Nearly thirty years ago, Donna Haraway began writing her famous essay published in 1985 as A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Feminism in 1980s. In its vision, argument, and detail, it resonates strongly with what today is called viral analysis and criticism. In what follows I'll briefly suggest how. First, essay was blasphemous, transgressive, and invasive, arguably all viral qualities. Its claims for liberatory promise of her cyborg - born as the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism in belly of beast of U.S. Star Wars dreams of a global New World Order - for making women's lives better did not sit well with all feminists or, I am sure, with all socialists (Haraway 1991b, 15 1). Even though she insisted that the cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity ... is oppositional . . . and completely without innocence . . . not reverent; . . . [does] not remember cosmos . . . [is] wary of holism, but needy of connection . . . [and] exceedingly unfaithful to . . . [its] origins - all qualities one might think required by a feminist politics and scholarship of day - she spoke powerfully to but also/or U.S. feminism at end of century (a risky business at any time, even for a cyborg) (151). Moreover, she engaged, if not embraced, what many who were concerned about human and especially gendered costs of technology of modernity saw as a profound threat. Zoe Sofoulis (2002, 101), a graduate student of then, gives insight into rippling quake essay caused: Whereas a standard feminist line on technology had been to equate it with abstract masculinist rationality, militarism, and rape of Earth, Haraway insisted on intimate physicality of our relations to nonhumans, and on . . . 'the pleasures of interface'; and, it should be added, with no guarantees for results that then might easily have been recognized as success. This blasphemy from within, her disinclination for either intellectual political purity, and her criticism of exclusionary and totalizing effects of feminism's identity politics and standpoint epistemology made manifesto and Haraway immediately controversial and, it seems to me, viral. Indeed, each word above, from her description of cyborg, is used today to describe viral (see, for instance, Pearson 1997; Cohen 201 1; Galloway and Thacker 2007). Finally, essay itself was promiscuous, not, surely, in sense of being random disorganized, but rather in diverse political, cultural, and disciplinary alliances and scope it effected and in giving license and encouragement to others inclined to follow. And OED on biological version of promiscuous offers following: Biol. Of a protein, organism, etc.: able to infect interact with, bind non-specifically to, a variety of hosts targets (notice or interact with). Moreover, it was precisely those elements of essay that were troubling for some that were at same time gifts to many others, disturbing feminist us: Haraway's poetic claim that cyborg 'gives us our ontology' captured imagination of many who were . . . starting to explore new identities and forms of social life and community made possible by Internet (Sofoulis 2002, 101). Her insistence, then and in all subsequent work, that there are no innocent positions, politically intellectually, and that pollution, boundary violation, and interfaces of all sorts - originary connectivity relationality, as she would call it later (biologist that she is) - are the name of game on planet Earth challenged leftist, feminist, and intellectual politics of day. In this, Haraway let us see that, in Sofoulis's words, complicity with 'the system' was not an unmentionable crime nor a paralyzing political embarrassment, but understood as something inevitable, which did not necessarily prevent further effective political work for justice, peace, and survival (2002, 101), risks and vulnerabilities to contrary notwithstanding. …