In the same movement in which the pharmacopoenographic order explodes the Modernity body, new possible ways emerge to give it consistency. Not only biotechnology, prosthetic and surgical techniques make a “new appearance of nature” (Preciado, 2008 , p.154) when are combined with representations coming from cinema or architecture. Pornography is also a body production technology.
According to Preciado, it is a source of image production that – in the words of Linda Williams – becomes a body. In his work, pornography would be a masturbatory device that produces “the visual illusion of the irruption in the pure real” (Preciado, 2008 , p.204), activating mechanisms of excitement outside the will of the spectator, des -subjecting whoever looks. In this sense, it could be thought from psychoanalysis that the consumer of pornography is reduced to being gaze object, as Lacan (Lacan, 1964 ) is included in the painting, in front of the can floating in the sea. However, taking up the Indart´s work (Tudanca et al, 2017), this aspect of pornography would not be the most convenient to study how a “new imaginary” is articulated. There Indart opposes the phenomenon of selfies, which could teach about the way in which for somebody the opaque jouissanceof the body takes consistency in the image. Some parlêtre can, from the treatment of their body image in social networks, articulate an order in which register themselves. That is, establish meaning from the relationship between the imaginary and the real.
Faced of this technology -which print the heterocentrated fantasies in the bodies, while pushing towards the pharmacopornographic imperative to masturbatory jouissance– Preciado proposes another practice. Contrasexuality as queer resistance practice would be a different way of treating the body. For the contrasexuality, the body is a platform of resistance and political action in which it is possible to intervene -with the technologies of the pharmacopoenographic order- subverting what is proposed as “natural order”. If the queer movement appropriates an insult that indicates the abject, to reintroduce that waste as a potential for political subversion, in contrasexuality the same logic is played, but with the flesh at stake.
Contrasexuality promotes a particular treatment of the no sexual relationship. For this movement, “bodies recognize themselves not as men or women, but as talking bodies” (Preciado, 2002, p.18) that can shake the heteronormative ghosts intervening in the real without veils. These operated or transformed bodies, or their apparently monstrous sexual practices in the view of the heteronormative order, open the way to nominations, collectives, movements that in some cases make possible some inscription in the field of the Other. As Fajnwaks (2013) indicates, “what is at stake in queer cultures is the search for a nomination from a privileged way of sexual jouissance, outside of a norm founded on gender” (p.99).
Among the aspects of the imaginary-real relationship that can be captured in these aspects of the work of Preciado, it is possible to take at least three points. In first place, and in line with Miller (1989-1990 ) places in El banquete de los analistas, in the capitalist circuit,the reality is not supported on to the ghost -as it happens in the master discourse-. There, the excess of unregulated jouissance is supported on reality as such, that is, the ghost becomes real. In the pharmacopornographic order, fantasies become flesh, and this disarms the Cartesian body that, through thought, founded the inner-outer pair to keep reality at a convenient distance. The imperative to jouissance would not preserve the Cartesian body imaginary.
Secondly, although in the proliferation of technologies and medias in pharmacopoenographic order, a fertile field is opened up to diverse possible knots between the imaginary and the real, Preciado’s analysis does not always seem enough to specify when it is at stake a treatment of the opaque body jouissance by way of the image, or when the imaginary treatment is in relation to the deregulated jouissance excess outside the body.
Finally, in the course of Preciado, contrasexual practices could possibly be taken as afertile field to investigate how, in some cases, meaning is established by the imaginary register, in relation to a jouissance that gives consistency to the body.
In January 2015, as a political act of queer resistance, Paul B. Preciado decided to leave behind the name with which he had been registered in the Civil Registry, and with which he had signed his three books published until these moment: Beatriz Preciado. “Every time someone calls me ‘Paul’ erases with me what the normative genre wanted to do with me” (Curia, June 5, 2015), says this philosopher and activist. In the present work, both grammar genres are written when Preciado is qualified, because when he/she speaks of him/herself, makes it indistinctly each time.