WereKess

There is an easy excuse in real life! You may not be able to get both a pacemaker and a DBS device because they're both pieces of sensitive equipment that could theoretically interfere with each other, and nobody engineered them not to. Trivially you can extrapolate this to all cybernetics. If your various augs weren't Specifically designed not to mess with each other (and of course the various megacorps might take things a step further, making their shit actively hostile to mix-and-matching), you might have problems; and obviously, the more pieces of hardware you've patchworked yourself with, the worse things get. You'd have to be one real crazy motherfucker to tell a back-alley doctor to load you up with whatever they've got.

Think about it: you've got a threat analysis module loaded into your optics and a lighting-reflexes aug patched into your arm muscles all the way down to your trigger finger. Both have programming that's been told to optimize its function because that's what you want out of military grade hardware. How long do you think it's going to take for your eye to start talking to your trigger finger and for them to come to the conclusion that the most "optimized" course of action is to stop consulting the sluggishly squishy meat brain they're patched into and start identifying/eliminating threats before they begin?

The danger of plugging too many unregulated mods into your body shouldn't be that you're less human for it, it's that your slowly building a killbot in your own body that's more and more likely to start treating YOU as the disposable peripheral.

What do writers suffer from each spring?

To start, let's look at 'sex' and 'gender'.

My least favorite 2010s era trans politics talking point is that 'gender is what you identify as' while 'sex is the biological reality'. This is a flawed model, but a lot of y'all don't fully know why.

It's quick and it's easy:

Sex isn't real.

The existence of intersex ppl is the obvious counterpoint. Personally, I think the better argument is how much sex is used as proxy for other issues. If you're gonna argue that 'chromosomes' are the 'reality', then you'll need to convince me that 'chromosomes' matter. They don't.

In parallel to this, I dislike 'gender is what you identify as'. In my experience talking to hundreds if not thousands of trans people and organizing several large spaces, I've found that 'the choice of identity' is not made lightly. The general "what you identify as" model presents it as this simple thing. Identify however you want!

As if the choice to be cis or trans is easy, simple, and straightforward. As if it could go either way and it's only about what you feel in your head. In my experience, the people who truly feel that way call themselves 'agender' because they've long since realized everyone else in fact really fucking cares about what they 'identify' as.

No, in my experience, it is our experiences of sexgender, our realities, and our interactions with the world around us that determines our 'gender identity'.

This is social construction. The process by which something that may be "not physically real" (sex isn't real) is determined through real social experiences. By which 'society' 'constructs' 'sex' and 'gender'.

But, that's not really enough, is it?

Next, let's look at "why do we talk about sex and gender like this?"

One word: power.

The transgender movement is not empowered to solely determine our own narrative, so we must compromise at every turn. In particular, this *always* will take the form of "rejecting social reproduction". That is to say, the forces against us, the forces outside us, the three-in-one forces of transphobia, patriarchy, and the system of sex-gender. Will always push us to choose a narrative that most reduces our ability to propagate.

The idea that 'sex is real, gender is whatever you like' fundamentally rejects the existence of transness. It is to say that "no, you can't be trans, you can't actually change anything, you can only pretend". The existence of sex is used to "disprove" transness.

It's similar to how the narrative of "being transgender is obvious from a young age" is popular because it makes explaining your coming out story and talking about the trans experience harder. It says that "if it wasn't obvious to you, you must not be trans".

If you look at the dominant narratives around transness, you will quickly notice how many of them are forced to make concessions along these lines.

Finally, let's talk about 'asexuality'.

Sex isn't real.

I mean, I guess "sex solely for the purposes of procreation" is real. There, we can define 'sex' as any process that results or could result in fertilization. Problem solved. Just ignore everything.

But, like, then why does sex ever involve trying to avoid procreation? How do people who are infertile have sex? What the hell is going on with threesomes? And most importantly, what is sexual assault?

No, what we're talking about when we say 'sex', when we talk about the sexual, we're talking about a much larger class of ideas.

Pop quiz! (1) Is cuddling sex? (2) Is oral sex? (3) Is mutual masturbation sex? (4) Is dry humping sex? (5) Is s/m play sex? (6) Is hypnosis sex? (7) Is using sex toys on someone else sex? (8) Is it not sex as long as you don't touch? (9) Is it sex if you're wearing socks? (10) Is it sex if it's over the phone? (11) Is it sex if you don't know each other? (12) Is it sex if neither party achieves orgasm?

