What have I been up to? Well, I haven\u2019t managed to get essays done, that\u2019s for sure. The last two or three I\u2019ve drawn from my archives or just hastily written to get something done. The thing with writing is that you have to do it, otherwise you get what they call a writer\u2019s block. Sometimes that means writing something, just something, even something that later on you\u2019ll look back at and wonder why you ever wrote that. Then again, I think it\u2019s better to not look back. That rarely does people any good. Just keep going, just keep going.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I\u2019ve also been reading and re-reading, time allowing. I recently read \u2018Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia\u2019 by Gilles Deleuze and F\u00e9lix Guattari from start to finish, to make notes. What can I say about it? I\u2019m not going to write a review of it here, but I guess I can say something about it in general. I\u2019d say that I\u2019m not as fond of it as I am of \u2018A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia\u2019. I just think that it\u2019s not as strong or thought provoking as the follow-up. Of course, that\u2019s just my take. I think it\u2019s too focused on psychoanalysis. Then again, I think that\u2019s my problem, considering how the book is supposed to be about psychoanalysis and a criticism of it. I can\u2019t blame them for doing what they did. I think it\u2019s also worth saying that my view of the book changed the further I got. It also definitely has its moments. So, while you might not like it as much as \u2018A Thousand Plateaus\u2019, if you have read it that is, but it\u2019s still worth your while. It has its moments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Speaking of moments, fuck it, I\u2019m going to go with it, to take up a central theme in the book and just ramble on. I\u2019d say that sexuality is a central topic in the book. I mean it\u2019s kind of hard to avoid. I guess you could fault them for that, but, then again, they only go on and on about it because psychoanalysts go on and on about it, basically insinuating that no matter what it is, you just want to get rid of your father, to get rid of the competition, just so that you can fuck your mother. Spoiler alert, that\u2019s the so called Oedipus complex<\/em> and why the book title is \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019. They gladly, and I think rightly, ridicule it. I mean, come on! Come on! Really! It\u2019s hilarious! You don\u2019t need to read their book to find it hilarious, how everything, no matter what it is, gets reduced into some underlying urge to fuck your mom and kill your dad so that he won\u2019t prevent you from fucking your mom. I was so amused by their examples. I particularly love how anything that enters something or, at least, appears to enter something, ends up being interpreted as some underlying urge to enter one\u2019s mother. I mean come on! How can you not laugh at that! It\u2019s ridiculous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, as funny as that may be, and believe me it is, it gets pretty old, pretty fast. It\u2019s no longer funny when they provide you the umpteenth example of the Oedipus complex. It also gets ridiculed in \u2018A Thousand Plateaus\u2019 but I\u2019d say that it\u2019s, no, not necessarily a more mature take on the issue, but rather that it\u2019s presented as one issue among many issues that they want to tackle. Sure, it\u2019s still central, but they don\u2019t go on and on about it like they do in \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Right, now that I covered that, there\u2019s no longer need for me to say more about that. Instead, I\u2019ll comment on how sexuality <\/em>is presented in the book. Now, the way we generally understand sexuality is, I\u2019d say, very specific. Whenever that word crops up, there\u2019s this big ooh, aah, from some people, while others gasp for air. Almost everyone has this sentiment of oh, oh, no, no, no, no you didn\u2019t! You didn\u2019t just say that word! They just don\u2019t vocalize it. There\u2019s just this awkward silence. I guess the ones not to have such a reaction are people who specialize in sexuality, in one capacity or another, but that\u2019s a small minority. I\u2019d say it\u2019s also a small minority who might not agree with Deleuze and Guattari or, perhaps, it\u2019s the other way around, that Deleuze and Guattari might not agree with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What I mean is that Deleuze and Guattari sort of desexualize sexuality in \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019. To be more precise, they deindividualize or depersonify sexuality. To be even more precise, they desubjectify desire<\/em>. Now, you may object to the way they use the term, but they (70, 295) reckon that instead of speaking about heterosexuality<\/em>, the norm, and homosexuality<\/em>, a now somewhat accepted deviation from the norm, not that I\u2019m saying it\u2019s wrong or deviant but rather that it is often posed as such in contrast to the norm, we ought to really be speaking about transsexuality<\/em> or, to be more precise, microscopic transsexuality<\/em>. Now, it\u2019s worth noting that I\u2019m not an expert on sexuality, nor do I claim to be, but I\u2019m pretty sure they define that differently from what people are used to. You might object to their take on it. You might be tempted to think that they do injustice to it. That said, I\u2019d say that they are on to something and I think I get what they mean, oddly enough. Right, let the controversy begin!