As I understand it, the “antisocial thesis” refers to the notion that queerness exists outside of societal expectations and sociality, first postulated by Leo Bersani in the 1995 book Homos. (Caserio et al. 819) Naturally, there are many different ways to read this, with some readings being that queerness exists in opposition to mainstream society, others saying that it should redefine mainstream society, and some saying the two shouldn’t be compared.
When Rodríguez speaks about “politically incorrect erotic desires” (Rodríguez 342) she uses fantasies as a way to discuss internalized ways in which society affects the desires and needs of oppressed individuals, specifically addressing the nuance behind how our sexual identities are formed.
This relates to the “antisocial thesis” discussed in the PMLA document because our fantasies are mostly antisocial and exist within niche queer communities (such as BDSM and various communities under that umbrella) that organize under the guise of discreteness when not in the position of activism/pride. An example that she brings up is “daddy play”, in order to highlight that people argue that it “does not condone, engender, or map easily onto actual accounts of coercive incestuous relations” (Rodríguez 342)—this method of looking at problematic fetishes provides agency for the consenting individuals involve while also detangling the systematic pressures that created these desires in the first place. She brings up many different points that argue either for or against it, saying that certain fetishes (another example being race/power relations and their role in BDSM play) have inherent contexts no matter what the intent, but ultimately ending on the notion that “everyday trauma constitutes our lives.” (Rodríguez 345)
REFERENCES
Caserio, Robert L., et al. “The Antisocial Thesis in Queer Theory.” PMLA, vol. 121, no. 3, 2006, pp. 819–828. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25486357.
Rodríguez, J. M. “Queer Sociality and Other Sexual Fantasies.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, vol. 17 no. 2, 2011, pp. 331-348. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/437415.