Talk:Rape fantasy/Archive 1

message: It is often incorrectly assumed that people who fantasize about being a rapist are at a higher risk of actually committing rape, but scientific evidence refutes this.
Huh? Is it really an "incorrect" assumption? Why does it say "but", when the second part of the sentence is saying (basically) the same thing as the first? Brianjd 06:19, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
:Yes, it is an incorrect assumption.  I'm not sure how you're parsing the sentence that makes it unclear.
:"It is often assumed that people who fantasize about being a rapist are at a higher risk of actually committing rape" -- the first part of the sentence notes that the assumption exists out there, that many people believe it.
:"It is often incorrectly assumed" -- this modifier inserts the information that the assumption, though widespread, is incorrect.
:"but scientific evidence refutes this." -- the second part of the sentence inserts the information on how we know that the assumption is incorrect.  
:There's no contradiction there.  If the first part of the sentence had said "It is often correctly assumed" then there'd be contradiction, but I don't see where there's a problem in saying "Lots of people have this incorrect belief, but here is how we know that belief to be incorrect."  -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not necessarily true--while many rapists perform the act as a way of asserting force or exulting in violence, that does not mean that they do not fantasize about the act--fantasies can be (and often are) non-sexual. Mance 09:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantasy

message: Sorry for repeating the move from :Category:Sexuality to :Category:Sex crimes.  Category:Sexuality had grown to about 250 articles.  I was cleaning them out and I didn't happen to remember that I had already moved this one when I moved it again.
The move to Category:Sex_crimes was actually quite intentional; I thought it would be appropriate to an article on fantasies about one particular sex crime in the list of articles about sex crimes in general.  Because of the aforementioned cleaning, Category:Sexuality now only has articles which are fundamental to the subject.  Everything else is relegated to subcategories, to make it possible to find things without undue effort.  Rape fantasies aren't really fundamental, and they are already in :Category:Sexual fetishism (which might not be the best, so if someone has a better pick, feel free to change that), so for now I'll just remove it from Category:Sexuality.  If you buy my rationale above, or otherwise feel it's appropriate to do so, feel free to add this article back to Category:Sex_crimes.
-- Beland 02:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexual fetishism actually is a surprisingly appropriate category (among others, of course, given the scope of the article) to place this. You would be surprised I suppose how many women write stories where their Mary Sue gets raped by some ravishing young bad boy and enjoys it (for that matter, let's not forget The Fountainhead, with that dysfunctional Dominique Francon character that enjoys her "rape"), with them ostensibly living happily ever after (no, seriously. There's pretty much a whole subgenre, nay, multiple subgenres depending on how explicit or romanticized it is, that fit under this in fan fiction romance and erotica stories. Google such things as "Romance rape", "NonCon" and the like, you'll see what I mean. Somewhat disturbingly common, actually... though from a slightly more optimistic standpoint, at least it probably means most of the girls who write this stuff - they're usually pretty young, it seems - have never actually been raped or sexually assaulted...). In literary, film, artistic, etc. terms this is a very legitimate category for this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.22.61 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category changes 

message: (Starting a separate thread, since I'm replying to something from way back.)
Above, Antaeus Feldspar writes "rapists, almost without exception, have rape fantasies…" True enough, I'm sure, but trivially so. Murderers, almost without exception, have fantasized about murder, but few would say that Dostoevsky and Alfred Hitchcock are therefore pornographers of murder and accessories to crime. Many people fantasize about things they would never do; few lack fantasies about intense things that are part of their actual practice. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Rapists have rape fantasies"

message: The sentence "Again it should be noted that just because someone is writing or reading fictional rape accounts, even if they are aroused by it, does not mean they actually wish to rape or be raped." is problematic. Firstly, the tone: "it should be noted" and the emphasis of "does not". Secondly, sure, strictly speaking, the sentence is true. But so is this sentence:
:"It should be noted that that anyone who enjoys fictional rape accounts might wish to go out and rape someone in the real world".
(Obviously we shouldn't include that sentence!) But I don't think we need the current sentence either. — Matt Crypto 23:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Contrary to popular belief, this change of color is not only an adaptation to the surroundings but also an expression of the physical and physiological condition of the lizard."  That's from Chameleon.  Should we tell them that they do not need to address the fact that the reader might be coming to the article with a very widely held belief which happens to be wrong?  I don't think so; it clearly makes sense that when a reader is highly likely to come to the article with a widely-held but incorrect belief, the article should directly address the fact that this prominent popular belief is in fact not correct. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing "...Again it should be noted...''does not mean''..."

message: I don't believe that the statement "[A rape fantasy] is not to be confused with real-world rape, which is a violent crime" is expressed in an NPOV way. Certainly, the sentence "Rape fantasy is not real-world rape" is undisputed. However, the sense of "it is not to be confused" is a prescriptive or corrective form of writing where the author is telling the reader how best to think. To make it more NPOV and objective, you could replace it with "rape fantasy is not real-world rape", but that's just blindingly obvious, so I decided to just remove it. Since you disagree, how about we replace it with:
:To some, rape fantasies are seen as disturbing, unhealthy or even a predictive indicator of rape. Others argue that rape fantasies can be — and usually are — normal, healthy and uncorrelated with a prediliction towards sexual violence.
— Matt Crypto 22:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this puts an undeniably true statement, "A rape fantasy inside one's head and an actual act of sexual aggression in the real world are two completely different things", and the unsupported prejudice "People who have rape fantasies must be prone to committing rape", on an equal footing, as both statements that "some believe".  Guess what?  "Some believe" that they are polymorphed dragons; that doesn't mean their beliefs should be put on the same footing as all the evidence that they are in fact human beings. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacing "[A rape fantasy] is not to be confused with real-world rape"

message: The article states that:
:"For some who have actually been sexually abused, rape fantasy may be a way to heal past wounds by exploring in a safe environment with a sense of control."
We could do with citing a source for this. — Matt Crypto 00:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rape fantasies as therapy for the sexually abused

message: Cf. the Hypnofetish FAQ @ http://www.p-synd.com/winterrose/mind_control.html#4.3 -- 
Primary elements of erotic mind control or "hypnofetish" fantasies are power/control, and the rationale for hypnofetishist fantasizing is "getting to know their shadow" or "dark side."  For these reasons, hypnofetishism, which has been experiencing an explosion in popularity the last twenty or so years, is usually classified under BDSM, under which rape fantasies would probably also be classified, though the "whips and leather" motiff does not usually figure prominently in the literature and media of this community.  
Another common motiff is the mind controlled character's (and sometimes, the mind controller's) surrender to sublimated or otherwise repressed sexual urges.  For example, many stories describe the destruction of a character's individual personality or ego: the person is turned into a "mindless sex zombie" (to quote one of the least colorful descriptions available in the literature).  
These elements, and the frequent characterizations of the mind controllers as deviants or monsters (sometimes maniacal individuals, sometimes forces demonic, technological, extraterrestrial, etc.), might point toward a similarity in essence if not in outward form between erotic mind control and rape fantasies.
However, another motiff is of Dracula-esque seduction, wherein the controller is almost predatorial: cool and calculated, always in command of themselves, where passion is not so much the goal as satiating some kind of real or metaphorical hunger.  This more sinister mind controller typically prefers to take over the inner voice of the character.  For example, the story, "Does Free Will Exist?" wherein the villain, evidently unable or unwilling to master the heroine by coercion, simply changes her logic.  This motiff of cognition alteration makes the classification of hypnofetishism even murkier.  Can consent be conjured?  And if so, then would erotic mind control fantasies be rape fantasies?
Anyway, you can tell I've given this a lot of thought.  I've been an avid hypnofetishist for many years, but lately and increasingly I've been bothered by its moral implications.  Everyone's thoughts on the subject? User: The New Yorker 19 April 2006
:Well, I think you should only get worried about moral implications if it actually changes your behavior.  And if the way it changes your behavior is to relieve your frustrations in a safe fantasy environment where absolutely no one real is harmed, chances are that your behavior towards real people is actually better because of your fantasy life.
:As for the rest -- well, looking at it objectively, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that hypnofetishism is at the very least in the same family as rape fantasies.  The subject of the mind control never gives conscious consent; even if her consciousness is altered so as to give in to the demands of her subconscious, it's still violating her right to have her consciousness protecting her from her own subconscious.  There is, perhaps, at the very limits of control that are only available in fiction, a possibility that a person could actually be so thoroughly reshaped through mental control that the person is now wholly agreeable to the sexual act on every level.  While it could be argued that in such a situation, consent has been conjured, I would suggest that what has actually happened is that the person who did not consent has been destroyed, and replaced with a new person created for the purpose of consenting.
:However -- let's not forget, this is all fantasy.  It may be disturbing and challenging to trace out the moral implications that would apply if the power of erotic mind control was possible in this world and if particular actions were taken with that power.  The idea that fantasizing about and enjoying fantasies of those actions, however, carries anywhere near the same moral implications, is a ridiculously false one -- I'd say "laughable" except it isn't funny the fiftieth time you run into some self-righteous idiot who takes it for granted that whatever people do in their imaginations, to figments of their imagination, must be exactly what they would do to actual people...  despite, y'know, there being a very large difference between figments of the imagination and flesh-and-blood people. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Anteaus.  I must admit, while I agree with you that there is a difference between reality and fantasy, nevertheless it's begun to disturb me.  Anyway, I don't want this conversation to stray too far from the topic of the discussion, so I'll leave it at that.  The New Yorker 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Hypnofetishism = rape fantasy? 

