Incest Fantasies [Archive I]

Tom Sawyer

August 24, 2003, 10:06 AM

Morality is based on actions, not desires. In order for something to have a moral element to it, it must have an element of choice involved - if there's no possibility of choice, then there's no morality involved. If you're driving a car and hit a dog that you didn't see, you're not doing anything immoral, but if you chase after the dog in your car to run it down, then you are. The end is the same, but the second involved you making a choice to hit the dog, which makes it immoral as opposed to the first, which was just an accident.

This related to the original post in that we don't have a choice over the thoughts that come into our head. We do, however, have a choice over what actions we take because of those thoughts and that's where the element of morality comes in. The man can have whatever thoughts he wants, but as long as he doesn't do anything because of them then there's nothing immoral about it.

Note that this doesn't only involve actions taken against her - if he watches his daughter sunbathing in the backyard and then goes into the washroom to masturbate, I'd say he's doing something immoral. No one is harmed by his actions, but they are far enough outside of the societal norms that they could be considered immoral. A lot of people would probably disagree with me about this, but the general rule of thumb that I use to decide if an action is not moral (other than it causing unnecessary harm to someone) is would you feel comfortable telling someone what you're doing?.

If someone asked him what he was doing, he likely wouldn't feel comfortable saying, "I'm masturbating to images of my teenage daugther sunbathing". The fact that he wouldn't want to let people know what he's doing says that he's probably doing something wrong. Note that there is a key difference between this and the mere thoughts of incest he's having, which he also wouldn't want to tell anyone about, although there's no moral element involved there. The difference is that with the mere thoughts, he's not doing anything, while with the masturbation, he is, even though no one may ever know about it. It's still wrong.

So any thoughts a guy has, no matter how freakish, do not have a moral element attached to them. Actions taken on those thoughts, however, involve a choice to take those actions and thus enter the realm of morality.

Loren Pechtel

August 24, 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by keyser_soze
He's sick, but nothing illegal going on, or immoral(in action). He should definately seek counseling however.

We don't have control over who we find sexually desirable. What's sick about this situation?

viscousmemories

August 24, 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by VivaHedone
No - as long as his fantasies do not encourage him to act on his attraction. That's a pretty big "as long as". Do fantasies ever encourage action? If you fantasize about going on a killing spree at McDonalds, is there more danger of you eventually acting on that fantasy?

I do not believe that anything that causes pleasure yet no harm can be wrong - except sometimes when it infringes on someone else's rights, and that is not the case here. Keeping this to the strict example of fantasy, why do you specify "anything that causes pleasure"? To the best of my knowledge, fantasies can't cause harm, so that's a given. Are you suggesting that if they don't cause pleasure, they may be immoral? Also, can you give an example of how fantasy can infringe on someone elses rights?

vm

sergeyvladimirovich

August 24, 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by viscousmemories
There have been several threads housing discussion of whether incest is immoral, so I don't think that needs to be rehashed here. I am more interested in hearing what people have to say about the morality of fantasy, and I'm using an incest scenario as a prop. I hope for the focus of the discussion to be on the questions following the description of the hypothetical scenario.

Scenario:

A man realizes a sexual attraction to his 15 year old daughter. He believes that it would be psychologically damaging to her, not to mention immoral, for him to even reveal his attraction to her much less act on it. Because he has no desire to cause her pain, and he tries his best to be a moral person, he never intentionally gives her any indication of his feelings.

Now:

Is it immoral (or otherwise 'wrong', if that's possible) for him to fantasize about having sex with her? Does the frequency, duration, or content of the fantasies matter? Does it make a difference if he masturbates while he fantasizes?

vm

First there is a thought, then there is a deed. If you constantly fantasize about doing something, you are likely to do it. If someone thinks that something is wrong, they had better admonish it from both action AND thought. If they believe something is immoral and still dream about it-- they are just hypocrites or weak people. So in my understanding, it IS immoral to lust even when the guy does not engage in the act physically.

Now of course you can tell me that I'm using chain reaction logic which is generally considered faulty thinking. You can tell me how there is absolutely no basis to assume that if someone thinks about something they'll do it. Well, to me this is a question of probability, really. It seems bloody obvious to me that the more you lust after something, the less control you have over your actions and the higher is the probability of you "slipping". Your actions come from your fantasies afterall.

To summarize:

1. If you think something is bad, try to stop thinking about and drooling over it-- otherwise, you are in danger of losing control.

2. If you decided that something is wrong and still fantasize about it...well, you are not wholesome, a hyporcrite.

sergeyvladimirovich

August 24, 2003, 11:18 AM

This related to the original post in that we don't have a choice over the thoughts that come into our head.

I wouldn't say that. With training one can become pretty good at avoiding mental states that are undesirable. I believe we DO have control over everything in our consciousness so we are responsible for what's in our heads and morality does very much apply there!

Tom Sawyer

August 24, 2003, 11:47 AM

sergeyvladimirovich,

First there is a thought, then there is a deed. If you constantly fantasize about doing something, you are likely to do it. If someone thinks that something is wrong, they had better admonish it from both action AND thought. If they believe something is immoral and still dream about it-- they are just hypocrites or weak people. So in my understanding, it IS immoral to lust even when the guy does not engage in the act physically.

Now of course you can tell me that I'm using chain reaction logic which is gen7erally considered faulty thinking. You can tell me how there is absolutely no basis to assume that if someone thinks about something they'll do it. Well, to me this is a question of probability, really. It seems bloody obvious to me that the more you lust after something, the less control you have over your actions and the higher is the probability of you "slipping". Your actions come from your fantasies afterall.

To summarize:

1. If you think something is bad, try to stop thinking about and drooling over it-- otherwise, you are in danger of losing control.

2. If you decided that something is wrong and still fantasize about it...well, you are not wholesome, a hyporcrite.

I disagree with this totally. Yes, if you continually fantasize over something then there is mroe of a chance that you will do something about it. However, until you do there is nothing wrong with it.

As an example, I think that the receptionist at my work is really hot. However, I'm happily married and have no desire to cheat on my wife but I still have fantasies about having sex with the receptionist. I will never act on these fantasies and I make sure I never ogle the receptionist while I'm passing by. Having brief sexual fantasies about her from time to time makes me feel good, though, no one is hurt by it and I'm not in any danger of losing control, so why should I stop?

I don't think that this is weak or hypocritical at all. It is natural for men to have sexual fantasies about attractive women. There is a big difference between thoughts and deeds and the first does not necesarily lead to the second. If I chose to take action based on my thoughts, then I would be a) trying to cheat on my wife and b) making inappropriate sexual advances to a woman I work with, both of which would be immoral. Having harmless fantasies harms no one, so what rational is there for me to stop?

sergeyvladimirovich,

I wouldn't say that. With training one can become pretty good at avoiding mental states that are undesirable. I believe we DO have control over everything in our consciousness so we are responsible for what's in our heads and morality does very much apply there!

Why should we try to avoid the mental states? If no action is taken based on those mental states, why are they bad? Why should I go through all the trouble of training myself to avoid having fantasies when there is no adverse effect of having those fantasies?

I disagree that we have control over everything in our consciousness. Random thoughts and feelings continually make their way into our minds and some of these are good and some are bad. However, if we don't do anything about these feelings, ther is no moral element to it. If thinking about incest is immoral the same as committing incest, then someone who thinks that it would be a good idea to help feed the poor would be comparable to someone who actually takes hours out of their day to volunteer in a soup kitchen. Granted, people wouldn't volunteer in a soup kitchen without first having the desire to feed the poor, but until they take that action, there is no moral component to the situation, since it resides solely in their thoughts.

