英：sexual relationship; 法：rapport sexuel
拉康在1970年首度提出了他的著名格言一“没有性关系”(ln'y a pas de rapport sexuel)(见：Lacan, 1969-70:134), 并在1972一1973年度的研讨班上再度论及了这一格言。这句格言在英文中通常被翻译为“根本没有性关系这样的事情”(there is no suchthing as a sexual relationship), 这是误导性的，因为拉康当然不是在否认人们发生性关系！这句格言可以被更好地译作“两性之间没有任何关系”，从而便强调出拉康所指涉的主要不是性交的行动，而是男性的性别位置与女性的性别位置之间的关系问题。①这句格言因而便凝缩了拉康在性别差异 (SEXUAL DIFFERENCE)问题上着手探讨的几个要点。
(1)在男性与女性的性别位置之间并没有任何直接的、未经中介的关系，因为语言的大他者会作为一个第三方而伫立在它们之间 (S20,64)。“在男性与女性的人类存在之间，根本没有本能关系这样的事情”，因为所有性欲皆是由能指所标记的 (Lacan, 1975b)。如此产生的一个结果，便是不可能通过参照于一种假设是自然形式的性别关系（正如弗洛伊德所做的那样）来定义性倒错。因而，异性恋不是合乎自然的，而是合乎规范的 (Ec, 223).
(2)在男性与女性的性别位置之间也没有任何互易性或者对称性，因为象征秩序在根本上是非对称性的，没有任何相应的能指，能够同样以男性性别得以象征化的方式来代表女人。只有一个能指，即阳具 (PHALLUS),规定着两性之间的关系 (E, 289). 因而，没有任何象征符可以表示一种对称的性别关系：“性别关系是无法被书写的。”(S20,35)
(3)男人与女人之间的那些关系也是永远不可能和谐的，“男人与女人之间的那种最赤裸的敌对性是永恒的”(S2,263)。爱情无非是一种幻象，旨在填补两性之间和谐关系的缺位（无论是根据神话学来表述，例如在柏拉图的《会饮篇》中，还是根据精神分析来表述，例如在巴林特的生殖[GENITAL]爱恋的概念中）。
(4)那些性欲冲动并非导向一个“整体的人”(whole person),而是导向各种部分对象 (PART-OBJECTS)。因此，性关系这样的事情便根本不存在于两个主体之间，而仅仅存在于一个主体与一个（部分）对象之间。对男人而言，对象占据了错失的伴侣的位置，从而产生了幻想的数元 (8◇)：换句话说，对男人来说，女人并不作为一个实在的主体而存在，而是仅仅作为一个幻想的对象，作为男人欲望的原因而存在 (S20,58).
(5)女人无法作为女人而只能作为母亲在性方面起作用，“女人仅仅是作为母亲才开始在性别关系中起作用的”(S20,36).
(6)作为某种根植于实在界中的事物，性别与意义相对立：而且“根据定义，性别在其自身对立于意义的同时，也同样对立于关系，对立于交流”(Copjec,1994:21)。
(rapport sexuel) Lacan first proposes his famous formula: il n'y a pas de rapport sexuelin 1970 (see Lacan 1969-70:134), and takes it up again in his seminar of 1972-3 (S20.17). This formula is usually translated into English as There is no such thing as a sexualrelationship', which is misleading since Lacan is certainly not denying that people havesex! The formula might be better rendered 'There is no relation between the sexes', thusemphasising that it is not primarily the act of sexual intercourse that Lacan is referring tobut the question of the relation between the masculine sexual position and the femininesexual position. The formula thus condenses a number of points in Lacan's approach tothe question of SEXUAL DIFFERENCE:
- There is no direct, unmediated relation between the male and female sexualposition, because the Other of language stands between them as a third party (S20,64).'Between male and female human beings there is no such thing as an instinctiverelationship'because all sexuality is marked by the signifier (Lacan, 1975b). Oneconsequence of this is that it is not possible to define perversion by reference to asupposedly natural form of the sexual relationship (as Freud did). Heterosexuality is thusnot natural but normative (Ec, 223).
- There is no reciprocity or symmetry between the male and female positions becausethe symbolic order is fundamentally asymmetrical; there is no corresponding signifierwhich could signify woman in the same way that the male sex is symbolised. There isonly one signifier, the PHALLUS, which govers the relations between the sexes (E, 289). There is thus no symbol for a symmetrical sexual relationship: 'the sexualrelationship cannot be written' (S20,35).
- Relations between men and women can never be harmonious;'The most nakedrivalry between men and women is eternal' (S2,263). Love is no more than an illusiondesigned to make up for the absence of harmonious relations between the sexes (whetherpresented in mythical terms, as in Plato's Symposium, or in psychoanalytic terms, as in Balint's concept of GENITAL love).
- The sexual drives are directed not towards a 'whole person'but towards PART-OBJECTS. There is therefore no such thing as a sexual relationship between twosubjects, only between a subject and a (partial) object. For the man, the object a occupies the place of the missing partner, which produces the matheme of fantasy (a) inother words, the woman does not exist for the man as a real subject, but only as a fantasyobject, the cause of his desire (S20,58).
- Woman cannot function sexually qua woman but only qua mother; Woman beginsto function in the sexual relationship only as mother' (S20,36).
- As something rooted in the real, sex is opposed to meaning; and 'sex, in opposingitself to sense, is also, by definition, opposed to relation, to communication' (Copjec, 1994:21)