BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Girls: do you care if guys fantasize about raping you?

 
 
Rage
11:29 / 28.09.03
Somewhat inspired by the abuse/assault thread.

The other day I was wondering if anyone could have a thought that would make me uncomfortable, when it suddenly dawned on me that if someone had a thought about raping me I would probably feel a little disturbed if I were to know about it.

Wondered if this made me thought policey.

As long as the pedophiles don't touch the little boys, is it not ok for them to enagage in fantasies about sticking their dicks up Little Greggy? You can go anywhere with your mind, so why not go everywhere? To say that there are areas of your mind that are not ok to explore seems a bit oppressive to me.

Yet for some reason, even if Eric Smitty wasn't to lay a finger on me, I probably wouldn't want him to indulge in fantasies about raping me. Would I say that these thoughts were "wrong?" Of course not, but they would make me uncomfortable.

Curious if this is something to get over.
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
12:04 / 28.09.03
I appreciate that given the title of this thread it is largely aimed at the women here, but I would like to make a few points to refine the debate.

Firstly, it seems that what you're asking largely boils down to the question of whether there is such a thing as immorality in thought, or just in deed.
Certainly extended - or obsessive - fantasies could be unhealthy and lead to unwarranted behaviour, but I think that the vast majority of people - and not just men - are able to disassociate fantasy from real life.

To answer the abstract honestly, and potentially put myself in the firing line, no, I cannot convince myself that thoughts of sexual fantasy are inherently bad per se. Any fantasy I have remains just that, since it is - by definition - complete fiction. With respect to your abstract again, you say "What if they don't lay a finger on you, and they just want to explore their imagination?". Is an exploration of your own imagination - regardless of the form it takes - necessarily a bad thing? And if you have rape fantasies with regards to somebody you know, and said person becomes aware of this, should you make an effort to cease those thoughts?
 
 
Rage
12:18 / 28.09.03
You're reiterating my post. We agree. If there's anything I'm "for" it's freethought. (c)

Was just pondering. Is feeling uncomfortable if someone has a rape fantasy about me a societal program that I needed to delete? Does it made sense for me to accept my discomfort and the free thoughts of others? Or should I work on deprogramming myself from discomfort related to thoughts?
 
 
Cat Chant
13:30 / 28.09.03
Was just pondering. Is feeling uncomfortable if someone has a rape fantasy about me a societal program that I needed to delete? Does it made sense for me to accept my discomfort and the free thoughts of others? Or should I work on deprogramming myself from discomfort related to thoughts?

My own knee-jerk reaction is that

(a) if their fantasy is allowable, your discomfort should be allowable, surely? (That is, I think it makes total sense to accept your discomfort and the free thoughts of others: in fact, I think this is crucial. To everything.)

(b) rape fantasies are more likely to be implicated in societal programs that should be deleted than your or my potential discomfort at the thought that someone we know derives pleasure from the thought of hurting us.

Having said which, fantasy not only doesn't map onto reality in the sense of not being acted it, it's also - at least in Freudian terms - a complicated set of projections and identifications: it's quite possible that someone who fantasizes about raping... I feel really uncomfortable discussing this in terms of you, Rage, sorry, so I'm going to say "me"... is actually partially identifying with me, or is using the scenario to explore hir feelings about all manner of things that have no inherent connection to the 'manifest content' of the fantasy.

The thing that I guess stands out in this scenario is how has the fantasee** found out about the fantasy? Because telling someone that you fantasize about raping them is likely to be a pretty aggressive thing in itself and I don't think you can entirely separate the abstract question "would it bother me if I found out" from the circumstances in which one might find out.

**I know that's not a word.
 
 
w1rebaby
15:42 / 28.09.03
Can you distinguish between

- being disturbed because that person thinks that thing; and

- being disturbed at the potential danger that that thought represents?

The latter seems quite sensible. The former seems peculiar, but I think we are disturbed by other people's thoughts because of the assumption that there may be a connection to physical action, which may be an instinctual thing or to do with basic assumptions about other people's psychology that it is hard to live without. I don't think it's social.

How rational it is to be disturbed by someone's thoughts seems to me to be more to do with whether you've judged the risk correctly. Like Deva says, the circumstances are significant, as further evidence (or not) of the risk - why would anyone tell you that?

Your judgements on this are likely to be influenced by society. In the paedophile case, there's a social assumption that anyone who has ever had fantasies about paedophilia is automatically dangerous that I don't think is justified by clinical data etc (though it's going to be almost impossible to collect clinical data on how many people actually have had such fantasies).
 
 
gravitybitch
16:00 / 28.09.03
Looks like I got here too late - fridgemagnet very succinctly summarized most of my thoughts on the subject.

The only thing I have to add is that there may also be a little bit of identification on the part of the subject of the fantasy - lots of people are really uncomfortable with the fact that they have fantasies of being raped (or kidnapped and subdued etc... in the best romance-novel style). This is also "highly inappropriate" according to social norms, but can be a lot of fun to play with if you have a leaning towards BDSM and have playmates you trust.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:39 / 28.09.03
It seems like "if I were to know about it" is key here. As Deva says, assuming that we are for the moment not considering telepathy or similar, the only way that one might know about another person's rape fantasies is if they tell you, or if they tell somebody else and that person were subsequently to tell you. Both of those possibilities seem to me to involve an event outside and beyond the act of thinking, and I woudl be hard pushed to describe those subsidiary actions as wise.

So - the question is perhaps more along the lines of "are there certain thoughts that one is entitled to be disturbed at the description of", to which the answer is presumably a qualified yes. To go back to Rage's first example, likewise if you were to tell a person that you fantasised about sex with children or, to make the issue less sexualised and less gendered, that you fantasised about murdering them, then it would be reasonable to expect the recipient of this information to question why you were sharing it and how they should react to this. This isn't necessarily being disconcerted by thoughts, but rather being disconcerted by actions.

The BDSM question is a broader one, I imagine - the implicit assumption there is that the action will involve consent, so presumably the fantasy does also, which presumablyalters the issue somewhat.
 
 
Char Aina
21:44 / 28.09.03
Both of those possibilities seem to me to involve an event outside and beyond the act of thinking, and I woudl be hard pushed to describe those subsidiary actions as wise.


there are instances where information could be revealed without consent of the person doing so; for example while drugged, or while talking in ones sleep.

if the information was not revealed purposefully, the act of revealing it is no longer as aggresive.
 
 
SMS
21:49 / 28.09.03
Firstly, it seems that what you're asking largely boils down to the would question of whether there is such a thing as immorality in thought, or just in deed.

I guess when I talk about morals, I mean something quite different from others, but to me, every immoral/moral distinction is always one of thought (or of mind), and is not necessarily even of the will. A seemingly spontaneous flash of hatred, or a spontaneous desire to rape someone is immoral. Perpetuating them with an act of will (like saying to yourself "I want to rape her. I want to rape her,..." is more immoral, and intensifying the thoughts with the deed is even moreso.

I don't think it follows from this that we ought to police thought in the strict sense of using the legitimate violence of the state.

It might follow that we ought to discourage this kind of thought, as we discourage racist thoughts. As far as what it means to fantasize about raping someone, I suppose that's a matter for the scientists to decide. What exactly does 'fantasy' mean? The dictionary I checked doesn't mention anything about desire or pleasure, but I usually associate one of these with the term.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
22:04 / 28.09.03
I think we all have a responsibility to police our own thoughts. Is it really healthy to allow your mind to travel where ever it wants? Isn't it entirely possible to desensitize yourself to the more negative possibilities inherant in your fantasies?

I say this because of a teenage memory. When I was 15-16, I was at odds with one of the more popular girls at school. She'd torment me in the usual ways, leading to a great deal of resentment on my part. The problem was, my 15-year-old-male-hormones were unaware of how much my head disliked her. She was hot.

So my dislike of her melded with my physical attraction. I would have fantasies where she would physically assault me (she never did this in real life) and I would be forced to push her to the ground, with sexual results.

In my mind, the sexual acts were consentual. I wasn't having rape fantasies per se, but after doing some instrospection, I realized that the core emotion of those fantasies was a desire to control her, to shut that bitch up.

So while the fantasy acts were consensual... I decided that at a deeper level, they were rape fantasies. So I forced myself to stop having them. I was disturbed at the route my mind was taking to deal with my resentment to her. I also didn't want to have these fantasies long enough for my mind to allow itself to discard the mythical consensual aspects, and more straight into full on rape. Becuase once that happened, would it not result in a desire to rape? A temptation that 10, 15 or 20 years from now would wear down my moral constraints?
 
 
Sobek
22:56 / 28.09.03

When people complain to me of problems with shyness or confidence, I often advise them to imagine raping the people that they interact with. It seems to help them.
 
 
SMS
23:35 / 28.09.03
Sobek, I am curious about the context. Is this part of your profession?
 
 
Sobek
00:20 / 29.09.03
Nah. Just helping out, not professional. Not yet, anyway.

Actually, I think that I got the idea from Michael Bertiaux's VOUDUN GNOSTIC WORKBOOK. But I read that book like 12 years ago, so I am not sure.
 
 
LVX23
05:52 / 30.09.03
I generally believe there is a distinction between thought and action. However, the thought may betray future action, as mentioned here, as well as past traumas and behavioral issues. I personally would seriously question the individual that had sexuality and violence so tightly bound, especially if they imagined me in the middle.

I don't believe rape is valid in a "civilized" society (totally loaded word, I know, but bear with me), yet I fully acknowledge that the evolution of sexual morality has moved far more quickly than the poor humans fighting eons of evolution and instinct. Our own social evolution compels us to accept the will of those around us and respect their safety and well-being. But in the animal world, human sexuality is indeed the aberation. Any judgement is only an ephemeral moral imposition on the MO of DNA.
 
 
diz
11:33 / 30.09.03
I think we all have a responsibility to police our own thoughts.

i think that's a really, really unhealthy road to start travelling.

Is it really healthy to allow your mind to travel where ever it wants?

yes, absolutely and without question.

there is never any reason whatsoever to feel guilty about thoughts or feelings or desires you may have. the question of whether or not they are healthy desires likely to make you and others happy is separate from whether or not those desires are "immoral" (of course, i'm really opposed to the idea of morality/immorality in general).

but, to stay on topic, it's not only stupid (because thoughts and feelings aren't something you can choose to have or not have), but also unproductive. if you think there's a desire that's unhealthy for you to be dwelling on, and you would like to live without it, throwing guilt into the mix on top of everything else you're feeling makes things needlessly complicated and ten times harder to fix.

complex fantasies, i think, are tangled packets of multiple desires, and only by really dealing with them head-on do you ever get to untangle them.

Isn't it entirely possible to desensitize yourself to the more negative possibilities inherant in your fantasies?

i suppose it's a risk, but in my experience, a small one. i'm no stranger to weird/violent/strange fantasies, but over time, as i've worked through them and become more comfortable with (and less judgemental towards) the fact that i did in fact have them, the more free i've been to explore the roots of them, and by untangling the roots of the desires in question, they have tended to lose most, if not all, of their grip. i've certainly gained a much deeper understanding of my own desires by exploring them, and a lot more self-control in any case.

---------

however, i think the way these desires are expressed to others is also a separate issue, and i think that's where a lot of discomfort comes into play. whether or not it's healthy for you to explore your own rape fantasies if you have them (and i think it is) within the context of your own mind, realistically it's important to understand and respect the delicacy of explaining these things to other people. saying "hi, Suzie, last night, when i was masturbating, i was fantasizing about raping you, both vaginally and anally. it's been really healthy and productive for me psychologically" may not be the most wise course of action, out of context, though in the right context, such as in a consensual BDSM relationship, it can be very healthy in a kinky sort of way to discuss these things with someone who's comfortable with such discussions.

it can be very weird and disconcerting to find out that someone has any kind of very detailed and complex fantasies about you, especially if they involve taboo subjects like non-consensual sex or pedophilia or what-have-you. to flip this whole discussion on its head, i've had a number of people confess to me that they frequently fantasized about me raping them. when it's come up in the context of an existing relationship, i've generally been receptive, but in at least one case, it made me feel really squidgy. the boy in question was a friend of mine. he was someone i might have been interested in in the right circumstances, but he had extremely detailed fantasies about me getting drunk, becoming violent and abusive with him and ultimately raping him. there were a lot of reasons why i was uncomfortable with it to begin with, but it got really weird when he started engineering circumstances wherein he tried to get me drunk and provoke me into getting angry at him (which, presumably, would lead to me abusing and ultimately raping him, i suppose). i was uncomfortable to some extent with the fantasy anyway, but i became extremely uncomfortable with the way it was expressed.

