BlogHer - Policing Our Desires: Are Rape Fantasies Acceptable? - Comments

I know I'm late weighing in

pookielocks — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:51:41 -0500

I know I'm late weighing in on this, but as Alyssa so aptly stated, rape is not sex.

i stumbled on this pretty

SilentBob — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:31:27 -0600

i stumbled on this pretty much accidentally while wikipedia-browsing.. but some of the stuff here was quite amusing..

"First of all, if anyone ever confessed that they fantasized about raping me, I suspect that I would be afraid and want to stay far away from them."

You know what? Chances are, if you are somewhat good-looking/curvy, most of the men you've known for a longer time have had a rape fantasy about you at some point. Few will admit it even to fellow men, and very, very few will ever admit it to a woman, but it's a reality. It's male nature and in our genes :) You can suppress it all to some extent with education/social pressure/fear of persecution, but in the one place that nobody can look into - our minds - we still enjoy being Neanderthal level every now and then. Which basically means taking females forcefully and treating them as objects.

You can see this illustrated pretty well on examples where there is less responsibility - for instance wartime periods where a certain army occupies a foreign country. Even although those soldiers may be all nice and civil at home, there've been lots of rape occurrences in such phases - simply because the inhibitors are much weaker.

Now, while this might make you all afraid and want to stay away from most men... as i've said, fantasy is fantasy and reality is reality. In reality, nowadays, in a peaceful country, it's not Stone Age and there are lots and lots of effective inhibitors (mainly, jail, social pressure, or even more simply the feeling of guilt) which make it pretty much a no-go for everyone but the most ruthless (e.g. serial rapists) or powerful (e.g. Israeli president Moshe Katsav etc) to rape people.

So, for me, since i have a good idea of what's in guys' heads :) rape fantasies (male) are quite old... it's when people start to get obsessed with the stuff that it gets questionable.

"Hence the title is a

TrinityVA — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:19:57 -0500

"Hence the title is a question - does anyone have the right to police others' desires and determine which are acceptable and which are not? It was certainly not a declarative statement that desires and fantasies should be policed."

I hope it's clear that I didn't mean you were saying it was. I was saying that even asking that question worries me. I'm deeply concerned that, for many feminists, that actually still is a live question. I was answering the posed question with "No, policing desire is never okay. It changes nothing and only creates shame and resentment in women, who are already far too often shamed for their sexual desires."

"Clearly, it is very hard to be open about desires that may be considered deviant or wrong, and by talking about it, we can take away stigma and generate more understanding about who we are as people."

Yes. Thank you.

Here's why...

Suzanne Reisman — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:22:46 -0500

In response to a few comments, I wrote this post because when I read an article about a woman who acted out her rape fantasy, I was distressed by it. At the same time, my own initial judgmental reaction to a common fantasy bothered me. I hoped by the end of the piece, I made it clear that I felt that no one has the right to determine which fantasies are acceptable and which are not, and I also wanted to hear how other people felt about the topic. Personally, I am still feeling muddled about the language used in the piece, and how we talk about and describe our "dark" fantasies. Hence the title is a question - does anyone have the right to police others' desires and determine which are acceptable and which are not? It was certainly not a declarative statement that desires and fantasies should be policed.

And thanks to urbangypsy, the author of the article that got me thinking about this, for sharing her thoughts and to everyone else who spoke out. We need more discussions about these types of difficult and sensitive topics. Clearly, it is very hard to be open about desires that may be considered deviant or wrong, and by talking about it, we can take away stigma and generate more understanding about who we are as people. Or at least that is my hope.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Totally NOT RAPE!

alyssaroyse — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:15:34 -0500

YUP! That's the point, this is definitely NOT rape. And shouldn't be called rape.

i also agree that most of the BDSM folks i know are incredibly careful and considerate with each other. I've often thought that they could write the guide book for consensual sex, what means and how to do it safely. my husband and I have learned a lot about sexual communication from our "alt kink" friends. And a few other neat tricks too. :)

As for your sex toy comment. That's just ridiculous. A ban on sex toys? How can that even be enforced? "I'm sorry mam, we have reason to believe you're going to spank someone with that spatula." Good lord. That makes me irate. I mean never mind that it isn't anyones business what people do in their bedroom, but how can you enforce that law? The grocery store is full of pervertable items.

That would be funny if it weren't so totally WRONG.

