Bravo (as usual).I am a little dissastisfied with the final entry, however: "Consent is possible, despite all these things, but sex is still masturbation with another person’s body."Specifically, it's (for me) a little disappointing by comparison with the others - the uneven anaphora building in a crescendo towards it - because of the "but" linking the two propositions. Despite everything, consent is still possible (and, you imply, to be striven for, although not to the exclusion of something better). AND sex is masturbation with another person's body. To put a "but" there seems to risk collapsing everything back into ressentiment, relying on a 'male' version of what sex is as well as a romantic/idealist frustration about achieving subject-object unity transcendentally through the intersubjectivity of fucking. (Fucking, it is strongly implied by the logic here, and Elliot Rodger would surely conflate the two concepts, cock-in-cunt copulation. When one has a vagina, it's not actually very easy to jerk oneself off with a flesh-and-blood cock.) So, what's bad about masturbation? Who ever said sex *wasn't* masturbation? And for whom? And that masturbation - but not 'sex' - involves doing things with yourself, alone? Whom did that account of what's desirable serve?