I am surprised that Kollontai has been portrayed in various contexts as a sex-positive individual. In Russian-speaking mainstream media, Kollontai's figure is often contrasted with contemporary "Me Too" feminists, as she supposedly respected men and advocated for women to be equal subjects in society. While my history teacher made jokes about Kollontai's "water glass theory," comparing sex to drinking a glass of water 
, stressing that her emphasis was on being sexually open. However, I believe that Kollontai's position is the opposite and is being
misinterpreted. Ultimately, she represents a rather modernist concept. It is about suppressing sexuality because there are other important matters, such as production and building a new society. Bonds with others should be based on the rational part of one's being, not the physical. In this sense, she is more of a conservative than a radical feminist.
And I do not agree that we can interpret this comradeship in a queer way. Her text only includes men and women who come together in this transcendental, rational, utopian partnership. This contradicts the feminist utopia envisioned by queer individuals, people of color, sex workers, and other marginalized individuals who were part of the sex-positive movement in the USA. There it is more about connecting with one's own body, with one's own physical presence. Additionally, I would like to touch upon queerness and sexual politics in the Soviet Union. This is more complex: Homosexuality was decriminalized in Central Russia after the revolution but was criminalized in Central Asia at the same time. While some anarchist texts from the early twentieth century focused on making homosexuality the starting point for a new and liberated society, I am not aware of any statement about the decriminalization of homosexuality in Soviet texts. The decriminalization came as part of a package of decrees with many other things. It was liberating but with disadvantages.