Yes, having thoughts about feeding the poor is better than having thoughts about sex with your teenage daughter. However, until some action is taken based on those thoughts, there is no moral element of right or wrong involved.

viscousmemories

August 24, 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by keyser_soze:He's sick, but nothing illegal going on, or immoral(in action). He should definately seek counseling however.Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
We don't have control over who we find sexually desirable. What's sick about this situation? I don't get that statement either. Perhaps someone trained in a mental health related field could shed some more light on this, but I'm nearly positive that if a man went to a psychiatrist and said, "Doctor, at the suggestion of someone on the Internet, I've come to seek help because I have been fantasizing about having sex with my teenage daughter", the doctor would ask the man a series of questions designed to determine if he had any intention of acting on his desire and/or suffered from an obsession with the idea. If both answers came up negative, I suspect he'd send him home.

vm

sergeyvladimirovich

August 24, 2003, 12:05 PM

Tom,

I believe: what you think is who you are. People can be moral or immoral and since people are what they think (in my belief), immoral thoughts make immoral people.

When you fantasize about the receptionist, you are being immoral as far as I'm concerned. "I'll never do it" excuse is weak-- in times of distress or passion you don't know what you'll do or not do. The inhibited may just float up-- plain psychology.

viscousmemories

August 24, 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Tom Sawyer
Morality is based on actions, not desires. In order for something to have a moral element to it, it must have an element of choice involved - if there's no possibility of choice, then there's no morality involved. If you're driving a car and hit a dog that you didn't see, you're not doing anything immoral, but if you chase after the dog in your car to run it down, then you are. The end is the same, but the second involved you making a choice to hit the dog, which makes it immoral as opposed to the first, which was just an accident.

This related to the original post in that we don't have a choice over the thoughts that come into our head. We do, however, have a choice over what actions we take because of those thoughts and that's where the element of morality comes in. The man can have whatever thoughts he wants, but as long as he doesn't do anything because of them then there's nothing immoral about it. I agree. To summarize (and I apologize if I mischaracterize your point): Our ideas and desires are beyond our conscious control, and hence cannot be immoral.

Note that this doesn't only involve actions taken against her - if he watches his daughter sunbathing in the backyard and then goes into the washroom to masturbate, I'd say he's doing something immoral. No one is harmed by his actions, but they are far enough outside of the societal norms that they could be considered immoral. What exactly are you identifying as immoral with this hypothetical? Him watching her sunbathe, the thoughts that come into his mind as he watches her, the fact that he indulges those thoughts and allows them to become fantasies, or the fact that he uses those fantasies as grist for his masturbation?

A lot of people would probably disagree with me about this, but the general rule of thumb that I use to decide if an action is not moral (other than it causing unnecessary harm to someone) is would you feel comfortable telling someone what you're doing? If someone asked him what he was doing, he likely wouldn't feel comfortable saying, "I'm masturbating to images of my teenage daugther sunbathing". The fact that he wouldn't want to let people know what he's doing says that he's probably doing something wrong. I�m one of those people who disagrees with you on this. I know a lot of people who think masturbation is at least pathetic (what�s the matter, can�t get a woman?), at worst immoral (you�re spilling God�s potential children on that towel, heathen). As a result, I am not at all comfortable with telling people that I masturbate. Does that make it immoral for me to masturbate?

Note that there is a key difference between this and the mere thoughts of incest he's having, which he also wouldn't want to tell anyone about, although there's no moral element involved there. The difference is that with the mere thoughts, he's not doing anything, while with the masturbation, he is, even though no one may ever know about it. It's still wrong.

So any thoughts a guy has, no matter how freakish, do not have a moral element attached to them. Actions taken on those thoughts, however, involve a choice to take those actions and thus enter the realm of morality. I think you and I are very similar in our opinion. In another forum, I broke down the life-cycle of a thought like this:

Idea � Beyond your control, can't be immoral
Desire (a subset of which is �impulse�, which can cause a person to skip from desire to action) - Beyond your control, can't be immoral
Fantasy - Maybe beyond your control or not, not immoral in either case
Intent - In your control, could be immoral
Action - In your control, could be immoral

I think that when you say he isn�t being immoral with his thoughts of incest, but is being immoral with his masturbation, you are essentially saying that his desire is not immoral, but his fantasy is. That is the only point on which I disagree. In my view, as long as his fantasies never cross over to intent or action, he is in no way acting immorally.

vm

viscousmemories

August 24, 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
First there is a thought, then there is a deed. If you constantly fantasize about doing something, you are likely to do it. Do you have some evidence to support your assertion that �contantly fantasizing about doing something� makes a person �likely to do it�?

If someone thinks that something is wrong, they had better admonish it from both action AND thought. If they believe something is immoral and still dream about it-- they are just hypocrites or weak people. So in my understanding, it IS immoral to lust even when the guy does not engage in the act physically. sergey, I can barely even follow your train of thought in this paragraph. I think you are using �dream� and �lust� as synonyms for �fantasize�, which unnecessarily obfuscates your point, and I don�t understand your use of the word �admonish�. In any case, I think what you are saying in brief is that people should make a conscious effort to sublimate any thoughts which contradict their moral standing or they are �hypocrites or weak people�. Perhaps you�re right. However, if I think an intention or action is immoral, but that a thought, desire or fantasy cannot be (which in fact I do believe) then your argument is baseless.

Now of course you can tell me that I'm using chain reaction logic which is generally considered faulty thinking. You can tell me how there is absolutely no basis to assume that if someone thinks about something they'll do it. Well, to me this is a question of probability, really. It seems bloody obvious to me that the more you lust after something, the less control you have over your actions and the higher is the probability of you "slipping". Your actions come from your fantasies afterall. I�ve never heard of a �chain-reaction fallacy�, but that�s not a big surprise as I�m not generally a heavy debater. I would, however, classify your argument as a slippery-slope fallacy; perhaps incorrectly, but that�s what I understand that concept to mean. Anyway� your argument in this paragraph appears to be something along the lines of, �Actions are directly caused by fantasies, and you can tell me that there is no rational basis for my assertion, but since I firmly believe that it is accurate you should simply accept my view.� Sorry, but to my Mother�s great dismay, the fact that she named me after the doubter means that I require evidence before I accept that assertions are truisms.

To summarize:

1. If you think something is bad, try to stop thinking about and drooling over it-- otherwise, you are in danger of losing control.

2. If you decided that something is wrong and still fantasize about it...well, you are not wholesome, a hyporcrite. You have provided no evidence for your first bullet point, which makes your second point mere rhetoric and irrelevant to the discussion.

vm

deano

August 24, 2003, 02:12 PM

in past civilisations incest was common place.
infact alexander the great's slept with his mother because it was his duty because his father died.

incest does no harm to anyone so how can it be a justified moral??.

sexual morality is immensly screwed up,if someone wants to sleep with a relative,it wouldnt bother me,but it isnt my cup of tea.

do not confuse emotions for fact.

Tom Sawyer

August 24, 2003, 02:16 PM

sergeyvladimirovich,

Tom,

I believe: what you think is who you are. People can be moral or immoral and since people are what they think (in my belief), immoral thoughts make immoral people.

When you fantasize about the receptionist, you are being immoral as far as I'm concerned. "I'll never do it" excuse is weak-- in times of distress or passion you don't know what you'll do or not do. The inhibited may just float up-- plain psychology.

What exactly about this fantasy is immoral and why? Is it because it's somebody I work with or because I have sexual thoughts about someone who's not my wife? If it's the second, then every man I know is immoral because we all check out good-looking women when we see them walking by and often have brief images of what it would be like to have sex with them. We then keep walking and go on with our lives. If it's the first, then every man in my office is immoral, since we pretty much all think the same thing when we see her. Noticing beautiful women and having brief fantasies about those women is completely normal and there is nothing either moral or immoral about it. The element of morality comes in when an action is taken as a result of those fantasies.

The question of what I would do in a time of distress or passion is irrelevent. In that case, I'd take an action and the moral element would enter into the picture. The idea that a thought is immoral because there is a possibility that something that is related to that thought might happen in the future if a specific set of circumstances occurs is as nonsensical as saying that driving is immoral because one day I may drive drunk and hit a child. We're talking about what's actually happening now. If one day something happens where I cheat on my wife, then that would be immoral, regardless if I'd had fantasies about that woman beforehand or had never looked ather twice before the actual affair. Private thoughts that don't create any impact on the real world, however, have absolutely no moral element attached to them.

viscousmemories,

What exactly are you identifying as immoral with this hypothetical? Him watching her sunbathe, the thoughts that come into his mind as he watches her, the fact that he indulges those thoughts and allows them to become fantasies, or the fact that he uses those fantasies as grist for his masturbation?

Out of those, I'd say that watching her sunbathe and using the fantasies for masturbation are the immoral ones. This is because in both cases, he is taking action in the real world. Standing around leering at one's daughter and masturbating to that image both involve him bringing the thoughts into the real world and taking some action. Just having the thoughts pop up in his head has no meaning in a moral sense. Indulging in those thoughts and letting them become fantasies is a tricky one; normally I'd say it's not a moral question, but the fact that it's his daughter and thus so highly inappropriate for him to dwell upon those thoughts that I'd say it pushes it into the realm of immorality in this specific sense.

I�m one of those people who disagrees with you on this. I know a lot of people who think masturbation is at least pathetic (what�s the matter, can�t get a woman?), at worst immoral (you�re spilling God�s potential children on that towel, heathen). As a result, I am not at all comfortable with telling people that I masturbate. Does that make it immoral for me to masturbate?

OK, that's a very good point, so allow me to elaborate on my original statement. Sometimes people aren't comfortable talking about their actions because they're immoral and sometimes because they're not socially acceptable to discuss. If I'm out having dinner with someone and go to the bathroom, I don't come back and say, "Wow! That was one huge piece of shit I just shoved out". I wouldn't be comfortable discussing the details of my washroom visit. This is not because there is anything immoral about taking a shit, it's just not a topic of conversation that is considered socially acceptable to talk about.

Masturbation is the same. Like taking a shit, it's something that everyone does but it's not considered a socially acceptable topic of conversation. However, it is something that can be talked about with certain groups; I've sat around drinking with buddies and had conversations about masturbation. I cannot imagine, however, rational people sitting around talking about masturbating to thoughts of their teenage daughters sunbathing. I'd consider anyone who mentioned he does something like that to be very distured at the least and would likely contact children's services to get the girl out of the house.

That's basically how I'd distinguish between a man not being comfortable talking about masturbation and not being comfortable talking about masturbation to thoughts of his teenage daughter.

Tom Sawyer

August 24, 2003, 02:33 PM

deano,

in past civilisations incest was common place.
infact alexander the great's slept with his mother because it was his duty because his father died.

incest does no harm to anyone so how can it be a justified moral??.

sexual morality is immensly screwed up,if someone wants to sleep with a relative,it wouldnt bother me,but it isnt my cup of tea.

do not confuse emotions for fact.

It doesn't really matter what happened in past civilizations. Discussions of morality should focus on the here and now and what was considered acceptable for kings in ancient Macedonia has no bearing on the topic. Alexander also owned slaves and killed thousands of people who objected to his expanding his territory into their lands, but if I enslaved people or killed my neighbour because he didn't want me expanding my territory into his yard, the justification that Aleander the Great did it a couple thousand years ago wouldn't make either a moral act.

I agree with you that if relatives want to sleep with each other, it's their own damn business, providing that they are both consenting adults. In the OP, the daughter is 15, below what is considered the age of consent in our society, and a man would be hard-pressed to convince me that even if she did give her consent for her father to sleep with her, she wasn't coerced into it, due to the inherent imbalance of power in the relationship between a father and his teenage daughter.

Loren Pechtel

August 24, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by viscousmemories
I don't get that statement either. Perhaps someone trained in a mental health related field could shed some more light on this, but I'm nearly positive that if a man went to a psychiatrist and said, "Doctor, at the suggestion of someone on the Internet, I've come to seek help because I have been fantasizing about having sex with my teenage daughter", the doctor would ask the man a series of questions designed to determine if he had any intention of acting on his desire and/or suffered from an obsession with the idea. If both answers came up negative, I suspect he'd send him home.

vm

That's how I see it--so long as he's not going to try to act on them it's a non-issue.

I doubt there's anyone on here who hasn't had fantasies about someone unobtainable for whatever reason. So what if that unattainability happens to be because of a family relationship? How is that any different than having fantasies about someone on the silver screen?

Michaelson

August 25, 2003, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Tom Sawyer: ...allow me to elaborate on my original statement. Sometimes people aren't comfortable talking about their actions because they're immoral and sometimes because they're not socially acceptable to discuss. If I'm out having dinner with someone and go to the bathroom, I don't come back and say, "Wow! That was one huge piece of shit I just shoved out". I wouldn't be comfortable discussing the details of my washroom visit. This is not because there is anything immoral about taking a shit, it's just not a topic of conversation that is considered socially acceptable to talk about.

Masturbation is the same. Like taking a shit, it's something that everyone does but it's not considered a socially acceptable topic of conversation. However, it is something that can be talked about with certain groups; I've sat around drinking with buddies and had conversations about masturbation. I cannot imagine, however, rational people sitting around talking about masturbating to thoughts of their teenage daughters sunbathing.

You haven't really made a distinction there at all. Most people feel uncomfortable talking about masturbation with others, though the act is not immoral. Even fewer people sit around and talk about their incestual fantasies... because incestual fantasies are immoral?

For one, I would have thought it perfectly possible that someone who was okay with their own incestual fantasies would refrain from talking about them for exactly the same reasons they don't discuss masturbation or taking a shit over the dinner table: out of respect for the sensibilities of whoever they are talking to.

But even if your distinction is a valid one, can I ask how it is we can determine whether we are uncomfortable discussing our actions merely due to social convention, or instead due to the immorality of those actions?

deano

August 25, 2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Tom Sawyer
deano,

It doesn't really matter what happened in past civilizations. Discussions of morality should focus on the here and now and what was considered acceptable for kings in ancient Macedonia has no bearing on the topic. Alexander also owned slaves and killed thousands of people who objected to his expanding his territory into their lands, but if I enslaved people or killed my neighbour because he didn't want me expanding my territory into his yard, the justification that Aleander the Great did it a couple thousand years ago wouldn't make either a moral act.

I agree with you that if relatives want to sleep with each other, it's their own damn business, providing that they are both consenting adults. In the OP, the daughter is 15, below what is considered the age of consent in our society, and a man would be hard-pressed to convince me that even if she did give her consent for her father to sleep with her, she wasn't coerced into it, due to the inherent imbalance of power in the relationship between a father and his teenage daughter.

yup your right.though what alexander did was as a king,just the same as what nations do now.

viscousmemories

August 25, 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Tom Sawyer
Out of those, I'd say that watching her sunbathe and using the fantasies for masturbation are the immoral ones. This is because in both cases, he is taking action in the real world. Standing around leering at one's daughter and masturbating to that image both involve him bringing the thoughts into the real world and taking some action. I stated in my OP, �Because he has no desire to cause her pain, and he tries his best to be a moral person, he never intentionally gives her any indication of his feelings.� Hence, our hypothetical man has already concluded that �leering� at his daughter (as �leering� implies a communication of sexual interest) is an immoral action, and therefore doesn�t do it.

