of the order of the relationship (ressort) of desire to jouissance.

What does that mean in a particular case? That means she does not hold to it as essentially as man does as regards the nature of jouissance.

And yet the surplus jouissance that the slave brings us lies within arm's reach.

Ultimate pure jouissance stems from a real explosion, which questions the system's security.

But the question of jouissance is posed more primitively for the man.

brings together in one word what I already mentioned in my seminar on ethics, namely, the difference between utility7 and jouissance.

Truth, as I once told you one day in a flight of lyricism, is the dear little sister of jouissance.

The oyster and the beaver are at the same level as the plant, which, after all, perhaps may have jouissance at this level.

The true source of jouissance is the repetition of the movement of this closed circuit.

And as experience shows, the body's jouissance, insofar as that body symbolizes the Other, does not depend on those traces.

So then, one makes the same little bar, so that you will not be disturbed, and here we write, J, to mean, jouissance.

Namely, that if we have introduced jouissance, it is in the logical mode of what Aristotle calls an ousia, a substance.

If there is, indeed, something that experience reveals to us, it is the radical heterogeneity of male jouissance and female jouissance.

This feminine jouissance is ineffable, for both women and men may experience it but know nothing about it.

To pose oneself the question of feminine jouissance, well then, this is already to open the door of all perverse acts.

Here then is the statement (le dit)34 of the status of jouissance insofar as it is sexual.

The master of the myth that Freud, for his part, forged, what is his jouissance?

What is in question, is what is displayed everywhere, moreover, in analytic theory, is that it cannot take its jouissance in itself.

Where then does what is able, in a way that is neither necessary nor sufficient, to answer with jouissance of the Other's body stem from?

We can longer have the slightest idea to what extent, regarding jouissance, that took the cake.

Therefore, there is no jouissance, in any case one that can be located, except of one's own body.

It could be said that jouissance is limited by natural processes.

Hence we have four points - jouissance, the Other, the sign, and love.

The superego is the imperative of jouissance - Enjoy!

Not satisfying our sadistic jouissance, we should not force them to break out their mutness and to speak.

It is precisely through this that we are given the locus, the topology of what is involved in jouissance.

That is, insofar as jouissance is sexual it is phallic, meaning that it does not relate to the Other as such.

She has simply to forget about her jouissance.

I am not in the process of saying that feminine jouissance cannot take this place.

Jouissance is this something in which the pleasure principle marks its traits and its limits.