basically, i think that he had every "right" to have whatever fantasies he wanted to have about me. however, at the same time, i think it was perfectly OK for me to be uncomfortable with it. under normal circumstances, i would be inclined to keep dialogue open about the whole thing in an effort to help my friend come to grips with his own desires and me to come to grips with my discomfort. however, the way he expressed his desires made it impossible for me to do this while staying within my own personal boundaries with respect to my discomfort.

sorry, kind of got rambling there for a bit.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:55 / 30.09.03
I think a significant number of girls in their early to mid teens fantasise about being raped. Obviously it doesn't mean they actually want to be raped because no one does. It's more an expression of their frustration, trying to work through your sexuality in your head is difficult and it manifests in your thought in a lot of different ways. Likewise quite a few people probably fantasise about raping someone for the same reasons. Fantasy does not necessarily equate with reality and particularly aggressive fantasy. It's the translation from fantasy to actual that you have to be wary of.

I personally would seriously question the individual that had sexuality and violence so tightly bound, especially if they imagined me in the middle.

Really? I wouldn't question that individual because I think that sexuality and violence are often bound together. Why else would the term 'make up sex' be part of human discourse? People work their aggression out through sex, it's recognised by our culture, the stormy and violent relationship. We are constantly presented with violent but sexy characters (James Bond anyone?) and yet we're not expected to tie sex and violence up together?

Quite frankly I'd question anyone here who didn't link the two.
 
 
LVX23
18:13 / 30.09.03
Anna wrote:
I wouldn't question that individual because I think that sexuality and violence are often bound together. Why else would the term 'make up sex' be part of human discourse?

Make up sex is for after an argument. I don't see how you've extended this to include violence. How many couples do you know who beat the shit out of each other and then have make up sex? And if so, do you consider them functional?

And yes, it is quite common in our televised society to combine sex & violence (esp in America - we love our death and we hate our sex, but secretly we love our sex too). But when James Bond is shooting 50 hired goons, is it the machismo of the man that gets you hot, or the blood spilling from the bodies? Do you see the difference?
 
 
SMS
05:22 / 01.10.03
I think we all have a responsibility to police our own thoughts.

i think that's a really, really unhealthy road to start travelling.

I don't believe any other road exists. Policing your own thoughts means excercising your will to produce certain kinds of thoughts and excluding other kinds of thoughts, but isn't that exactly what we do when we stop ourselves from thinking racial slurs toward another, or, for that matter, wonder whether we ought to be disturbed by something.

Is it really healthy to allow your mind to travel where ever it wants?

yes, absolutely and without question.

there is never any reason whatsoever to feel guilty about thoughts or feelings or desires you may have. the question of whether or not they are healthy desires likely to make you and others happy is separate from whether or not those desires are "immoral" (of course, i'm really opposed to the idea of morality/immorality in general).


I don't understand why recognizing something as immoral means that we ought to then experience guilt about it. It only seems to imply that we ought to make reasonable efforts to stop.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:45 / 02.10.03
Make up sex is for after an argument. I don't see how you've extended this to include violence

Your definition of violence seems to be limited. Couples often have violent arguments, when you yell at someone that is an aggressive and possibly violent response to them, that doesn't mean that their relationship is unhealthy. Everything in moderation- bottling feelings up is just as unhealthy as hitting someone and you shouldn't do either.

when James Bond is shooting 50 hired goons, is it the machismo of the man that gets you hot, or the blood spilling from the bodies?

That's not the point. We link a man who commits violent acts constantly with his talent in the sack. The actions are not directly linked- the blood and his machismo don't necessarily get anyone off- but violence and sex are definitely connected through his personality. Thus to an extent they go hand in hand. That's because they're both assumed to be instinctive, primal acts.