___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com

It is most definitely not rape

nelle2nelle — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:58:19 -0500

To attempt to suggest it is simply because someone gives voice to this desire for their partner to be forceful, and obliging that request is not rape so long as the clear go ahead signal is given, which I suspect is the case.

I wanted to add a comment on the whole stay out of my bedroom tangent. I'm not familiar with Alabama law, so if anyone out there is, and can shed some light here, please do... we know the Supremes just let stand the ban on sex toys... and I'm wondering how that contrasts with things that are legal there. I have serious issue with that particular law, rofl.

Finally, those I know who are into bdsm have code words in place for safety, and are quite serious about that safety framework. How many partners give each other such consideration?

nelle

Sexual Freedom IS the point

alyssaroyse — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:59:51 -0500

You are right, and I think we ALL agree that sexual freedom is of paramount importance to all of us. I don't want anyone in my bedroom either, believe me. And I really don't care what other people do in theirs as long as it is consensual. (Safe isn't really any of my business, though i hope it's safe too.)

It's really a linguistic issue, that, unfortunately ties into larger societal issues of how we accept, condone and even promote violence.

It's not a question of what we're doing in our bedrooms, it is how we frame it when it is discussed. We throw tacit approval of violence all over the place. Honestly, it's in our music, our videos, our TV and movies.... it's everywhere.

There is a general outcry at video games that promote hate crimes and violence by allowing kids to "innocently" beat the crap out of people on their TV screens. And I am just as bothered by that. Should it be allowed to exist? Sure, 1st amendment, free enterprise - all of that. BUT, as a society, we have to learn to look at how we package and present things and that, like it or not, these are the things that define the acceptability of both attitudes and actions in our society.

Conesnt is the cornersotne of sex. Without consent, it is rape. Period.

What happens in "rape fantasies" is consensual. It is sex. It is fine. It is free. It is good. It is not rape. People who have this fantasy should feel totally confident in living it out whenever and however they want. I cannot overstate that.

But as we look at it, and as we discuss it, i just wish that we could do it without calling it rape. It isn't rape. It's sex. And rape isn't sex, it's rape.

The example you cited, of the wife who wasn't in the mood and the husband who raped her is a perfect example of what happens when we forget that Consent is the cornerstone of sex. It is the one thing that MUST be present. And we cannot, as a society, afford to lose sight of that detail.

The rest of it is admittedly blurry. Do violent video games increase our tolerance of and propensity for violence? Many studies have shown that the do. Does a tenor of violence and hate in language promote increase our tolerance of and propensity for hate? Many studies have shown that it does.

By all means - have sex they way you want to, when you want to, with whom you want to. FOR SURE! But anything that helps us lose sight of consent, that scares me. Just don't call it rape, if it's sex. And don't call it sex, if it's rape.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com

I see in your comment what I

TrinityVA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:21:15 -0500

I see in your comment what I often see when this comes up -- "might just", "some men," etc. What I always wonder when I see this is: who are the mights, and who are the some? Are these people who are going to specifically be provoked by me and my use of terms, or are these people who are looking for something to legitimate their desire to do violent things to women? In the absence of, as I mentioned, clear evidence that suggests they are the first and not the second, I have a truly hard time believing that my words have that kind of profound power.

Also, I'm really troubled by

TrinityVA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:11:06 -0500

Also, I'm really troubled by the analogy you're making to the Jena case here. In this case, we're discussing whether people can label their own fantasies with certain words and do their own private role play in certain ways. You may be right that that matters, that there's symbolic violence in those words. I'm going to assume you are, though as I've said, I strongly disagree.

There's still a profound difference between that and Jena. In the Jena case, it's clear that what happened when those nooses were hung was not some white kids testing the boundaries of free speech and happening to fall on the wrong side of the line. Those nooses were NOT hung as a joke. They were hung as a direct response to a black student wanting access to "the white tree." In other words, he was getting "uppity" in the eyes of the white kids. They hung the nooses as an act of terror to put him back in his place.

Even if two people using the term "rape fantasy" in their private lives are being disrespectful and not recognizing symbolism, they're not doing it because of an intention to put survivors back into their places. They are not threatening survivors who speak up about their experiences or do activism or whatever with more rapes.

Even if your general point is right, the Jena analogy is a really poor one, unless you can argue that people calling fantasies by that name is an obvious, direct, and personal threat.

