Hmm. Not on whether or not it’s immoral, no. I would say that, if you need to look for justification for your fantasies, then they’re immoral - a point that lissener made earlier. They may not be very immoral, they may have no practical consequences in the real world, they may not harm anyone apart from yourself - but they’re still on the negative side of the line. How far over the line they are will indeed depend on the content, of course - a thought about injuring a real person is worse than a thought about injuring a fantasy character, but they’re both bad.
However, this is not what the thread was about originally. The issue is not “What sort of thoughts are immoral?”, but “Can thoughts be moral or immoral in the first place?” I personally don’t believe that there is one universal standard of morality against which any thought or action can be objectively assessed - my answer to a question like “Is it immoral for me to think this” would be “It’s between you and your conscience”.
It dawns on me that it’s not the act that is interesting to me. It’s the feeling. I have no affinity for or fixation on these actions. But I do have a strong need to explore feelings about helplessness and power in a sexual context. And it’s not that rare of a thing. Almost all paraphilias are variations of this single theme and few adults can say that power relations never play in to their sex lives.
It’s also not about other people. These themes are within myself. I am not concerned about power over other people. I am concerned about power within myself. The acts are metaphors and shorthands. The people in them are reflections of parts of me. I’ve been feeling this long before I ever knew sexuality could be a partnered experience. It’s not something that has a correspondence in life. It’s not something I can conceive of as evil. And it’s not something I feel compelled to explain or justify- I just think I can add to this thread by giving the experiences of someone who has been there that few would characterize as a potential evil rapist.
You’d be surprised to find that most submissives are people in high-powered position- businessmen and the like. There are also way more submissive people than dominant ones. The main theory behind this is that most of us value control over our lives. We also have a strong “have control of your body” trope in our culture. That makes it hard to let go enough to experience full sexual pleasure. So we need another force- imagined or role played out- to make what we are doing “beyond our control” and therefore “ok”. Only when we can rationalize that it’s not our “fault” can we give in to pleasure. Of course, everyone’s sexuality is different. But I have no doubt that my particular fantatsy life operates along those lives.
There a set of parents who will never, ever, trust law enforcment agents of any kind again. And with good cause. I really feel for them. I must be a good person! How many bondage posts does this entitle me to make, before I turn into a monster, I wonder?
The fundamental justification of prosecuting porn is that thought crimes exist, and that porn is a thought crime expressed on paper, or digitally. Right now it’s strictly kiddie porn that is getting the treatment in the courts, but the FBI has recently set up an anti-porn unit which will have nothing to do with kiddie porn. Their sole job will be to prosecute porn intended strictly for adults, and which is about adults. They have been instructed to concentrate on porn that will not likely be viewed sympathetically by juries, and that is likely to include BDSM stuff. So this whole debate isn’t some airy-fairy exercise in philosophy, it has real-world implications. If you buy into the notions that your fantasies can make you immoral, then you are more likely to buy into the notion that public expressions of fantasies that some view as immoral should be repressed. And you are more likely to buy into the sort of censorship the FBI and Justice Dept. are now engaging in, or poised to engage in.
I think it’s an important distinction to make in a discussion like this is that cognitive therapy and meditation does not try to “get rid of” unwanted thoughts - their goal is more towards acceptance of and not being afraid of these thoughts, which rob them of their power and probably their incidence, and learning to control your own mind better so you don’t waste too much time on such unproductive thinking.
I’m finding this discussion quite fascinating; does what we think really influence the person we are, and how can we measure that?
And in reading your post again, Davenport, I see a different way of interpreting your post, that I agree with - cognitive therapy does indeed have the effect of reducing unwanted thoughts. I guess my point is just that reducing these thoughts isn’t the aim of cognitive therapy or meditation - it’s more of a by-product.
No. I’ve been fantasizing about rape since I was a child. I read stories, view comics, watch movies where rape is depicted and yes, I do masturbate to some of these. I even role-play rape situations with friends online, and in 90% of them I was the rapist. Despite rape being highly erotic in my fantasy world, and despite the years and years I’ve spent eroticizing it there, I still have zero desire to commit rape. What’s more, rape in the real world is highly unerotic and disgusting to me. When I hear the stories of my friends who have been raped it makes me sick. My only interest in rape in the real world is learning how to stop it. I’ve never even been involved in actual rape-roleplay and it’s not something I want to try.
In addition to rape, I also have fantasies that involve blood and gore. A friend of mine really wanted me to dom her and couldn’t understand that even though I fantasized about cutting someone during sex, I would never, ever do such a thing in real life, even with the consent of the other person. To her, the point of fantasies were to do things she wanted to do. To me, fantasies are a way to explore things that I don’t want nor have the ability to do. Even though I know how much sexual pleasure she would get out of being cut with a knife, I could never do such a thing and the thought of it feels me with horror.
