from periodico el amancer
“Is it a solution to go out and collect orgasms in order to make up for all those frustrated, self-loathing years?…Sexual relations in the world today (and perhaps in all past ages) are oppressive. The fact that your lover gives you an orgasm changes only one small part of that oppression… our own enjoyment just enhances our attractiveness. We are wanton. We wear miniskirts and see-through tops. We’re sexy. We’re free. We run around and hop into bed whenever we please. This is the self-image we have built up in us by advertising and the media. It’s self-fulfilling. And very profitable. It keeps us in our place and feeling lucky about it (the freedom to consume, consume, consume, until we swallow the world). It makes us look as if we’re free and active (actively, freely, we solicit sex from men) …The unarticulated assumption behind this misunderstanding is that women are purely sexual beings, bodies and sensuality, fucking machines. Therefore freedom for women could only mean sexual freedom.”
Dana Densmore. Independence from the Sexual Revolution.
Emma Goldman used to say that the difference between a sex worker and a married woman was that the former sold her body by the hour, while the latter sold it once and forever and at one and the same price to just one man. Until more or less the ’50s or ’60s, things were clear with respect to the place occupied by so-called “sexual liberation”.
However, if we follow readings of Beatriz Preciado who in turn follows Monique Wittig, heterocapitalism of the third pharmaco-pornographic regimen made it so that devices of capture became less coercive, more subtle, more intricate, more sophisticatedly difficult to untangle. Now the new gimmick of late heterocapitalism is “sexual liberation”. Its agents, liberated women.
How to oppose such a commendable phrase without being on the side of opus dei? The issue requires talent and dexterity and must be faced, especially by those of us who have been biopolitically assigned to the gender violence called “woman”. Because as the old maestro Michel Foucault has already stated, to say yes to sex, is not to say no to power.
Once it was clear that the biomale who, wielding the privileges of his sexual-political category (which redounds paradoxically at the expense of certain corporal powers which he will never explore, of course, since they reaffirm his slavery to the heterosexist regime), had to pay a price, the only value possible within the logic of capital, to enjoy -to put into action- those privileges, either by the maintenance of a girlfriend or by taking charge of a family with a wife and everything, and of course their economic welfare. Today, thanks to the apparatus of capture called “sexual emancipation” this situation has liberalized and made flexible that employment contract of three months, or the trafficking of slave labor (or is it voluntary?). But in a more effective manner, since heterocapitalism has succeeded in the construction of the desire to “be sexually free”. Exempt from the obligation to provide support, financial and social support, exempt from creating affinity, kinship ties, free of any responsibility or obligation, any subject biopolitically assigned to male gender privilege will succeed with greater or lesser skill to be with a liberated woman, that is to say, benefit from the cornerstone of the operation of heterocapitalism. This young woman often believes and asserts that she is free (and she chooses and desires it), that she chooses who she goes to bed with or who she fucks.
We may find her in orgies of every species, mostly those who reinforce the more hetero of the phallocentric social norm, she will be our best friend, always ready to suck dick in the bathroom of a show, only in exchange for more penetration, to show off in front of everyone, she will be our occasional or permanent lover in exchange for little or nothing, especially nothing like cold hard cash until the man finds a girlfriend like other people. She will not charge for her services, but freely provide (thanks to certain misinterpreted philo-libertarian approaches) all sorts of pleasure to different men with whom she will lavish with nothing more. Her so-called “friends”, with whom she will not engage as a form-of-life, will use and abuse her talents and gifts. No point of subjectivation either for herself or for them will change it: no idea of community, sustenance, emotional support, ties, safety nets and mutual aid, political camaraderie, no thoughtful use of pleasure will be built within these sexual-political practices of hegemonic and dominant desire; even if some other non-heteronormative sexual practice unfolds and is brought into play. Further, the epistemological point encourages and the motivation is no more than the liberation of a female subject, the high regulatory ideal of the Englightenment myth and of their predominant economic system of heterocapitalism, even when other sexual practices are expressed (such as anal penetration of the biomale, to cite just one case) they do not radically modify the subjectivity of the aforementioned since no sexual practice of any kind has the power in and of itself to change anything (although a condition sine qua non for the mutation of heteronormative subjectivity).
Those “whores” compete in the labor market in an unfair manner: their flesh is the dumping of the global economy of late heterocapitalism versus we who resist, putting a price on the parts of our anatomy that the pharamaco-pornographic regime has been responsible for assigning to a specific category, of territorializing and segmenting with the power of a scalpel. Also, they do not encourage through their practices the construction of new political forms-of-life among “the abnormals”; I’m referring to the construction of affectations and affinities and herds and political friendships with other bodies biopolitically assigned to the gender violence called “woman”, but also with other allied corporeal powers such as the full range of anatomical-political incorrectness to normalize lato sensu.
We, the desiring horde, although feminized, controlled, assigned, subjectivized, we, the other whores, the non-liberated have a price, that is to say, we charge, we know the value of our meat on the market, and for free we offer nothing but sexual-political affinities. Hence the urgency of rethinking the liberalism of sexual liberation again as enemy concept to sexual dissidence. To become emancipated from emancipation which will not be by way of sexual extravagance with anyone who does not bear kindred-mutant-herd wolf-body-desiring-minority. But rather to be in the world as an infinite friend to the men’s smiles always ready to give oral sex to some guy “friend”, because “I like it” so will say I / the weak soul that Nietszche spat out with the name “subject” that is our worst internalized enemy, made flesh, our personal microfascism generator.
To become the other, as has been said ad infinitum. To do it time and again. Becoming outside the categories of woman to the powers of the herd and collective enunciation that does not reterritorialize heterocapitalism nor sophisticates -thanks to our complicity- the apparatuses of capture of our gender (and so many others), to flee, together, by the river of infinite power. How to do it? For now, withdraw, drop out, say No, Opt out, I prefer not to. And to distrust now and always in any desire expressed by an individual I in pursuit of a supposed personal pleasure.
For now, this.
Written by Putas Enemigas de las Sonrisas (An advance text from a new book we’re preparing).
Taken from: Diario de la poeta mala II (Diary of the bad poet)