An inability to tell fantasy from reality would normally be considered evidence of psychosis, but in law enforcement it’s a job requirement. – Maggie McNeill
Since at least the time of Plato, the natural world was generally viewed in Western thought as corrupt, foul and bad; this idea entered Christianity via Gnosticism and dominated philosophy until the advent of the Romantic Era in the late 18th century. Anything of the natural world (including, of course, sex) was to be looked down upon and avoided wherever possible; the things of the mind and spirit were what was important, and those who wished to appear superior to others removed themselves from the natural world and eschewed the “pleasures of the flesh” (at least in public). The Romantics, however, rejected all that; they taught that the natural world was innately good, that childhood “innocence” (i.e. closeness to the natural state) was a thing to be cherished, that primitive people were “noble savages” and that “natural” living was purer and better than “artificial”. This was decidedly a minority viewpoint; the growing middle class of 19th-century Europe and America still saw untamed Nature as rather nasty, and those who lived closer to it than they (in other words, the working class) as inferiors to be “improved” by curing them of their dedication to physical pleasures such as sex and liquor.
But humans are not known for logical consistency, and the bourgeois less so than most; as the Victorian Era wore on, some elements of Romantic philosophy were absorbed into the common weltanschauung, even when they contradicted other aspects of it. For example, the “innocence” of children became the center of a veritable cult despite the fact that adults were expected to behave in an incredibly artificial manner, and “natural” foods and medicines were all the rage in the “social purity” crowd because they were believed to excite the (natural) physical passions less than highly processed ones! But if the Victorians’ beliefs were incongruous, those of the neo-Victorians are even worse: while they reject the belief that sex is innately bad, they also believe against all reason and evidence that it’s something like a radioactive material which must be handled with special and elaborate precautions or else it becomes the single most destructive force on Earth. They imagine that engaging in sex for the “wrong” reasons, or without the benediction of elaborate rituals of consent, or with people separated from one another by more than a very few years of age, is terribly harmful. They believe that merely taking pictures of the taboo act creates a kind of Gorgonic icon which drives its viewers mad, and that the mere existence of such images harms women and children who are not even in close proximity to it. And they fervently assert that it is so incredibly dangerous to the sacred “innocence” of “children” (a term which refers not to true children, but to a ritual category which actually includes some adults), for strangers to even imagine sexual contact with them causes such tremendous harm that those who indulge in these Forbidden Thoughts deserve penalties greater than those for violent assault, followed by lifelong social ostracism.
Needless to say, most of this has only the most tenuous basis in reality, and some of it none at all. But the desire to describe Nature (especially sex) as “good” or “bad” is a very strong one, and for the neo-Victorian mind to accept sex into the “good” category it must be ritually purified by amputating all of its darker aspects, branding even the discussion of them as “violence”, and even pretending that they aren’t even sex at all. This belief flies in the face of reality; sex, fear, dominance and violence are inextricably bound together, and only by living in a state of complete denial can someone pretend that the only valid, “healthy” and legal sex is that which is so sanitized and neutered that it resembles the real thing about as closely as a hamburger does a heifer. Even many unadventurous people have a few rather dark fantasies or repressed turn-ons, and a few have fantasies that if acted upon would be evil indeed (as my friend Philippa used to say, “good fantasy, bad reality”).
But the mere existence of violent, dark fantasies does not indicate a corresponding plan to carry them out; probably 99% of all sexual fantasies are never acted upon, and when it comes to those involving unquestionably evil acts I’m sure the percentage is higher still. Furthermore, the mere discussion of such fantasies with others does not constitute a conspiracy to turn them into reality. But in a world where prosecution for thoughtcrime has become a grim reality, it might be wise to restrict such discussions to fully-anonymized online accounts and to encrypt any files referring to the fantasy; otherwise you could end up like Gilberto Valle:
…agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation took Officer Valle into custody…after they uncovered several plots to kidnap, rape, cook and eat women…the officer’s estranged wife recently contacted the F.B.I. to report that…[he] viewed and kept disturbing items on his computer…[though he] never followed through on any of the acts he is accused of discussing. His lawyer…said the officer committed no crime. “At worst, this is someone who has sexual fantasies…There is no actual crossing the line from fantasy to reality,” she added…
At first I leaned toward believing the allegations, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that these were almost certainly no more than extreme fantasies used by a vindictive ex to put him away; the only reason I had given the story as much credence as I did was that it’s very easy to believe a cop capable of acts of extreme, non-consensual sadism. Then just a few weeks ago, I went from “almost certain” to “dead certain”:
A high-ranking police official…and a former high-school librarian were charged…in a plot to kidnap, torture and kill women and children, federal prosecutors said. Richard Meltz…and Robert Christopher Asch…were held without bail…Peter Brill, an attorney for Mr. Meltz, said his client “had no interest or intention of hurting anybody…it was never anything other than a fantasy”…An official said the case against the men grew out of an investigation in which a former New York Police Department officer was charged and convicted in a plot to kidnap, rape, cook and eat women. The former officer, Gilberto Valle, was convicted in March and is awaiting sentencing.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of an organized interstate gang of serial killers who plot capers for months on the internet without ever carrying a single one out. I think it’s pretty obvious that what the defense attorneys in both cases said is true: these are men with a very extreme BDSM fantasy who are being sacrificed to further the dominant cultural myth that sex can be purified, sanctified and tamed.
