The Rape Fantasy

[rosco rathbone]

[B That time, I hated it and he loved that. No physical switcheroo and magical all-things-right-again orgasm. [/B]

I love it when they hate it, too. So much so that I'm beginning to worry if I can ever find my way back to normal sex. What began as a temporary hiatus from pleasure-giving has sort of taken over. These days, I operate within a narrow scope, between the not-too-distant points of "now I take my selfish pleasure , using you" and "the worse this is for you, the better it is for me".

I am starting to feel a bit one dimensional.

 

[Quint]

I agree with Catalina on this one, I think. Bear with the muddled thoughts, please. The point of that experience was rape-or-the-closest-thing-to-it. I don't think one CAN be raped if it is agreed beforehand that all sexual rights are handed over to the dominant. It is harsh, painful, unwanted at the time sex, but like Catalina said, that's just expected in the rougher sorts of relationships.

The point of that experience was not "I own you and therefore you are not allowed to deny me," it was "I'm actually forcing you to do this as if you were not mine but I make you so anyway." It didn't address the fact that I AM his submissive and he DOES have the rights to my body. I was a woman, he was a man, and he took me when I couldn't fight back. Maybe that just makes it roleplaying--I dunno.

All I'm saying is that I felt very fulfilled and I was happy that I pleased him, but it didn't feel like I submitted, let alone that I was the epitome of submission. Like I said, I'm not even entirely sure of where I stand on this. (Which is why I prefer simply relating my experiences and letting other people take what they want from them!)

And Pure, yes, the thrill was received before in comments of "one of these days, I'm going to get you drunk..." and in afterward, when I remembered how truly helpless I felt. Not during. Reminiscent of ownedsubgal on that matter.

 

[Pure]

Hi Quint,

//All I'm saying is that I felt very fulfilled and I was happy that I pleased him, but it didn't feel like I submitted, let alone that I was the epitome of submission. Like I said, I'm not even entirely sure of where I stand on this. (Which is why I prefer simply relating my experiences and letting other people take what they want from them!)//

I can't say what labels best suit you, but my thinking has changed a lot, as reflected in that essay I posted. I'll tell you mine, for the sake of discussion only, not to dictate.

YES, if "submission" means what the mainstream of bdsm says, you did not submit. For them, submit means: in absence of coercion and in full mental awareness, say to someone (in effect) 'do with me as you will' which equals "...as agreed, and until I say 'stop.' "

It's like 'voluntary consent' to have surgery under local anesthetic; or, say, 'voluntary enlistment' as a member of the Salvation Army.

I prefer to look at another core meaning, as my dictionary has it, "Yield in surrender... subject oneself to treatment imposed."

That is what you did, partly through inability. Thus the other person, in a strict sense, overpowered or took advantage or [old terms: had his way with] you. (note the absence of quotes).

In other words, as I see it, power, actual power, was exercized; there was actual submission. The standard DS situation involves, imo, the enactment of the exercize of power, and of submission. To use an analogy, consider a scene (in a play) where the policeman 'subdues', arrests, and drags away the bad guy, who's been 'overpowered' or who 'surrenders'. (notice the quotes). In fact, no one is actually subdued, and the bad guy was not overpowered by the 'policeman'.

Just my perverse views, but I find I'm more clear now in seeing the dynamics of the soft and hard perversions (social and antisocial, as I called them).

Best,

J.

PS, I will not use the words true/false, nor question the validity of 'dominance' or 'submission' as in mainstream bdsm; not their satisfactoriness for some people. I'd be equally happy to use new words for what I call the actual thing, e.g., _overpowering_, and _yielding_ to superior force.

To get back to the fantasy. I believe yours was of the latter; hence the satisfyingness of the scene. My general point is that some 'rape fantasies' --doing or receiving--are but minimally or by proxy 'satisfied' by enactments which are agreed to and set up.

 

[Quint]

I believe you are entirely correct, Pure, and I apologize for not addressing your post in my last--your thoughts were not wrong before, only not on the same issue that Catalina and MissT were on. In the previous post, I was going by Catalina's definition of submission, which was, "To submit, you have to make a choice to give the other what it is they want, then give it or succumb to it, not be forced to through your inability to stop the proceedings." I do agree that this is the conventional definition of the term and thus the one most often used, by myself as well.