I don't believe any other road exists. Policing your own thoughts means excercising your will to produce certain kinds of thoughts

Hang on. You're assuming that immoral action starts in thought but I have to disagree. Why shouldn't we be allowed to do things in our imaginations that we can't do elsewhere. You're condemning all those teenage girls who think about sexual acts as immoral because by your reckoning they actually desire to be raped and that desire is surely as immoral as imagining commiting the act of rape upon someone else (at least in a Western Christian frame).

I don't understand why recognizing something as immoral means that we ought to then experience guilt about it. It only seems to imply that we ought to make reasonable efforts to stop.

Because why would you stop commiting an immoral act without some type of personal response to it? A sociopath recognises that something is wrong and continues to do it regardless but only because they have no emotional reaction towards it. The rest of us have an emotive connection to an act we perceive as wrong- usually guilt but occasionally anger or upset.
 
 
diz
11:30 / 02.10.03
And yes, it is quite common in our televised society to combine sex & violence (esp in America - we love our death and we hate our sex, but secretly we love our sex too). But when James Bond is shooting 50 hired goons, is it the machismo of the man that gets you hot, or the blood spilling from the bodies? Do you see the difference?

i see the distinction you're trying to make, but it doesn't hold up, because we perceive machismo in the man in this aspect specifically because he kills people. not to get too Freudian, but guns/knives/whatever are phallic, and the blood spilling from the bodies is evidence of a very primal and very violent and very sexual penetration with that phallus.

i think that's a really, really unhealthy road to start travelling.

I don't believe any other road exists.


yikes. pardon me for saying so, but if that's true, you need serious help...

Policing your own thoughts means excercising your will to produce certain kinds of thoughts and excluding other kinds of thoughts, but isn't that exactly what we do when we stop ourselves from thinking racial slurs toward another

who is this "we?" i don't do that. i don't even come close to doing that. all sorts of ugly thoughts pop up from time to time. it's part of being human.

, or, for that matter, wonder whether we ought to be disturbed by something.

this is a different case, to some extent, and in any case, though i do often wonder if i should be disturbed by something, i recognize that that kind of speculation is pretty useless. what does "should" even mean in this case? it's a perfectly useless word here. if i'm not disturbed by something, than i'm not disturbed by it. end of story. being disturbed isn't really a moral judgement, it's just an irrational emotional reaction that floats up to the surface or doesn't float up to the surface when exposed to a certain stimulus. there's no point in making a big deal about it. the idea that you "should" be disturbed by certain things (and the related implication that there's something defective about you if you don't feel that way) is a bunch of cultural baggage we'd largely be better off without, IMHO. at best it has no value, and at worst it's counterproductive - all this time and angst wondering if you're a bad person because you didn't cry at your mom's funeral or whatever is just wasted. you just didn't cry. that's it. observe, move on.

I don't understand why recognizing something as immoral means that we ought to then experience guilt about it. It only seems to imply that we ought to make reasonable efforts to stop.

i don't necessarily understand it either, but that's what happens. people who find themselves doing something they consider immoral tend to experience feelings of guilt. it's not necessarily logical or productive, but that's the psyche for you.

which, in a way, is my point. things surface in the psyche more or less of their own accord, often without rhyme or reason. you can't fight it, because fighting it makes you think about it more. the old "don't think of a pink elephant right now" shtick and a basic fact of the operation of the mind that's recognized by most branches of psychology and most meditative traditions as well. the best thing to do is acknowledge that the thought is there and move on, not to actively try to suppress it, avoid it, or whatever.
 
 
LVX23
15:23 / 02.10.03
Your definition of violence seems to be limited.

Not limited, just literal.

Violence: Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.

Saying an argument of words is violent, to my mind, is like saying a VW is sexy.
 
 
angel
15:49 / 02.10.03
LVX23 - words can be just as violent and devestating as a physical action. Men and Women who have been seriously verbally abused would certainly think so.

Have you really never been in an arguement with someone where you are getting very very emotional or nasty and it feels like you are literally throwing/stabbing/cutting/ripping with the words you are using. When things get that heated, it certainly feels violent, regardless of whether you are giving or receiving.
 
 
SMS
17:13 / 02.10.03
Me:I don't believe any other road exists. Policing your own thoughts means excercising your will to produce certain kinds of thoughts

Anna: Hang on. You're assuming that immoral action starts in thought but I have to disagree.

