Dworkin's assertion that the Left harbors a desire for the communal ownership of women contains a grain of truth, especially when viewed through the lens of socialist utopian thought. Fourier, a pioneer in socialist utopianism, envisaged a system of sexual redistribution aimed at addressing the grievances of the "sexually disadvantaged man"—a notion that anticipates the modern incel phenomenon. This idea likely fueled accusations that communists sought to "socialize wives," an allegation Marx and Engels deny in the Communist Manifesto, their response tinged with a hint of sardonic humor.
To be fair, it’s difficult to avoid the commodification of both women and men in the context of sexual liberation. This phenomenon aligns all too neatly with the new mode of consumption ushered in by the Third Industrial Revolution—a shift from the bourgeois ethic of saving to the post-bourgeois logic of conspicuous consumption.
Thus, the transition from a restrictive form of monogamy to a more permissive one—namely, serial monogamy—mirrors the logic of modern consumption. Just as there exists a multitude of goods and services to choose from, so too is there a multiplicity of men and women to date (or to sleep with). However, much like the promises of mass consumption, these possibilities often linger in the realm of potential rather than becoming concrete realities.
Similarly, polyamory, far from being a revolutionary modulation of love that challenges capitalism, actually serves as an accelerator of the logic of serial monogamy. In a world where job security is precarious and a stable living situation is increasingly elusive, polyamory emerges as a rational strategy for organizing one's sexual life.
All those years of sexual frustration, insecurity, and inadequacy—I didn’t realize that instead of being a hopeless romantic, I was, in fact, an unsatisfied consumer. Or perhaps, to sidestep false dilemmas, I was a hopeless romantic precisely because I was an unsatisfied consumer!
And yet, I cannot help but yearn for a different world, a different kind of Love—one that demands the complete suspension of myself and the roles I play. But the space for such a utopia is, as ever, nowhere to be found. Since modernity, utopias have shifted from being spatial to temporal, which likely explains why they exist only in the minds and aspirations of a select few.
And in those fleeting moments when I believe I've finally found it, I quickly realize its chimerical nature... whether fulfilled or unfulfilled, love remains a torment.
The single Rose
Is now the Garden
Where all loves end
Terminate torment
Of love unsatisfied
The greater torment
Of love satisfied
After all, the problem lies not in sexual repression or liberation, but in sex.
Dworkin's assertion that the Left harbors a desire for the communal ownership of women contains a grain of truth, especially when viewed through the lens of socialist utopian thought. Fourier, a pioneer in socialist utopianism, envisaged a system of sexual redistribution aimed at addressing the grievances of the "sexually disadvantaged man"—a notion that anticipates the modern incel phenomenon. This idea likely fueled accusations that communists sought to "socialize wives," an allegation Marx and Engels deny in the Communist Manifesto, their response tinged with a hint of sardonic humor.
To be fair, it’s difficult to avoid the commodification of both women and men in the context of sexual liberation. This phenomenon aligns all too neatly with the new mode of consumption ushered in by the Third Industrial Revolution—a shift from the bourgeois ethic of saving to the post-bourgeois logic of conspicuous consumption.
Thus, the transition from a restrictive form of monogamy to a more permissive one—namely, serial monogamy—mirrors the logic of modern consumption. Just as there exists a multitude of goods and services to choose from, so too is there a multiplicity of men and women to date (or to sleep with). However, much like the promises of mass consumption, these possibilities often linger in the realm of potential rather than becoming concrete realities.
Similarly, polyamory, far from being a revolutionary modulation of love that challenges capitalism, actually serves as an accelerator of the logic of serial monogamy. In a world where job security is precarious and a stable living situation is increasingly elusive, polyamory emerges as a rational strategy for organizing one's sexual life.
All those years of sexual frustration, insecurity, and inadequacy—I didn’t realize that instead of being a hopeless romantic, I was, in fact, an unsatisfied consumer. Or perhaps, to sidestep false dilemmas, I was a hopeless romantic precisely because I was an unsatisfied consumer!
And yet, I cannot help but yearn for a different world, a different kind of Love—one that demands the complete suspension of myself and the roles I play. But the space for such a utopia is, as ever, nowhere to be found. Since modernity, utopias have shifted from being spatial to temporal, which likely explains why they exist only in the minds and aspirations of a select few.
And in those fleeting moments when I believe I've finally found it, I quickly realize its chimerical nature... whether fulfilled or unfulfilled, love remains a torment.
The single Rose
Is now the Garden
Where all loves end
Terminate torment
Of love unsatisfied
The greater torment
Of love satisfied
After all, the problem lies not in sexual repression or liberation, but in sex.