This footnote by Amia Srinivasan, taken from her book, the Right to Sex, poses the question in a useful way. It is a hard question that is part of the psychosexual pre-history of our times. I will feel I have satisfied my purpose as I writer when I have answered it.
What I like about the framing is the way at looks at two pieces by the same author and uses it as a lens to look at the way the world change. Here are two of my favorites: salon.com/2005/09/20/kun…
The story told in Srinivasan's sequence is in a way the same story told in mine. This is the story that hasn't quite been told, merely acted out by the culture industries.
The question is not hard in itself, it just becomes hard because of all the ways the culture has become involuted, but the work of writing is to master those involutions in such a manner as to make them straight them again
The rhetoric of the prior tweet is sure to be parsed as illustrative. And it is!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
That a leading figure at the dominant legal NGO in America could make this self-evidently deranged claim on national television and expect and receive a respectful reception, to be followed by an appearance before the Supreme Court where the Solicitor General of the United States and three justices parroted similarly unhinged falsehoods about the terrible harms of being forced to go through "the wrong puberty" is a fact made possible by the moral and intellectual failure of the entire American professional class.
From the Emperor's New Clothes to "Snipe Hunts", a proper moral education of the youngest children in a civilization where truth-seeking is a virtue prepares each of us for tests of our moral and intellectual mettle in the face of a powerful and threatening pseudo-consensus that demands conformity to obvious lies -- a test that virtually every American progressive and liberal failed egregiously
The Solicitor General of the United States and three Supreme Court Justices demonstrated how down toward the feelings-based order we have slid -- we would have gone there completely were it not for the exogenous shock of the 2016 election remaking the court.
Pakistanis would instantly pogrom any foreign population that mass raped their daughters -- for the theft of the commodity value of their virginity, which is the primary basis of the harm of rape as they understand it -- a harm against fathers and brothers and male cousins who all stand to benefit from a future transaction of that tradeable good.
That the English have only given short prison terms to a handful of the most flagrant serial perpetrators is interpreted by them as an act of societal consent to this theft by a society that has willingly pornified and prostituted its own women.
It is similar to the concept of squatter's rights. Your failure to safeguard your property (by allowing it to walk in public uncovered and unaccompanied by male protectors) gives others free use of it in the way that naturally any man unconstrained by the property claims of other men would.
Such exigencies are things that people roll their eyes knowingly over and make sardonic remarks about. Who sets these unwritten rules that everyone unfailingly follows?
But the tone takes on a different mood when it is the industrial scaled mass child rape of white girls that doesn’t matter unless POC victims can be found
The belief within the UK Muslim community that the grooming gangs acted upon is that Western society is morally decadent and has pornified and prostituted its own women and that there is license to do whatever one wishes to any woman or child left unsupervised by fathers, brothers, and cousins whose duty is to control their movement in order to protect their primary commodity value, their virginity.
The former belief has some basis in reality; the latter is a value that is simply incompatible with coexistence under the same laws in a single polity with those who do not share it.
The attempt to coexist with an unreformed population that holds this view would require either 1.) pervasive surveillance of members of that community by law enforcement or 2.) restrictions on the freedom of movement and speech on the community that rejects those values.
Faced with this dilemma, the UK has chosen the second path -- they are literally jailing British citizens for uncivil descriptions of what the migrant community has done.
The belief within the British community was that lower-class slags in decaying post-industrial towns were uneducated white trash and complaints that their daughters were being raped by a Brown Horde reflected their benightedness. In a powerful sense, the Muslim belief that unsupervised girls were fair targets was vindicated.
It went beyond this contemptuous snobbery and failure to protect -- it became active collusion by police to hold in place an unsustainable equilibrium that now makes recourse to jailing people for their social media posts.
"More than 40 percent of South Koreans below the age of forty have stopped dating. The Korea Development Institute reports that, in 2020, more than 52 percent of South Koreans in their twenties preferred a childless marriage, up from about 30 percent in 2015. More than 30 percent of all Korean households comprise only one person."
South Korea's experience shows that state policy can very successfully engineer fertility crashes, but cannot engineer fertility rebounds once it has succeed in engineering a crash
It's super interesting that there are cultures where homosexuality is grounds for death but raping boys is fine, what's a good explainer of this phenomenon?
Foucault's experiences in Algeria and Morocco led him to believe that Islam was cool with homosexuality and was thus shocked to find out that homosexuality was not only not tolerated in Iran but grounds for death during the period when he was rhapsodizing about the Iran revolution. Like most Westerners, he wasn't able to grasp that homosexuality is forbidden but raping boys is fine.