Antis ( even the macho male kind ) must be sex-negative-Feminists for consistency's sake.

They cannot argue that power disparity and experience disparity nullify consent when age is the factor but do not nullify it when gender is the factor.

The gender-gap is far greater than the age gap.

I will never have female brain-chemistry at any age. I will never experience "being female." I will never not be bigger and stronger than the vast majority of my female peers. And I will never not be the subject of favoritism ( when it exists ) by other males.

Others may point out why many women might freely choose to prioritize other values over the driven pursuit of a career as a power-broker ( and an early heart-attack. ) But with more driven *ssholes as male, I benefit from their chauvinism more than a female does from a shark in a pants-suit.

OTOH the disparities of age are present at every moment except for birth. The neonate will not be more experienced than anyone they will encounter.

But otherwise I will always be older than some and younger than others. I will always be more experienced in some things and less in others. I will always be more developed in some ways and less in others.

If the 18+ get to nullify consent for the 18-, then surely the 50+ should be able to nullify it for me.

Gender will always apply the same differences throughout life. Even the most equitable society does not alter biochemistry. So the gender-separatist has the better argument. Accept the lesser one ( that children cannot consent ) and you MUST accept the greater argument over disparity.

---

As for your source, she seems VERY confused.

In arguing that "the personal is political" she seems to have missed the point. She is now arguing that not only does it have a political dimension, but that it NEVER has a personal dimension.

OTOH some of her statements ARE staples of sex-negative-Feminism;

...."in a patriarchal society where women’s agency is circumscribed by male supremacy, how meaningful is consent?"

..............

"sex is inescapable from patriarchal and other power relations, and thus what is “sexy” caters to men and the male gaze."

And yet others clearly imply the choice-feminism she claims to oppose;

"It means understanding that many women have neutral to negative experiences with sex, whether due to a lack of desire or sensitivity or past traumatic experiences or myriad other reasons, or may not wish to have sex at all, and that none of this makes them unhealthy, aberrant, or wrong.

Thus, sex-negativity urges feminists to reject compulsory sexuality, which has historically translated to forced sexual compliance with men but has recently been extended to non-hetero sex and sexuality as well."

The noncompulsory is the voluntary. One can be free to choose good sex, and avoid bad sex, or sex altogether without making abstinence compulsory.

One can believe that sex is a good and even that kink is a good while still rejecting the notion that goodness is inherent in it all.

( Ghu knows I do when I reject the good and healthy benefits conferred by being in a relationship with another guy. ) I can believe that its not inherently good regardless of context. But my rejection DOESN'T mean that I must argue that what's bad for me is bad for all. In fact I can find that the "bad for me" is "good for others." This is what consent allows. It allows her to be sex-negative and for her sisters to still have a different personal choice.

Just because the personal is political it doesn't mean that her bedroom choices should be decided by a committee. Ghu knows, most of the original work of Feminism was to instill the concept of consent and remove compulsion and the "committee" from a woman's personal choice.

Dante