It is from this point of selfless base from which the meaning of sex, its new social role, should start being reconsidered.
The first step, obviously, will be to look back on sexual activity itself to identify what it is and what does it consist on: What is it that sex, outside its harmful traditional functions, offers. But to review sex we also need to review the molds in which sex is presented. A postsexual eroticism should focus attention on individual experience, in other words, on the biological ability to experience pleasure in the field of reproductive insemination facilitator actions. The possibilities offered by this faculty are not determined by the classical categories of gender, age, number, etc., and therefore all of them must be reconsidered and returned to experimentation.
By becoming eroticism, in other words, in de-signified sex whose re-signifying will only be made consciously and voluntarily, or will even not be made at all, sex stops knowing what it looks for and starts needing to find out. Thus, eroticism empties sex of content, even of desire, to the extent that the body can ever be empty of desire.
Agamy so does its crucial liberating action, against which love loses foothold. The discourse of love, after missing the transcendent condition of sex, which makes it the relational action par excellence structuring both the category of the relationship and the power flow which is established within it, loses its referent, that on what we are always being euphemistically really talked about.
All alternative proposals to the heteronormative monogamy leave this point unresolved, that love sneaky gets into the defenses of the system insurgents, contaminating and reabsorbing them. Sex remains a key activity for homosexuals, open and polyamorous couples. In the case, let’s say, of homosexuality, sexual heteronormativity, which basic rule, beyond loyalty or reproductive obligation, is transcendence (the condition of sex as an act of greatest significance in life in which you are allowed to state the contradiction that sometimes you can have not such significance) imposes its respect to an alleged biological essence that any alternative sexual act must aspire to imitate as much as possible. While homosexual sex is in the form markedly different, in the form, from traditional heterosexual, we cannot speak in it about a real emancipation of the rules governing while publicly condemning it and, today, corrupts its privacy subjecting it to the humiliation of secretly admire its oppressor.
Both open couples and polyamory (which can be understood as a female version, loving, even lesbian, of those) are attempts to free sex without rethinking the relevance of sex or its inscription in the area of power flows.
Polyamory and open couple philosophy have a key claim (almost unique, while the remaining are adapted to problems occurring with this first fundamental demand) the right to escape the golden rule of monogamy. The ultimate cause that moves this attempt to liberation is the attraction exerted by morbidity. To do this they directly face the power system that regulates power trade constituted by sex and, in a significantly naïve way, deny this system. Polyamory and open couples face sex police almost unarmed, because sex system (which like any system has an absolutely real surveillance force capable of inflicting corporal punishment) has not been dismantled. This police are jealousy. The denial of jealousy (the repressive force of love) and jealousy’s requirement that it does not exist and corresponds only to a suggestion, a phobia that is removable by pure contact, makes the open relationship and the polyamory unviable by a short term on a massive scale. Polyamory and open couples islands are the result of particular configurations of sexual power that enable the emergence of sexual self cells whose economy is, yes, outside the channels of general trade.
Simply put, nor open relationship or polyamory are real threats to sexual oppression (the one which is performed in sex and from sex) because they can only take place by prior emergence of certain conditions that the system spontaneously generates as casual vesicles or as outgrowths by which it encapsulates threats. In large measure, they are necessary exceptions to the system, which it can not avoid generating but which cannot, either, put it in check. If the system of domination through the possessive sex evolves and enters breakdown, will not so much be by the positive action of these vesicles, lacking a proposal by which deal effectively with the police of the system, but by the trends of the very system to generate them in increasing numbers.
The meaning of sex is the nutrient that strengthens jealousy police. The biological, pheromonal, territorial, factor is irrelevant. Jealousy exists to the extent that sex is qualified to generate power leaks capable of threatening the existence conditions of the individual; to the extent that sex means power, which means, to the extent that sex is motivated by the morbidity’s irresistible allure. Polyamory and open couple are attempts to access the very thing that constitutes their oppression. They are, therefore, a magical denial of the existence of jealousy, and result in the unexpected encounter with violent repressive actions from jealousy, after which few are willing to persist in their activism.