The comparison to racism is invalid because fantasies are a totally different realm of the mind. I think a person is a racist even if they only think racist thoughts. If a person fantasized about being racist, then they are not.
I disagree almost entirely. Who we are is, ultimatly, the sum of our actions, not the sum of our thoughts. There is certianly, as you said, a frequent disconnect between the two, but the decision as to which aspect constitutes the “real” person is entirely arbitrary. There’s no more reason to say that the way a person thinks is more indicative of who they are than the way a person acts. I genuinely question if this is as “universally understood” a truth as you seem to think. It’s certainly a common opinion, but I don’t know that it’s even the most common, let alone the majority, opinion.
I admit, I would be uncomfortable in the first date situation, but only because I don’t know this person well enough to know how clear a distinction they maintain between reality and fantasy. It certainly wouldn’t be any kind of a deal-breaker for me, even that early in the relationship. In the second situation, my most likely reaction would probably be a sense of disappointment or betrayal that someone whom I’ve been so close to, for so long, still felt they had to hide something from me. The exsistence of this darker aspect of their fantasy life certainly would be inconsequential to the years of happiness and love we’d had together, during which they would have proven every day the sort of person they really are by their actions.
This really is the only position I’d want to argue in favour of - the fact that thoughts can be immoral. I perhaps wouldn’t make as clear a distinction between a “thought” and a “fantasy” as you do; if we qualify it as “sexual fantasy”, though, I appreciate the difference.
I hope you’ll forgive me if I confess an inability to envisage myself in your position, of using thoughts of rape as purely a means of sexual arousal without any desire at all to put them into practice, even with a willing partner, but at least I think I can now accept that this isn’t always a pathological condition, and if someone in this position manages to “contain” their fantasies, then they’re not being immoral.
On the issue that Evil Captor raised, I would also support him entirely. I’m completely opposed to any form of censorship, no matter how “immoral” and offensive the material may be. I fully support the rights of people to publish, read, and enjoy anything they want to.
It’s okay, we dip all the books in holy water before we play. Makes a little wrinkly, but soaks the Satan right out of 'em.
I’m not sure how you’re making a distinction between the two. The week before a session, I’d be pretty excited to get to pretend to be my psychotic elf character. Hanging out with friends was the big plus, but if we were getting together for a different campaign (we ran a couple at the same time) I’d not be as excited. That was the “fun” campaign. How is that different from a guy who gets off on rape fantasies, and is really looking forward to tying his wife up (consensually) over the weekend and pretending to ravish her?
Speaking for myself, I’ve certainly had things go through my head which conflict with the morality and self-image I’ve built for myself over the years. I’ve also learned that trying to eradicate any of these thoughts only led to anxiety and fear of becoming evil. By trying to wish darker aspects of myself out of existence, I became nothing so much as mentally abusive towards myself, and gave these thoughts greater venom by fighting with them so.
It was only when I managed to see that, yes, dark things exist within me that I choose not to indulge, through act or fantasy, because I consider them less than idea for my peace of mind. By accepting that I’m not some mental saint, it essentially declawed that which frightened me so badly. I also found that it’s because of my morals that I was so afraid of these things. But by being so afraid I was overlooking that I had already chosen to be moral by not choosing to act out the dark things I’ve encountered.
I don’t know how well I’m explaining this, but to summarize, no, thoughts are not immoral, it’s how we choose to indulge these thoughts relative to our own peace of mind and to the society we exist in which defines morality or immorality.
I see your point, and I’m prepared to accept that a fantasy used in this was is morally neutral - if not positively moral, if it leads to pleasure and happiness. However, I would make two qualifications:
It’s important that the fantasy is contained, that the fantasist makes a clear distinction between enjoying the fantasy as a fantasy, and allowing it to influence their more direct desires. Alcohol is a good analogy here, I think. I would argue that it’s not wrong to drink, and that, indeed, it’s a good thing to enjoy a drink with your friends - on the other hand, it’s not a good thing to get excessively drunk, or to allow drink to influence areas of your life that it shouldn’t. Alcohol isn’t evil of itself; rather, it’s dangerous, as it can lead to evil if misused. “Dark” fantasies are similar - OK if used responsibly, but with the potential of harm if they’re used irresponsibly.
There are some fantasies which are so dangerous that responsible use is very different - heroin rather than alcohol. That’s not to say it’s impossible to use them responsibly, but someone who finds himself indulging in them would be well advised to consider whether he’s taking too much of a risk.
Does this mean I now agree that fantasies, narrowly-defined, are morally neutral? I think it does. Perhaps “Fantasy abuse is immoral” might state my position more accurately.
