December Open Thread
Mangasexuals and the Council of Woke Nicaea
Yesterday I posted the first in my series for paid supporters, called “Open Manuscript Notes.” Those will be frequent discussion threads about thoughts I’m having while writing my upcoming manuscript on the woke (tentatively titled The Trace, though that’s just a working title).
These won’t be the only chances to discuss some of these ideas, however, as I’ll continue to do my monthly “open thread” posts, including this one.
I want to throw out a question for you all in this one, something that keeps coming up in many discussions about this here and elsewhere.
You’ve probably noticed there’s a tendency among those who are deeply invested in social justice, Antifa, or general woke ideology to say “that’s not really happening” whenever abuses or extremes are brought to their attention. One example that comes immediately to mind is the belief that anorexics have “thin privilege,” an idea I saw many people deny (“no one actually thinks that”) and then later come to actually support and defend on an essay I wrote. Another example is the pressuring of gay men and lesbian women to expand their “dating pool” or change their desire to include trans people. Often times people deny this ever happens, and then in the face of evidence then defend the behavior. Yet another example relates to “interracial” marriage or adoption. When it is brought to some people’s attention that some anti-racist activists are arguing all interracial marriages and adoptions involving white people are abusive and oppressive, usually the response is denial. But then soon after a social media post by an anti-racist activist (however that is defined) making that very claim will go viral, leading to the same people who denied such a thing was being said to suddenly defend it as if it was the most obvious conclusion in the world.
Of course, much of this is internet-related, and this cannot be dismissed as a factor. Usually these ideas themselves originate on the internet, as for example “animatesexuality” (previously animesexuality or mangasexuality), the sexual identity of people who are only sexually attracted to anime characters.
That’s their flag, by the way. And yes it really exists. You can purchase one on Amazon. And I had a roommate who identified this way, so as much as I would like to pretend it’s not really a thing, I cannot.
There’s also ideas like “retroactively withdrawn consent” that originated not in academia but on the internet, yet nevertheless became prominent in woke discourse. As explained by one of the most popular iterations of it, from a short essay called “Yes, You Can Take it Back:”
In such a model, if Bob and Andy have sex, and Andy says, “Yes,” “Sure,” “Okay, fine, whatever,” or even, “Ooh baby, do it to me!” but still wakes up the next morning feeling like he was raped, that means Andy was raped.
And yes this is also a thing. I was in a very disorienting conversation with a person who explained to me how they were struggling with the “trauma” of realising that their six-month relationship with someone, which had at the time been in their words fully consensual, was in retrospect rape because they no longer would consent to sex with their ex-partner. Their ex-partner, incidentally, had also come to the same conclusion, so they both agreed they’d been raping each other the entire relationship.
To speak of such things can feel really maddening and a little crazy, but to understand the problems with woke ideology we have to look at such things. And as absurd as this stuff can get, becoming reactive and outraged in the way a right-wing news commentator might is deeply unhelpful as well.1
Of course, there’s no canon here. No Council of Nicaea has ever yet met to decide what ideas should be included in woke ideology and which ones are heretical. Also, as I alluded to in the Open Manuscript Notes post, there will always probably be a large gap between the academic theories around gender, race, consent, and justice and the populist enactment of these theories. Again like religion, it’s difficult to define what the “true” iteration really is. Is it the stated beliefs and teachings of the priests, clerics, or professors? Or the actually-lived experience of those who believe in them?
That’s what I’d love to talk about in this post. Where do these lines get drawn, or should they even be drawn? Is the original iteration of ideas like intersectionality and identity politics to be privileged over the way those ideas are being enacted? Should we even try to separate out the mass politics of woke ideology from the theories behind it?
And also, what’s something you’ve encountered lately that you’re trying not to scream about?
That being said, there are maybe occasional times screaming is probably justified, as for example at this illustrated comic explaining how everyone is being too mean to narcissists.
We've all heard of "shopper's regret." Now we must face the existence of "f*cker's regret." This was my reaction to a couple of books from within the Neopagan community whose author's bemoaned the sexual freedom of the 60s and 70s as practiced within the Pagan community, including their own behavior. Geez people, you were, in the sexist, ageist, racist parlance of yore "Free, white and 21." You did some things, and some people, that you now regret. That doesn't mean that you are a victim. If you no longer want the responsibility for your own mistakes that is part of the Pagan life view, go join or rejoin the Christians and lay your sins on Jesus. I understand being angry with oneself for enduring an abusive relationship. I remember telling a therapist "I'm angry because it makes me feel so STUPID." But don't mistake your subjective reactions to your own behavior for objective reality about the behavior of others. "I regret having sex with X" cannot be allowed to = "X raped me."
I still think retaining what’s valuable about the theory is important with regard to not ceding intellectual territory that could get picked up and used against us. I do think some of the “no one is saying this” is both unhelpful but also a kind of understandable defensiveness. Like it’s weird to have someone use an extreme position from a fringe person in your movement as a reason to invalidate a more nuanced perspective. But it’s also unhelpful as you’re saying to not acknowledge those positions because eventually a charismatic person will make them more mainstream or a person who has experienced the extreme position will be turned off by being told what they experienced isn’t real.
Like that article about “no white people should read tarot” months ago. A Roma friend followed up with “no one’s actually saying that” and I was like “that is a direct quote from this article.”
I don’t know how to stop the mission creep of useful theory when it hits popular discourse. I think a lot about the current popularity of folk diagnoses with mental illness. There’s a lot of good that’s come from people sharing their experiences and what helps. And also it reinforces this idea that our psychiatric categories are real and set in stone which is very premature in my opinion, and confusing when problems with executive function arise from multiple causes but anyone who has it and watches TikTok may decide they have adhd because it looks similar and may not pursue other avenues of care that could help. That’s more of a fear than something I’m sure is happening.