In my experience, extremely violent fantasies are painful to have for a person, especially those I care about, unless I really hate them. While there’s no contradiction between BDSM and empathy, but cutting throats and eating women?
While it’s certainly possible he had no intention of acting out his fantasies, I think a reasonable person has every justification to question this guy’s capability to feel empathy, and keep their distance from him.
I definitely agree; none of these dudes would be my choice to snuggle up to in an isolated mountain cabin. And remember, I first accepted the prosecutors’ narrative…until I discovered the size of the so-called “conspiracy” and the total lack of any evidence that any of them ever as much as lifted a finger to carry out any of these fantasies. If writing about doing horrible, sadistic things to people is now going to be criminalized, the mystery, suspense and horror authors of America need to be very, very nervous.
This notion that the natural world may somehow be “bad” is not unique to Western Civilization. Look at Hindu teachings and you’ll see they believe that everything in the natural (i.e. “material”) world is an illusion. They call it Maya. In fact, the most exalted position in Hinduism is to rise above and completely ignore the “illusion” – completely ignore the natural world.
I do not think the Tibetan Monks can be considered part of the Western world and yet they are also not known for their loud parties or vibrant culture of sexual fantasy.
Can a man fantasize about harming women? Yes I suppose a twisted one can and, yes – I suppose it’s his right to be able to do so as long as he doesn’t act on it. I won’t interfere with the firing of his neurons. However, any such guy who fantasizes about harming women is one fucked up dude.
So yes – I recognize that, in order to protect my own rights – I need to protect the rights of everyone – including those fucked up guys who have bizarre violent fantasies. It’s just that – I’m having a hard time using them as the poster boys for the desperate need of Libertarianism in the Western world.
To one extent or another, Hinduism. Buddism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam tell people to ignore physical pursuits of pleasure for a life of spiritual development.
Don’t forget Jainism. It’s probably the most extreme of all.
I must respectfully disagree with these interpretations of “maya” as meaning that the natural or physical world is not real or does not exist. The illusion I think “maya” refers to is the illusion that one’s self is separate from, or not part of, the natural world.
For example, see this Wikipedia succinct description of “maya” as used in the Vedanta tradition:
I do not doubt that some followers of various religions that speak of maya adhere to the more primitive belief that the natural world does not exist. But I think the mainstream traditions, not just the esoteric traditions, take a view more like the one above.
No you got it spot on. They don’t deny that the material world exists – only that they are not a part of it. They spend their lives trying to perfectly separate themselves from the material world.
Sex, possessions, fast cars – all considered things of distraction to be avoided.
Which, as I understand it, is to believe the illusion, or maya, that one’s self is separate from the physical world.
At least some traditions have a somewhat different view about what such vows not to be attached to the world mean. For example, see the Zen story “The Burden”. (You’ll have to scroll down to it, it’s the 2nd story.) There are some other stories there that also bear on the issue. But that one illustrates one salient point about it: attachment is not the same as engagement. One form of attachment to maya is more or less the mental state of believing the illusion of separateness.
But my view of various traditions could be very incorrect or idiosyncratic.
The vast majority of accused in cases where liberty is on trial as much as the defendant have featured people who weren’t terribly acceptable (by anyone standards) in polite society. It’s those sort of outliers who tend to run afoul (at least, at first) of the enforcers of moral and civic order.
It’s not necessary to like such people, or want them anywhere near you, in order to defend their right to be outre and different.
I think the “Interstate Serial Killer Gang” can be shelved next to the “Satanic Child Sex Abuse Cult”; I’ll believe in either when and if any physical evidence of crimes committed surfaces.
Maggie, do you think that porn that caters to the darker, more extreme and impossible fantasies — things like Japanese anime monster porn and stuff — can have a good effect on men who have such deep dark fantasies?
Oh, yes, I think so. We know that porn has a strong tendency to reduce rape, and though the figures aren’t broken up by category it stands to reason that at least some of those deflected rapes are from guys who are attracted to violent, weird sex. I also believe that the worldwide crusade against “child porn” has also resulted in a lot of molestation, especially since they started punishing men for drawings and stories; the myth that pictures can “create” a demand where there is none is magical thinking of the highest order, “voodoo psychology” if you will.
What is “Japanese Anime Monster Porn”? Is that like two Godzilla’s copulating in downtown Tokyo while school kids look on and scream?
Women being raped by tentacled demons, that sort of thing.
My God.
