negationparty:

[…]

Liberal feminism’s concept of “sexual empowerment” can then be taken as an urge towards self-ownership, to benefit from one’s own value production. This is not necessarily useless* but as an aim in and of itself it is a demand for greater representation in a phallic economy of sex. Radical consent takes this demand even further until it becomes almost self-parodying: everybody may have access to the subject position, and as such everybody may benefit from their own value production. But phallic economy does not allow for such utopianism. Even if for one encounter it can feel mutual, feel decided upon by free and equal actors, the underlying mechanics of sex have not been challenged. The subject position necessitates the object; any value produced may always be expropriated and will always be expedient to expropriate. The act of rape will in such a context always be available, and when vengeance against the rapist can be circumvented, will always be enacted.

*One could characterize it at its most radical (ie. a “my body, my choice” violently defended) as a seizure of the modes of reproduction – something not necessarily entailing any sort of negation of one’s position as reproductive laborer, but useful in the project of self abolition.

One may propose an urge to build a sexuality not molded into reproductive labor – a ludic interplay of desires not tied to the value form, but again this is a hopeless project. Not without trying, attempts at an “alternative” sexuality have quickly proved themselves to reproduce the same dynamic. At the end of the orgy, we all returned to work, all found ourselves forced to reproduce ourselves or others as workers or find someone to reproduce for us. Queer and feminist sexualities are proliferated only to find themselves false and having always been so; the queer sexuality is impossible – it may only be a mimicry of the same phallic economy. Individual apparatuses of sex – the nuclear family, compulsory heterosexuality, non-explicitly negotiated sex – may be destroyed, but the root remains and as such some even more diffuse and resilient manifestation of it’s foundational horror emerges. Not until the superstructures ordering our lives – the totality named in its particularity as capital, biopower, patriarchy, white supremacy, heterosexism, and so on – are abolished in their entirety can we begin to conceive of an interplay of bodies not ordered by the value form of sex.

[…]

i know my whole deal is like “blah blah sex is cool whatever” but this is a really worthwhile (that is, terrifying) critique of liberal subjecthood and sexuality.