Should fantasies be PC?

blissed · 03-04-09 04:44:16

ngaio wrote:

gala wrote:
I was hoping to prompt some discussion about whether or not the way someone fantasises changes our judgments of their fantasies, but I think no one's catching that bait.
When you say "the way someone fantasisies" do you mean, for example, the way they use those fantasies? Or deal to them?
For example... the racial fetishism thing. I have a similar feeling of discomfort towards it... Yet I am incredibly attracted to Japanese girls. That said, I cannot stand the way they are fetishized for their smallness and apparent "submissiveness"... so while I might fantasize about girls with Japanese features... I don't actively seek out "Japense porn" and try to avoid any sort of exoticising of them. The attraction stems back from a highschool crush to one girl who drew pretty pictures for me... so I try to concentrate on her instead of "a group of giggling Japanese schoolgirls" or whatever.
Hmmm, not sure what I'm trying to say here. Help!

I like people with reddish blonde hair and freckles, so if I was of African decent would that make me a racial fetishist? can you only feel cool about liking the appearance of your own "race"? Who says what race we are and by what authority.

I don't see anything wrong with people having a preference for a particular kind of appearance. By the dictionary definition of race people with red hair and freckles are a race, which they obviously aren't. I think race is a sectarian human invention and is completely arbitrary. There are no races of dogs or lions, their just a species with genetic variations and adaptations and so are we.

If we give something a name we tend to subconsciously own it. If we gave a name to people with red hair and freckles, say Gingers that to me feels uncomfortable because it crosses the line into disrespect and contempt.

So I reject race as the disrespectful naming of my own and other peoples appearance, which is lazy and over simplified (Black and white WTF! thats childish and surreal) and ignores the rich and wonderful diversity people have all around the world and where I live.

Yes I reject the notion of race because I'm capable of framing my own view of my and other peoples genetic appearance and that includes shape and size too thats positive and respectful.

.

nihpuad · 03-04-09 21:57:12

ngaio wrote:

Well I talked to a women once who had a partner who fantasised about very young girls... so this women dressed up like a very young girl and played that role. Obviously it wasn't very convincing but they were both happy simply playing it out. So maybe it is enough for some people?

I thought about that when I was writing my comment, but I think that's really more of a costume fetish (or maybe I'm splitting hairs). In any case, there's a distinction between fantasizing about young-but-sexually-mature girls/women and about children. I'm no expert, but I think a true pedophile wouldn't be turned on (and might be turned off) by a grown woman in little girls' clothes. And the "legal teens" fanciers have plenty of porn at their disposal.

ngaio wrote:

There is also a lot of drawn and written "underage" stuff which is quite easily to access and I don't personally think should be illegal (going back to the Simpsons porn thing). Perhaps this would be enough to sustain some people's fantasies? Obviously I don't know the answer to that.

I agree philosophically that it shouldn't be illegal, but AFAIK it is (at least he pictorial stuff, at least in the U.S.) With today's technology, you could no doubt make images virtually indistinguishable from reality while still being able claim that "no actual children were harmed in the making of this film"... but again, AFAIK anything that even resembles underage porn is illegal, and since it's not my kink anyway, there's no sense taking any legal risk to investigate. Didn't Pete Townshend almost get tossed in prison for researching child images?

PS to Gala: Sorry, I didn't mean to be blowing off your comment, or implying that it was confusingly written. I was just exhausted at the moment, and not feeling confident I was reading clearly.

nihpuad · 03-04-09 22:11:07

blissed wrote:

neukgraag wrote:
My fantasies are all about being nice to women.
A few of mine aren't, but they're labeled as BDSM. I would hit someone if they wanted me too but then your serving their needs not your own.

This is part of what I meant about having fantasies without actually wanting to do the thing I fantasize about: It will come as no surprise to anyone who's heard me sing the praises of Tough Love, etc. that I like spanking erotica. However, I doubt I could bring myself to enjoy hitting a woman no matter how sure I was that she really wanted me to.