Careful who you invoke. Frequently, your God is a tentacle demon. 😉
You’ve seen me refer to hentai? Well, this is its most well-known form, though not the only one. Some hentai are downright romantic. Some are very dark and atmospheric, while others are bright and comedic.
But the tentacle rape form is the most infamous. La Blue Girl and its various remakes and sequels and sequels of remakes and remakes of sequels constitute a classic of the genre. /Here, enjoy.
It actually goes back quite a number of years, the Dream of the Fisherman’s wife is from 1814.
Oh, and in news of a more recent vintage, a guy was sent away in Texas for selling manga on the subject:
http://cbldf.org/criminal-prosecutions-of-manga/
Although this kind of fantasy is fairly old in Japan, the reason why it is especially popular in pornographic manga, anime, and video games over there is because they are required to censor male genetalia in those materials by law.
However, it is perfectly legal to have a female cartoon character menaces by the goo spurting tentacle of some demonic alien monstrocity according to those same laws.
Oh, here’s a weird experience from my junior high school days, going to the Japanese Pavilion at Epcot center and buying a book of Netsuke with an Ama being amourously embraced by a squid. (I’m very sure she wasn’t being raped though… she seemed very happy and “content.”) Apparently, the Netsuke was actually on display there at the time but I don’t remember if I saw the real one or not.
Did you hear about the “Girls (Scream) Aloud” case here in the UK? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8124059.stm
Similar case of someone with some pretty extreme fantasies writing them down and being prosecuted for it. For all that they call it a “blog” in the linked article, it was a story, posted on asstr (a sex-stories website), and never pretended to be anything else.
Prosecuted for obscenity, only the second obscenity trial for text since Lady Chatterley’s Lover (I think that’s right, Oz magazine in 1971 being the other)
i was thinking of that very case. The desire to police thoughts is something that the neo Victorians excel at.
I remember seeing some stuff that was way too messed up for me to properly enjoy past an ‘eyes glued to a train wreck’ way, but I could understand the attraction, and wouldn’t think someone who got off on it was demented.
About 30 years ago, I lived in a military barracks. One of my shipmates who also lived in the barracks invited a bunch of us to his room to drink beer. While there – he broke out a short movie called … “Snuff”.
It was horrific, and the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life. To this day – I do not know if the woman in the clip was actually killed – or if this was all just “movie magic” with the cutting off of fingers with diagonal pliers and the other forms of torture she was subjected to.
Now – I watched it … all of it. When you’re with guys, you act tough and you don’t show emotions. I would say that most of the guys with me watching were turned OFF by it too – but there may have been a couple who were interested – in some macabre way.
I made an excuse when it was over to leave and went back to my room. And – I cried. I have cried in my life – only a handful of times but that was one of them. Usually, if I cry – it’s over something or some kind of injustice that I intensely hate but am powerless to do anything about. I remember crying a couple of times in Afghanistan and Iraq too so there you go. I’ve cried also at things that make me give up hope for humans – or groups of humans, like men in general. I wish we men could wear colored amulets around our necks indicating which one’s of us are “good” at heart. I do not like the “guilt by associated gender”. Yes, my mind is filled with weird fantasies – but they are all harmless fantasies and the girls I’ve told them to thought they were hilarious. But – I have never had anything in my head like that movie or even close to it.
Anyone who got off on that clip I saw – would be demented in my mind.
Charlie Sheen once reported a snuff film, that turned out to be fake, to the FBI.
http://remycarreiro.com/charlie-sheen-and-the-8mm-snuff-film-a-true-story/
It very well could have been fake – the movie I saw. I do not know one way or the other.
By the way – I don’t think Charlie Sheen is a bad guy. He loves women (and apparently high caliber pistols). Listen to David Lee Roth tell it …
Oh, I give him credit for reporting the movie to the authorities, since he thought it was real. He also didn’t actively seek it out, apparently it was a prank some anonymous person played on him.
I can’t swear it was the same movie you saw, krulac, but I do know that a movie of the same name garnered a lot of notoriety, including an official investigation into whether or not the woman in the film was actually murdered.
The woman who was the “murder victim” in the film testified, thus showing that she is very much alive. She even made more movies.
If the movie you saw was made in South America (supposedly because that’s where “life is cheap”) it almost certainly the same film.
Wikipedia article on the movie Snuff
I actually don’t trust the police officer in this case because I remember reading that he had abused his power to spy on women he liked. Since I’m not on the jury, I’ll make my feeling plain, I think he probably did do the spying. Of course, I could be wrong. Now, if I think he did the spying, how far would he actually take it? No idea. People do actually eat people sometimes, we had a case in my home state where a guy chewed off another guys face in full view of other people. (He was under a highway overpass or something.)
Wasn’t that guy higher than a kite on bath salts?
[…] had already bookmarked in my brain this excellent post from The Honest Courtesan, where she looks at the roots and impact of many of the Victorians contradictory […]