In point of fact, there have been several times of late where "actual power," as you explain it, has been exercised. Lines across which "abuse" and "sanity" stare each other in the face and I don't know who is winning, who I want to win. However, those are moments of real power---the entire relationship is not defined as such, because I do retain the ability to leave. Maybe even to stop those events from happening; I don't know, I haven't thought to try. I'm not a slave as defined in innumerable BDSM fantasies on Lit, and the majority of my submission remains in the conventional definition.

Enjoyed your essay as well. Makes me question myself a lot, and I like that.

 

[evesdream]

I need to compulsively add to what I said before; that the "submission (opening one self up to the other by one's free will) by force"- or what have you- is, well, oxymoronic by above definition, BUT that submissive response-- that choosing pain for someone else's pleasure, choosing submersion in someone else's whim, or defying yourself, or overcoming yourself, or serving in reverence (however it's personally articulated)--generates a different kind of frission than actual overpowerment by force (at least for me). And that I think in a situation that involves such force Catalina's type of submission (I only choose your name because you're the most vocal proponent of this definition)- based on a choice to submit- happens after the fact if it happens at all, when the overpoweree is actually free to make his or her choices and formulate responses...dynamics that are familiar in a scene involving bondage, maybe.

I wonder whether this might be part of the subconscious appeal in the no-holds-barred acceptance of T's ministrations for you Quint; the heightened prospect of actually submitting 2ice, in at least two different ways to him?

I have to say that acknowledgement of a unique electricity in self-invoked, self-imposed submission, seems to be overlooked when we try to impose the dictionary definition onto it rather than the actual sub-cultural use and meaning of the word. So....yay... new words probably *would* be useful to differentiate between these experiences and dynamics of domination and submission. (But no new acronyms...*please*)

If I could ask a word fairy to conjure some I might beg for words to navigate the various meanings of Non-consent fantasies. Do people understand an enacted fantasy as 'ravishment' if the recieving party hates it while it is happening, but is fulfilled by the experience later? Or is 'rape', still the better word to communicate that experience? Or i guess, simply the word 'use' (plus whatever necessary descriptives).
I mean terms that serve when the words "true submission" fail...

 

[Quint]

I wonder whether this might be part of the subconscious appeal in the no-holds-barred acceptance of T's ministrations for you Quint; the heightened prospect of actually submitting 2ice, in at least two different ways to him?

Reasons I consider the experience a success (as it cannot really be said that I enjoyed it):

He knew I would take it but he MADE me. I knew if I had been in any other state, I would have submitted, but I did not have the capacity to make that decision at that time; it was made for me. I could come as close as possible to defilement without being damaged, because ultimately it WAS safe. Though I had no awareness of it at the time.

So yes, submission twice over, once consensual, once forced. One creates the spice, the other the safety.

I'm with you on the lexicon expansion but have no idea where to begin, so will leave the task to Pure and other worthies.

 

[simonedb27]

i realize that this thread is going in a different direction, but i have a question/comment.

i was raped 6 years ago and for awhile i had nightmares, awakemares, and could not participate in the act i was forced into without breaking out into tears and having the whole experience flood back to me. it has only been recently that my partner has been able to help me out of my post tramatic flashbacks and i have been able to have happy sex. it has also been recently that i have accepted my fantasy of being controlled, 'raped' if you will. what i want is not real rape. real rape tormented me and still does. what i want is to give myself completely do the person i love and have that person take me completely. that sounds a little too lovey-dovey. i want it to be forceful and mean but completely consenual and loving at the same time. i don't think 'rape' is the right word for it, but the same idea still applies.

what i am most afraid of is that i am betraying myself and every other rape victim and those women and men that will be raped someday. i am afraid that by including 'rape' as part of my fantasies, i am condoning it somehow in a way that mostly non-prejudiced people condone racisim by laughing at racists jokes or the way that people condone misogynism by laughing at blonde jokes. i suppose what i am looking for is a little reassurance that i am somewhat normal and that i am not a bad person for fantasizing about certain things and that i am not on some slippery slope of some sort.

