A more detailed reading of Angel Archer’s article “Botline bling” opened a new trail of thought concerning the anthropocene and post- / trans-humanistic sexuality. Dorothy Howard looks at sex, hyperreality and the politics of intimacy in “Loving machines: A de-anthropocentric view of intimacy“. The writer also investigates the deep emotional relations we form with technologies (We sleep with our screens). Paul B. Preciado’s “Contrasexual Manifesto (Excerpt)” explores sexuality and gender as capitalistic tools aimed for exploitation of the others (If I understand it correctly). “Queer Atonality” by Alexander R. Galloway seeks to build awareness on how the usage of queer terminology and methodologies is being appropriated by various (normative) academic disciplines and used in political rhetorics. He approaches the theme through an analysis of “The Molecularization of Sexuality: On Some Primitivisms of the Present” article written by Jordana Rosenberg.
Rosenbergs article is pretty complicated. It is critical towards Object Oriented Ontologies as “object-ontologies are origin narratives not just because they are compelled to project forms of ‘ancestralness’, but more specifically, because they exchange frictionlessly between two sets of seemingly opposed orientations – origins and prognostication. Object ontologies, in other words, cast a twin temporal shadow: the ancestral and the futural. Or, the primitive and the brink.” The author continues: “[…] the ontological turn reiterates a version of this settler rationality, borrowing – or, rather, capsizing – a set of arguments from queer studies in order to grasp biology as a kind of sheer queerness (or, aleatoriness) that enshrines a primitive/brink temporal logic while appearing nonnormative and in some fundamental way resistant to the demands of capitalism’s logics of time, discipline, and subject-formation.”