<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s this point that they repeat throughout the book, how we shouldn\u2019t think of men as the ones with a penis or phallus<\/em>, to use the psychoanalytic jargon, and women as the one who don\u2019t have a penis. It\u2019s not that this isn\u2019t the case, because it is. It\u2019s rather that they are opposed to thinking that what women are to be defined as lacking a penis. Instead, they should be understood in their own terms, not as, this is going to be hilarious again, in search of a penis, not that that might not be the case, just because they are marked by a lack<\/em>. Similarly, men should not be thought as defined by having a penis, even though, yes, that\u2019s what they have. For men then it\u2019s not a search for a penis that should mark them, because they already have a penis, no need for that, nor the fear of castration<\/em>, no longer having it or, I guess, having no use for it. It\u2019s not that men and women don\u2019t exhibit such behavior, nor that their bodies aren\u2019t different, but rather that they are taught to behave in certain ways and think in certain ways, which is the problem. You most certainly see people acting this way, even saying such things out loud. I remember reading a comment about some women\u2019s sporting event, where some random man thought it\u2019d be funny to state that things didn\u2019t go too well for the athletes because they were thinking about pussy too much. I was like, well, inasmuch as that might be the case, I mean that might be the case to some extent, that\u2019s more revealing of the insecurities of the person than the women in question. I\u2019d say the person was afflicted by the castration complex<\/em>, expressing his dismay of not having a purpose for his penis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What we get draw from all that is that there is no lack. It\u2019s not men have it and women don\u2019t have it. In short, what we have instead is pure positivity or affirmation, desire for whatever it is that draws us to certain people and not to others. Anyway, they (70) state that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe are statistically or molarly heterosexual, but personally homosexual, without knowing it or being fully aware of it, and finally we are transsexual in an elemental, molecular sense.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n To get the gist of this, you need to know what they mean by molar<\/em> and molecular<\/em>. I won\u2019t get into details here as I\u2019m sure you can look this up yourself if you want their definition of that, but I\u2019ll provide you a short summary. Molar<\/em> is about rigidity and stability, about aggregation and structures. Molecular<\/em> is about flexibility and metastability, about flows and connections. They (69) also provoke us by saying that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[E]veryone is bisexual, everyone has two sexes, but partitioned, noncommunicating; the man is merely the one in whom the male part, and the woman the one in whom the female part, dominates statistically.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n What mean is that most of us are heterosexual. If we think in terms of aggregates, we are, statistically speaking, heterosexual, man-to-woman, woman-to-man. That said, as they (69) point out, that\u2019s not the whole truth, nor nothing but the truth, as we are, in a sense, all bisexual<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[T]he male part of a man can communicate with the female part of a woman, but also with the male part of a woman, or with the female part of another man, or yet again with the male part of the other man, etc.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n So, instead of posing this as man or woman, man-to-woman, woman-to-man, they (69-70) push us to think differently, without guilt for assumed deviancy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn contrast to the alternative of the \u2018either\/or\u2019 exclusions, there is the \u2018either … or … or\u2019 of the combinations and permutations where the differences amount to the same without ceasing to be differences.