Certainly, in erotic life there are different kinds of fantasies. In the readymade fantasy, the object of my desire is fully substitutable and who my partner really is leaves is indifferent. A single use often suffices to discard him or her in the trash bin. The place of my desire is now taken by the desire for sexual jouissance. In the readymade fantasy I overcome nothing to meet the other as a whole; I shred it in erogenous zones that give me jouissance. This way, I lock the door to another fantasy that rocks my own being to its core. In this realm, the other is not only a stimulant but something fundamental to my existence. The other is there for me in a dominant place because he or she has something that I miss.
Thus, there is a big distance between the readymade fantasy and the fundamental one. In the readymade fantasy, when I say “I desire you” I mean “I want to sleep with you”, whereas in the fundamental fantasy when I say “I desire you”, I say “I desire you because you are the common denominator of all my fantasies”, meaning that “I involve you in my fundamental fantasy”. In the readymade fantasy it is the partner of jouissance that is incarnated whereas in the fundamental fantasy it’s the partner of desire. Could these two, I wonder, be combined in one single person?

This is where things get complicated; because fantasy is used differently by men and women. Jouissance in men is usually disconnected in relation to desire. This is, mainly, why a man doesn’t make love because he is in Eros; he makes love because he is sexually aroused. There is a gap between the woman who excites his sexual desire and the woman to whom he offers a worshipping devotion but cannot, otherwise, touch. Thus, he ends up desiring all the other women except his own. This, indeed, is one of the dead ends in men’s love life. Of course, a man can combine desire with jouissance when he is struck by the arrow of Eros. Fantasy’s contribution is also needed at some point. However, even Eros in man rarely works on its own so as to trigger sexual jouissance. This is why all men are pretty much perverted.
However, woman’s will in fantasy moves in a completely different orbit. Woman does not want to be simply a puppet of a readymade fantasy. What the woman desires is that she is the one to represent the ideal of her partner’s fundamental fantasy under the principle of singularity. This is, of course, wishful thinking, especially in a world where any stone you lift you’ll run into the fantasy principle. When love life is manufactured based on the fantasy principle, as is the case in the postmodern world, the woman is asked to function based on a principle that in fact is heterogeneous with her being. Faced with the hard core of fantasy, woman is patiently waiting Eros. Especially in a world of sexual promiscuity that is activated under the auspices of fantasy, how could she dare express this desire of hers?
There are two compasses in the selection of an Eros partner: fantasy and Eros. The Eros encounter is another horizon of search of Eros partner that is governed beyond the fantasy principle; whereas fantasy dictates a choice based on a typology of characteristics and it’s enough for the partner to meet the desired profile. It is enough for an order to be placed in the matchmaking applications by entering the desired characteristics and for me to choose the most promising partner between the different candidates. If I am convinced that our jouissances match, I may meet him or her and establish a relationship. Besides, we live in an era where everyone can be pleased autistically. This is about a modern version of matchmaking. Thus, a perception of “Eros” is being manufactured that includes clauses of safety and it is about Eros as an insurance contract against all risks.
With this manoeuver in the experience of relations, contingency is being avoided. While, when erotic life is oriented by the compass of Eros, beyond the fantasy principle, this is when life itself surprises me; because Eros does not bother to fulfil programmed expectations that outline the profile of the “ideal partner”. In Eros there is always something that does not agree with the readymade idol. The minute the other appears on the scene, I undergo a transformational experience. This is in reality an encounter because this is when I deliver myself to the moment. A contingent meeting that aspires to become destiny. Actually this is the drama of Eros; an encounter that I want to last for a lifetime. This is when I seek “what can’t stop being written”.

Translation by Stefania Kouli