Well, I do believe that, but I don't think it's a necessary assumption for my point, which is that everybody polices hir thoughts, even, I believe, dizfactor. And the reason I think that is that many of our thoughts are not spontaneous, but are caused by an act of the will. For instance, I can say, "think of Fred Flintstone," and you may not be able to help but think of Fred Flintstone, but I can also say, "think about Fred Flintsone intently for a few hours," and suddenly, you have to make a decision. You might be at work, and you have to decide whether to contemplate Fred Flintstone or to concentrate on your job. It isn't a difficult decision, but it is an act of will, and, therefore, a kind of policing of your own thoughts. Here's another example: right now, I'm trying to think of a coherent and intelligible way to express myself. Some thoughts are coming into my mind that are neither, but I am turning my attention towards the ones that are (relatively). In doing so, I am prohibiting a great deal of gibberish from entering my mind to begin with. I do the same thing with what I consider immoral thoughts or what I consider unhealthy thoughts. I don't feel guilty about them, but I turn my attention away from them. And if I were to stop doing this, then all my thoughts would be spontaneous thoughts, and I doubt I would be able to function in the world.

Fantasies about acts of violence
If these kinds of fantasies are neither moral nor immoral and neither healthy nor unhealthy, then I suppose it doesn't matter whether anyone police's them. But I think, even if most people disagree with me that some thoughts are immoral, I think most people here would agree that some thoughts are unhealthy, and I guess the only question is whether these fantasies are those kinds of thoughts.
 
 
diz
17:46 / 02.10.03
For instance, I can say, "think of Fred Flintstone," and you may not be able to help but think of Fred Flintstone, but I can also say, "think about Fred Flintsone intently for a few hours," and suddenly, you have to make a decision. You might be at work, and you have to decide whether to contemplate Fred Flintstone or to concentrate on your job. It isn't a difficult decision, but it is an act of will, and, therefore, a kind of policing of your own thoughts.

it's not an act of will to not think of Fred Flintstone at work unless you work at Hanna-Barbera or something. chances are, it just won't come up, and if it does come up, you will think of Fred Flintstone for a second or two until something else pushes its way up. thousands of random thoughts drift through people's heads all the time. it just happens.

as far as concentrating specifically on Fred Flintstone and not thinking of anything else is possible, and does constitute an active attempt to control your own thoughts to some extent. however, meditating on a fixed object and focusing your thoughts on it to the exclusion of all else is very hard and takes years of practice. it's not an everyday state of consciousness, and it pretty much rules out doing anything else, and so trying to avoid certain thoughts by focusing your mind on one kind of thought is hardly going to work to avoid "immoral" thoughts on any practical level. moreover, even advanced meditation masters of whatever tradition never really succeed at banishing all other thoughts, but they generally counsel against trying to fight unwanted thoughts when they do appear.

If these kinds of fantasies are neither moral nor immoral and neither healthy nor unhealthy, then I suppose it doesn't matter whether anyone police's them. But I think, even if most people disagree with me that some thoughts are immoral, I think most people here would agree that some thoughts are unhealthy,

not across-the-board, no. situationally, yes, but not universally.

and I guess the only question is whether these fantasies are those kinds of thoughts.

at the risk of getting too deeply into talking about my sex life...

there was a point in my life when i was having a lot of fantasies about my partner at the time having sex with someone else. lots of people have fantasies like this, and act on them, and they're fine. in my case, however, in my case it was all tied up in some deeply masochistic weird shit in my head and severe depression and self-esteem problems. i was particularly consumed with self-loathing at that point, and depressed, and in a really bad relationship, and i came to realize that these fantasies were really doing bad things to my head. they were unhealthy for me specifically, at that specific time in my life.

i didn't fight the thoughts when they came up, though i no longer acted on them in any way, and i worked on dealing with some problems i was having which were manifesting in these fantasies. eventually, once some things in my life were rearranged, i was able to work through the issues and my issues with sex and my self and my body and the unhealthy thought patterns lost their hold.

however, sitting there trying not to think about the fantasies would have had me spinning my wheels and most likely spiralling deeper into depression. moreover, i wouldn't say that fantasies involving your partner having sex with someone else are always, or even most often, unhealthy.

the same thing applies to rape fantasies. i know a lot of very normal, very healthy and happy people who have fantasies involving rape. many of them act on them in a safe, consensual BDSM-type context. that's totally fine and healthy.

obviously, some guy hiding in the parking garage waiting to jump some unwilling woman has a problem, but it's ridiculous to assume that everyone who has rape fantasies is that guy, or even incrementally on the road to someday becoming that guy. chances are that that guy has a lot of other issues which lead to his behavior. the idea that someone without any kind of major psychological issues who happens to fantasize about rape is going to magically become a rapist is absurd.
 