I've wrestled with this subject in the past...

nelle2nelle — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:20:38 -0500

One chirping shoulder jockey plays to what Denise suggests in her post - does it enable, whilst the other gives the 'if it feels good, and is consensual, do it' pov.

And really, the latter wins. About anything can enable abhorrent conduct and blowing past boundaries. That's what brings us the traditional 'she asked for it!' comments that I - we - all despise. We have a right to indulge in what interests us, from provocative clothing to sexual activity, free of fear of some moron thinking they have license to join in.

What we do with another consenting adult is really our business, stay out of my bedroom, thank you. I'm not into bdsm activity, and would have a hard time relating to enjoyment of dishing it out, but others do. Some have a hard time relating to me walking through gender walls as well, but I did. It's not so much understanding the enjoyment, it's appreciating and respecting the right to go there, without slamming the choice from some lofty moral ground.

And what we do, who we choose to to do it with, does not mean anyone else now should feel they can engage in similar activity when they want, where they want, with whom they want. There should be no real blurring of lines, at least not to any sane adult. In the absence of clear shared desire to go there and clear consent, boundaries are to be respected.

A young woman posted elsewhere this week on how she told her (female) partner she was not interested in sex that night. Her partner was drunk, ignored her, pulled off her clothes and ignored her repeated requests to stop. Her question to us: was this assault? Yeah, it was. I just don't see how the lines between play and not going there are really blurred. Surely we all know which is which at any given moment in time?

nelle

I don't see where I said

TrinityVA — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:12:30 -0500

I don't see where I said language is meaningless here. I said that I think that, when we're trying to determine what words to use, we should be careful not to confuse slurs with words for actions.

For example, if someone calls me a cripple (I'm choosing that word because I have in fact been called this, where I don't have experience with other slurs that have been mentioned so far), the person has not simply used a loaded word to describe me -- she has insulted me and knows it (or should, at least). If she refers to me that way to her friends, she hasn't insulted me directly but she has still spoken about me in a derogatory way.

A word for me, for a class I belong to (people with disabilities) is not the same as a word for an action. A cripple is a word FOR A DISABLED PERSON that has been used to demean all of us. "Rape" is a verb for an action. We can talk about who that action is done to -- and of course, as feminists, we should. Early and often. But to say that the word "rape" is like the word "cripple" is wrong. One is a word used to demean; the other is a word for an action performed to demean.

"which would be better looked at as a conversation and not from an adversarial position"

I wasn't being adversarial. I didn't think that what I said would hit a nerve. I thought I was discussing whether and why I chose to call my fantasies what I did. I was not, and still am not, saying anyone else should call them anything. I was saying that, for me, the fantasies are violent and dark, and prettying them up seems profoundly insulting, as if I think I have to be inaccurate to protect people too vulnerable to hear what I'm thinking about but yet feel compelled to mention it anyway.

I have PTSD. I don't want to be protected. I don't want people to stop using words because poor me is damaged, unless they're people I know who I've specifically told my triggers to. My triggers are not the responsibility of the rest of the world, and the rest of the world's coddling does not save me any flashbacks.

I thought we were having a discussion about a word and whether to use it. I had no idea it was personal beyond someone saying "that name kinda squicks me" and me responding "well, people calling what are fantasies about non-consent 'ravishment' squicks me."

"You can't really say, "I didn't mean anything by it." because if that were true, you wouldn't need the word in the first place. the word does mean something that's why you use it."

Precisely, which is why people camouflaging it under "ravishment" bothers me. When someone is saying she wants her top to hold a knife to her throat and laugh off "No", she's not only fantasizing about intense submission. She's fantasizing about a terrifying experience. Using cutesy words for that is, to my mind, inaccurate.

I think we can THEN ask "should she act that out?" or even "is it healthy for her to think about that often?" but I don't think we're right to say "that fantasy is about ravishment." We might say "That fantasy doesn't indicate a desire for real rape", and in that case we'd be completely right. We might also say "That fantasy actually reveals a much milder interest in erotic submission, and what she'd actually like is slightly forceful sex, where the actual acting out of the fantasy would be traumatic."

In that case we'd also be right. But the fantasy itself? Giving it a name is doing violence to survivors? I don't think so. I've had plenty of fantasies centering around things I survived, and while maybe they mean I'd like something milder to work stuff out, that doesn't mean the content of the fantasy wasn't mild.