So, assuming the only two actions he takes are �watching her sunbathe� and �masturbating to that image�, let�s look at them independently. What is immoral about �watching her sunbathe�? Is it her physical position? Is it because she�s in a swimsuit? The length of time he watches her? The thoughts he has while watching her? Is he supposed to avoid looking at her at all times, or avoid looking at her for more than 30 seconds at a time? What if he watches her playing a board game on the living room floor? Or playing catch in the yard with a friend? What if he watches her sunbathe and has no illicit thoughts whatsoever? Is it then still immoral for him to watch her?

As for �masturbating to (her) image�, the question of whether that is immoral is the one stated in my OP, so I obviously can�t accept your assertion that it is as an argument for why it is.

Just having the thoughts pop up in his head has no meaning in a moral sense. Indulging in those thoughts and letting them become fantasies is a tricky one; normally I'd say it's not a moral question, but the fact that it's his daughter and thus so highly inappropriate for him to dwell upon those thoughts that I'd say it pushes it into the realm of immorality in this specific sense. First, I retract my earlier suggestion that our hypothetical man �allowed thoughts to become fantasies�. Of course we can choose to create and/or dwell on fantasies, but I believe they can also occur spontaneously. In any case, no matter the origin of the fantasies, in my opinion anything that occurs only in the brain cannot be immoral. Saying that sexual thoughts about his daughter are immoral because they�re inappropriate begs the question.

vm

xorbie

August 25, 2003, 10:34 AM

Not only is there nothing immoral about this, but I fail to see how there is anything immoral with incest at all. However, that second one does not appear to be the focus of this thread, so I will stick to my first point.

Even assuming incest was somehow immoral, fantasizing about it would not be. Also, the argument about not wanting to tell people about something as an indicator of morality is pure bullshit.

but they are far enough outside of the societal norms that they could be considered immoral.

Like being gay? Or an atheist? Let's toss 'em all out, right? This is such an idiotic assertion that I don't even feel it justifies an intelligent response.

livius drusus

August 26, 2003, 09:43 PM

Much to my amazement, I am going to go ahead and take the position that the father fantasizing about his daughter is in fact immoral.

First, I think we should pin down what we mean when we say fantasy, I believe a fantasy does have a conscious element that distinguishes it from desire. A fantasy that is entirely outside our control is a dream. I don't want to oversimply the discussion by bringing in dictionary definitions, but for the sake of clarification I see fantasy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fantasy) in this discussion as the 5th definition from dictionary.com:

An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need.

Imagination and daydreaming can sneak up on you and meander around, but they are nonetheless conscious. They are more often than not consciously begun and can certainly be consciously ended.

Now, given that definition of fantasy, I believe the father's indulgence in his daughter's sexuality, even when restricted solely to a mental indulgence, creates a concrete imbalance between them. From this perspective, the fact that he is able to hide his thoughts and feelings in no way resolves the moral problem. Quite the opposite in fact. It exacerbates the imbalance by introducing a constant undercurrent of deception into their relationship.

Every glance, every touch which she thinks means one thing might very well mean another. What to her is a respectful expression of appreciation and love from her father could in reality be fodder for masturbatory fantasies. Unlike a movie star who intentionally markets her sexuality for personal gain, the daughter in this scenario has no idea that her image or even her flesh are now open to his sexual exploration. The fact that it never translates into 3D action does not excuse the lie.

Furthermore, it seems probable that the nature of his regard for his daughter can't help but be modified by his considering her sexually available to him. Again, I am in no way implying here that he will not be able to control his actions. I accept without question the premise that he will do so successfully and believe such self-control is eminently possible even beyond the boundaries of this hypothetical. But the way he thinks about her must be different and that too is a betrayal, imo.

The complete safety and security that a girl derives from a loving father is in great part vested in how she sees herself in his eyes. If he chooses to indulge his desires by tapping into her under construction sexuality, he is modifying that picture beyond recognition and then lying to cover it up.

Loren Pechtel

August 26, 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by livius drusus

Furthermore, it seems probable that the nature of his regard for his daughter can't help but be modified by his considering her sexually available to him. Again, I am in no way implying here that he will not be able to control his actions. I accept without question the premise that he will do so successfully and believe such self-control is eminently possible even beyond the boundaries of this hypothetical. But the way he thinks about her must be different and that too is a betrayal, imo.

The complete safety and security that a girl derives from a loving father is in great part vested in how she sees herself in his eyes. If he chooses to indulge his desires by tapping into her under construction sexuality, he is modifying that picture beyond recognition and then lying to cover it up.

But he doesn't regard her as available! The original statement specified he knew it would be wrong to actually act on his desires.

If his actions reveal his fantasies he's gone beyond what he should.

livius drusus

August 26, 2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
But he doesn't regard her as available! The original statement specified he knew it would be wrong to actually act on his desires.

If his actions reveal his fantasies he's gone beyond what he should.

He regards her as available for his fantasies, yes, like the movie star you yourself mentioned. Only his daughter doesn't have an agent getting her Maxim spreads to sell movie tickets. He has special access to her because of his special relationship. I believe that relationship requires that he refrain from consciously indulging in her sexuality even in thought.

As I said above:

I believe the father's indulgence in his daughter's sexuality, even when restricted solely to a mental indulgence, creates a concrete imbalance between them.

<snip>

the daughter in this scenario has no idea that her image or even her flesh are now open to his sexual exploration. The fact that it never translates into 3D action does not excuse the lie.

Well, basically, the entire post.

deano

August 27, 2003, 04:48 AM

since when was it immoral to think about an action?

oh no here come the thought police!

Xixax

August 27, 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by deano
since when was it immoral to think about an action?

oh no here come the thought police!

I don't think anyone is making complaint against the thought or fantasy by itself. I think the complaint is made that it is unavoidable that there be some outward and communicated effect from these fantasies.

As was also said, the daughter doesn't know the father even could have those type of thoughts about her. She may, assuming the innocence of the father, accidentally be seen naked by him, or "tickle" him or some other physical contact that could provide fuel for his fantasies. In this situation, it's a violation of trust. If a woman parades along the beach naked, she expects that other men may see her and find her attractive. If she walks from the shower to the bedroom, taking a slight risk of being seen by her father, she is not expecting that to be the source for any fantasies.

It's that violation of trust that makes it immoral even without any action by the father.

xorbie

August 27, 2003, 11:28 AM

Hello? People are making claims that the fantasy itself is wrong. I totally disagree with this. You can go ahead and fantasize about whatever the hell you want so long as you harm nobody. There can never be anything immoral about that. EVER.

the_cave

August 27, 2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by xorbie
Hello? People are making claims that the fantasy itself is wrong. I totally disagree with this. You can go ahead and fantasize about whatever the hell you want so long as you harm nobody. There can never be anything immoral about that. EVER.

I can kind of see where both sides are coming from on this, but let me take one side and see where it leads:

So, xorbie, you're essentially saying that if the daughter were asked about the situation, the only moral reply she could really give would be "I might not wish my father to fantasize about me, but so long as he does not act on those fantasies, he is entirely permitted to think about me however he wants, and that won't change my feelings about being his child." Is that what you're saying? This is not a leading question, I'm just curious.