Please do take the time to think about and answer these before continuing, it's important.

But, all this to say. Obviously, there's no consensus. Sex isn't real. Or like, your beliefs on this can align with your politics? Like, why do conservative dudes want to believe lesbians can't have sex? It's clearly not because they like lesbians.

No, there's no coherent and singular definition of sex. But we all know what someone means when they say 'sex', because sex is socially constructed (sex isn't real).

Then, given that, obviously 'asexuality', if it has any relationship to 'sex', must be socially constructed, too.

There's a tendency to see 'asexuality' as a disordered condition. Something that's wrong with you, medically. Or even just something that's different about your brain. All in a psychological sense.

I hope I'm not the first one to tell you this, but all of our brains are different. No, the argument to see 'asexuality' as a condition isn't about your brain being different, it's about 'asexuality' being a 'diagnosis'. About wanting to 'medicalize ' it. (Fun fact! All "psychological disorders" are socially constructed models that try to explain deviations in human behavior. You always make the choice of where to draw the line.)

Anyway, personally, I don't really want to medicalize asexuality. I hope you understand why. Could you imagine if they prescribed us pills to try to make our "libidos" "normal"? Terrifying.

No, when we make arguments about 'social constructs', generally our goal is not to determine "what is true about the idea", but "what is useful and why".

Then, what does 'being asexual' give me? What does it say?

It inherits a lot of ideas from the narratives around 'gay' and 'straight'. Arguing that in the same way that "Gay people don't experience heterosexual attraction", "Asexual people don't experience sexual attraction".

(resist the urge to say "that's not true!". none of this is true. the question is "is this useful")

The point of this is to argue for a "class" of people that "don't like sex". Or, "don't want sex". Or even, "actively hate sex".

But, personally, I think it might be more useful to look at it like this:

The class of 'gay people' is defined by 'people that cannot consensually experience heterosexual sex'. Therefore, the class of 'asexuals' is defined by 'people that cannot consensually experience sex'.

Is that right? That's on you to say.

As we wander around this space, we continue to see similar ideas emerge. All of it conditional on the idea of 'sex', of course.

I think, to me, the utility of 'asexual' is merely about expressing artistic and personal disinterest.

I don't want sex, I don't want to talk about sex, I don't want to experience sex. I've tried it before, and it's not for me. Sex isn't real.

Obviously, this is all in the context of "my idea of sex". The idea of 'sex' that has been constructed in my own head.

You all like to make fun of the couple that says that anal isn't sex so they're not having premarital sex, but frankly, I think they understand something about the universe that you don't.

Something I notice time and time again is that a sex averse individual's "definition of sex" usually lines up pretty closely with the things they're averse to because they're sex. Obviously.

But it's socially constructed. It's not "in your head", it's "in the world, forcibly entering your head through a thousand thousand experiences". It's only in your head now.

But sex isn't real, it's arbitrary, this is all about your human experience, it's all about what you perceive and what you think. No singular definition of 'sex' is ever or can ever be 'true'.

But asexuality certainly describes mine and the experiences of countless others. Aversions hurt. They're meaningful, uncomfortable, and frequently traumatic.

But we can't say that asexuality is all about trauma. That's a path towards medicalization. To define it in that way would be to pave the road for treatment and medication.

But we can't ignore those who it is traumagenic for. Their experiences clearly fit under the bubble of asexuality, too, however they got them. They're experiencing the same behaviors and the same realities, too.

But that implies asexuality is all about always avoiding sex. What about those that don't seek it out and are uninterested in it but aren't traumatized by it? Clearly the ability to consent means anyone can consent to sex including asexuals.

But but but but but but but but.

Stop asking.

Sex isn't real.

All that matters is what's useful.

And, for asexuality, I'll argue that all that matters is what's useful to you, in particular.

At a conference/festival last year, there was a Shibari workshop on the schedule for some reason, although the topic of the event was prediction markets. This led to the following exchange (all names changed):

Adam (who at the time was basically a stranger to me): Hmm, "Shibari"... What is that, some kind of Jewish ritual?