I guess I'm erotically crippled by my "never hit a woman" upbringing: I can enjoy (really enjoy!) watching a spanking video, but I can't imagine doing it myself. Maybe if I had a sufficiently adventurous and persuasive partner, I might learn something different about myself, but as it happens, my wife has a particular horror regarding corporal punishment, so I'm sure the question will never come up between us.

neukgraag · 04-04-09 14:13:47

Women who are masochistic, like pain and like bondage and corporal punishment, such as spanking or flogging, often say that they have a very hard time finding sadistic, like to cause pain, (in BDSM terms) partners.
This is incidentally also an issue in the military now that male soldiers have female soldiers serve side by side with them and who can now easily fall into enemy hands.

blissed · 04-04-09 15:44:08

Ha ha your not gonna get much information out of someone who enjoys being interrogated :)

There are masochistic men too. There was a british member of parliament a while ago who liked to dress up as a baby and crawl around on the floor while being whipped. Personally I've moved out of that phase now, but whatever floats your boat :)

.

Wolfdad · 04-04-09 21:12:43

gala wrote:

neukgraag wrote:
My fantasies are all about being nice to women.
Yup, you and Bill Callahan.

Here's a question: Have you gone, or would you go, to see him perform?
I couldn't be in a crowd for that kind of music. I'd actually prefer to listen at home.

On the topic of sex and Smog: I've been putting together a bedroom playlist that includes Drinking at the Dam, Dress Sexy at my Funeral and Our Anniversary. Haven't yet had a chance to use it.

Oh, and how does someone express their sex in PC terms anyways? A fantasy cannot exist without a preceding urge. If that urge doesn't arrive conforming to PC rules, then the subsequent fantasy won't either. Appearances can be managed for the sake of a partner, or for one's own conscience, but is that really acting out the fantasy?

My fantasies are no different than dreams. They all mean something. I'm not doing myself any favors if I try to mold, or ignore, them. Whether they are acted upon, they must be seen for what they are, or at least for what they are not.

If my fantasies DID even include rape and violence, and they don't, then I'd have to reconcile realism with consequences. Getting consent, real consent, doesn't fully address the pure urge, but it does give you a safe reference for exploring what drives your sexuality.

If that doesn't feed the urge, then no political context is going to address its root.

PC language is for computer programmers!

neukgraag · 05-04-09 20:55:15

There was an interesting article in the April 2 issue of the New York Times by Laurie Goodstein about pedophile catholic priests, reference
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/03church.html?_r=1
which made me think of our thread here.

It turns out now that the founder of a Roman Catholic religious order that ran treatment centers for troubled priests warned American bishops in forceful letters dating back to 1952 that pedophiles should be removed from the priesthood BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT BE CURED. Unfortunately, this advice was ignored with all the consequences for the victims as well as for the church, which was forced to pay out large sums by the courts.

This article convinces me even more that it is not advisable for men to have fantasies about little boys. You are playing with fire. In my opinion, one cannot help having whatever fantasies, but you do have responsibility to recognize the danger and take responsibility.

The recent attempt by the Australian government to ban certain internet sites may have been a flop, but it was driven by a desire to stamp out pedophile sites and that is laudable. Aside from criticizing the government for its ill advised approach, it would be better if we could propose a better answer. At the very least we need to speak up against any purveyors of internet filth.

blissed · 05-04-09 23:02:50

neukgraag wrote:

pedophiles should be removed from the priesthood BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT BE CURED.......
.....This article convinces me even more that it is not advisable for men to have fantasies about little boys. You are playing with fire. In my opinion, one cannot help having whatever fantasies, but you do have responsibility to recognize the danger and take responsibility.

