‌‌‌‌　　英：genital; 法：genital

‌‌‌‌　　在弗洛伊德所罗列出的那些心理性欲发展 (DEVELOPMENT)阶段之中，生殖阶段是在此一系列中继两个前生殖阶段（口腔阶段与肛门阶段）之后到来的最后阶段。生殖阶段首先出现在3~5岁 (幼儿生殖组织[infantile genital organisation], 或者阳具阶段[phallic phase]), 然后在潜伏期中断，最后在青春期（严格意义上的生殖阶段）返回。弗洛伊德曾将此一阶段定义为力比多的最终“完整组织”(complete organisation), 是对先前混乱无序的前生殖阶段的“多形倒错”(polymorphous perversity)的一种综合（见：Freud, 1940a:SEXXⅢ，155)。正因如此，“生殖器欲”(genitality)的概念便渐渐在自弗洛伊德以降的精神分析理论中表现出了一种特权化的价值，代表了一个心理性欲充分成熟的阶段 (巴林特的“生殖性爱”)。

‌‌‌‌　　拉康拒绝大多数涉及生殖阶段与生殖性爱等概念的精神分析理论，将其称作一曲“生殖和谐的荒唐颂歌”(E, 245)。根据拉康的观，点，在生殖器欲上是没有任何和谐的。

‌‌‌‌　　·生殖阶段心理性欲发展的各个阶段并未被拉康构想为生物性成熟的自然阶段，而是被构想为要求 (DEMAND)的不同形式，它们是被回溯性地结构起来的 (S8,238-46)。在口腔阶段与肛门阶段当中，欲望被要求所遮蔽，而只有在生殖阶段当中，欲望才得以充分地建构起来 (S8,270)。因而，拉康便遵循弗洛伊德，将生殖阶段描述为继口腔阶段与肛门阶段之后到来的第三个时刻 (S8,268)。然而，拉康有关该阶段的讨论却都聚焦于弗洛伊德所谓的“幼儿 (infantile)生殖组织”（亦称阳具阶段）：在此阶段中，孩子只认识一个性器官（即男性生殖器）并且经历着阉割情结。因而，拉康便强调说，只有就生殖阶段受到阉割的符号所标记而言，这一阶段才是可以设想的；只有在主体首先承担其自身阉割的条件下，才能达到“生殖实现”(genital realisation)(S4,219)。此外，拉康还坚持强调说，即便当前生殖阶段的多形倒错的性欲受到生殖组织的支配，这也并不意味着前生殖期的性欲就被废除了。“孩子的那些最古老的渴望…即从未在某种生殖器欲所具有的首要性的情况下得到完全消除的一个内核”(S7,93)。因此，他便拒绝一个最终的综合阶段的概念：依照拉康的见解，综合对人类而言是不可能的，因为人类的主体性是在本质上而且是不可挽回地割裂开来的。

‌‌‌‌　　・生殖冲动 生殖冲动并未被拉康作为一种部分冲动而罗列出来。鉴于拉康认为每一种冲动都是一种部分冲动，他拒绝把生殖冲动囊括在部分冲动之中，便等于是在质疑它的存在。在1964年，拉康明确地表达了这一点。他写道：“生殖冲动，倘若它存在的话，根本不是像其他冲动那样被链接的。”(S11,189)不同于其他冲动，生殖冲动（倘若它存在的话）是在大他者的那一边“找到其形式”的 (S11,189)。此外，也没有任何“生殖对象”(genital object)能够对应于这一假设的生殖冲动。

‌‌‌‌　　・生殖性爱 拉康拒绝迈克尔·巴林特的“生殖性爱”(genital love)概念 (Balint, 1947)。该术语指示着一种心理性欲的成熟，其中肉欲与情感这两个元素是完全整合且和谐的，因而其中不再有任何矛盾情感 (ambivalence)的存在。然而，弗洛伊德却从未使用过这一术语，而拉康也把它当作与精神分析理论完全背道而驰的概念而加以拒绝。对拉康而言，在“生殖性爱”这一术语中所隐含的心理性欲的最终成熟与综合的思想，是一种完全忽视“那些即便在最完满的爱情关系中也是如此常见的隔阂与冷遇 (Eiedrigungen)”的幻象 (E, 245)。根本不存在这样一种后矛盾情感式的对象关系 (post-ambivalent object relation).