 

[Netzach]

Does a 40 year old woman dressing up with pigtails and a teddy bear encourage or condone or even accurately portray pedophelia?

Some people argue this does, but I find the notion kind of preposterous.

Fantasies, sex, desire, these are not about being nice, neat, clean correct, or even in line with our core political/social beliefs. People are drawn to taboo subjects, and often those close to our chest, part of our sense memory, even the traumatic ones.

Many women who have been assaulted and who have not been assaulted find the "rape" fantasy attractive. Many Jews fetishize a sadistic scene involving SS uniform. Many African-Americans in the scene fetishize roleplay and humiliation based around race. (By no means all in any of these categories)

You're cool. As long as you feel ok with yourself and feel, in your gut, that your explorations are healthy for you and ok for you, you're cool.

 

[catalina_francisco]

i realize that this thread is going in a different direction, but i have a question/comment.

i was raped 6 years ago and for awhile i had nightmares, awakemares, and could not participate in the act i was forced into without breaking out into tears and having the whole experience flood back to me. it has only been recently that my partner has been able to help me out of my post tramatic flashbacks and i have been able to have happy sex. it has also been recently that i have accepted my fantasy of being controlled, 'raped' if you will. what i want is not real rape. real rape tormented me and still does. what i want is to give myself completely do the person i love and have that person take me completely. that sounds a little too lovey-dovey. i want it to be forceful and mean but completely consenual and loving at the same time. i don't think 'rape' is the right word for it, but the same idea still applies.

what i am most afraid of is that i am betraying myself and every other rape victim and those women and men that will be raped someday. i am afraid that by including 'rape' as part of my fantasies, i am condoning it somehow in a way that mostly non-prejudiced people condone racisim by laughing at racists jokes or the way that people condone misogynism by laughing at blonde jokes. i suppose what i am looking for is a little reassurance that i am somewhat normal and that i am not a bad person for fantasizing about certain things and that i am not on some slippery slope of some sort.

You are coping with a difficult situation in the way which is best for you. Many who go through similar experiences need to relive that experience in an environment where they control the circumstances, contrary to the initial incident, so they can once again take that power back for themselves instead of living their lives in the fear their attacker would want them to. Some who do not understand will condemn, but then they are not living in your skin with your day to day issues.

Fantasising an act, is far removed from condoning it or giving it legitimacy. Unfortunately censorship is based on this premise instead of admitting to allow people to live out their fantasy in a controlled and safe environment, may eventually save a lot of innocent people the pain they go through when there is no other accepted outlet. Your ceasing to have your fantasies will never save another from being assaulted so don't let the guilt weigh you down. Accepting reality and building awareness might.

Catalina

 

[X6QvQ9X]

Perhaps

The difference between "Rape" and "Sexual Assault" is, to me, like the difference between pleasure and torture. Both can and may accompany the act, but one meaning overrides the other for the victim, Though my Master and other worthies might strongly disagree, to me, the real meaning lies within the perps intented outcome.

A "Sexual Assault" seems to have no other goal but to use the victims body parts to sexually gratify the attacker. There is no attempt, or even need, to persuade or seduce the victim into acceptance of the act. The purpose is but to get use of the body part by any means, the victim chosen often by abstract chance.

A "Rape" though may have many more goals included, I know to some it is mere semantics, but to me there is a real difference. It seems a more personal act, the victim often too chosen for some specific reason. A rapist enjoys the taking of, but also too the making of the victim to accept. There seems, to me, to be a deeper desire to bond with the victim here.

Either can be without consent, and either may have devestating consequences for the victim. But the attacker seems, to me, to have a differing primal intent. Perhaps, to some, the meaning matters little since the outcome for the victim may be the same. But, to me, the two intents differ greatly and thus I do feel cannot be placed within the same societal view.

What do you think??


"Chains and canes may make me, but words always break me."