I’m siding with the posters stating that fantasies, even fantasies you enjoy, and even fantasies you would enjoy indulging in and don’t aren’t immoral. As it has been said, assuming otherwise results in weird consequences like :
-is enjoying movies where people are killed in gory ways immoral (would it be moral to go to places where people are actually dying just to enjoy watching them die? I personnally think not)?
-are you a better person if you fantazise about curing cancer or if you actually give 50 cents for cancer research? (generally, we “rank” moral and immoral actions. Killing your neighbor is worst than stealing an apple, so, we should, be able to “weight” too the immorality and morality of fantaisies. They should fit somewhere on the scale between “disgustingly evil” and “not even worth mentionning”. So, how do you compare “immoral/moral thoughts” and immoral/moral actions"?)
Besides, as once again it has already been mentionned by another poster, I would consider someone who has “evil” fantaisies he would like to indulge in but don’t as more moral than someone who doesn’t have them. If you hate apple pie, not stealing and eating mine doesn’t tell anything about you. On the other hand, if you love apple pie and are starving, similarility abstaining proves that you have a strong moral character. So, similarily, someone who would enjoy raping 8 yo and never did has proved he has moral standarts (or maybe just enough common sense not to risk going to jail).
Of course, knowing that someone has “evil fantaisies” is likely to be disturbing (“how can he enjoy watching people being eviscerated on TV instead of feeling appaled and nauseated?”) in the same way knowing that someone indulge in an otherwise morally neutral action that :eek: you can be (“how can he enjoy sodomizing other men?”) especially since we can’t know for sure whether or not this person is likely to actually indulge in his fantaisies (“He’s watching violent movies, playing violent computer games and bought a gun yesterday? What is he up to?” or “My fiance is fantasying about being a serial killer? Am I going to end up in a hole in the basement?”). But being disturbed/disgusted by something doesn’t make it immoral.
So, we’re a long way from hearing " You’re 8 yo daughter is lovely. I would like dismembering her so much" and answering “thank you for the compliment”, but it doesn’t make the fantasy of dismembering 8 yos evil per se.
This is my sticking point. I’m sorry, but I can’t accept that this isn’t immoral. My views may be irrational, they may be wrong, they may even be bigoted; but I’m afraid I have to say that, whatever test you use for “morality”, if this doesn’t fail it, then it’s not a test I’d be prepared to use.
I think that this discussion might be used as an example of Moore’s “naturalistic fallacy” - the idea that it’s possible to put together an objective standard of morality that doesn’t lead to results which are clearly wrong.
I think that the introduction of sex into the equation has muddied the waters a little. clairobscur, would you view me as “morally neutral” as the man in your hypothetical example if I were to say “Your husband is Jewish? I’d really love to gas him.” It’s just a fantasy, after all - I’d have no intention of acting on it.
OK, let’s go back to Excalibre’s example of “Deviant Dean”, who fantasises about raping ducks. By this standard, he wouldn’t be immoral even if he acted out his fantasy, as he’s only harming a duck, not a person. Or does a duck count as “somebody”? If so, why restrict it to vertebrates? If a duck is a person, why not a bacterium? So we should never boil water, because it will kill millions of “people”?
I don’t want to turn this into an argument about vegetarianism, just to illustrate the point that rules-based morality can never give us completely accurate answers.
I don’t see a difference in such an extreme case. It’s not like it’s better to dismember little girls than to gas Jews. And it’s not like anybody is going to take either in your face statement kindly.
But generally speaking, yes I agree with you about sex muddling the waters in this debate.
It happens that I dont’ have much of a moral issue with bestiality. Let’s see : we’re killing animals all the time, sometimes mostly for fun, making them live in awful conditions, using them to work for us or just for our enjoyment, castrating them out of convenience, turning them into tasty dishes or shoes, but somehow it would be criminal to use them as sex toys? I don’t buy that. It’s the “eek” factor at work, IMO, and nothing else.
Except for this eek factor, Excalibre’s Dean is exactly as immoral as someone like me who’s extremely fond of duck fattened liver and duck cooked with oranges.
With all due respect, your example doesn’t prove such a thing. You did raise some interesting questions, but this doesn’t prove that we can NEVER, EVER have completely accurate answers. Heck, it doesn’t even prove that we can’t eventually get accurate answers in this particular case.
Well, of course, we are not all going to agree on which actions are moral and immoral. However, I think that even most carnivores like myself would say that while we may be willing to kill animals or eat animals that others are killed, we still find the action of killing or harming an animal for the fun of it…and particularly if the animal is made to suffer…to be a morally-objectionable action. (Note that in saying that it is actions, not fantasies / thoughts, that matter I would not go so far as to claim as thoughts don’t matter in concert with actions. I.e., if you kill a deer, that is an action that I may or may not find morally-objectionable depending on your motivations for doing it. Actions do not exist in a vacuum devoid of their intent.)
Perhaps “Fantasy abuse is immoral” might state my position more accurately.