"But even though you may consider yourself a minority, you are part of a larger society, and it seems that it is in everyone's interest to respect each other"

Of course it is. But how am I disrespecting anyone if I say that, for example, the violent revenge fantasies I have that include doing to rapists what they have done to others are fantasies about raping them? Why should I instead say "I have revenge fantasies," when any further description of the content of the fantasies is going to include the forced sexual acts anyway?

It was a question

alyssaroyse — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:21:32 -0500

First, I think that your comments are largely directed at Suzanne, not me. I did not write the original Blogher post. But I applaud her for writing it because she posed a question that was hard to ask and is hard for many people to think about. She acknowledged that something was confusing her, troubling her, and she didn't know why. So she asked. She even said that she was troubled by her "judgmental" response and asked for help sorting through it. It is that kind if dialog that creates progress.

Your "argument," (which would be better looked at as a conversation and not from an adversarial position) about language is troubling to me. If, indeed, language is meaningless, then you would not be so upset at the proposition that you might call it something else. It is not meaningless, and we all know that.

The reason that people call them rape fantasies is because they are turned on by the aggression, the submission, the violence (mock in this case,) etc.... that is hallmark of real rape. And, again, there is nothing wrong with that. But even in the case of the fantasy, the word RAPE is used to describe all of those acts. Everyone knows what you mean. Everyone knows what rape is.

Another analogy might be the hanging of nooses from the trees in Gena. We have since heard people say, "I didn't mean anything b it," or "it's not like we were REALLY gonna hang them," but it doesn't change the fact that the symbol of a noose is violent and insulting and disrespectful. The act is not the point. The insinuation is.

And the word RAPE is just such a symbol. The acts that are being discussed as consensual sex acts are not the problem, at all. Personally, i like to be forcefully dominated sometimes. Just like I like to be gentle sometimes. It's all good. But calling it RAPE is akin to hanging a noose. You can't really say, "I didn't mean anything by it." because if that were true, you wouldn't need the word in the first place. the word does mean something that's why you use it.

Did anyone get hung by the nooses in Gena? No. Did those nooses add to an air of racism in Gena? Yes. Did they increase racial tensions in an already divided community? Yes. Does it say that a portion of the community is okay with the racism and injustice? Yes. Does it say to many people who have had to face brutality and racism in the real world, "what are you so upset about, it's only a symbol?" Yes. Did anyone really get hung? No. But is that really what matters? No.

Does anyone really get raped in rape fantasies? No. But does it make a game out of something that has destroyed many lives? Yes. Does it say that a portion of the community is just fine with rape in the world? Yes. And does it say, to many people who survived rape, "what are you so upset about, it's just a rape?" Yes.

Rape is not about sex. It is about violence and disrespect. Consensual sex is not. The two should not be confused.

To restate, I think this is fine behavior. I spend a lot of time and energy supporting the sex positive community, and I always will (my way of understanding my gay father, my relationship to sex after rape etc.....) Issues of sexual freedom are deeply important to me.

But so are issues of sexual safety. And as a rape survivor, having that word associated with consensual sex in any way is deeply troubling. That's all. And the word does matter, if it didn't, you wouldn't be defending the right to use it.

But as for the title of Suzanne's post, she's asking a question. And if anyone on the "fringe" of anything wants to be understood and accepted, then engaging in productive dialog when asked is the way to achieve that. If that doesn't matter, then leave it. But even though you may consider yourself a minority, you are part of a larger society, and it seems that it is in everyone's interest to respect each other and look at the unintended consequences of your linguistic choices.

No one wants to police you.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com

Actually, it might spare some women from violence

Denise — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:38:49 -0500

How many times have men suggested, implied or down right insisted that women asked for it, wanted it and enjoyed it during a rape - often. After a rape, during a trial - almost every single time.

It is quite possible that by calling sexual fantasies "rape fantasies" that you are legitimizing rape in the minds of some men and that might just get a woman raped - or killed.

~Denise
Fast Times @ Homeschool High & Flamingo House Happenings

Then why call your post

TrinityVA — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:37:04 -0500

Then why call your post "Policing Desire: Are Rape Fantasies Acceptable?" That title suggests to me that you're asking the question, and that it remains alive as a question by the time your post is done. If that's not so, I've misread.

