Psychoanalysis freaks me out. This whole 'delving into the subconscious to uncover hitherto latent desires and unmet needs' is a slushy, marshy whirlpool of monstrous proportions that sucks you in and leaves you thrashing about in a bewildered state of hapless confusion; unable to understand how you got here and equally unable to leave. 5 readings later, I find myself questioning the simplest of actions I perform-- who knows what past anxieties are reflected in my need to consume brussel sprouts today; perhaps I wore black last night because I am mourning the passing of my youth (?); does my irritation at my husband's untidiness reflect some unresolved angst against my father--the list goes on.

Emotional scarring aside; I really am not sure I follow the argument proposed by Ms. Riviere and her successors regarding the debate around femininity and masquerade. Here is how I understand it (excuse the oversimplification; I am just trying to sort out my muddled mind here!):

1. Women (both heterosexual and homosexual) desire to be masculine. Expressing masculine attributes carries with it the fear that they will be punished for it by the men in their lives; hence they overcompensate for said masculinity by adopting a masquerade of excessive femininity. I understand this masculinity as a mental attitude, one that is defined perhaps by a strident, no-holds-barred foray into the world. Bette Davis's character in Now, Voyager is perhaps reflecting this very masquerade as she, physically, transforms from the proverbial ugly duckling into an elegant, super chic, hyper feminine type while, at the same time, she becomes an assertive, independent woman who makes her own decisions and is not afraid to break convention (ostensibly masculine traits).

2. The female spectator is the image herself since the distance between Self and Other is negated in her case. Overidentification with the image means that she can never assume the position of fetishist since the lack, for her, is too close to be fetishized away. Man as Object might still not be the prominent image that we consume but how long are going to call it an aberration? Indian cinema is rife with such images today to an extent that the possession of six pack abs has almost become a prerequisite for the male lead since he will be required to expose his bare chest at some point of time in his career (actor Salman Khan is known to take his shirt off at least once in every film he does). How do we explain the fetishistic viewing of a (presumably) heterosexual male by a woman who is clearly deriving pleasure from his nakedness? Does it serve as a reminder of her lack and, since there is now distance between her and the image, can this lack now be fetishized away?

3. "The masquerade doubles representation; it is constituted by a hyperbolization of the accoutrements of femininity?". I fail to understand this. How is expressing femininity a masquerade in the first place and, furthermore, how is it an enactment of the representation of a woman's body? Why is something that comes naturally to many a woman being categorized as an elaborate artifice? By this logic, is a woman merely a prisoner in a female body, constantly aspiring for masculinity but always hesitant to embrace it fully, shameful of her bodily lack?

4. If masquerade is an enhancement of womanliness, then how does it function to create distance from the image? Is not the image essentially feminine (and therefore too close to the female)?

I would love to hear any explanations, clarifications, musings on the above.

As a not-so-unrelated aside, last night I was cruising down Melrose and, as always, taking in the luxe designer storefronts when I came upon this billboard:



While naked, super oiled men definitely do not top the eye candy polls for me, it was still quite the sight to see the designer himself in this decidedly lascivious pose. I wonder what Ms. Riviere would have to say about this.