II. The Masochist

The masochistic corporeal exists as the exemplar of delayed satisfaction, and, by means of extension, what might be considered the anti-spontaneous body.  Through the delaying of orgasmic pleasure, the pleasure afforded by ejaculation, the masochist derives satisfaction: 

There is a desire for scientific observation, and subsequently a state of mythical contemplation.  The masochistic process of disavowal is so extensive that it affects sexual pleasure itself; pleasure is postponed for as long as possible and is thus disavowed.  The masochist is therefore able to deny the reality of pleasure at the very point of experiencing it, in order to identify with the ‘new sexless man.’ (Coldness and Cruelty 32) 

In masochistic interaction, the delaying of gratification is itself gratifying.  This is not a matter of linear causality, for the masochist derives pleasure from a network of events that occur between what might be considered the beginning and concluding events.  There is, as Deleuze provocatively suggests, the occurrence of a certain satisfying suspension.  This is explicitly referenced in his arguments concerning the female that participates as torturer.  As the “woman torturer” whips the body of the male recipient, she poses intermittently.  The torturer suspends her actions briefly in order to look into a mirror.  Here, according to Deleuze, masochistic interaction is prolonged and a photograph is produced.  This continues to occur as the torturer satisfies the specific inclinations of the tortured.  This is not merely a characteristic of this form of interaction.  This suspension is itself integral to the pleasure experienced by the masochistic body: “The same scenes are reenacted as various levels in a sort of frozen progression” (33).  This repeated suspension – a succession of frozen moments – is what differentiates Masoch from Sade, and correspondingly, masochism from sadism.   

It is in the masochistic body, and the masochistic act that spontaneity is denied.  Not only is the orgasm delayed or forsaken, as the body is made to wait, but this waiting is further accentuated by the suspended movements of the torturer.  Not only is the masochistic body suggestive of the anti-spontaneity that must be attributed to Funk Night, a very similar corporeality is assumed by those that participate.  Here, the body of the individual Funk Night attendee can be described as the body of the masochist.  The attendee awaits the arrival of the next event, the next planned occurrence – the pleasurable moment – while deriving a certain pleasure in waiting.  At intermittent moments, the attendee receives messages and photographs by means of an extensive network generally composed of other attendees (friends, recent acquaintances, etc.).  It is this informational network that takes the place of Deleuze’s “woman torturer,” in interaction.  Arguably, the wait is generally more satisfying than the event itself.  At no point is this more evident than in consideration of the denial of the orgasm. 

If one returns to Deleuze’s fruitful understanding of the masochist as the “sexless man,” his analysis becomes applicable to funk night.  The attendee, again, is stimulated by the various suspensions that preclude the actual event.  Interestingly though, it is the event itself that denies gratification.  Continuing in this discourse, it becomes quite evident, that as the masochist the attendee is often denied the sexuality of orgasm.  This is not to denigrate Funk Night, for it serves an important cultural function, but rather to attribute its significance to that which precedes the event – the masochistic interplay that occurs for an attendee that experiences a continual suspension in relationship to an informational network.  Arguably, it is by means of the anti-spontaneous that pleasure is derived.