I have a feeling that if it's possible for people to slide into pedophilia then it's possible to help a certain number of them out of it. People don't suddenly become sexy at the age of consent, we slowly develop and will have a certain number of those attributes sometimes long before. If their present in someone underage their present in someone over the age of consent too, so I hope I'm not naive in thinking that exposing pedophiles to a diet of the right kind of adult sexual images, could pull some of them out of their rut the same way they fell in. A lot has been said about Gary Glitter re-offending, but as far as I know he hasn't ever received any treatment and if you don't try it you don't know if it'll work.

.

ngaio · 06-04-09 01:31:32

neukgraag wrote:

Women who are masochistic, like pain and like bondage and corporal punishment, such as spanking or flogging, often say that they have a very hard time finding sadistic, like to cause pain, (in BDSM terms) partners.

Yep. I am currently with the first person who's been able to fulfill that need of mine. He also happens to be my best friend and it's the most healthy relationship I've been in. Hooray!

I'm coming down with a cold today so I think that's all I have the brain juice to say!

gala · 06-04-09 08:31:12

Wolfdad wrote:

gala wrote:
neukgraag wrote:
My fantasies are all about being nice to women.
Yup, you and Bill Callahan.
Here's a question: Have you gone, or would you go, to see him perform?
I couldn't be in a crowd for that kind of music. I'd actually prefer to listen at home.

At one time I probably would have, but all recent reports suggest that he's not doing so hot on the live front at the moment. He played in Melbourne recently and a couple of my friends went and were fairly disappointed, and they had seen him a few years back and been absolutely awestruck. For me he's a home or headphones-on-the-walk-to-work-in-autumn-or-winter sort of thing. I have very distinct places for him, all of which are intimate.

Wolfdad wrote:

Oh, and how does someone express their sex in PC terms anyways? A fantasy cannot exist without a preceding urge. If that urge doesn't arrive conforming to PC rules, then the subsequent fantasy won't either. Appearances can be managed for the sake of a partner, or for one's own conscience, but is that really acting out the fantasy?

This is one of the biggest reasons why it's so hard for humans to articulate them in the first place. Because we don't know how to 'politely, gently suggest' that we'd like to fuck you in the throat and hear your muffled gags. And so we wait for these things to come round, or we try to make them a little friendlier, or we don't say them at all. And so we miss out. One of my favourite things about sex is talking about it, using that language that is actually descriptive of the act itself, telling someone what I want to do with them or to them, what I want done to me, hearing the same from someone else. Which for some requires getting over the squeamishness of certain words or descriptions, whether you're saying them or hearing them. I've found that people are more receptive to that stuff than I think they're going to be, and in turn have felt better saying it themselves.

Be real, yo.

Wolfdad · 06-04-09 18:40:39

Smoggy Bill is definitely one of those few that brings out the hipster it's-all-mine thing in me. His songs are very much one person talking to one other person. At least for me. That's the real negative side of voyeurism. It's not Kitty Genovese, since he's putting the stuff out voluntarily, but shit man!

Going to one of his shows would be like eavesdropping a confessional.

Or maybe I just need to see a therapist...

gala · 07-04-09 01:11:10

Oh by the way all, I just remembered that there's an upcoming Lucubration with Angela where she addresses the topic of political correctness in fantasy. She's a very intelligent lady with some great things to say about it and I'll do my bit to get that happening on the site real soon, since it's so wonderfully topical.

ngaio · 07-04-09 01:37:11

Oh fantastic! Nice one!

