and interchangeable. Above all, it foregrounds their […] vicariousness, the ability of one drive to take place of another.» [36] This means that sexuality is never resolved in the satisfaction of needs, but rather that it always includes the dimensions of desire and demand at the same time. [37] Conversely, psychoanalysis and the Deleuzian approach agree that on the way to becoming human—on the way to becoming a woman or a man—something is lost, but that something is also gained. While the prelinguistic, presymbolic union (this hallucinated symbiosis with the mother's body) is lost, a force—desire—is gained. If sexual difference, which is not resolved in the differentiation of male and female but which primarily means that a body must be sexually marked in order to be read as a human body, is erased, this being loses its human status and is no longer distinguishable from an animal or a machine: Because sexual difference is «the enigmatic domain which lies in between, no longer biology and not yet the space of socio-symbolic construction. […] this in-between is the very ‹cut› which sustains the gap between the Real and the contingent multitude of the modes of its symbolization.»

[38]

Deleuze and Guattari have also defined the relation between the female and male bodies on the one hand as loss, and on the other hand as implementation of power. Our bodies were taken away from us in order to use them to form units in which we get ourselves back again—now oppose each other as woman and man, as child and adult. Because it is not or not exclusively a question of the organism, history, or the subject of enunciationphrase, as they put it, «that oppose masculine to feminine in the great dualism machines. through which female and male are set against one another in great dual machines. It is first of all a The question is fundamentally that of the body—the body they steal from us in order to fabricate opposable organisms.» [39] Whether defined as a «distorted relation» (Zizek) or as an «opposing duality» (Deleuze), something always remains ‹outside.› This can be called the ‹gap between the Real and reality,› a trail that shall be erased from the posthuman discourse as well as from numerous Net utopias. Sherry Turkle's description of «Life on the Screen» provides us with an example for this: «Thus, more than twenty years after meeting the ideas of Lacan, Foucault, Deleuze, and