Me: No, it's-

Barbara: EVERYONE SHUT UP! Ok. Nobody tell this man what shibari is.

Everyone: ...?

Barbara: We’re playing 20 questions.

Thus began what was by far the best game of 20 questions I have ever witnessed. There were... appreciably more than 20 questions.

[literally ten minutes of questions later]

Adam: Ok, so! Shibari... is a Japanese social export, it's an activity somebody does, it's in some way artistic, it does not involve drawing, it does not involve writing, it involves an inorganic object and an organic object, and... the organic object is a human, right?

Everyone: Right

Adam: And the inorganic object...

Barbara: Well...

Chris: The inanimate object

Adam: The inanimate object, which, oh, which is organic, which suggests that it's clothes... Is the inanimate object clothing?

Everyone: No

Me: To clarify, the inanimate object is always organic in terms of 'organic chemistry', but might or might not be, like, made from biological material

Adam: Ok. And so, you have an inanimate object, and you have a person... The person does not have to do anything during the... shibari activity. You are doing a manipulation to the inanimate object, with the person, for purposes that are fun... Is it for the entertainment of a group?

Barbara: Could be? ...

Adam: So it could be for the entertainment of a group, but it could be for the entertainment of the individuals?

Everyone: Right

Adam: Ok. The inanimate object - the equipment - right? It is not specialised, but is a common object, correct?

Everyone: yeah

AI

Adam: Does it have anything at all to do with AI?

Everyone: [laughter] No

Adam: I had to check. In this setting, everything turns back to AI at some point

Me: I would say no

Frank: Not yet!

Me: Right, not yet. But yeah, 'No' is definitely the answer to that one

George: I trust Rob Miles on this

Barbara: As an expert in shibari?

Frank: As an expert in AI Shibari. I think that's what it's called.

Chris: Oh, yeah it kind of is!

Can one shibari by accident?

Adam: Ok. Is it something that one might do without knowing that it is shibari?

Everyone: [cacophony of disagreement]

Me: Interesting question!

Frank: Very interesting question.

Barbara: It's totally plausible that someone would do something that would qualify as shibari without knowing the Japanese artform

Me: Yeah, and they might also have seen things about it but not know the name of it

Chatting during shibari

Adam: Does it involve talking?

Everyone: No, not necessarily

Adam: God Dammit. Agh, I thought it might be... talking using some prop or something

Barbara: For me it always involves talking, but it's...

Adam: One doesn't have to?

Barbara: It's just 'cause I don't stop talking

[laughter]

Adam: And it doesn't involve betting markets in any way?

Everyone: No

How technologically advanced is shibari equipment?

Adam: Ok. Is the object technologically difficult to make?

Everyone: No

One guy: Yes

Everyone: What? No it isn't!

Adam: Is it only available in an industrialised economy?

Everyone: No

That one guy again: Yes!

Everyone: NO!!!

The guy: No, you're right, I'm sorry... But it is difficult to make

George: Every object is difficult to make!

Barbara: Maybe you're confused about what shibari is

Ed: Yeah, you should be up there with Adam

Adam: Would it have been available before industrialisation?

Everyone: Yes!

Adam: Ok. Um... is it a stick?

Everyone: It's not a stick

No cheap tricks allowed

Adam: I feel like I'm gonna get close to covering everything...

Me: I feel like we were very close just now, when you were like "Well what could this object be?"

Adam: Ok so the object is important. It's... before industrialisation... Does it begin with a letter before-

Everyone: No, no, we're not doing that. N/A

Adam: Ok so it starts with an N and an A...

[laughter]

What is this dang object?

Adam: Ok... so... is the object artificially pigmented?

Everyone: Can be, but not necessarily

Adam: Is it commonly painted?

Everyone: No

Adam: Is it commonly dyed?

Everyone: Yes

Adam: Ok, is it something that it's very common to dye in other purposes?

Everyone: Yeah

Adam: Does it involve a vegetable, of some kind?

Everyone: ...No?

Adam: Does it involve a plant?

Everyone: [confusion about what 'involve' means]

George: The object can have... some relation to a plant

Me: eehhh, that's more confusing than helpful. We already said that it can be biologically derived

Adam: But it would have been available before industrialisation?

Everyone: Yeah

Adam: So it's got to be something that is... around. Is it something that requires human modification to make into the form we know and love?

Everyone: Yes

Adam: Uh.. does this processing require specialised skill?

Everyone: Yeah, some skill for sure

Adam: Would I be able to do it? Like, without training?

Everyone: Probably not

Ed: On a long enough time horizon you'd figure it out, but the answer is basically no

Adam: Like, you throw me in with the tools to make it and say "come out in an hour", could I...

Everyone: No, probably not

Adam: But other people would be able to make it in an hour?

Everyone: Yeah, with the right skills

It’s not a weapon

Adam: Does it involve a weapon of any kind?

Everyone: No.

George: How creative are you allowed to-

Everyone: The answer's no

What shape is the object?

[long pause]

Adam: Well... does anyone else have any questions?

Barbara: You're asking such good questions though!

Ed: Yeah you're doing a good job

Danielle: I think you should ask more questions about the shape of the object

Everyone: Oh, great suggestion

Adam: Ok, is it spherical?

Everyone: No

Adam: Is it cylindrical?

Everyone: Yyeeaahh, sort of, yeah.

Adam: So it's not a pure cylinder but it's cylindrical-ish?

Everyone: Yeah

Adam: Is it an ovaloid?

Everyone: No.

Adam: Is it an ellipsoid?

Everyone: No

Adam: Is it uh... hmm... But it's longer than it is wide?

Everyone: Yes!!!

[scattered applause, we're close now]

Adam: Is it a plank of wood?

Everyone: No!!!

Barbara: It still isn't that!

Frank: No, his previous guess was stick

Adam: Yeah, a plank of wood requires processing and I couldn't make it... like it fits a lot of the other questions

Barbara: No you're right, that's fair, I'm convinced. It is a plank of wood.

Where is the object?

Adam: Could I find it inside a building or outside a building?

Everyone: Yes...

Adam: Wait. I mean. Ok, can you find it in a bathroom?

Everyone: Not really

Adam: Can you find it in a kitchen?

Everyone: Probably not

Adam: Can you find it lying on the ground?

Everyone: Yeah possibly

Adam: Is it something that people commonly use?

Everyone: Yeah

Adam: Is it something that people would pick up if they saw it lying there?

Everyone: Nah

It’s really not a weapon

Adam: Is it something that is dangerous at all?

Everyone: Can be, but not especially

Adam: Is any part of it sharp?

Everyone: No

Adam: Can any part of it fragment?

Everyone: [???]

Adam: Like, is it brittle?

Everyone: No

Adam: So it's firm?

Everyone: No

Adam: Is it flexible?

Everyone: Yes!!

Adam: Ok! Is it a pool noodle?

Everyone: [laughter]

Adam: Which is cylindrical, flexible, and organic, dyed but not painted...

Everyone: No, we're so proud of you, you're doing great

Me: But we did say "pre-industrial"

Pinning down the object

Adam: Ok ok. Is it a solid?

Everyone: Yes

Adam: Is it any of the solid hybrids, like a colloid or a gel?

Everyone: No

Adam: Does it retain its shape after being bent?

Everyone: Uh... yes?

Adam: So it doesn't spring back with any force?

Everyone: No, it doesn't spring back

Adam: Ok... so... Is it Japanese in origin, or is it found around the world?

Everyone: [assorted contradictory statements]

Me: The origin of the practice is Japan, but the origin of the object is all over

Adam: Is the object put on a person?

Everyone: Yes!

Adam: Is the object... um... is the object rope?

Everyone: YES!!

[scattered applause]

Me: The object is rope!

Adam: Ok!

Me: Now bring it home

Bringing it home?

Adam: Are things hung upon the rope?

Everyone: Uuuuummmmmm. Ambiguous? No.

Adam: Is the rope itself... does the rope look good?

Everyone: Yes!

Adam: Ok! Is this putting-on... a mark of esteem?

Everyone: No?? ???

[laughter]

Adam: So the object is a rope, and you're putting the rope on somebody

Everyone: Yes!

Adam: You're... putting rope on somebody!

Everyone: Yeah!

Adam: Is that... is that not the practice?

Everyone: No, no, it is, it is!