Folly · 17-04-09 07:36:43

Ok sorry if this has already been covered but I just wanted to get my two cents in and don't quite have time to read all the posts, so I scanned past the child porn stuff.
Anyway re: the fantasies, I just yesterday was looking on Amazon and came across a couple of books psychoanalysing fantasies and tying them back into people's pasts of sexual abuse and the like. This worried me because I really don't like the suggestion that fantasies can be traced back to psychological issues. I'd prefer to see fantasising as healthy. But I can't really debate against the arguments of these books if I haven't read them yet. Have a look at these examples:

Who's Been Sleeping in Your Head: The Secret World of Sexual Fantasies
by Brett Kahr
"According to London psychotherapist and clinical researcher Kahr, virtually every sexually mature adult generates sexual fantasies that fulfill a wide variety of often unconscious psychological needs... a heterosexual woman's lesbian fantasies represent an attempt to recreate a family unit in which parents wield a more benign sexuality than her own abusive parents did. A happily married costume designer's fantasies turn unpleasant memories of sexual abuse by a learning-disabled older brother into a highly arousing experience."

A similar book may be: The Erotic Mind: Unlocking the Inner Sources of Passion and Fulfillment by Jack Morin.
Anyone read these?

If all our fantasies have to mean something then that takes some of the fun out doesn't it?

ngaio · 17-04-09 07:46:44

Folly wrote:

A heterosexual woman's lesbian fantasies represent an attempt to recreate a family unit in which parents wield a more benign sexuality than her own abusive parents did.

Say what now?!?! Haha! Where do some people pull these theories from?? If I didn't laugh, I'd cry.

And thanks for your contribution, Folly

ngaio · 10-07-09 03:51:06

I like this article on the topic which we touched upon in this thrrad of BDSM... http://sf.carnalnation.com/content/11572/452/case-kink

Last edited by ngaio (10-07-09 08:01:01)

Vouageur · 02-08-09 19:01:48

DARWIN for NGAIO
SHADOWS OF FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS by SAGAN
I found it very readable, though I haven't finished it.
Am really enjoying the chatter, from Willie to Darwin, a particular hero of mine.
He is the proper model of an intellectual, one of many reasons I am an unabashed anglophile. Others; Vincents & Morgans, BBC, Parliament, and of course our language ie "stand and deliver", Drednought. Hey I am a renaissance man, from voyeur to verbovore.

Arcticnick · 01-12-10 09:27:09

neukgraag wrote:

No, ngaio, you did not hurt my feelings. You're ok.
Some people do not want to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, because they want to take the bible litterally and believe in creation as described in Genesis. They are also known as creationists.
That is a big bone of contention here in the state of Kansas for the schools. There has been heated debate and changes in the school board over this as to what to teach in science class.
And then there are also still people - seriously - who believe that the earth is flat.
For some reason I cannot think of a book to recommend to you so quickly. When I do, I'll let you know.

Do you know if it true that 48% of the population of the US believe in creationism?

jeor0825 · 07-01-11 23:18:01

I always get a bit of a laugh out of such forums. My girlfriend can be quite dominant and forceful. Restraint and/or coercion of some kind occasionally come into play with either of us and would be rape if consent were dropped.

That's because we've negotiated and found each other's boundaries. As such it becomes a matter of respect and honor for ourselves and each other.

xxEPxx · 10-01-11 04:18:54

I think people should be able to fantasise about whatever they like, so long as anything harmful is not acted upon. Sometimes the brain needs to work through the darker aspects of its psyche, just to function properly in conscious daily living.

Me, I rarely fantasise about anything - I'm kind of limited in that sense, because I like "nice", "normal" things in general...sexually, I'd be classed as pretty conservative. My one demon, if you want to call it that, is a complex brought on by my sexual/emotional journey being stalled at 14 until I was in my mid-to-late 20s.

