The problem is that they aren't even analogies. If you took the trouble to read the broader argument, you would realize that Butler is stating that the meaningfulness of sex is not accessible through 'materiality', rather it is discourse that makes the body meaningful by transforming that 'matter' into something meaningful. Also, keep in mind that discourse is something more than volunteeristic language within a Foucaultian perspective. It's inevitably tied into institutions and social interactions.
^^^ CB: This is very true. But by becoming part of the system of meanings, sex doesn't lose its non-cultural or biological mental basis, does it ?
Food or water are integrated into a culture's meaning system too. But an human individual's mental attitude toward food and water retains instinctive aspects. Meaningfulness is not the _only_ way in which a human individual relates mentally toward food and water. A thirst thought can only be abated by the _material_ impact of water in the digestive and circulatory systems. Symbols meaning water won't do the trick.
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com