The vulgar and refreshing paraphrase of a simplified hippie version of what will be taken as the subject: We are so oppressed. Maybe we're not repressed, but come on. We are so oppressed. Malcolm X knew it, Catharine MacKinnon knew it. Everyone knows it. One of the ways we are oppressed is sexually. Maybe we're not just repressed, but we clearly still are because there are laws and other things. But come on. Even though sexuality is socially constructed, it remains very material, it exists as much as anything else - words are also actions. Thinking Sex by Gayle Rubin considers the political history of sexual regulation, its current form, and some theory on sexuality and its discourses. At the very peak of the article's movement toward freedom in sexual practice, she draws the line of consent, separating bad sex from good sex on the dividing line between what is accepted and what is not. Rubin's article does not take seriously the History of Sexuality on which it relies to reject political regulations on sexuality, and therefore ends up advocating the limitation of consent which recapitulates all the problems and fantasies that it found in sexual legislation. Rubin deplores oppressive laws that tell people what sexual practices should and should not be accepted, as if laws must be obeyed - a presumption that already constitutes a particular type of subject in relation to a kind of power (the power to/ in the Act). Because we are so oppressed, unable to choose between sexual practices, we should abandon these overrated relics of good and bad sexuality. Instead, let everyone do anything, as long as they practice the vaunted ritual of consent. And even though consent can be difficult to locate, and poses problems, it should still be ... middle of paper ... in the established form that Rubin's partial consent agenda relies on for his humanist constraints, as if to recapitulate the dominant representations of nuclear arms control - on a trigger, under control, mutually assured, and yet also for these mutually constitutive assurances on the other side of the trigger and deploying themselves in their flows of power and self. . Sexuality can be much more exciting for “bodies and pleasures” (Foucault 157) than this timid effort allows itself to be pretended. Why respond to a request for bread with the proposition of letting them eat willingly? WORKS CITEDFoucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: Volume One. Vintage Books: New York, 1978. Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking about sex: notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. » in Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. ed. Vance, Carole. Pandora: London, 1992.