So I have very conflicting feelings about girls and young women of that age; I missed out completely on that time in my life, and of being around females of that age-group, yet I don't actively lust after them in the present day. It tends to bring on a sort of ache, a part of me that's missing and tends to be forgotten until I catch sight of a face which reminds me of that gap in my being. If something I see on TV hits on that ache, too, I might drift into a sort of reverie and imagine what might/would have been. Nostalgic/retrospective fantasising!

xxEPxx

Redmango · 01-10-11 09:00:52

This is an old thread, so if what I'm doing is considered "bumping," then I apologize. Still, I read it (skimmed most of it, actually), and I think this topic is important to discuss intelligently. In any case, here is my humble opinion:

A fine point of law, at least in spirit, that I believe is often overlooked, is that we hold people responsible for what they DO, not what they THINK. This is a very important distinction. In truth, nobody knows what I'm thinking, not even when I say it aloud. Language is a barely adequate way to communicate what is inside our minds. Actions, however, are easy to identify and categorize. If this reasoning is sound, then clearly fantasies of any kind are fine as long as they are only in the mind, and it may barely be worth worrying about. Putting a fantasy into action is definitely a separate category.

Still, whatever two adults do with one another in private, if they are consenting and fully aware of their choices, is only their own business. I don't see why this cannot be extended to fantasies. To hold people responsible for what they do in private negates the notion of privacy.

If we are talking about acting a fantasy (and perhaps recording it on video), then I believe the rules are different. The thing I like best about this site is what I've seen here and downloaded to keep for myself is nothing I would be embarrassed to show to my friends. Neither would I worry about a child seeing it (if, somehow, a child got into my files) and being exposed to something bizarre and potentially unhealthy. These are videos of healthy human behavior.

I'd like to emphasize that I am very much anti-censorship. It's difficult for me to say that something is unfit for the public. I think censorship, secrecy, and insulation can cause great harm. Knowledge is the cure for ignorance. To that end, I prefer to allow everything and reserve the right of censorship for family-level management.

So, where action is concerned, whether it be live or recorded, I say ask questions: Is this healthy? If my children see this, will they be confused? Will they try to imitate it? Will it be their first exposure to sexually explicit material? Is my fantasy harmful to myself or another person?

Redmango · 08-10-11 17:45:55

neukgraag wrote:

It is believed that urges and emotions are inherited from our earliest of human ancestors. In prehistoric times the men went out hunting and the women stayed close to the village to gather edible plants. Sometimes those men stumbled on females from another tribe and took advantage of them.
Now, tribes were really extended families and therefore there was a risk of inbreeding. Getting raped was a good thing as far as mixing up the gene pool. So, according to Darwin, those women who liked to be raped were more likely to have children and passed that desire on....all the way to you, ngaio.

I have to step in here and say that this is speculative at best. If we are talking about pre-history, then there are no records of anything. All we can do is make guesses, and this scenario is only one possibility. Another possibility is that tribes socialized and exchanged mates, either by design or by accident. In such an environment, rape would not offer an advantage in terms of gene mixing. Still another possibility is that a rape fantasy is indicative of a mental disorder.

I don't know which is the case, but I just don't like to see Darwinism misrepresented.

blissed · 09-10-11 00:11:37

If your interested in sex and prehistory there's a book called Sex at dawn, that goes beyond speculation and draws conclusions on available evidence. I haven't read it but it's always being recomended to me and the exerts I've read seem prettty interesting.

http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page10/page10.html

.

#51 03-04-09 04:44:16

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#52 03-04-09 21:57:12

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#53 03-04-09 22:11:07

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#54 04-04-09 14:13:47

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#55 04-04-09 15:44:08

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#56 04-04-09 21:12:43

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#57 05-04-09 20:55:15

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#58 05-04-09 23:02:50

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#59 06-04-09 01:31:32

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#60 06-04-09 08:31:12

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#61 06-04-09 18:40:39

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#62 07-04-09 01:11:10

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#63 07-04-09 01:37:11

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#64 17-04-09 07:36:43

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#65 17-04-09 07:46:44

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#66 10-07-09 03:51:06

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#67 02-08-09 19:01:48

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#68 01-12-10 09:27:09

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#69 07-01-11 23:18:01

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#70 10-01-11 04:18:54

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#71 01-10-11 09:00:52

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#72 08-10-11 17:45:55

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

#73 09-10-11 00:11:37

Re: Should fantasies be PC?

Board footer