This is スラヴォイ・ジジェク

So what is this impossibility? In Cuba, when one man boasts to another 'I had that woman!', he implies not just 'straight' vaginal intercourse, but anal penetration-'straight' intercourse is still considered a form of petting, of foreplay, and it is only the anal penetration that stands for the fully consummated sexial relation. Why is it so? Because the vagina is considered a pale, distorted copy of the anal opening: the anus is somehow like pure Platonic Idea (a clear and simple round hole, with no hair or crevices), while the vagina is its distorted material realisation, full of protuberances and outgrowths, far from the ideal simplicity of the anus. Is this not yet another way to supplement the inexistence of the sexual relationship-'natural' penetration is devalued as secondary in relation to its 'unnatural' ideal model? The male counterpoint to it is the difference phallus/penis, as mobilised in the standard porno shot of a woman being penetrated anally and at the same time displaying the hole of her spread vagina, as if to say, 'Although I am penetrated by penis, the hole is still open for phallus'. Some Hindu priests allegedly can do impossible things with their penises: not only fully controlling erection with their will; not only knowing how to ejaculate inside instead of outside, so that, instead of being relreased and spilled out, lost outside, the energy of orgasm gets back into the body and thus contributes to a heightened spiritual energy; they are even are able to suck small amounts of liquid like milk with thier penises. The fascination of these cases resides in the fact that these priests seem to overcome the exceptional status of the penis, the way of its erection is independent of the subject's will-in short, in their unique case, penis and phallus do coincide.（Slavoj Žižek, the fright of real tears, p. 86）

ジジェクは面白いですねぇ。この部分を辞書を引き引き読みながら、大笑いしてました。おヒマな方はお読み下さい。