Sexual intercourse is not enjoyable under capitalist hegemonic ideas, to me personally.

First, sexual intercourse is, to me, heavily commodified. What underscores the commodification of sex in capitalist society is, evidently, objectification. Objectification particularly targets women's bodies, though it's admittedly not an exclusive phenomena to women. Non-binary individuals and men suffer for sex commodification, too. What sex has become under capitalism is, like any market structure, a consumptive resource. The way in which many engage with sex is a sort of bartering tool, where an individual produces pleasure for their sexual partner at a personal, exploitative labor cost. This is fundamentally why the commodification of sex particularly targets women, who are expected to labor, for their partner, an pleasurable experience above their own needs. The conversation of certain groups "not being good at sex" tacitly implies that sex has become a sort of tool, or a game even. Sex is something that you are meant to derive and extract something from. It has been divorced from feelings of intimacy and shared needs. Under a capitalist rubric of sex, one party is receiving pleasure, and therefore benefit, and another party is the receiver, the exploited, in the act.

Let's use a typical, heteronormative example of sex. A man is having sex with a woman. Does the sex continue even after the man has extracted the commodity, pleasure, from the woman? Does it matter if your partner finishes during sex? This is precisely where sex as a sport, a game, a tool comes from. Men aren't "good at sex," not because they fundamentally cannot perform, but because it is an exploitative act. Particularly, there was discourse surrounding whether trans women were good at sex or not. It's a particularly gross statement because it perpetuates the objectification of women's bodies, of women needing to perform in a way that is inherently exploitative. Trans women are expected to produce pleasure, and if they cannot produce pleasure, they are bad at sex. In this way, we see both categories of genitalia as exploited. If someone with a penis cannot produce pleasure for their partner, they are bad at sex. If someone with a vagina cannot produce pleasure for their partner, they are bad at sex. However, the commodification of sex particularly targets women because women's bodies are generally the most exploited for pleasure. They produce pleasure at the personal expense of their own labor, for fleeting moments of pleasure themselves.

Let's examine further how women's bodies are particularly exploited and targeted. In the case of trans women, as has made evident, their genitals are especially targeted. They are expected to perform sexually in a similar manner as cisgender men are. Their genitals are objectified; if your penis does not produce pleasure for me, you are bad at sex. For cisgender women, it's especially egregious, of course. Their genitals are completely exploited. Women, in general, are expected to be clean-shaven, and erotically appealing to their partners. Are men held to the same fundamental standard? The answer seems to be, generally, no. Men are not expected to be clean shaven. Their bodies are not nearly as objectified as women's bodies. The fundamental difference from the commodification of a man's genitals, to the commodification of women's bodies, is that men are typically the one's who reap the benefit of sex. They are the one's who consume the pleasure the in sex. Women and their bodies are an after thought. Of course, women do consume sex, and they express their dissatisfaction with sex as such, because they are not deriving the benefits of sex that their partners are. They are exploited, their bodies used for the pleasure of their partner, and the exchange in the transaction of sex becomes unequal. That is why sex has become a performance, why it has become transaction. The lack of reciprocity, and the objectification of bodies, runs both ways, but one group (typically) derives benefit, while the other, wishing they derived that same benefit, objectify the other's body in return.

The transactional nature of sex under capitalist hegemony seems to be self-evident. There is no or little reciprocity. There is a desire for reciprocity, especially evident in the exploited parties wish that their partner is "good at sex," but this is, given cultural folklore, probably not something that is commonly reciprocated. Sex addicted men in particular do not seem to care if their partner experiences the same pleasure that they do during the act.

The most obvious and egregious forms of the commodification of sex is clearly prostitution, in which you literally barter money for the exploitation of another's body. Just because this is obviously exploitative does not preclude casual or intimate sex from becoming commodified. The gameification of sex, evident in rating performance, clearly points that sex is a commodity to be exchanged. I exchange my labor, in my performance, for your satisfaction, your pleasure. To deconstruct sex from being a commodity, meant to be consumed, it must be reciprocal. Any other arrangement is exploitative. This means setting clear expectations with your partner about your sexual desires; what can I do to help you feel as good as I will feel. Then, and only then, does sex liberate itself from an exploitative process. I do not want my genitals to be viewed as a commodity to be consumed. I do not want to view my partner's genitals as a commodity to be consumed. I want to experience mutual love, reciprocity, shared feelings of pleasure and intimacy. Any other arrangement, to me, is exploitative; either on my behalf, or on the behalf of my partner.