From Chapter 2, I want to talk about Edelman's discussion of Baudrillard. Particularly towards the end of the chapter, Edelman emphasizes Baudrillard's assumed horror towards sexuality possessing a "useless function." I am assuming because Baudrillard argues extensively over the dominant existence of simulacra in our world that something which possesses no meaning would make "Baudrillard recoil in horror before this "useless" sexuality" (64).

This progression from the sacred heterosexuality in Chapter 1 to a view now discussed of heterosexuality becoming something "extraneous" is interesting. The implications of this progression is somewhat lost on me, however. This chapter was a bit confusing; did anybody pick up on his main argument behind this transition from the sacred heterosexuality to the extraneous heterosexuality? The whole talk of the sinthome is difficult to grasp for me, as well…

Heterosexual sex divorced from its reproductive or futurist potential - as in the case of the infertility epidemic in Children of Men, or 'artificial' insemination in Baudrillard's essay - ends up being decried as 'almost meaningless gymnastics' (CoM) or as 'extraneous' or 'useless' (Baudrillard). Sinthomosexuality represents a sex antithetical to the 'meaning' or 'use' or 'fundamentalism' of reproductive futurism, and so is immune to the 'fascism of the baby's face.'

--Guattari Hero