 

[Pure]

Hi Simonedb,

you said,

i realize that this thread is going in a different direction, but i have a question/comment.

i was raped 6 years ago and for awhile i had nightmares, awakemares, and could not participate in the act i was forced into without breaking out into tears and having the whole experience flood back to me. it has only been recently that my partner has been able to help me out of my post tramatic flashbacks and i have been able to have happy sex. it has also been recently that i have accepted my fantasy of being controlled, 'raped' if you will. what i want is not real rape. real rape tormented me and still does. what i want is to give myself completely do the person i love and have that person take me completely. that sounds a little too lovey-dovey. i want it to be forceful and mean but completely consenual and loving at the same time. i don't think 'rape' is the right word for it, but the same idea still applies.

what i am most afraid of is that i am betraying myself and every other rape victim and those women and men that will be raped someday. i am afraid that by including 'rape' as part of my fantasies, i am condoning it somehow in a way that mostly non-prejudiced people condone racisim by laughing at racists jokes or the way that people condone misogynism by laughing at blonde jokes. i suppose what i am looking for is a little reassurance that i am somewhat normal and that i am not a bad person for fantasizing about certain things and that i am not on some slippery slope of some sort.

These are interesting points. It sounds like what some call a 'ravishment' fantasy. I don't know if you mean *having the fantasy, or talking about it or writing it might be betrayal.

A couple years ago I wrote a rape story, and had some of the same feelings, since it had an erotic element. Would it encourage rapes, etc. I dont know.

All folks who have 'kinks' in their erotic imagination "have their wires crossed" for reasons we do not know, and Netzach has mentioned some extreme cases, as a Jew fantasizing about a Nazi captor degrading her. Or a Black person fantasizing degradation by racial slurs.

Certainly I agree with those above who've said that thoughts, idle fantasies are not something to feel guilt over. But how about writing them or acting them? Have you read the story "Dr. Pretty" referred to earlier in this thread? Doesn't it glamorize and eroticize rape? What's the effect?

Well, it's trite, but the reply usually is that most people know what's a fantasy, be it a rape-to-orgasm story, or a revenge murder story. While occasionally one supposedly 'triggers' something, clear gazillions of such stories have be absorbed without causing violence. Did viewing Hamlet cause males in the audience to kill their stepfathers? Did Othello cause an increase in killings by jealous males?

In sum, there's so much stuff floating out there, that even were you to write up your ideal ravishment in a story and post it for readers by the thousands, we don't know the effect. Maybe some guy somewhere, when arrested will say it's your story that did it, but these same guys also say that the victim's tight blouse caused them to rape her. Iow there's little reason to believe it.

But the questions are interesting, and many of us have 'disreputable' or (current term) politically incorrect fantasies.
And probably aren't too dangerous.

Best,
J.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I

If I could ask a word fairy to conjure some I might beg for words to navigate the various meanings of Non-consent fantasies. Do people understand an enacted fantasy as 'ravishment' if the recieving party hates it while it is happening, but is fulfilled by the experience later? Or is 'rape', still the better word to communicate that experience? Or i guess, simply the word 'use' (plus whatever necessary descriptives).
I mean terms that serve when the words "true submission" fail...

BUST.com needs you, kid.

 

[simonedb27]

thank you all

 

[bridgeburner]

I've been mulling my own rape fantasies over in my mind a lot lately. I'm one of the 'weirdos' who intensely dislikes the non-consent cliche where the woman is transformed into a cum-guzzling nymphomaniac by her rapist. I read non-consent stories for the non-consentual element which is completely nullified by the woman becoming a willing and eager participant.

When I fantasize about rape I am never in the brain of the woman being assaulted. I'm generally a voyeur or I inhabit the surface thoughts of the rapist. The objectification of the woman and the overpowering of her are my triggers.

I find this somewhat strange since I don't really have any lesbian tendencies to speak of. I wouldn't kick Angelina Jolie out of my bed, but I don't have any desire to enter into a sexual relationship with any women of my aquaintance.

In your fantasies as in your dreams you play all the roles. This means that I am both rapist and victim. The part of me I'm trying to objectify and subdue isn't very much "me". It's a construct, but so is the rapist. I don't fantasize about forced fellatio because I don't find it sexy. I don't have a dick so I've no muscle memory or association with the kind of pleasure derived from getting a blow-job and I don't find myself turned on by images of gagging, retching women slobbering all over themselves.

I'll stop here because I feel myself rambling off into stream of consciousness land and that's not fair to inflict on others. ;->

At any rate, I understand why the objectification works for me --- how much sexier can you feel than if a slavering pack of men all want to fuck you senseless? That's about obsession and near-worship, a tremendous ego-boost. I suppose its a latent Catholicism in me that then gets off on taking the "object" down a peg by humiliating and overpowering her. ---- punishment for vanity.



-B

 

[s'lara]

I love it when they hate it, too. So much so that I'm beginning to worry if I can ever find my way back to normal sex. What began as a temporary hiatus from pleasure-giving has sort of taken over. These days, I operate within a narrow scope, between the not-too-distant points of "now I take my selfish pleasure , using you" and "the worse this is for you, the better it is for me".

I am starting to feel a bit one dimensional.

Is sadism one dimensional?

 

[sweet T]

Have one, but it is not violent.

 

[Pure]

Bridgeburner: (note to X6Q also)

When I fantasize about rape I am never in the brain of the woman being assaulted. I'm generally a voyeur or I inhabit the surface thoughts of the rapist. The objectification of the woman and the overpowering of her are my triggers.

I find this somewhat strange since I don't really have any lesbian tendencies to speak of. I wouldn't kick Angelina Jolie out of my bed, but I don't have any desire to enter into a sexual relationship with any women of my aquaintance.

In your fantasies as in your dreams you play all the roles. This means that I am both rapist and victim. The part of me I'm trying to objectify and subdue isn't very much "me". It's a construct, but so is the rapist. I don't fantasize about forced fellatio because I don't find it sexy. I don't have a dick so I've no muscle memory or association with the kind of pleasure derived from getting a blow-job and I don't find myself turned on by images of gagging, retching women slobbering all over themselves.

These are very important points, and have bearing on some key issues already mentioned here: should the fantasist feel guilty about betrayal; should lawmakers and feminist lobbyists be concerned that, e.g., male reading 'nonconsent' (use this as short form for sexy rape [sexy in part because it isn't quite real]) is going to start raping or be encouraged to do so.

The psyche does, I agree, get into all roles in reading or having fantasy. Just as the case when you have a dream of, say, Friend A killing Friend B while several others watch. Psychologically one looks into the 'identification' with both the killer and the victim, as well as the onlookers.

Not to deny male machos who read 'nonconsent' for the power thrill, but there are male masochists, in no small number who identify with and fantasize about being the victim, as in one example, iirc, in this thread.

By the same token, the other issue of concern, that some women reading of 'nonconsent' may be encouraged to slip into such a situation, bridgburner suggests that some women readers may NOT identify with the victim, but with the perpetrator or with neither.
===

Note to X6Q, your ideas were interesting, especially raising the issue of intent, and the 'personal' agenda of the perpetrator, against the specific chosen victim.

I think, though the effort to use the terms 'rape' and 'sexual assault' for the two categories is confusing, since in the law they mean almost the same thing, apart from the penetration issue.

I'd rather have terms like Assault type A, and Assault type B; or Personal Assault and Impersonal-rage Assault.

J.

 

[bridgeburner]

sweet T,

I don't think rape fantasies have to be violent. I don't even know if the bulk of them are violent. Look at how many non-consent stories involve blackmail rather than physical force. (assuming you read non-consent stories, if not you'll have to take my word for it)

Something interesting just occurred to me. Most of the blackmail in non-consent stories is sexual in nature. Usually it involves pictures or video footage of the victim engaged in deviant sexual acts. The victim must then subject herself or himself to more deviant sexual acts in order to keep his or her loved ones from finding out about the first set of acts.

The message here is that the victim is really trapped by his or her own sexuality. The rapist is just taking advantage of a weakness that the victim already has.

Is it only me or does anyone else feel that "rape fantasy" is a pretty non-specific term considering how many different kinds there are? And how many different desires they're used to fulfill?

The single common element in rape fantasies is that the victim is not responsible for what happens and is therefore absolved of any transgression.

Of course, I suppose that only works from the "victim" side ---not from the perpetrator side.