message: The article states:
"Regardless, the presence of rape fantasies in a community or individual cannot be taken to imply that the fantasizers in reality condone rape, desire to rape others, or wish to be raped themselves. While actual rape is an act of control with sex being the chosen medium of that control, and by its nature exclusively an act of the rapist, rape fantasy is essentially sexual and indulged in from both the point of view of the rapist and, even more frequently, the victim."
This paragraph presents a rather weak argument. Stating that someone with a rape fantasy does not wish to be raped in reality is hard to justify rationally, and there is no proof of the reasoning behind this claim -the distinction made between fantasy and reality does not suffice. This does not seem to be NPOV. Can someone provide any research to support or refute this claim?
Given the abundunce of "Citation Needed" tags throughout the text, I think that the whole article should have an Original Research tag.
:I wouldn't call some of its assertions false per se - anyone who's seen enough romance fanfics knows instinctively on some level that the girls that write the rape fantasies that sometimes appear in the genre would not enjoy real rape, since the point of the fantasy is actually to have domination/submission elements involving an attractive character (or characters, depending on the story), not some random jerk dragging them into an alleyway against their will to have his way with them. In addition, it is true to at least some extent that "rape is about control", at least usually, and rape fantasy is certainly, one way or another, a kind of indulgence.  However, the way that passage made its assertions really isn't up to Wikipedia's (listed) standards. Instead, any statistics or scientific findings regarding the nature of such sexual fantasies or of "the desire to rape others" in the literal sense should be used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.22.61 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research?

message: It would be really interesting to read about a serious survey about rape fantasies. Unfortunately, the link to mentalhelp.net is kinda broken, and it isn't possible to see the survey anymore.. we have those percentages in the article and we don't know where they belong, it's disappointing. If someone knows about a new source where to get reliable data, i'd be grateful if they could add it to the article, thanks.
Sorry for my broken english. 82.58.169.151 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The whole "rape is about control" thing is ridiculous.198.54.202.218 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You two realize that while rape can and often is tied directly with sex, at the core, it's ALL about power (and by extension, control after a fashion, though this is more contingent on the details).  It's not a feminist belief in the least (though they certainly latched onto it with cast iron claws), it's what it IS.  If you cannot see/understand this simple aspect of rape, you have absolutely no business talking about it in any way, and certainly shouldn't have any part in writing about it, even if it is only wikipedia. 66.175.212.70 07:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Non-statutory rape comes in roughly two flavors: chemical (date rape) and violent (sexual assault taken to an extreme). The first may involve a desire for sex, but it also engages a method (alcohol, drugs, etc.) of removing the intended victim's self-control and/or ability to choose whether or not to consent - this is so obviously a method of control, it would be silly to say it "isn't about control", even if the "it isn't about sex" portion of the common assertion is potentially debatable (seeing as the control is used to achieve a form of sex). The violent variation of rape is an act of aggressive domination where one's will and body are forced on another against that other's will - still about control on at least one level. Again - I won't pretend to know how much the desire for sex in specific is involved in any kind of rape, let alone whether it's higher than a desire for control. But control is a key element in rape, since without an attempt to seize control over someone who is either unwilling or unable to give consent to allow said control... you can't have rape in the first place, at least if we're not considering cases of statutory, which is a whole other complex set of issues. In fact though, control can be a sexual fetish or be closely associated with sex - domination and/or aggression (real or otherwise) feature prominently in many species' sexual patterns, and are notable elements in human sexual fantasy and roleplaying, as evidenced by the existence of the dominatrix for one. Noting that it involves a desire to sexually dominate would not be entirely inaccurate, I suppose. I mean, it would be technically accurate, regardless of the core motivations behind the desire...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.22.61 (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics