As with all of Lacan’s key formulations, the notion that the master signifiers are ’signifiers without signified’ is a complex one. Even the key idea is the following. The concept and /or referent signified by any ‘master signifier’ will always be something impossible for any one individual to fully comprehend. For example, ‘Australian-ness’ would seem to be what is aimed at when someone proffers the self-identification: ‘I am an Australian’. The Lacanian question here is: what is ‘Australian’ being used by the subject to designate here? Is ‘Australian-ness’ something that inheres in everyone who is born in Australia?
Ganz may be using Pidgin English West African style. If he is, what he said is this: I talked(maybe he told him before) and you said girls don’t pay. Make you comot for der: Get the fuck out or “You’re not serious”.
To those saying a man can’t be raped by a woman, there are lots of ways a woman can rape a man. She could penetrate him digitally or with an object, or she could coerce him into having sex using threats (just because you’re scared doesn’t mean you can’t have a boner at the same time), or if she could somehow convince him that she was someone else in order to get him to have sex with her, that would also be rape.
I will leave you with a quote from my (female) Criminal Law lecturer, responding to a student’s question of whether a woman could rape a man: