96

The bisexual cause claims the right to construct one’s social identity based on the modalities of amorous encounters, and not necessarily on those of sexuality—regardless of one’s anatomical sex. The evolution of the reference to the Father that governed our universal sexual laws from the prohibition of incest leaves us to find supplements (suppléances) to the real that the sexual non-relationship represents. By making the sexual contingent and by presenting love as primordial, doesn’t the bisexual cause attempt a supplementation through the supplementary jouissance (jouissance supplémentaire) of the not-all [pas-tout]? Couldn’t Lacanian bisexuality thus be defined as “all that which also loves women?”