De-signifying

To de-signify is to break the semantic link between the sexual act and the meaning of the sexual act, as long as it has the capacity to have that meaning. To de-signify significance must be detected in both culture and consciousness; this transition from sex to what is not sex should be located; it usually appears inaccurate, displaced or unconscious. Awareness of this arbitrary significance, along with the orientation of attention to the significant, ie sex itself, must have a gradual weakening of the significant link.

A priori, there are four meanings in sex from which we should get it rid of; four meanings which control we can only recover as a message as long as we achieve that are not contained by the presence of sex; four basic meanings, each one more installed in our unconsciousness than the former one. This arrangement invites to proceed from outside in, so the de-signifiying of the deeper associations finds us already trained.

First, sex should not mean reproduction. To get away from this so strongly conditioning significance we must be aware of how we link sex to the authenticity of parenthood and relationships hereditary link. The overrating of genetics (we should say that any worth given to genetics is an overrating) in establishing emotional ties, as well as ejaculatory genitalia and even fertilizing when judging the quality of sex, are ideas whose work in our preconscious should be detected and stopped. Therefore, it must be insisted on the objective economic irrelevance of sex, as well as on the autonomy of excitation and pleasure from intravaginal male orgasm.

Second, sex should not mean the union of spirits as paradigmatic form of communicative encounter. Through lack of space to deepen the ambiguity of the term "communication" when used in the field of sex-sentimental relationships, should be noted that communication is, mainly, a result of the use of language, message exchange sufficiently articulated to achieve a subtle understanding. The moments in which sex can produce greater sense of harmony between people who take part in and of it, will be related to the work of previous understanding or the assumption of unproven harmony. Sex is not the ultimate realization of any complicity. Sex is an activity that, as others when done in company, is likely to generate understanding and sense of understanding. Sexual understanding does not have a category necessarily greater than understanding produced in other activities which may require a certain synergy, and has a lower category to understanding which language can come to raise.

Sex is not either the signifier of affection or endearment, in other words, protection. We have to pay attention to the multiple mechanisms by which the donation or receiving of affection hides behind sex, and vice versa, so that we have true freedom in choosing these donations and receptions. Being corseted by the environment of sex generalizes the meaning of protection or affection, reducing its specificity and, therefore, its effectiveness. We, also, must detect how our forms of sexual violence create the need for emotional compensation which turns out to be distracting and contradictory.

Finally, sex should not mean possession. With this statement I apparently do not contribute to any controversy at all, since the idea of sex as literal act of possession (not possession as a term that has lost its meaning to become a kind of sacred union) is already condemned by our culture. But that condemnation has shifted the form and meaning of possession, so we possess through sex by mechanisms that are all difficult to detect as tools of possession.

We know that sex stows a battle for possession in which the predominant current flows from woman to man (which means in a patriarchal sense) for two compelling evidence. The first is that sex is always a turning point in a relationship, and that speculation and generated tension around its realization are great. Even those relationships which seek to be more inconsequential, sex completing radically and permanently transforms the situation. Something therefore has occurred, aroused by erogenous pleasures that are exchanged. What has happened is that a given power has changed hands, transforming the power relationship between participants and conditioning under new terms their mutual dependence, their possession.

The second clue is the enormous appeal that the relationship holds, especially to the individual who has more expectations of being benefited from the transfer of power. This immense attraction, which is not justified in any way by the expectation of erogenous pleasure of each individual (since they are not uncommon nor the paradoxical case of a major attraction without expectation of pleasure or its opposite) is what, elsewhere, I have called "morbidity". Thus, morbidity is the expectation of pleasure derived from the condition of possession underlying the act of intercourse.

 The morbidity is the main source of sex appeal; our main motivation in it. Its elimination, de-signifying, entails a radical decrease in interest for sex that will leave us in a position close to emptyness of meaning and, therefore, vacuum of interest.