Do sexual fantasies reveal a much more brutal history in the past?

Unlike the things we actually do to other people, our fantasies about doing things to other people do not have to be ethical. So why wouldn't we fantasize about doing horrible things to other people?

Wierd thread.

I can see some reasons. A less controversial one would be that one avoids being a hypocrite.

igm wrote:

I can see some reasons. A less controversial one would be that one avoids being a hypocrite.

I'm not so sure that 'hypocrite' is the right word for people who treat other people well and only fantasize about treating them badly. But if it is, I have no problem with hypocrisy in their case. I certainly prefer it to the authenticity of acting on ones violent fantasies and hurting people for real.

Do sexual fantasies reveal a much more brutal history in the past? Some men have fantasies of having sex with pre-teens, rape, torture, domination, and enslavement. These are all themes that is common in much of past human civilizations. The "rape, and pillage" after conquest, are often involves the enslavement of the victim, and the willingness of the aggressors. This is what happen in with Rome, Persia, Africa.....etc.

" a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,

especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements."

I'd say that definition suits... but my real point, other than this, is that if one fantasizes about doing something harmful 'some' will end up eventually trying to create that fantasy in real-life.

igm wrote:

" a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,

But you're not feigning the attitude if your acts consistently comply with it.

igm wrote:

especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements."

Notice the absence of the word "acts" in your definition. As long as you consistently act on the publically-approved attitude, your private thoughts are nobody's business. Accordingly, there is no conflict between your dictionary and what I'm saying.

igm wrote:

I'd say that definition suits... but my real point, other than this, is that if one fantasizes about doing something harmful 'some' will end up eventually trying to create that fantasy in real-life.

As I understand the state of psychological field research, that's currently a point of contention within the discipline. It frequently comes up in the context of violent video games. Some psychologists agree with you. They say that such fantasies desensitize players and thereby make them more likely to commit horrible acts for real. Others say fantasies act as a safety valve, as an alternative to doing it for real. The empirical evidence doesn't seem to be conclusive either way. Hence the contention.

If you act towards a 'real' person one way and you fantasize sexually harming them in your head... that's wrong... no excuses...

I also said that rapists etc... have admitted fantasizing 'before' they went on to carryout the rape; which is evidence that sexual fantasies can lead to rape.

Cave men are history

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Rapists are also known to have breathed, eaten, and slept before they carried out the rape. Is this evidence to you that eating, sleeping, and breathing can lead to rape and hence should be barred? The logic of your argument suggests that you think they can, and that they should be.

Thanks for clearly showing the definition of a 'straw man' argument.

Specifically, your fallacy is known as the post-hoc fallacy.

Thomas wrote:

Specifically, your fallacy is known as the post-hoc fallacy.

I disagree because there is sufficient evidence to warrant such a claim.