[confused cheering. Are we done?]

We’re not done

Chris: But, no, come on, there's more to it!

Ed: You're missing something critical!

Chris: You're so close!

Adam: Ok. Do you... hang someone?

Everyone: [strongly conflicting opinions]

Barbara: Only if you're doing it extremely wrong

Adam: Ok. But you can tie knots?

Everyone: YES!

Adam: Ok! Do you tie... is it a bracelet of some-

Everyone: No!

Adam: So it's not an adornment of any kind...

Everyone: Well...

Where on the body?

Adam: Is it put on your neck?

Chris: No

Danielle: Well, can be...

Adam: On your head?

Everyone: Can be

Adam: On a limb?

Everyone: Yeah

Adam: It's on a limb

Me: Not exclusively

Adam: On an arm?

Everyone: Can be

Adam: On a leg?

Everyone: Can be

Adam: On... uh... I've run out of limbs...

What does it mean?

Adam: Ok, it's rope, you put it on somebody, it's Japanese in origin... does it... signify something?

Everyone: Not really

Adam: Hmm. Do you tie the rope in a loop?

Everyone: ...Yeah??

Adam: I'm wondering, is it the casting of ropes upon people, like uh...

Chris: It's not a lasso, no

Frank: I like the idea of shibari as, like, a carnival game...

Barbara: I'm unclear on what the win condition is here...

Ed: I feel like there is a really important component that we haven't got yet

Everyone: Yeah, when he gets that component, he’s won

Are people into shibari?

Adam: Hmm... Did you find yourself fired by enthusiasm to do it upon being told about it?

Several people: Yes

Me: Personally no, but...

[laughter]

Adam: So it has mixed appeal?

Barbara: That is absolutely correct

Can one shibari... too hard?

Adam: Is it um, does it involve the tying of knots?

Everyone: YES

Adam: Ok. Are there knots that are peculiar to shibari?

Everyone: yeah

Adam: Is the learning of knots, or the tying of knots upon other people the important part?

Everyone: Uh... yes?

Adam: Do you tie someone up and they attempt to escape?

Everyone: Uh, not necessarily, but like, often.

Me: Yes is closer than no, I think

Adam: Ok, you tie rope on someone. Do you have to use some sort of special rope for it? Can you use any rope?

Barbara: You can use any rope, but some are better than others

Adam: So you wouldn't want to use any rough ropes, or...

Danielle: No, you do, that's actually preferred

Adam: You prefer rough ropes?

Chris: Some do

Frank: It depends

Danielle: Natural fibers tend to be rougher

Adam: Does it chafe?

Danielle: It can, but ideally not

Adam: Would you do it even if you were injured in the process of doing it?

Frank: No

Barbara: You would not want that to happen generally

Adam: Uh... Does it look cool?

Everyone: Yes!!

Origami?

Adam: So you're tying knots that look cool... is it like an origami for knots?

Everyone: [confused disagreement]

Ed: It's not about the knots

Chris: It's totally about the knots!

Frank: It's all about the cones...

Adam: Like, in origami you fold paper in ways that look cool, maybe you tie knots in ways that look cool?

Everyone: [loud disagreement]

Diagnosing the problem

[long long pause]

Chris: Ask the question in your heart!

Adam: ...Neckties?

Everyone: No?

Barbara: I keep thinking "But, he already has it", and then he asks a question that makes me say "No, he doesn't have it at all"

Frank: I think there's a question you want to ask, but you're not...

Everyone: Yeah

Chris: Yeah, ask the question that you don't want to ask

Danielle: I don't think he has the question...

Adam: Would it cause any gratification in someone?

Everyone: Yes!

Adam: Would it... Would it cause sexual gratification?

Everyone: Yes!!

Adam: Is it a practice... under the category of kink?

Everyone: Yes!!!

Adam: Is it tying somebody up for bondage purposes?

Everyone: YEAH!!! [Pandemonium, hollering, applause, Adam is lifted above the cheering crowd]

After the hearty congratulations were done, I wandered off, elated from the experience, and I bumped into a group of friends.

"Friends!" I said, "I just had the funniest experience. This guy didn't know what 'shibari' was, so we-"

"Shibari?" a friend interjected, "What is that, like, a Jewish building?"