‌‌‌‌　　生殖性爱的概念与“奉献性”(oblativity)的概念密切相关，后一术语被一些精神分析家们用来指代一种成熟形式的爱情，在此种爱情中，一个人爱上另一个人，是因为他之所是，而非是因为他之所能给予的东西。一如拉康批判生殖性爱的概念那样，他也批判“奉献性”的概念，将其看作某种形式的道德教化，同时也背离了精神分析有关部分对象的发现 (S8,1734)。他指出，奉献性的概念与生殖器欲没有丝毫关系，而更多是与肛门爱欲有着共同之处。遵循弗洛伊德将粪便等同于礼物的说法，拉康声称奉献性的公式一“一切皆为他者" (everything for the other)一表明了它是强迫型神经症患者的某种幻想 (S8,241)。

‌‌‌‌　　(genital) In the stages of psychosexual DEVELOPMENT listed by Freud, the genitalstage is the last stage in the series, coming after the two pregenital stages (the oral stageand the anal stage). The genital stage first arises between the ages of three and five (theinfantile genital organisation, or phallic phase) and is then interrupted by the latencyperiod, before retuming at puberty (the genital stage proper). Freud defined this stage asthe final 'complete organisation'of the libido, a synthesis of the previously anarchicpolymorphous perversity'of the pregenital stages (see Freud, 1940a: SE XXIII, 155) Because of this, the concept of 'genitality'came to represent a privileged value inpsychoanalytic theory after Freud, coming to represent a stage of full psychosexualmaturity (Balint's 'genital love').

‌‌‌‌　　Lacan rejects most psychoanalytic theory concerning the genital stage, genital love, etc., calling it an 'absurd hymn to the harmony of the genital' (E, 245). According to Lacan, there is nothing harmonious about genitality.

‌‌‌‌　　The genital stage The stages of psychosexual development are conceived by Lacannot as natural phases of biological maturation but as forms of DEMAND which arestructured retroactively (S8,238-46). In the oral and anal stages desire is eclipsed bydemand, and it is only in the genital stage that desire is fully constituted (S8,270). Thus Lacan does follow Freud in describing the genital stage as a third moment which comesafter the oral and anal stages (S8,268). However, Lacan's discussion of this stage focuseson what Freud referred to as the infantile genital organisation (also known as the phallicphase); a stage when the child knows only one sexual organ (the male one) and passesthrough the castration complex. Thus the genital phase is only thinkable, Lacanemphasises, insofar as it is marked by the sign of castration;'genital realisation'can onlybe achieved on condition that the subject first assumes his own castration (S4,219) Furthermore, Lacan insists that even when the polymorphous perverse sexuality of thepregenital phases comes under the domination of the genital organisation, this does notmean that pregenital sexuality is abolished; The most archaic aspirations of the childare... A nucleus that is never completely resolved under some primacy of genitality' (S7,93). He therefore rejects the concept of a final stage of synthesis; synthesis is not possiblefor humanbeings, in Lacan's view, since human subjectivity is essentiallyandirremediably divided.

‌‌‌‌　　The genital drive The genital drive is not listed by Lacan as one of the partialdrives. Given that Lacan argues that every drive is a partial drive, his refusal to includethe genital drive among the partial drives is tantamount to questioning its existence. In1964, Lacan makes this explicit. He writes: 'the genital drive, if it exists, is not at allarticulated like the other drives' (S11,189). Unlike the other drives, the genital drive (if it exists)'finds its form'on the side of the Other (S11,189). Furthermore, there is nogenital object'that would correspond to a supposed genital drive.

‌‌‌‌　　.Genital love Lacan rejects Michael Balint's concept of 'genital love' (Balint, 1947). The term indicates a psychosexual maturity in which the two elements of sensuality andaffection are completely integrated and harmonised, and in which there is thus no longerany ambivalence. Freud, however, never used the term, and Lacan rejects it as completelyalien to psychoanalytic theory. For Lacan, the idea of final psychosexual maturity andsynthesis implied in the term 'genital love'is an illusion which completely overlooks 'thebarriers and snubs (Erniedrigungen) that are so common even in the most fulfilled loverelation' (E, 245). There is no such thing as a post-ambivalent object relation.

‌‌‌‌　　The concept of genital love is closely linked to that of 'oblativity', a term used bysome psychoanalysts to designate a mature form of love in which one loves the otherperson for what he is rather than for what he can give. Lacan is as critical of the conceptof oblativity as he is of the concept of genital love, viewing it as a form of moralism anda betrayal of the analytic discovery of the part-object (S8,173-4). He argues that theconcept of oblativity has little to do with genitality and has far more in common with analerotism. Following Freud's equation between faeces and gifts, Lacan sstates that theformula of oblativity-'everything for the other'-shows that it is a fantasy oftheobsessional neurotic (S8,241)