 
Ex
08:31 / 03.10.03
it can be very weird and disconcerting to find out that someone has any kind of very detailed and complex fantasies about you

I found this key. I further think it would be possible to have sexual fantasies that are completely consensual, but which totally go against everything the fantasised-about believes. For example, a fantasy about how I really want to give up my job and get impregnated by a misogynist logger. And all consensual sexual fantasy involves me willingly having sex with people who, in the normal run of things, I'm not going to be having sex with.
I'm not sure if I'm arguing that fantasy is an inherently disrespectful and selfish arena, but it's close.

So there are a few people I would not feel uncomfortable fantasising about me. Not because I fancy them, but because I think we share broadly similar ideas about what fantasy means, what sex means, and a fair dollop of what gender and a few other bits and bobs mean. I would thus be broadly unconcerned by their having non-consensual fantasies about me also (this leaves out how I 'know'). There's a level of shared understanding. Other people - who I know have totally different takes on what sex involves - having either consensual or non-consensual fantasies would unsettle me more.
Although, ultimately, if I don't find out and it doesn't adversely affect their behaviour towards me or others, it's their call.
 
 
Ex
12:15 / 03.10.03
Possibly that last line was too glib. The possibility of connections - both ways - between fantasy and real life behaviour is a huge debate, around which I have ambivalent feelings. So I thought I'd concentrate on my reaction, which floats on top of the ambivalence, raft-like.
 
 
LVX23
01:39 / 04.10.03
Angel wrote:
LVX23 - words can be just as violent and devestating as a physical action. Men and Women who have been seriously verbally abused would certainly think so.

I don't disagree with this at all. IMHO, words are far more powerful than most people acknowledge, and I do my best to chose mine well and not overuse the ones of greatest weight.

But I maintain that the violence inflicted by rape is of a different order than that inflicted by words. Similarly, an act of verbal abuse can never approximate an act of murder. And in the context of this thread, we've already stepped out of thought and into deed. Whether verbal or physical abuse, the deed has occured.

My original remark stands:I personally would seriously question the individual that had sexuality and violence so tightly bound, especially if they imagined me in the middle. And by "tightly bound" I mean in the for-real-psychopath-waiting-to-happen sort of way. Like cumming to RealTV or cutting each other during sex, these are the aberrations of associating sex and violence too closely .
 
 
diz
16:20 / 04.10.03
And by "tightly bound" I mean in the for-real-psychopath-waiting-to-happen sort of way. Like cumming to RealTV or cutting each other during sex, these are the aberrations of associating sex and violence too closely .

wait, what?

are you saying that anyone who engages in cutting or bloodplay is a "for-real-psychopath-waiting-to-happen"?

if so, color me extremely fucking offended.
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:29 / 04.10.03
I'm sure that LVX23 cannot mean that. After all, I am sure that they aware of BDSM in which sex is often deliberately intertwined with violent practices. I'm not sure how prevalent cutting (if that is to be considered extreme) is, but at a guess I'd say it was fairly mainstream BDSM behaviour. And, it hardly needs to be said, that the association of psychopathy with BDSM is tricky, at best.

Perhaps LVX23 intends a distinction between the consensual and non-consensual?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
17:23 / 04.10.03
This may have already been said, but surely it's not just girls who could 'mind' if they were aware some guy was fantasising about raping or, indeed, fucking them. There are a lot of boys out there who would feel incredibly threatened if they knew another boy was even checking out their ass, let alone entry into sexual fantasy or rape fantasy. And vice versa, for girls, and all those in between.