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In other words, we should never think in terms of this or that, either or, as a closed set, but as something open ended, as either this or that or that, like this and this and this and this, and so on, and so on, so that it\u2019s always open ended. The open-endedness is crucial here, as they\u2019ll go on to point out. They (70) move on to rework homosexuality<\/em>, as explained by Marcel Proust in \u2018In Search of Lost Time\u2019 (this excerpt translated by Richard Howard):<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[Men who] seek out women who prefer women, women who suggest young men . . . indeed<\/em>, they can take, with such women<\/em>, the same pleasure as with a man. \u2026 For in their relations with women, they play \u2013 for the woman who prefers women \u2013 the role of another woman<\/em>, and at the same time a woman offers them approximately what they find in a man<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n So, as odd as this might seem, you may have homosexual men\/women who, by all logic, ought to be into other men\/women, yet they are into women\/men. The thing here is that these men\/women are homosexual in the sense that they seek out the men\/women in women\/men. I know, I know! How strange! How queer! That is on a whole other level! And yet it makes sense!<\/p>\n\n\n\n They (69) provide an example that I think is particularly good. It\u2019s another example from Proust\u2019s \u2018In Search of Lost Time\u2019, but this time it\u2019s an analysis rather than drawn directly from it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[T]he first kiss given Albertine. Albertine’s face is at first a nebula, barely extracted from the collective of girls.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The point here is that one\u2019s behavior tends to be structured according to molar constructions, such as heterosexuality. In this case, it\u2019s the collective of girls, an aggregate, from which the love interest is drawn from. I believe this happens in the second volume of Proust\u2019s \u2018In Search of Lost Time\u2019, when the narrator sees a group of girls on the beach and later on becomes infatuated with one of them, Albertine. Deleuze (76) also explains this in \u2018Proust and Signs: The Complete Text\u2019:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[T]he beloved belongs initially to a group, in which she is not yet individualized.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This is the initial molar stage. He (76) continues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWho will be the girl the hero loves in the homogeneous group? And by what accident is it that Albertine incarnates essence when another girl might have done just as well? Or even another essence, incarnated in another girl, to whom the hero might have been sensitive, and who would have at least inflected the series of his loves?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Followed by explain this in other words (77):<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere is, in the group of young girls, a mixture, a conglomeration of essences, doubtless analogous, in relation to which the hero is almost equally accessible.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The point here is that there is a group of girls, but he might still be interested in one or another, as at this stage they aren\u2019t particular distinct from one another. There is, I guess, just a general heterosexual inclination here. He (77) continues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAlbertine \u2026 is selected from a group, with all the contingency that corresponds to this selection.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Ah, yes, we might be tempted to say that we select our loves, but, as you can see here, it\u2019s not exactly the case as there are all kinds of contingencies at play here, hence the aforementioned seriality. He (77) goes on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe pleasures the hero experiences in the group are sensual pleasures. But these pleasures do not belong to love.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Indeed, at this stage the girls are still girls, members of a group and the pleasure is drawn from being member of that group. Anyway, he (77) adds to this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn order to become a term in the series of loves, Albertine must be isolated from the group in which she first appears. She must be chosen; this choice is not made without uncertainty and contingency.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Again, this is the point about how an individual is drawn from a group, chosen, yet the choice is by no means unaffected by who the person making that choice has become. Jumping back to \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019, Deleuze and Guattari (69) state that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThen her person disengages itself, through a series of views that are like distinct personalities, with Albertine’s face jumping from one plane to another as the narrator’s lips draw nearer her cheek. At last, within the magnified proximity, everything falls apart like a face drawn in sand, Albertine’s face shatters into molecular partial objects, while those on the narrator’s face rejoin the body without organs, eyes closed, nostrils pinched shut, mouth filled.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n To go back a bit, to the point where things begin here, Albertine is just one of the girls, one among many. As one gets closer her face<\/em> is one among other faces, that is to say contrasted with them. The others then get discarded. It\u2019s now just Albertine and her face. The thing with a face is that you have to be at a certain distance to see it, for there to be a face. When you get closer, it\u2019s no longer about the face, but all these little things that are part of the face but no longer function as its parts as you are too close to the other person. It\u2019s even more so when the eyes are closed because a face is something that can only be seen. When the bodies get closer, the lips touch, it all becomes tactile. Deleuze (124) also comments on this in \u2018Proust and Signs\u2019:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[T]he shapeless nebula seen from too close and that of an exquisite organization from the right distance.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The face is there at the right distance, but it\u2019s not if we are too close or too far. He (124) continues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Albertine\u2019s face, when we imagine we are gathering it up in itself for a kiss, leaps from one plane to another as our lips cross its check, \u2018ten Albertines\u2019 in sealed vessels, until the final moment when everything disintegrates in the exaggerated proximity.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Later on, he (176) further comments on this, summarizing the passage where the narrator kisses Albertine:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[T]he vigilant narrator starts with Albertine\u2019s face, a mobile set in which the beauty spot stands out as a singular feature, then as the narrator\u2019s lips approach Albertine\u2019s cheek, the desired face passes through a series of successive planes to which correspond so many Albertines, beauty spot leaping from one to the next; ending with the final blur in which Albertine\u2019s face is released and undone, and in which the narrator, losing the use of her lips, her eyes, her nose, recognizes \u2018from these hateful signs\u2019 that he is in the process of kissing the beloved being.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In this context, he (176-177) notes that while it would be tempting to claim that Albertine is just \u201ca mask for Proust\u2019s own homosexuality\u2019, Albert femininized as Albertine, that\u2019s not the case. For him (176-177), going that route would be awfully reductive and wrongheaded. It would miss how love is always transsexual<\/em>, as he (177) calls it and as he and Guattari (70) also call it in \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019. There\u2019s actually a small typo here, being referred to as transexual (177). It should be transsexual as it is transsexuel in the French original (212). Anyway, he (177) notes here that what we have is, on the one hand, surface normality, marked by heterosexuality, man-to-woman and woman-to-man, and homosexuality, man-to-man and woman-to-woman, as the man and woman arrangement includes all those options, as a matter of bisexuality or intersexuality, and, on the other hand, a completely different arrangement that has no name, what, I think he and Guattari (295) go on to call microscopic transsexuality<\/em> in \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To avoid using labels that others probably use differently, I\u2019d say that there\u2019s molar sexuality<\/em> and then there\u2019s molecular sexuality<\/em>, which, I guess we could also call transversal sexuality<\/em>. The problem with referring to molecular sexuality as transsexuality, even if it is specified as molecular transsexuality, is that it is generally understood as having to do with identifying with the other sex that one is deemed not to be and\/or transitioning from one sex to another. That\u2019s, however, not what they mean by transsexuality because, for them, that\u2019s still a molar conception of sexuality, as opposed to their molecular conception of sexuality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They (76) explain this through the schizophrenic<\/em>, that is to say their <\/em>schizophrenic which is also what they call the nomad<\/em> in \u2018A Thousand Plateaus\u2019, not the clinical schizophrenic. Firstly, they (76) state that the schizophrenic \u201cis not a man and woman.\u201d Instead, they (76) state that the schizophrenic \u201cis man or woman, but \u2026 belongs precisely to both sides, man on the side of men, woman on the side of women.\u201d This is well in line with what I\u2019ve already covered. Secondly, they (77) reiterate the first point that the schizophrenic \u201cis not simply bisexual\u201d, i.e., not man and woman, only to add that this does not mean the schizophrenic is \u201cbetween the two, or intersexual\u201d either. Instead, they (77) argue that the schizophrenic \u201cis transsexual\u201d, someone who \u201cdoes not reduce two contraries to an identity of the same\u201d, but \u201caffirms their distance as that which relates the two as different.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Later on, they (295) specify that both bisexuality and intersexuality retain the idea of two sexes, which is, of course, true in the molar sense. Bisexuality assumes both at the same time whereas intersexuality reduces them to one, albeit, I\u2019d say, implicitly retaining the two. The problem with reducing sex from two to one is that while it abandons defining women as lacking what men have, it replaces that lack with a mutual or circular lack, so that women lack what men lack but also men lack what women lack, as they (295) point out. Because women lack a penis, men can then only lack what women lack, a penis, therefore it all gets reduced to castration, the point here being that this leads us nowhere. It\u2019s still molar through and through, no matter whether we assert one sex or two sexes, as they (295) also point out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What can we learn from all of this? Well, I for one like the way they explain this through Proust\u2019s work. I particularly like the Albertine example. It makes you wonder. What it is that attracts us? Like okay, we might say that men are attracted to women and women are attracted to men, while some men are attracted to other men and some women are attracted to other women, but that\u2019s not really saying much. That\u2019s very superficial. Yes, it holds statistically, but that\u2019s not really what Deleuze and Guattari are after in \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019 or what Deleuze is after in \u2018Proust and Signs\u2019. It\u2019s not reducible to a preference for, let\u2019s say, blondes or brunettes either, because, I\u2019d say, that\u2019s also molar through and through. In addition, saying that one is attracted by blondes or brunettes, or, let\u2019s say tallness or shortness, is rather what they call perversion<\/em> in \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019, as, for them (35), a pervert<\/em> is simply \u201csomeone who takes artifice serious and plays the game to the hilt\u201d, not conforming to expectations, what the society expects a person to be attracted to, whatever it is or may be, but comes up with other expectations and seeks to conform to them. I actually quite like their definition of perversion because it\u2019s not simply about sexuality as it is generally thought as. Instead, it\u2019s applicable in general. It\u2019s actually really difficult to say what it is that is attractive, which, I guess, is why they (296) say that it\u2019s not about one or two, but about a hundred thousand. To repeat an earlier point, they (70) summarize this quite neatly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe are statistically or molarly heterosexual, but personally homosexual, without knowing it or being fully aware of it, and finally we are transsexual in an elemental, molecular sense.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n What\u2019s my take then? Hmmm, to reiterate an earlier point I made, I\u2019d say that it\u2019s pretty cool how they manage to desexualize sexuality or, rather, deindividualize and depersonify sexuality. They push us to think desire and attraction beyond what we are accustomed to, far beyond where should I shove my dick or what should I shove into my pussy. They want to make us think what it is that draws us to do whatever it is that we do. Sure, it can be about a penis and\/or a vagina, what it is that we do with them, but that\u2019s just one instance, among many. For example, I\u2019ve met women, I know, how molar of me, who might not have attracted me, as such, like visually, simply judged by their looks, like photographically speaking, but then there\u2019s been just that something to them. It\u2019s not what they are<\/em>, but how<\/em> they are. It\u2019s been about their posture, their movement, the sound of their voice, their smile, their touch, their humor, and the like, but at the same time I think I\u2019m not really doing justice to them by listing such. It\u2019s hard to explain. Maybe it\u2019s the jawline that attracts me, maybe it\u2019s the shoulders, maybe it\u2019s the muscularity, which, by the way, if understood as a masculine feature, makes me homosexual, finding a manly feature in a woman attractive. Then again, that\u2019s a poor way to explain this, because, like with saying that I\u2019m attracted to women, it\u2019s a molar conception utilized to explain something. The whole point of molecular sexuality is to undermine such molar conceptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I reckon I\u2019m usually clueless about what it is that I am attracted to and what it is about me that attract others. To be honest, I don\u2019t really think about it. I just do what I do, deal with who I deal with. That\u2019s it. There\u2019s no need to attempt to explain any of it. I just go with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As I pointed out earlier on, \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019 has its moments. I don\u2019t think they intended what I\u2019m about to explain as such a moment, but I was highly amused by their discussion of filiations and alliances. There\u2019s this bit where they (147) mention \u201cgroups of men residing in the same area, or in neighboring areas, who arrange marriages and shape concrete reality\u201d which made me laugh out loud. I don\u2019t know about others, but there\u2019s just something hilarious about men coming together, as an all-male panel, to discuss issues that pertain to women. That has got to be the most latently homosexual thing there is, men coming together, being so, so passionate about something that doesn\u2019t even concern them, while also excluding those who it does concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s like with rappers who feel like they need to distance them from homosexuality or, rather, from being possibly perceived as homosexuals by using the expression \u2018no homo\u2019. It\u2019s an odd expression, considering that it\u2019s unlikely that others would think that there is something homosexual about it. It\u2019s just unnecessary. Secondly, it assumes that there is something wrong about homosexuality. Thirdly, it indicates that it\u2019s considered detrimental to one\u2019s image or, possibly, even dangerous to be perceived as such. It might lead to being discriminated, losing friends, job opportunities etc., or even result in physical danger. Fourthly, it comes across as possibly disingenuous, hence the latent homosexuality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I agree with Joshua Brown (301) who argues in article \u2018No Homo\u2019 that it\u2019s typically used by men to defend themselves from \u201cpresumed attack on one\u2019s masculinity.\u201d That said, I also agree with him (302) on that it can be used to parody the underlying assumption that there is something wrong about homosexuality. Lonely Island\u2019s song \u2018No Homo\u2019 does this particularly well. It\u2019s basically two minutes of compliments from one \u2018dude\u2019 to another \u2018dude\u2019 followed by \u2018no homo\u2019, so that \u2018no homo\u2019 is repeated for a total of 40 times. The gist is \u201cTo tell a dude just how you feel, no homo\u201d, \u201cJust say no homo so he knows the deal, no homo\u201d, so that even when you say \u201cYo, I’ve been thinking about fucking a dude, no homo\u201d, there\u2019s nothing homosexual about it. You might as well say: \u201cHey yo, no homo, but today I\u2019m coming out of the closet\u201d, \u201cWanna scream it from the mountains like a gay prophet\u201d, \u201cThese two words have set me free, no homo\u201d, \u201cDamn it feels good to be, no homo\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another way to parody \u2018no homo\u2019 is to use it in the Latin sense, as in not human, like I did a couple of years ago in one of the essays. What\u2019s funny about that? Well, the funny thing is that you need to know Latin and that it\u2019s correct, that \u2018homo\u2019 means \u2018human\u2019, and not what you expected. Okay, it\u2019s nowhere close as funny as what the Lonely Island guys manage to do by repeating it, over and over again, but that\u2019s why those guys get paid for making jokes and I write essays, not getting paid to write essays, nor anything else for that matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Right, to get back to the start, the more I read \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019, the more I like it. It\u2019s not as all over the place as \u2018A Thousand Plateaus\u2019, which I happen to like about that book, but \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019 certainly has its moments. It\u2019s very quotable, that\u2019s for sure. If you want to learn more about sexuality, especially in psychoanalytic terms, you\u2019ll like it. I still prefer \u2018A Thousand Plateaus\u2019 and I can totally see why they opted to approach some of the same issues by abandoning much of the terminology introduced in \u2018Anti-Oedipus\u2019. While they do manage to deindividualize or desubjectify sexuality in this book, forcing you to rethink it all, also on the personal level, I can see how people might miss the point and keep thinking that sexuality is about men and women, themselves included, engaging in certain acts. So, yeah, I can totally see why Deleuze and Guattari may have wanted to explain things differently in \u2018A Thousand Plateaus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What have I been up to? Well, I haven\u2019t managed to get essays done, that\u2019s for sure. The last two or three I\u2019ve drawn from my archives or just hastily written to get something done. The thing with writing is that you have to do it, otherwise you get what they call a writer\u2019s block. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3554,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1494,71,123,1497,701],"class_list":["post-2283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-essays","tag-brown","tag-deleuze","tag-guattari","tag-lonely-island","tag-proust"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3554"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2283"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2283\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5132,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2283\/revisions\/5132"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
References<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n