Thank you for the compliment!

My point is that towards the latter half of the essay Seresin completely loses the plot by equating women’s frustration with heterosexuality to men’s misogyny, as though the two can both be neatly collapsed into “heteropessimism”. As Shon Faye pointed out, it elides who has the power in the relationship and under patriarchy, all in a bid to support the conclusion that “disavowal does nothing”, because men and women both cannot simply up and abandon heterosexuality and have to both “work on it”.

It’s misguided, and if Seresin wanted to focus on how heterosexual women’s disavowals of heterosexuality are ineffectual and require something more, I would have likely agreed with it! But the obscuring of misogyny and the role it plays in women’s fatalism, even as Seresin pays lip-service to intimate partner violence, soiled what could have been a call to feminist action, because recoiling from critiques of heterosexuality is just the fashion of the times.