I mean, in some situations, thoughts do matter...in a relationship of love, for example. To be thinking about a beloved--a partner or lover, for example--is to be performing a good act. Imagine a boyfriend or girlfriend, or a spouse, telling their partner that they never think about them. Do you think that relationship would be long for this world?

The same is true for parent-child relationships. It's one of the duties of a parent to have good thoughts about their child--indeed, one hopes it just comes naturally to them. Incest fantasies, I would argue, are not good thoughts. Now look, I'm not saying that people who have illicit fantasies are horrible people. I'm just suggesting they might be doing something wrong--I'm just wondering if perhaps there are good reasons for some fantasies to be more immoral than others.

xorbie

August 27, 2003, 11:57 AM

You are twisting the scenario though. This is the fallacious argument that "if people knew what you were doing and didn't approve, don't do it." Or maybe, don't let them know? If the daughter was asked, she might be freaked out (unless of course she lives in Alabama :p). But the idea of a fantasy is that it is in YOUR had, not anybody elses. Nobody needs to know.

Let's say Bob just realized he is gay and attracted to his straight friend Bill. Bob never tells Bill, but if Bill knew, he might be freaked out. Does this make any of Bob's fantasy's immoral?

Xixax

August 27, 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by xorbie
Let's say Bob just realized he is gay and attracted to his straight friend Bill. Bob never tells Bill, but if Bill knew, he might be freaked out. Does this make any of Bob's fantasy's immoral?

If the relationship between Bob and Bill were such that Bob was present at moments where Bill may be accidentally providing fuel for Bob's fantasies...?

There is a level between "right" and "wrong", and that is where that falls. It isn't blatantly wrong, but there is something shady about it.

livius drusus

August 27, 2003, 12:48 PM

The father-daughter relationship is the root of my objection to the fantasy, as I believe I explained in some detail above. If you modify the premise to friends, nomatter what their sexuality, the moral issue is entirely different. Given the title and OP of this thread, I would suggest that if you want to discuss the morality of fantasizing about friends then it would be best to start a new thread on the topic.

MattS

August 27, 2003, 12:51 PM

My two cents.

There is a difference between a fleeting thought or mental image, and exploring and stoking the fantasy.

If the father catches a glimpse of the daughter between shower and bedroom, accidentally, I think it is natural and normal for him to have certain erotic feelings - for a short time though.

But if he then goes back into his bedroom and whacks off to the thought of the two of them doing it, even imagining them together while he's doing it with his wife - her mother - I think that crosses the line. I buy into the violation of trust concept. She has an expectation of privacy (sort of), with respect to a grown man who is charged with protecting her well being until she is an adult.

If he indulges his fantasy then that may affect decisions down the road. He may allow any Tom, Dick, and Harry to date her, even if they are actually a danger to her, since he himself has pleasured himself at her expense (in his mind). That is where the danger lies.

Morality is not as clear cut as many make it out to be. It is not necessarily "Hurt/harm = immoral, pleasure=moral". If one is putting themselves or someone else in a position of danger of doing hurt or harm then that can cross the line into immorality, even if the hurt/harm never occurs.

viscousmemories

August 27, 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by livius drusus
First, I think we should pin down what we mean when we say fantasy, I believe a fantasy does have a conscious element that distinguishes it from desire. A fantasy that is entirely outside our control is a dream. <snip>

Imagination and daydreaming can sneak up on you and meander around, but they are nonetheless conscious. They are more often than not consciously begun and can certainly be consciously ended. I definitely intended to refer to conscious, controllable fantasy in my OP, so your definition works for me.
Now, given that definition of fantasy, I believe the father's indulgence in his daughter's sexuality, even when restricted solely to a mental indulgence, creates a concrete imbalance between them. This is a very interesting assertion. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the father�s conscious decision to fantasize about his daughter is likely to result in an unconscious, negative modification to his relationship with her. An �imbalance�, as you call it. That is a fascinating perspective. That�s the first time I have ever heard an argument for how a fantasy could be immoral, because of a resultant action, that isn�t plagued by the slippery slope fallacy.

From this perspective, the fact that he is able to hide his thoughts and feelings in no way resolves the moral problem. Quite the opposite in fact. It exacerbates the imbalance by introducing a constant undercurrent of deception into their relationship. Another good point. If we accept the suggestion that the fantasy could result in an imbalance in their relationship, then we�d have to accept that his indulgence, hidden from her, adds deception to the list of wrongs.

Every glance, every touch which she thinks means one thing might very well mean another. What to her is a respectful expression of appreciation and love from her father could in reality be fodder for masturbatory fantasies. Unlike a movie star who intentionally markets her sexuality for personal gain, the daughter in this scenario has no idea that her image or even her flesh are now open to his sexual exploration. The fact that it never translates into 3D action does not excuse the lie. On this part I don�t know if I agree. IMO the only relevant aspect of the �imbalance� that you suggest occurs between them as a result of his fantasies are the effects on his interaction with her, not her perception of events. In other words, if he acts differently toward her as a result of his fantasies (which I�m now willing to believe he very well might) that difference, and the resultant negative impact on their relationship, is evidence of the immorality of his fantasies. The fact that she doesn�t know the true nature of his actions is irrelevant, both because nobody ever really knows another person�s true motivations, and because she especially would have no idea what his touches or glances mean.

Furthermore, it seems probable that the nature of his regard for his daughter can't help but be modified by his considering her sexually available to him. Again, I am in no way implying here that he will not be able to control his actions. I accept without question the premise that he will do so successfully and believe such self-control is eminently possible even beyond the boundaries of this hypothetical. But the way he thinks about her must be different and that too is a betrayal, imo. I think you�re probably right, but I don�t consider this an additional argument as much as a justification for your first one. I think you can quite reasonably expect that he will think of her differently, and I think that�s precisely why he would (even unconsciously) act differently toward her. Which, as I see it, is what would cause the �imbalance� you suggested.

The complete safety and security that a girl derives from a loving father is in great part vested in how she sees herself in his eyes. If he chooses to indulge his desires by tapping into her under construction sexuality, he is modifying that picture beyond recognition and then lying to cover it up. Fair enough. In as much as that betrayal manifests itself as an alteration of their physical relationship, I am quite willing to accept, based on that interpretation, that it is indeed possible that fantasy, at least in this specific scenario, may very well be immoral.

Originally posted by deano
since when was it immoral to think about an action?

oh no here come the thought police!
In my opinion there are degrees of immorality, deano. It�s immoral to kill someone, and it�s immoral to eat a grape at the grocery store without paying for it. I haven�t heard anyone suggest that a father having sexual fantasies about his daughter should be criminalized. I agree that it�s hard to consider the possibility that a fantasy (or anything else that happens in the privacy of your mind) could ever be immoral, however in my opinion livius made an excellent case for how, at least in the specific context of a father/daughter relationship, it could be.

Originally posted by Xixax
I don't think anyone is making complaint against the thought or fantasy by itself. I think the complaint is made that it is unavoidable that there be some outward and communicated effect from these fantasies. Right. At least that�s what I took away from livius� post.

As was also said, the daughter doesn't know the father even could have those type of thoughts about her. She may, assuming the innocence of the father, accidentally be seen naked by him, or "tickle" him or some other physical contact that could provide fuel for his fantasies. In this situation, it's a violation of trust. If a woman parades along the beach naked, she expects that other men may see her and find her attractive. If she walks from the shower to the bedroom, taking a slight risk of being seen by her father, she is not expecting that to be the source for any fantasies.

