Desire is taken as a positive thing, which I agree with. But there's something uncomfortable and unnerving and evil about it as well that we tend to forget. Someone is an object of one's desire, and that is almost always in some way dehumanizing. You dissect them in your mind. There's a reason why “eye candy” is a little rapey, but this is done all the time — when “eye candy” is discussed, this dynamic is brought to light. This isn't to say that everyone has a desire for rape, but rather that we think about people in ways they often do not and cannot “consent” to.

I would say that freedom of thought is fundamental, that we should be able to think about other people in whatever way we want, that action is the only arbiter of morality. But when you discover you are an object of desire, it can feel violating, especially if that desire is not reciprocated. In some way, you learn that another person — perhaps someone you knew previously — has done things to you — only that the “you” in question is a symbolic you, not the real you.

Since almost all of us experience desiring other people, there's unspoken common knowledge of what those “things” might be. This should be a cause for mutual understanding and non-judgment. But it's hard to separate this from systemic power differentials that people have, specifically along gender lines. When you are the desirer, it grants you power in this mental, symbolic way. We must understand this when reckoning with the fact that men are expected to make the first move on women. It is a predator-prey dynamic. Queer relationships expose this — when a straight man is asked out by another man, there is a shock that they are the one being desired. They lose power, they feel violated. This is a basis of the gay panic defense.

I think about James Charles and how there of course was outcry over his alleged pursuit of underage boys, but there was also a disgust around his mere desire towards straight men. You probably can't relate if you weren't deep in the drama around this back in like 2019 but just trust me that this was a thing okay. I think this disgust reveals the dynamic here. Desire is not really controllable, it's not like James Charles chose to have a thing for straight men. But the act of desiring is somehow violating?

Of course we should acknowledge that women are people too and in fact desire others. But if this dynamic was to come to light — like by women asking out men — women would not only be the prey but the predator. It would be an acknowledgement that women are agents in themselves. It would also be an acknowledgement that men can be objectified. They lose power in the minds of women.

I think what is so comforting in relationships between men (and I assume between women) is that this dynamic doesn't exist. There can be mutual understanding that both parties desire one another. There is shame and vulnerability in that, but vulnerability only comes when pretense is removed. There is evil that can be accepted via empathy — we all participate in this evil of mental objectification.

When I say “objectification,” I don't mean that desire necessarily requires that the object of desire to lose their humanity. But rather, what I was saying before, the act of desiring is an act that cannot be resisted by the object of desire. Consent is not needed for these thoughts. And these thoughts may not be actions that affect you — thought is a one-party game after all — but they do affect the symbolic you. When the action of desire is revealed, this dynamic is also revealed.

I guess “desire” is not the right word to use, maybe “fantasize”? I think fantasy and desire go hand and hand, because understanding what you desire necessarily requires the mental enactment of that desire — fantasy.

I've become less disgusted and ashamed by sex, romance, and desire recently. I hope we can arrive at a point where we all understand and forgive each other for what is a natural, pleasurable, fulfilling, and deeply human experience.

On asexuality and aromanticism — I don't think that this is a flaw in the same way that I don't think that homosexuality is a flaw. I think it's a different way of experiencing the world. And ultimately, I think we all still experience desire. Because desire is not just lust for sex, it is reaching across the void of the unknowable to connect with someone else who is experiencing the same weird thing called life that you are. Romantic and sexual feelings might not be associated with this desire in some circumstances, but I think we all experience it. Romantic and sexual feelings are not needed to experience love.

To conclude this sorta pretentious rant, I think back to this part of The Hunger by ContraPoints that impacted me so greatly. Justine, a stand-in for Natalie, says:

Erotic love is not aimless pleasure-seeking. It's a longing for connection, for recognition, for wholeness; to traverse the lonely void that separates us from each other, to liberate repressed energy, to feel alive. Love is not "the flesh", it's not "temptation". It's nothing like the urge to punch someone in the face, it's nothing like being an alcoholic. It's not a craving, it's a yearning. "The desire for reunion with our other half", Aristophanes.