And no, it isn't rape. But I don't see much here to address what I was actually saying, which is: okay, so I start calling my fantasies something else. How does that prevent rape? To me, THAT's the relevant question. How does what we do or say make the world safer?

I used to care terribly about language, about reification of concepts. Now I care about what I see in the world. If what I see in the world is tied to a concept, then it matters -- if a handful of sadomasochists calling their fantasies a particular name creates rape, can be shown to cause it or to cause people to care less when it happens or to make people confused about what rape is, then they should not do it. But if that's hardly relevant, and I truly don't think it is, or that can't be shown, and I don't think it can, I don't see why it's important that people not use a term.

And the third paragraph... I hear your indignance, but I don't follow you: what's the "game?" Clearly you're saying it's not the thought, as you're vehement that you're not for policing desire. Ostensibly it would be what people are acting out, but is this what I would be acting out/what Tess did act out, or what we would/did act out if a certain word is applied to it? I can't parse that paragraph at all. What are you saying is unacceptable? Is it the word that creates the mockery inherent in the "game" or is it the erotic role-playing in the first place regardless of its name?

um, your desires are fine.

alyssaroyse — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:21:50 -0500

No one, at least no one on this blog so far, has suggested that anyone's desires need to be policed or altered or anything else. i know that I, very specifically, said that I think people need to be able to live out, live within and generally live comfortably and openly with their diverse sexual desires. I cannot state that more emphatically, nor defend that principle any more ardently than I do.

If that mean being tied up and beaten, (and I have a lot of friends for whom that is precisely what it means) then great. Go for it.

But it isn't rape. And yes, calling it rape legitimizes rape in the same way that calling someone a nigger legitimizes the racist undertones of that word. Language is, after all, a more powerful weapon and a more powerful form of repression than almost anything else.

There is nothing wrong with the fantasies or behaviors described i the article, or in your posting. All of them are very much a part of the world in which many of closest friends thrive. And i think it's great.

But to make a "game" out of something that is a heinous violent crime, that's just not okay. That is disrespectful of those of us who have had to survive it.

And Freud has nothing to do with it.

___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com

Policing Our Desires: Are Rape Fantasies Acceptable?

Suzanne Reisman — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:02 -0500

For the last few years, I’ve subscribed to a magazine that is more or less about what’s going on in New York City. Every year, the magazine publishes a sex issue. Makes sense – New York City is a pretty sexy town, full of all kinds of people who are into all kinds of things. Usually, it’s a fun read, so I hesitated slightly when the cover promised that this was their “most explicit issue ever” and “undercover your fantasies,” with a flap covering a naked woman as part of a threesome. It’s not like I’m a (total) prude, but I am not subscribing to Hustler for a reason. The issue sat around on my coffee table for a week before I finally perused my “fantasies.” That’s when the trouble began.

In an article called, “I Want to… be raped, a pseudonymous writer named Tess wrote, “When I want to come, even with a gentle lover, I imagine his hand covering my mouth as he forces his erection inside of me. This sends me over the edge.” I found that disturbing, but I didn’t want to judge. Fantasies are just that – fantasies; most of us don’t act on them. Plus, women’s rape fantasies are not uncommon. As Nancy Friday discovered in her 1973 groundbreaking book, My Secrect Garden, many women fantasized about forced sexual contact. In her follow up book, Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women’s Sexual Fantasties, Friday wrote:

[In 1973] The most popular guilt-avoiding device was the so-called rape fantasy — "so-called" because no rape, bodily harm, or humiliation took place in the fantasy. It simply had to be understood that what went on was against the woman's will. Saying she was "raped" was the most expedient way of getting past the big No to sex that had been imprinted on her mind since early childhood. (Let me add that the women were emphatic that these were not suppressed wishes; I never encountered a woman who said she really wanted to be raped.)

Certainly sexual guilt hasn't disappeared, nor has the rape fantasy. There is something very workmanlike and reliable about the traditional bullies and bad people whose intractable presence allows the woman to reach her goal, orgasm.

