A āsleep-upā (a la Kamel Toe) opportunist female would achieve a reified subjecthood if she was though of as having been sexually harassed. She would be on the cutting edge of pampered as such an opportunist. Here is the intriguing connection we see between Baudrillardās ānaziā excerpt and the erda-shape of the CPAC stage, as Baudrillard continues:
āthe object has disappeared). For the secret never lies in the equivalent exchange of desires, under the sign of egalitarian difference; it lies in inventing the other who will be able to play on ā and make sport of ā my own desire, defer it, suspend it, and thus arouse it indefinitely. Is the female gender capable today of producing ā since it no longer wishes to personify it ā this same seductive otherness? Is the female gender still hysterical enough to invent the other?
It seems, unfortunately, that we are coming close to the opposite extreme ā that is to say, to the exacerbated form of difference 0r, in other words, the final solution: sexual harassment. The ultimate development of female hysteria ā pornography being the ultimate and caricatural development of male hysteria. These are, basically, the two sides of the same hysterical indifference.ā
(Baudrillard, The Perfect Crime, pp.120-1, The Surgical Removal of Otherness)