It's that violation of trust that makes it immoral even without any action by the father. As I said to livius on the similar point, I�m not sure I agree with this. As long as her father never comes right out and tells the girl that he�s been having sexual fantasies about her all along, she�ll never know. If she never knows he betrayed her in that way, I don�t see why her trust in him would ever be disrupted. Since I don�t believe anything can be immoral that doesn�t have a quantifiable (even theoretically) physical effect, I disagree that her not being able to trust him (as long as she doesn�t know this to be the case) impacts whether his fantasies are immoral.
Originally posted by xorbie
Hello? People are making claims that the fantasy itself is wrong. I totally disagree with this. You can go ahead and fantasize about whatever the hell you want so long as you harm nobody. There can never be anything immoral about that. EVER. I agree that fantasizing about something �so long as you harm nobody� cannot be immoral. The point livius and xixax are making is that there is measurable harm that can come from fantasy.

Originally posted by the_cave
It's one of the duties of a parent to have good thoughts about their child--indeed, one hopes it just comes naturally to them. Incest fantasies, I would argue, are not good thoughts. Now look, I'm not saying that people who have illicit fantasies are horrible people. I'm just suggesting they might be doing something wrong--I'm just wondering if perhaps there are good reasons for some fantasies to be more immoral than others. Well said, the_cave. This is what I�m starting to think too. I went to see a psychologist when I was a young teen, and he told me, �There�s no such thing as a bad fantasy�. I�ve sort of lived by that mantra ever since, but for the first time in my life I�m beginning to see how it could be inaccurate. This is purely anecdotal, but I know from personal experience that when I have sexual fantasies about someone my behavior around them is altered. I do start looking at them differently, and I do look for opportunities (certain poses, comments, etc) to use as fodder for those fantasies. Since there is good reason to believe that in a father/daughter relationship this subtle alteration in the quality of the relationship could potentially have a negative effect on the quality of said relationship, I think there is good reason to say that, in this case anyway, indulging sexual fantasies may very well be immoral.

vm

edited to fix, then clarify a sentence.

Loren Pechtel

August 27, 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by the_cave

I mean, in some situations, thoughts do matter...in a relationship of love, for example. To be thinking about a beloved--a partner or lover, for example--is to be performing a good act. Imagine a boyfriend or girlfriend, or a spouse, telling their partner that they never think about them. Do you think that relationship would be long for this world?

The same is true for parent-child relationships. It's one of the duties of a parent to have good thoughts about their child--indeed, one hopes it just comes naturally to them. Incest fantasies, I would argue, are not good thoughts. Now look, I'm not saying that people who have illicit fantasies are horrible people. I'm just suggesting they might be doing something wrong--I'm just wondering if perhaps there are good reasons for some fantasies to be more immoral than others.

I don't see that having sexual thoughts about someone is a bad act, period.

viscousmemories

August 27, 2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
I don't see that having sexual thoughts about someone is a bad act, period. Keeping in mind that we're talking about conscious fantasies, not just any thought that might pop into your head, and considering that a reasonable argument has been made that having these fantasies about someone, at least in this scenario, may have a detrimental impact on another person, are you still insisting that it is impossible for sexual fantasies to be immoral?

vm

xorbie

August 27, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by livius drusus
The father-daughter relationship is the root of my objection to the fantasy, as I believe I explained in some detail above. If you modify the premise to friends, nomatter what their sexuality, the moral issue is entirely different. Given the title and OP of this thread, I would suggest that if you want to discuss the morality of fantasizing about friends then it would be best to start a new thread on the topic.

But in the OP, it was stated that the ethics of incest itself would be left out of this... or are we just assuming incest to be immoral?

Originally posted by viscousmemoriesI agree that fantasizing about something �so long as you harm nobody� cannot be immoral. The point livius and xixax are making is that there is measurable harm that can come from fantasy.

You see the problem with all of this is that it all stems from one thing: that incest is ineherntly immoral. I personally would dispute this, but that is not the point for now. Any time two people need to live in close contact, I believe some degree of openness and trust is important. However, I see nothing wrong with hiding a secret like this. Let's say the daugher is dating a boy daddy might not approve of, so she doesn't tell him.

You might argue that this is not the same... but I don't see why. In each case one party is gaining pleasure out of an act that he or she does not want the other party to know about. In each case, someone is not telling the other person something fairly important. In each case, an imbalance is created in the relationship.

Is it immoral for her to go out with this boy? I would argue that it might be stupid not to tell your father, maybe stupid to go out with this boy. But surely not immoral. And neither is fantasizing about incest, or three way goat orgies or whatever the hell else you want.

MattS

August 27, 2003, 03:47 PM

I don't see that having sexual thoughts about someone is a bad act, period.

Having a thought is one thing, exploring and stoking a fantasy is quite another, especially if it is about your own child. I think this whole discussion is about fantasies, which are more than just thoughts. If it's not immoral (which I think it pretty much is), it is quite unhealthy to the parent-child relationship, even if the child never find's out.

I think the following link applies to this discussion. Whether the child ever finds out is irrelevant - the parent has breached the trust of the relationship.

Ethics of Belief (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html)

MattS

August 27, 2003, 03:57 PM

Let's say the daugher is dating a boy daddy might not approve of, so she doesn't tell him.
You might argue that this is not the same... but I don't see why

The difference in your example is that the daughter dating a boy in secret is unlikely to lead to any harm. Maybe a punishment. Maybe damage to the realtionship. Probably nothing lasting.

But the parent who actively fantasizes about incest with one of his/her children is taking a huge risk of potentially damaging the parent-child, as well as spousal, relationship permanently (if found out) and possibly putting the child in harm's way by means of a moment of bad judgement by the parent. The fantasy, if it continues for too long, may start to become reality for that person (I am by no means a psychologist, psychiatrist, etc.). If someone truly loves and cares for their own child I don't think they should take any risk of hurting that child, and prolonged sexual fantasies could certainly do that.

MattS

August 27, 2003, 04:00 PM

<rant>

God-damn! Screw morality - incestual fantasies are just BAD PARENTING in my book. They should not take place. End of story.

</rant>

viscousmemories

August 27, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by xorbie
But in the OP, it was stated that the ethics of incest itself would be left out of this... or are we just assuming incest to be immoral? I tried to make the question of whether or not incest is immoral irrelevant in my OP by describing the father thusly: "He believes that it would be psychologically damaging to her, not to mention immoral, for him to even reveal his attraction to her much less act on it." So yes, for the purpose of this discussion we are assuming incest to be immoral.
You see the problem with all of this is that it all stems from one thing: that incest is ineherntly immoral. I personally would dispute this, but that is not the point for now.
As I already said, it's irrelevant if incest is inherently immoral, it's at least assumed to be immoral in this hypothetical situation. In any case, I disagree that this scenario has that much to do with whether or not incest, generally speaking, is immoral. If anything, the key here is whether or not it's immoral for a father to pursue a sexual relationship with his 15 year old daughter.

Any time two people need to live in close contact, I believe some degree of openness and trust is important. However, I see nothing wrong with hiding a secret like this. Let's say the daugher is dating a boy daddy might not approve of, so she doesn't tell him.

