“Transgression has a long history amongst upper-class males. In eighteenth-century England gentlemen froclicked in the performance of their versions of sadomasochism in the Hellfire Club. Some morals may have been outraged, but the social structure of hetero-patriarchal England did not quiver. Transgression is a pleasure of the powerful, who can imagine themselves deliciously naughty. It depends upon the maintenance of conventional morality. There would be nothing to outrage, and the delicious naughtiness would vanish, if serious social change took place. The transgressors and the moralists depend mutually upon each other, locked in a binary relationship which defeats rather than enables change. Also, transgression depends upon the existence of subordinate others upon whom the sexual transgression can be acted out, mostly prostituted women and boys. It is not a strategy available to the housewife, the prostituted woman, or the abused child. They are the objects of transgression, rather than its subjects. ”
—Sheila Jeffreys, Unpacking Queer Politics
“The unconscious is that which, precisely, is obfuscated by the phantasmatic scenarios the pervert is acting out: the pervert, with his certainty about what brings enjoyment, obfuscates the gap, the 'burning question', the stumbling block, that 'is' the core of the unconscious. The pervert is thus the 'inherent transgressor' par excellence. He brings to light, stages, practises the secret fantasises that sustain the predominant public discourse, while the hysterical position precisely displays doubt about whether these those secret perverse fantasies are 'really it'. Hysteria is not simply the battleground between secret desires and symbolic prohibitions; it also, and above all, articulates the gnawing doubt whether secret desires really contain what they promise-whether our inability to enjoy really hinges only on symbolic prohibitions. In other words , the pervert precludes the unconscious because he knows the answer(to what brings jouissance to the other); he has no doubts about it; his position is unshakeable; while the hysteric doubts-that is, her position is that of an eternal and constitutive (self) questioning: What does the Other want from me? What am I for the Other?”
—Passionate (Dis)attachments - S. Zizek
“If there is one thing that psychoanalysis should force us to maintain mordicus, it is that the desire to know has no relationship with knowledge - unless of course we are happy with the lustful word of transgression. The radical distinction, which has far reaching consequences from the point of view of pedagogy, that the desire to know is not what leads to knowledge... what leads to knowledge is the hysteric.”
—Jacques Lacan, The Reverse Side of PsychoanalysisGod promised to give the world to him and to all his family after him. He did not make this promise because Abraham obeyed the Law. He promised to give the world to Abraham because he put his trust in God. This made him right with God.
If those who obey the Law are to get the world, then a person putting his trust in God means nothing. God’s promise to Abraham would be worth nothing. God’s anger comes on a man when he does not obey the Law. But if there were no Law, then no one could break it.
Romans 4:13-15 NLV
—
And guess what, for we are SAVED by GRACE through faith by trusting in the redemption of our Messiah..it’s simply believing in our hearts and receiving His grace that gives us our right standing with God :) Simple as that! Our Law ex-husband has died with Jesus so that we can marry and be made as One with our Grace Husband in Jesus! (Romans 7:1-4) For now we are no longer under the law but GRACE (Romans 6:14) thus where there’s no law, there’s no transgressions because there are is no more law for us to break! God cannot impute sin in us those who are made righteous by Jesus because GRACE is NOT law! And if God cannot impute sin in us, He will not remember any of our sins! When we are under grace, it’s pure grace and compassion! Grace is the truth that brings us our redemption!