It seems clear to me that no matter what kind of moral code you're working with, whether you believe in 'policing' your thoughts or you're a free-thinking type, thought, and especially fantasy, is limitless in its capacity to exceed boundaries. Repression might just make those 'immoral' fantasies that much more difficult to dislodge -- and/or act on.

So it's the public or articulated-ness that might be a problem, no?

And the cutting thing is not even vaguely connected with 'violence', for me.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:47 / 04.10.03
So it's the public or articulated-ness that might be a problem, no?

Well the very process of revealing your fantasy to rape someone is surely where some kind of line needs to be drawn because articulating that want (non-consensually) becomes a verbally violent act? Until then it is only a violent thought and those are private.

I think we're having a problem with the word 'violent'. Our interpretation of an act as violent surely depends on the way we're using the word in a certain context. For instance cutting may not result from extreme force or aggression but it might be an intense act. Assuming that you, LVX23, are using the word in the former sense than I don't understand the consistency of your argument in this thread. You deny that words can be violent yet believe that a complicated sexual act is necessarily aggressive.

Harmful words in the long term can do just as much harm as physical abuse. They are often not treated as seriously yet words make up a significant part of our system of communication. Anyone telling you over again that they're going to rape you, without your consent and with your disgust, is raping your mind.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:14 / 05.10.03
(mod note - LVX23's position on cutting is not really the core of this discussion - if I were you, LVX23, I'd probably apologise for generalising on this one, and maybe start another thread about what is allowable in consensual sex. Then again, I have the tiny shrews to think about)

Well the very process of revealing your fantasy to rape someone is surely where some kind of line needs to be drawn because articulating that want (non-consensually) becomes a verbally violent act? Until then it is only a violent thought and those are private.

Way-ull...some kind of a line, yes. But does that necessarily mean *the* line? The first opposition to the idea was that x could reveal the fact that x fantasised about raping y while under the influence of drugs (which I'm not so sure makes it non-aggressive, but leave that aside). Ex has added the idea that, assuming a set of conditions are in place, it need not be an aggressive act for x to tell y that x has non-consent fantasies about y. I'd imagine that these conditions are probably pretty hard to create, but it seems possible that they might exist.

At which point, it becomes *on the balance of probabilities* a very bad idea to tell y, if you are x, that you fantasise about raping hir, because the balance of probabilities is that it will be seen as a dubious action. In a similar way, I can think of fairly few contexts outside psychiatry when it would be a good idea, to retrn to Rage's original post, for x to tell y about hir desire to have sex with children...
 
 
diz
14:24 / 05.10.03
At which point, it becomes *on the balance of probabilities* a very bad idea to tell y, if you are x, that you fantasise about raping hir, because the balance of probabilities is that it will be seen as a dubious action. In a similar way, I can think of fairly few contexts outside psychiatry when it would be a good idea, to retrn to Rage's original post, for x to tell y about hir desire to have sex with children...

i think, in general, articulating these sorts of desires really works best between people who are already in an established sexual relationship and already have a good idea about each other's fantasies and boundaries and whatnot. it can also work with somewhat more delicacy between close friends, especially if the friends in question are comfortable discussing intimate matters with you.

otherwise, yes, i could definitely see the act of revealing a non-consent fantasy to the object of one's "affections" as something of a violent, or at least very inappropriate, act.
 
 
Ex
15:54 / 08.10.03
Ex has added the idea that, assuming a set of conditions are in place, it need not be an aggressive act for x to tell y that x has non-consent fantasies about y.

Acxtually, not - I was going back to the original "would I mind the idea". The act of telling makes me much more nervous. I agree that x telling y would force y into a situation with x that y shouldn't have to be subjected to - and yes, personally it would unsettle me. Because the fantasist has shifted from 'someone who has fantasies' to 'someone who is trying to engage me in some reaction to their fantasies'.
Perhaps this need not be agressive, as such: perhaps x feels guilty, and wants permission/reassurance. But a lack of malice (or actual sexual intention) doesn't make it harmless - whether y gives or witholds 'permission', whether y minds or not, zie's already been made to enter into a kind of relationship-involving-sex with another person.
So, I feel moderately calm about the idea that people may have fantasies, but I can't think of any contexts (outside actual sexual relationships) in which I'd want to be told about it.
 
  
Add Your Reply