>>1716249It is useless, then, to trap women in the exact definition of what they mean, to make them repeat (themselves) so that it will be clear; they are already elsewhere in that discursive ma chinery where you expected to surprise them. They have re turned within themselves. Which must not be understood in the same way as within yourself. They do not have the interiority that you have, the one you perhaps suppose they have. Within themselves means within the intimacy of that silent, multiple, diffuse touch. And if you ask them insistently what they are thinking about, they can only reply: Nothing. Everything.
Thus what they desire is precisely nothing, and at the same time everything. Always somehting 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 pro ject, undermines the goal-object of a desire, diffuses the polar ization toward a single pleasure, disconcerts fidelity to a single
discourse ...
