No, Yumejoshi Probably Doesn’t Transcend Objectification

May 28, 2025

I just read an article claiming that Yumejoshi narratives are highly distinct and transcendental compared to other fantasies, immune from the gazing-gazed dichotomy. This is completely crazy, totally bonkers, and utterly batshit for several reasons.

Yumejoshi narratives are typically produced by a kind of storytelling practice by girls (joshi) characterized by an adaptation of a historical or fictional story where those who engage in this practice, Yumejoshi, insert themselves into the stories and develop complex and usually fascinating storylines where they themselves enter a relationship with characters in these contexts. It is a more involved and active type of “fangirling” where the main activity of choice is narration. The article in question discusses a particular subset of Yumejoshi where the persona being “fangirled” on is leaning feminine.

I am not trying to express a non-understanding or dismissive curiosity toward this practice, in fact, I could totally see myself engaging in this if I enjoyed fiction a little bit more, generally speaking. However, it is strange to suggest that this type of fantasy transcends objectification.

The article begins with this epigraph: “She is ‘me’ but more courageous, she is ‘me’ but more unrestrained, she is ‘me’ but more loved by the world”. Literally three sections later, it states that “Who Yumejoshi love is not only fantasized and projected, but individual, authentic, and specific people”. It is, in fact, extremely hard for me to not read the epigraph as a passionate profession of unrestrained projection. By providing the supposed “groundedness” of these fantasies, the article goes on to claim that self/other relationships in Yumejoshi are “empathetic connections” and immune from unidirectional gaze. The argument used to support this claim is seemingly how the character who is being “fangirled” on possess subjectivity in the classical sense.

What?

It is definitely strange to claim a solitary form of narration can sustain an imaginary subjectivity of another person when it serves the narrator. However, it becomes unreasonable to say so when assuming people in bidirectional relationships objectify each other more or less. I agree that it is hard, if not impossible, to maintain a subjectivity in fantasy, especially of a (small) other. I also agree that most, if not all, relationships come with fantasies, and it is often what keeps a relationship running. It is not fair, however, to say that a unidirectional projection is not a fantasy of this kind.

However, I think there is a more subtle problem worth discussing here beyond the apparently outlandish theory. Part of what makes this theory sound plausible and even kind of sophisticated is its passionate distortion of psychoanalytic language. In addition, what made me so inclined to agree with it before thinking about it is how it sounds so very feminist. Yes, it would be nice if female fantasies of other woman can transcend the gazing-gazed dichotomy, but can they really? It would be nice if this unique narration originated from women is something structurally special, but is it really? There is an infinite number of feminism-sounding Frankensteins of philosophical jargon, but do they all make sense?

Do promise me, when we’re on the internet, that you will think before you write, think while you write, and avoid being blinded by sweet nothings.

This is a short-short article in a series of short-short opinion pieces. Ideas are of my own except when they are not.