Sorry, I've totally derailed myself with the realization that I was thinking only in my own head and not considering the other half of the rape fantasizers.

How much harder it must be for those who fantasize about committing rape. It isn't treated as a fantasy but as a true desire to commit a crime against someone else.

-B (going off to stew in her thoughts)

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

should the fantasist feel guilty about betrayal; should lawmakers and feminist lobbyists be concerned that, e.g., male reading 'nonconsent' (use this as short form for sexy rape [sexy in part because it isn't quite real]) is going to start raping or be encouraged to do so.

This to me is the major problem --- not what happens in our own heads but how it affects or is affected by societal norms. I don't personally have any problem with drawing a line between fantasy and reality. I was never the type of child who tied a dishrag to my shirt and jumped off the roof of the neighbors' house convinced I'd float gently to the ground. I loved imagination games for the simple reason that they weren't real --- you couldn't have that kind of fun bound by the real world. Nobody ever looks at a kids playing wolf cubs and thinks it means they're going to be bestialists or cannibals.

Here comes the sticky part and for lack of a better term I'll just lay it out there: Political Correctness.

Before people start rolling their eyes I'd like to say that I think the ideas behind PC are good ones. It's just basic mannerliness and common courtesy after all not to walk up to your neighbor and call him a nigger. I think it furthers the cause of equality for you not to call him a nigger when he can't hear you either and if the term falls out of even your mental lexicon then all to the better.

To me the idea of PC means not to be willfully rude or unkind.

BUT, I believe it can be taken too far. I even believe that it often has been taken too far and here's why:

People no longer make any distinction between fantasy and reality except when it applies to themselves and sometimes not even then.

The PC-fascists have decided that any transgression in one's mind is as bad as a transgression in actuality and they've convinced a lot of people of this. Witness the fact that we are afraid that our own fantasy lives are a betrayal of the population at large.

Honestly, how is that even possible? Our fantasies are not broadcast to every man, woman and child on the planet --- even if we go so far as to write them down and publish them or hire a camera and make a movie of them.

The argument then goes "But how much difference is there between fantasizing something and really wanting to do it?"

I simply say ask any woman who has fantasies of gang rape. Do I honestly want to be held down by strangers and violated against my will? Are you fucking crazy?

So the problem then isn't those who fantasize about being victims but those who fantasize about being perpetrators.

I say it's a double standard rooted in the belief that all men would be rapists if they could get away with it and that's just pure horseshit so far as I'm concerned.

The truth is that all men could be rapists if they wanted to be. Every single healthy man on the planet has had at least one opportunity in his life (more like dozens) to commit rape and get away with it.

Every. Single. One.

Your dad. Your brother. Your son. Your husband.

And yet, very few of them do so. This is the strongest argument around for showing that perpetrators' fantasies are no more likely to become reality than victims' fantasies.

It's all just make-believe, folks. Sure, wallow in it and dig down deep to figure out why your particular fantasy gets you off --- maybe you can find the kernal of truth in it that you can satisfy in the real world --- acceptance, adulation, devotion, control ----- but don't start believing in "Thought Crime". That's madness.


-B

 

[Netzach]

Wow what a sweetly eloquent post, couldn't have said it better meself. 2 for Bust, or hell salon.com

 

[Pure]

bump.

Q: If there are 'dark fantasies' as described, to what extent can they be fulfilled with a consensual willing partner? Can that partner-person's enacted 'forcefulness', say tying you, having rough sex, do the trick? Is being 'overcome', by pre-arrangement possible? Is it actually being overcome (overpowered)?

 

[bridgeburner]

Honestly, I think it depends on the fantasy. All rape fantasies do not represent the same things. As I mentioned, I think the single element they all have in common is that the victim is not responsible for what happens. S/he is forced or coerced.

The same exact fantasy can touch different buttons for different people in the same way that three eye-witnesses to a car accident all see different things even though they witnessed the same accident.

In any rape fantasy the fantasist can inhabit any, all or none of the actors. How does the scene play differently from the POV of the rapist v the victim v the voyeur or instigator or rescuer? Some fantasies are soft and some are hard. Some involve humiliation and/or violence and some are little more serious than being tied to the bed and talked dirty to by a lover.

Depending on the fantasy, some of them can be acted out between consensual partners, but there is often a disconnect between fantasy and reality. I may get off on the image of splayed pussy dripping the cum of five different strangers, but the reality of such a thing would likely put me in therapy. Certainly the fantasies I have would put someone in the hospital. Human bodies just don't hold up well to that kind of abuse. Just how "real" do I need my lover to make this fantasy of mine?

In such a case it's clear that the idea is the trigger. That can be fired by a lover or one's self either verbally or mentally during an otherwise unrelated sexual encounter.

I realize I've slid off to the the side a bit. Let me see if I can come back around and address it properly.

If a woman wants her lover to play rapist in order to satisfy her fantasy, can it really be done? I think it depends on what she wants. Since the average 12 year old boy has as much upper body strength as the average adult woman, there's not much worry that any male you choose won't be able to overpower you.

As to whether it's really being overpowered or not I think that's somewhat of a semantics game. Yes you agreed to it but you still got to struggle and the truth of the matter is that even if you hadn't agreed, even if this hadn't been your idea in the first place, he could hold you down and take you by force if he wanted to regardless of whether it makes you horny.

There are layers and layers of consent and compliance. The overpowering is more real than the "rape" since he really can overpower you, but he's not really raping because you've asked for and agreed to this.

I used to wrestle with my best friend's brother a lot when I was a teenager. It was pretty damn frantic and hot as shit even though nothing ever really happened. The very act of struggling and being subdued was thrilling. He never hurt me --- in fact the surest way to have him stop immediately was for me to indicate hurt. Often I'd have to goad him physically to be rougher or to use more force and every once in awhile I'd get cocky and think I could get away with something and he'd catch me hard and fast and I'd know without doubt that I should count myself lucky he was a nice guy and just playing.


Okay, brain fully off into tangent land while I think about the amazing capacity for trust in the young.....


-B

 

[James G 5]

BUT, I believe it can be taken too far. I even believe that it often has been taken too far and here's why:

People no longer make any distinction between fantasy and reality except when it applies to themselves and sometimes not even then.

The PC-fascists have decided that any transgression in one's mind is as bad as a transgression in actuality and they've convinced a lot of people of this. Witness the fact that we are afraid that our own fantasy lives are a betrayal of the population at large.

Honestly, how is that even possible? Our fantasies are not broadcast to every man, woman and child on the planet --- even if we go so far as to write them down and publish them or hire a camera and make a movie of them.

The argument then goes "But how much difference is there between fantasizing something and really wanting to do it?"

Going off on a small tangent here, it's not just the PC facists in this case, but the right wine Christian thought police types as well...they're very muc in to the idea of policing your morals even in to the realm of thougth crime

60 Minutes did a segment on the growth of the porn industry in tandem with technoology, especially in regards to the growth of net porn
They had some talking head on who wrote a book about how dangerous this is, and how the government should be going after not just the producers of adult material but also the companies who own the lines used to transmit the porn over the web
His explanation for why it's so dangerous for people to be able to download porn in to their homes ("withiut even risking the shame or embarrasment of a trip to the video store") was this:
"It seems people are becoming more comfortable with the idea that what people do in their own homes is their business"


That idea REALLY frightens them, since they want it to be THEIR business, not yours

/tangent

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread

 

[bridgeburner]

James,

I agree. It's this very same weirdness that puts the Feminists in bed with the Right Wing.

When you come right down to it the Conservatives are most likely to want to tell you what you can do in your own head and bedroom because they have so many more rules, but the Liberals have their own cherished ideals too and they can be every bit as adamant about controlling you.

Conservatives tell you you're going to hell if you don't agree with the. Liberals tell you you're a menace to society and equality.



-B

 

[bridgeburner]

For the record, I think it's a Very Bad Idea for porn to police itself against things that are not illegal. Once you assume responsibility it's very tough to put it down.

Keeping kids away from porn is the arena of parents and childcare providers. Once pornographers take on that burden they begin a downward slide into allowing the narrowest of views to dictate what is acceptable for everyone.


--B