Ranty McRanterson (so love the name!) can relate to Friday’s findings. In her self-titled blog's rebuttal to The Female Thing, a book about feminism by Laura Kipnis, McRanterson, wrote:

… I have the rape fantasy, I'm gonna come out and say it because I can actually explain it. It is incredibly common to sexualize fears. All kinds of fears. Just because I fantasize this doesn't mean that I actually want it to happen. Think about it physically for a second, fear creates adrennaline, and adrennaline is exciting and that helps get you off pretty damn quick. It's also common for sexually abused children to fantasize about rape as adults, does that mean they want to be raped? NO! I also believe that the media is much to blame for this. Growing up and being subjected to images of dominated women. Women who kinda "fall" into sex rather than actually go for it. Women who are being saved and then the hero wins a kiss?! These are all images of dominated women where things happen to them, they don't actually do anything. One can also blame religion for the rape fantasy. Growing up as a Christian I learned that women aren't sapose to enjoy sex or even want it. It's a neccessary function that happens to a gal when she's married and one should be ashamed of their sexual desires. Therefore, if sex just happens to you, then you didn't really do anything wrong, did you? It's a very twisted thought process but quite true to someone who's been taught to suppress their natural urges.

However, what distressed me about Tess’s article was not so much that she fantasized about being raped, but that she took the next step. She wrote, “Being sexually adventurous, I had asked a lover or two if they’d consider raping me. They demurred. Rape – even consensual rape – remains a huge taboo.” Can rape be consensual? No, I don’t think it can. If it is consensual, I think it is maybe rough sex, but not rape, and to even use the term “consensual rape” seems extremely dangerous to me.

So long romance takes Tess’s more extreme view of rape fantasies, although even she does not call it “consensual rape:”

I read an article that listed rape as one of the top three sex fantasies that women have. Rape. I heard a feminist justify this by saying that all rape fantasies, at some point, become consensual mid act because no real woman would ever want to be dominated. Well, I don’t know what women she talked to, but my rape fantasies stay about rape all the way up until the point where he spits on me and walks away. Dominate me, baby.

Now men, I am not saying that you should go out and rape a woman. Like most fantasies, the whole scenario is sexier in our heads than it’d be in real life. All I’m saying is that your woman wants a little aggression, a dash of force! Use good judgment!

Zenobia at British feminist group blog Mind the Gap, as part of a post about stopping rape and properly punishing rapists, noted:

…as feminists, we’re not supposed to be the side who’s afraid of ideas. We’re supposed to be the ones demanding the right to discuss them openly, to sort out the huge fucked-up muddle of gender relations. This is especially important because men and general very fierce bad people don’t have the monopoly of rape fantasies. Women also have them, which doesn’t mean they want to be raped, or even rape anyone. Only, attempts to discuss this are more often than not prevented, usually by feminists.

Back to Tess’s story, she starts dating a guy named Victor. “While our sexual encounters always featured rough sex, rape – our ultimate fantasy – was something we put on the back burner until we truly trusted one another.” And here’s where I truly freaked out. First of all, if anyone ever confessed that they fantasized about raping me, I suspect that I would be afraid and want to stay far away from them. Maybe this is very judgmental of me. If it is OK for women to have fantasies about being raped, should it also be normal for men to have fantasies about raping a woman? (And what about men who fantasize about raping other men? Or women who want to force themselves on other women?) At what point does the reality of the violent world we live in, as well as brutal statistics about sexual violence against women (and homosexuals) turn a fantasy into a dangerous perversion?

In Women on Top, Friday wrote that, “today's woman is just as likely to flip the scenario into one in which she overpowers and rapes the man.” I’m not sure how I feel about that, either. Since we know that rape is hurtful, painful, and destructive, I don’t think it says anything positive about women’s progress if we find ourselves wanting to be rapists.

The remainder of Tess’s article described what happened when she and Victor decided to enact their rape fantasy. It was violent and scary (he held a knife to her throat and she was “frightened enough” that her tears turned to “wrenching sobs” even though she knew he “wouldn’t really hurt” her), and Tess wrote, “I remember thinking how awful and terrifying this would be had it been real, a true crime of rage and violence, and not something that had been agreed to.”

While the whole article repulsed me, I also feel guilty in many ways for judging another woman for her desires. It seems to me that regulating which desires are acceptable and which are transgressions is a slippery slope. (While my fantasy of Daniel Craig wading out of the water in those Casino Royale ads, through my TV, and into my living room naked seems pretty boring, some might find it objectionable, and I hardly want others condemning me for my desires.) And yet, I had a hard time falling asleep after I read the article because it upset me so profoundly. Zenobia is right: the more we talk about these things, the closer we come to finding ways through “the huge fucked-up muddle of gender relations” that govern our most intimate thoughts, actions, and sexual urges.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants