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

I just did... (also you've got Google there are many studies... read them or not it's up to you)


If you want the right to fantasize about raping someone that is your right... do I have the right to warn you about it? Yes. Do you have the right to ignore that warning ... Yes.

The premise of this thread is essentially bullshit. It is based on myth mascarading as history. The utter destruction of whole peoples was sufficiently uncommon that we have records of such events precisely because they were not the norm. The god of the bible tells his people they can act that way, but they were just a pack of hillbillies in Palestine, far less important, far less dangerous than they would have you believe. The overwhelming majority of conquerors understood that if you want to profit from your conquesst, you don't destroy the people who will pay you taxes, who will pay tribute. Savagery such as is attributed to people like the Mongols (a small tribe whose name was applied to all the tribes in their region) was policy. Resist, and we will destroy you. Submit, and you can pay tribute, but you will live.

Tacitus creates a speech by a Pictish chieftan which ends: To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace. It is usually misquoted as "they make a dessert and call it peace." But there is no reason to believe that there were any shorthand recorders in Scotland in the first century, so there's no reason to assume that such a speech was ever made. The Romans followed a very careful policy in establishing hegemony over the people whom they wanted to conquer, and it was modeled on their internal, social relationships. I recommend reading Machiavelli's Discourses to understand just how their policy worked.

The Norse and the Danes invaded Ireland and Britain in the 9th century. We call them Vikings, but that is misleading. Vikings were basically pirates, whatever country they came from. Many of them overran small, weak places, such as the islands off the coast of Scotland. But the invasions of Ireland and Britain weren't Viking raids, they were invasions with the object of conquest, to take land. If they were forced to fight, they'd murder, rape and plunder--but they didn't want to fight if they could avoid it, because they could afford the casualties. So when they had defeated the Saxons at Eoferwic (York), they put a puppet Saxon king on the throne of Northumbria, and then they brought their wives and children from Denmark, and they took land, which was why they had come in the first place. They did it again in northern Mercia and East Anglia, and they significantly failed to do that in Wessex. Not only could they not afford heavy casualties, they had fewer and fewer warriors to call upon, because they had to leave men behind so that there would not be uprisings in Northumbria and Mercia and East Anglia while they were attempting (and failing) to overrun Wessex.

They could not afford casualties because to replace them, they either had to bring men from Denmark, or they had to hire Vikings--and pirates don't make good soldiers. In 878, at Ethandun, the West Saxons defeated an army larger than their own, which had been swelled with Norse and Danes from France and Ireland. Those men were adventurers, vagabonds, who liked the idea of rape and plunder among helpless victims, but who didn't like the idea of fighting all day in the shield wall against real soldiers who wanted to kill them, and had the skills and courage to do it. The Saxons and the Irish could afford the casualties, even if they didn't like it, because they were fighting in their homelands.

Only one Dane, Canute, was able to conquer Wessex. This he did in 1015--but he died in 1035, and 1045, the Saxons ruled England once more. Brian Boru defeated the "Vikings" in Ireland in the year before Canute overran Wessex, in 1014, although he was killed in the battle of Clontarf where the Norse, Danes and their Irish allies were defeated. By the time the Normans invaded England in 1066 (themselves the descendants of Norsemen, they had effectively become French by then), the so-called Vikings were a threat to no one. They had unwittingly taught their enemies how to defeat them.

Allowing one's army to rape and pillage might be policy in certain cases, but no conqueror intends to destroy the "cattle" he intends to milk. Such behavior is almost always a means of frightening one's enemies into submission. The people who do it, are also almost always looked down upon. In 1407, Jean sans peur, the Duke of Burgundy, arranged for the murder of his rival, Louis, Duke of Orléans. They had struggled for control of France, whose king, Charles le bien aimé (Charles the Beloved) was hopelessly mad. By 1413, although popular with the common people of France, he was out of power again. He tried to march on Paris, but his enemies were too powerful, and he began to abandon his campaign. He evacuated Compiègne, and left Soissons to its fate. The Armagnac party, who now controlled the king, laid siege to Soissons. The city was apparently betrayed, and the French broke in in the night. The people of Soissons were always loyal to their king, and hated the Burgundians and their English allies. Nevertheless, the city was given up to the sack, and for three days the French pillaged, murdered and raped their own loyal people. Nuns were dragged from their convents and whored in the streets before being murdered. Priests were murdered before the altars of their churches.

All of Europe was shocked, precisely because that kind of behavior was not common and was universally condemned. The following year, a small English army commanded by Henry V was trapped as it tried to march to Calais. There is a good deal of dispute, but the majority opinion of scholars is that there were about seven or eight thousand English and Welsh (with a handful of Frenchmen loyal to England) facing 25,000 to 30,000 French and Burgundians. It was a slaughter--the English killed anywhere from 7000 to 10,000 French and Burgundians (depending on whose account one follows) while sufffering fewer than 200 killed. Europe looked such a stunning victory by a small, starving, harried army over such a superior foe as god's punishment of the French for the rape of Soissons the year before.

That's because such behavior was never the rule in the past--it happened, but it was always an exception, and was almost always condemned. If you want to discuss violent sexual fantasies, just do it. Don't make up some vague historical bullshit to base it on.

No you didn't. You have a proposition, and you have a logical framework surrounding your proposition. But you haven't provided any empirical evidence for any part of your framework sufficient to support your conclusion. You merely asserted that such evidence exists, and that it is sufficient. But your assertions don't make it true.


It's your proposition. That makes it your job, not mine, to vet any evidence about it.


Well, at least we can agree on that much.

Rape fantasies don't cause rape. Suppressed sexual impulses cause rape. Oh, and muslims who come to western countries where women walk around showing skin. They're just not used to that.

I don't think we have conclusive evidence for that, either. According to my old psychology textbook (Myers 2004), there are two competing theories about these things. One is what I like to dub the "safety valve theory"; it states that fantasies relieve psychological pressure to actually engage in destructive or self-destructive behavior. The other theory agrees with igm; it holds that indulging perverse fantasies desensitizes people, causing them to act destructively for real. The evidence, according to the textbook, is too inconclusive to confirm or refute either theory.

There's a broader point here: We shouldn't go around pretending to know things when the balance of the evidence suggests that we don't. In this particular case, we don't know if violent fantasies in our heads improve or worsen our behavior in real life. So why go around pretending we know?

The general tenor of my posts is to point out that there 'could' be a danger.

My conclusion is drawn from my proposition:

Some thoughts give rise to action.
Thoughts of raping someone 'can' give rise to the action of raping someone.
Fantasies about raping someone are thoughts about raping someone.
Therefore Fantasies about raping someone 'can' (not will) give rise to rapes.

No empirical evidence is required for this proposition to be true but we both know that there is empirical evidence which is not conclusive but is in accord with the tenor of my posts; which is to point out there 'could' be a danger.

Winged unicorns could fly out of my ass this evening, too . . .

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Well, I know for myself that "violent fantasies" improve my behavior in real life. So many times have I thought about how good it would feel to smash in the face of someone I felt really deserved it. So I imagine that I do, and then I imagine what would happen afterward. It kind of flows naturally. Every time I "wake" from the fantasy thinking that it's best to just leave it be. If I had suppressed the urge to think about it, it would have resulted in a greater chance of me actually doing it. In a way, I see it as thinking through a problem, perhaps "feeling through" it.

That said, I have to agree with you when it comes to the sexual aspects of this, as I have no personal experience to refer to.

I have to say that a fantasy is different from desire and the like. One may get off on "unusual" fantasies, but has no urge or intention on actually harming someone.

I would like to hear the ladies replies.

Quite a few ladies prefer to be dominated or treated aggressively and/or fantasize about such things as being raped, etc. However, it doesn't necessarily mean they wish to be raped in reality. It is, after all, a sexual fantasy which when in the bedroom can be role-played to an extent.

Food example is that many women can't take, but so much during sex...and may tell their partner to "stop," or push their partner away--but do not actuallyWant them to stop. Rather, they want to be held down in complete submission to their partner. I've heard of couples who will use code words when they wish to cease intercourse for any reason (instead of "stop", they will say ex. "baseball").

...don't really think anyone wishes to go through such a trauma for real.

...and the issue lies with their poor decisions and lack of self-control in terms of urges and desires beyond what is considered normal and acceptable behavior in society which does not infringe upon others' rights.

While I may wish to **** the **** out of someone I find insanely attractive and/or think about them sexually (fantasize), the fact I will not act on those kinds of illicit behaviors is what separates me from the criminals I deal with on A daily basis.

My concious decisions and actions are held at a higher standard than my thoughts and fantasies--as with us all.

Criminal behavior is influenced by criminal thinking--selfish, impulsive, and thoughtless in regards to consequence (if I do this, what will happen to my person? Another person? Cause and effect, risk vs. reward; all of which are subconscious and conscious logic and reasoning, both of which lay dormant at the criminal level).

It doesn't "cause" people to act--that's a conscious decision in most cases. However, it can be responsible for desensitizing them to the point they begin to gradually consider the behavior more and more acceptable to them. And again, their thoughts or rationale where society is concerned is absent. It's all about getting what they want--they see it, want it, and therefore they take it (she wouldn't act that way, or wear clothes like that, if she didn't want it--therefore, I am justified).

Too much time ontheir hands and not enough things to do!

The past is the past.
Present, present.
Future, future.

If I understand u correctly,
u demand of us that we SELF-CENSOR our thoughts?? Yes ?

U also allege that failure to do so is hypocritical??????





David

We r free and sovereign between our ears!
Our autonomy is unlimited!





David

Revisiting this thread, I notice that in answering its question, I have sheepishly accepted its premise: "Some men have fantasies of having sex with pre-teens, rape, torture, domination, and enslavement."

Of course this is technically true. But then again, there are roughly 3,500,000,000 men on this planet. You can be fairly sure that everything that can go on in some man's mind, does. Indeed, millions of men could have the most horrendous sexual fantasies. It still would be a mere drop in our seven-billion-people gene pool.

On the other hand, I find just the opposite when I introspect my own sexual fantasies. To me, having sex is just something to do when I'm done cuddling. And it takes me a looong time to get done cuddling. To draw your broad conclusions about evolutionary history, you need to show that your kind of fantasy is more typical of the male mind than my kind of fantasy is. Do you have any evidence for that?

Yes. Current generations fantasies do indicate that in the past sexual violence was expected, desired, and successful. It still is with many of us, witness the huge popularity of BDSM and similar bedroom games.