You might argue that this is not the same... but I don't see why. In each case one party is gaining pleasure out of an act that he or she does not want the other party to know about. In each case, someone is not telling the other person something fairly important. In each case, an imbalance is created in the relationship. They are not the same. You are avoiding the fact that in our scenario the direct relationship between the father and daughter is at issue. The girl hiding an outside relationship from him is not comparable to him hiding sexual fantasies about her. Yes, they are both examples of deception. However, one directly impacts the interaction between them in a specific way, and it is that specific impact that causes his fantasies to be immoral, according to livius' argument.
<snip>But surely not immoral. And neither is fantasizing about incest, or three way goat orgies or whatever the hell else you want. Again, you are doing what I have always done, which is to lump all fantasies together and say there's no way any of them could possibly be immoral, because they don't adversely affect anyone else. IMHO, that rationale has been disproven today.

vm

viscousmemories

August 27, 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by MattS
<rant>

God-damn! Screw morality - incestual fantasies are just BAD PARENTING in my book. They should not take place. End of story.

</rant> Matt! Whoa! Chill, dude. It's all good. I'm inclined to agree with you, as I'm sure most people are, but I'd really rather explore this from a moral perspective than an emotional one. Getting upset isn't going to convince anyone. If this particular action (or anything else we discuss here) can be shown to be immoral through rational discourse, maybe this discussion will work as an effective deterrent to anyone who practices, or may practice, the behavior.

In the meantime, I'd rethink this statement of yours: "The fantasy, if it continues for too long, may start to become reality for that person", because IMHO it suffers from the "slippery slope" fallacy. I think the other arguments we've heard today are strong enough on their own without having to bend the rules.

Oh, and you seem to be fairly new here. Welcome to the IIDB.

vm

MattS

August 27, 2003, 04:50 PM

Just had to get that off my chest. I just wanted to express that although debating something to the n'th degree has merit and is intellectually stimulating, common-sense may trump the arguments in real-life.

Now on to your regularly scheduled discussion ...

Theli

August 27, 2003, 07:41 PM

The fantasy, if it continues for too long, may start to become reality for that person (I am by no means a psychologist, psychiatrist, etc.).
But you cannot put a moral judgement on thoughts themselfs without taking away people's freedom of thought.
We may warn the father that the fantasy can turn into action, but an immoral act has not been commited until that action is taken.
It's morally un-inforcable.

viscousmemories

August 27, 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Theli
But you cannot put a moral judgement on thoughts themselfs without taking away people's freedom of thought. How does making the determination that a particular thought process is immoral restrict anyone's freedom to do it?
We may warn the father that the fantasy can turn into action, but an immoral act has not been commited until that action is taken. There is the slippery slope fallacy again. I don't believe it has been shown that there is any liklihood of sexual fantasies devolving into sexual misconduct. However, using the reasoning livius drusus put forward it seems entirely feasible that a father entertaining fantasies of sexual activity with his daughter would have a negative impact on their relationship, which in effect causes her harm. To me, that is what makes it immoral for the father to engage in that behavior.
It's morally un-inforcable. Nobody (yet) is calling for fathers who have sexual fantasies about their daughters to be punished, lobotomized or have their ability or desire to think immoral thoughts otherwise forceably diminished. Where does this idea come from that we must not call a behavior immoral unless we are prepared to make it illegal? It's not illegal to cheat on your spouse. Does that mean it's not immoral?

vm

Excidius

August 27, 2003, 10:00 PM

Although many have already replied the way I would have, I'll throw out my opinion regardless. There is nothing wrong with any fantasy so long as you do not act on it and have no intention of acting on it. There is especially nothing wrong with a sexual fantasy, since everyone is horny, and those who aren't are either in denial, or biologically dysfunctional.

If you take issue at the incest, I'll throw in my $0.02 and say that I do not think that incest is immoral. It's certainly not something to be encouraged (for medical reasons), but if people choose to do it, I won't condemn them from a moral standpoint. It is a mathematical fact that you could not exist without lots and lots of incest somewhere in your family tree. Your direct family tree increases by powers of 2 with each generation (ie. you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, and so on). If you go back 100 generations, there had to be 2^100 = 1267650600228229401496703205376 people to give rise to you. But of course, there were never that many people on earth, ever. The only way to reconcile this is to concede that there was A LOT of incest necessary to make you. You wouldn't be here without it. Incest should not be morally condemned; if anything, it should be thanked.

The only reason we think incest is "gross" or "disgusting" is because our society indoctrinates us with the idea (just as few of us would eat what other cultures eat; disgust is relative).

viscousmemories

August 27, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Excidius
Although many have already replied the way I would have, I'll throw out my opinion regardless. There is nothing wrong with any fantasy so long as you do not act on it and have no intention of acting on it.

There is especially nothing wrong with a sexual fantasy, since everyone is horny, and those who aren't are either in denial, or biologically dysfunctional. You are right, a number of people (including me) have asserted that there is nothing immoral about any fantasy so long as you don't act on it or intend to act on it. The logic we have used is that without intending to act on it or acting on it, no harm can possibly come from it. However, livius drusus presented a case for how harm not only could result, but most likely would result, from the subject in this particular scenario engaging in sexual fantasies. So, how do you defend your assertion that fantasy cannot be immoral against this reasonable argument that under certain conditions it not only could be, but it is?
If you take issue at the incest, I'll throw in my $0.02 and say that I do not think that incest is immoral.
Opinion noted, but the morality of incest isn't the subject of this thread. There's an active discussion on that issue here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53357)

vm

Excidius

August 27, 2003, 11:54 PM

If I read livius's first post correctly, the fantasy leads to a dishonest relationship, because the father is not being open about his desires for his daughter. It seems that the moral objection then is to the dishonesty of the relationship, and not so much the fantasy itself.

The father can of course end the dishonesty by simply revealing his fantasies to his daughter. If she happens to be like us, and incest isn't that big a deal, (or she lives in a culture or time period in which it wasn't considered wrong at all) she might be OK with it, and there would be no moral wrong.

Albert Cipriani

August 28, 2003, 12:20 AM

Dear Viscousmemories,
Yes. And Yes.

Emmanuel Kant said, "Thought is insipient action." That's one point I can agree with him on. So to act out the fantasies are more immoral than to entertain the fantasies and to entertain them is more immoral than to simply be tempted to entertain them, which is merely a symptom of being broken and not an immoral act of breaking with the natural law. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

viscousmemories

August 28, 2003, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Excidius
If I read livius's first post correctly, the fantasy leads to a dishonest relationship, because the father is not being open about his desires for his daughter. It seems that the moral objection then is to the dishonesty of the relationship, and not so much the fantasy itself. I'm sure livius will correct me if mischaracterize her argument, but I'm fairly certain that the dishonesty inherent in the hypothetical relationship was the lesser of two problems she cited, the larger of the two being an "imbalance" created between the father and daughter as a result of his sexual fantasies. So no, it's not the fantasy itself, but it's not just the dishonesty either. It's the disruption of the traditional father/daughter relationship by the introduction of an apparently damaging thought process.
The father can of course end the dishonesty by simply revealing his fantasies to his daughter. As I specified in the OP, the man believes that it would be immoral to reveal his attraction to the girl and he tries to live in adherence to his moral code. So revealing his fantasies is not a viable solution.
If she happens to be like us, and incest isn't that big a deal, (or she lives in a culture or time period in which it wasn't considered wrong at all) she might be OK with it, and there would be no moral wrong. I understand that you don't think incest is immoral. However, that isn't the topic of this thread. This thread is about whether or not fantasies can ever be immoral. You really should participate in the other thread I linked you to earlier if you want to talk about the morality of incest. If you do that, be ready to provide some data about any cultures or time periods wherein sex between a father and his 15 year old daughter wasn't considered wrong at all, because I'm fairly certain that assertion is going to be challenged.

Let me ask you this in an effort to rid ourselves, for the moment, of the incest scenario: If fantasizing about having sex with someone hurts them, is it be immoral for you to indulge in those fantasies?

vm

viscousmemories

August 28, 2003, 01:07 AM

Hi Albert,

Since you seem to be responding directly to my OP without regard for the page and a half of posts that have occurred since then, I don't understand your use of the "thumbs-down" icon for your response. The thumbs-down gesture is generally used to indicate disapproval. What exactly do you disapprove of in my OP? I made no assertions. I presented a scenario and asked three questions related to it. What's wrong with that?

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Dear Viscousmemories,
Yes. And Yes. Hmm. Since I asked three questions in my OP and you seem to be responding directly to that post, I have no idea which two of those you are answering.

Emmanuel Kant said, "Thought is insipient action." That's one point I can agree with him on. I had to look up 'insipient', and when I found out that it means "stupid or foolish", I kept looking until I found 'incipient', which means "beginning to appear". I suspect that's the word you meant to use. At any rate, I disagree. Surely every action is preceded by a thought, but just as surely not every thought becomes an action.

So to act out the fantasies are more immoral than to entertain the fantasies and to entertain them is more immoral than to simply be tempted to entertain them, which is merely a symptom of being broken and not an immoral act of breaking with the natural law. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic As it happens, the eminently rational discourse on this subject since I originally posted my OP has convinced me that it is immoral for a father to indulge in fantasies about having sex with his teenage daughter. And that without any of this gobbledy-gook about natural law and broken people.

Thanks for your input, though. As usual, I learned something.

vm

Albert Cipriani

August 28, 2003, 01:25 AM

Dear VM,
I could only stomach the first half a page of posts cuz their modus operandi (won't be able to look that one up!) was all pragmatism. It doesn't deserve to be considered a philosophy. But I digress.

I have no stomach for arguments based upon consequences, for its a presumption. And even if one could be infallibly presumptuous, their success would only allow them to become happy pigs, good hedonists. And that is not my idea of the good life. Such people will not be content until pleasure bars become commercially available. Then they can simply hook themselves up and live happily ever after a life of total pleasure and no pain.

But if such a "successfully" hedonistically pragmatic life seems a little less than successful to you, such a sentiment suggest that you yet have within you a few grams of spiritual life. May you wonder why 100% pleasure and 0% pain is not so satisfying and in that wondering discover the secret of meaning, which is the secular equivalent of what is spiritual. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

P.S. Sorry for the inappropriate use of the thumbs down icon. Reaching for it has gotten to be a habit for me in these parts.

Xixax

August 28, 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Dear VM,
I could only stomach the first half a page of posts cuz their modus operandi (won't be able to look that one up!) was all pragmatism. It doesn't deserve to be considered a philosophy. But I digress.

I do not mean to sound insulting, but by this I assume you mean that you were disgusted that we appeal to reason to determine morality instead of defaulting to the reason or theology of ancient mythology?

What do you mean by it doesn't deserve to be considered a philosophy? Do you mean our, for the most part, determination that it is immoral on the grounds we stated doesn't qualify, or were you referring to the discussion itself?

I have no stomach for arguments based upon consequences, for its a presumption. And even if one could be infallibly presumptuous, their success would only allow them to become happy pigs, good hedonists. And that is not my idea of the good life. Such people will not be content until pleasure bars become commercially available. Then they can simply hook themselves up and live happily ever after a life of total pleasure and no pain.

Your theism is no less a pursuit of pleasure. You find pleasure in different things, one of them being the fantasy of eternal life with your deity of choice. As for railing against arguments based on consequences, you're going to need to elaborate. Why do you have no stomach for them? How else would you debate morality without bringing up consequences?

I also have a hard time, emotionally, dealing with this subject as it makes me angry to think of a father being this way. At the same time, we are biological machinery that has no control over initial urges, so the issue is worth discussion.

But if such a "successfully" hedonistically pragmatic life seems a little less than successful to you, such a sentiment suggest that you yet have within you a few grams of spiritual life. May you wonder why 100% pleasure and 0% pain is not so satisfying and in that wondering discover the secret of meaning, which is the secular equivalent of what is spiritual. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Let's not forget the other possibility Albert the Traditional Catholic: It has nothing to do with discovering the secret of meaning ( whatever that may be ) or having a remnant spiritual component, but an inquisitive nature and interest in reason as a basis for morality. Why inject more into the conversation than is needed?

viscousmemories

August 28, 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Dear VM,
I could only stomach the first half a page of posts cuz their modus operandi (won't be able to look that one up!) was all pragmatism. It doesn't deserve to be considered a philosophy. But I digress. Fortunately I'm a huge fan of Perry Mason (if you believe the semi-coherent rambling of someone in a different forum) so I didn't even have to deduce the meaning of modus operandi from context, much less have to look it up. Let me see if I can use it in a sentence: Albert Cipriani's modus operandi is to jump in to any thread in the Moral Foundations and Principles forum, ignoring all reasonable discussion that has taken place, and argue that none of us know what we're talking about because we don't share his beliefs. Did I use it correctly?
I have no stomach for arguments based upon consequences, for its a presumption. {yada yada yada same old argument, different thread. snip} Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic Right. As you have made abundantly clear, you have a different concept of morality than nearly everyone else here. For this reason, you necessarily derail and hijack every thread you participate in. This thread, for example, is about an aspect of a morality you don't even believe in. In other words, it doesn't concern you.

It's as if we're trying to have a discussion of whether Buffy or Faith was the better slayer, and you're here to tell us that the authentic Buffy was the movie, and that the TV show isn't even relevant. Well, thanks for sharing. I understand that you don't believe in consequence-based morality. However, those of us who do are trying to have a conversation here. If you have nothing to contribute to that conversation other than your protestations that we have it all wrong, you needn't bother participating.
P.S. Sorry for the inappropriate use of the thumbs down icon. Reaching for it has gotten to be a habit for me in these parts. For someone who puts as much stock in being "rational" as you do, I'm appalled that you would blame force of habit for your condescension. Have you considered the possibility that the reason you disagree with so many of the discussions here is because this whole site, by design, is dedicated to denouncing your beliefs? Why on Earth would you choose to spend so much time in a place where almost everyone has a philosophical foundation diametrically opposed to your own, then complain about nobody saying anything you agree with?

vm

99Percent

August 28, 2003, 10:37 AM

Albert Cipriani, Xixax and Viscous Memories, you are getting way off topic, please take it "outside".

viscousmemories

August 28, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by 99Percent
Albert Cipriani, Xixax and Viscous Memories, you are getting way off topic, please take it "outside". Um, that was my whole point. I started this thread, and I was just trying to encourage Albert to contribute to it or stay out of it.

vm

the_cave

August 28, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by MattS
<rant>

God-damn! Screw morality - incestual fantasies are just BAD PARENTING in my book. They should not take place. End of story.

</rant>

Way to go, MattS!

I don't know whether it's immoral to be a bad parent, but I do know that it's bad! And so does everyone else, for that matter...

99Percent

August 28, 2003, 11:24 AM

My first thought immediately after reading the op, was to think it wasn't immoral. No, having thoughts, even stoking fantasies is not immoral, basically because you aren't hurting anyone. But Livius Dresus' reply really got me thinking. It isn't so simple. What sets this example apart is that as LD says, the father has close contact with his daughter. He has "exclusive" access if you will. He has an on going relationship which is untruthful because the daughter has an incorrect idea of what this relation is about. While she views a nice good hug as affectionate, her father is only feeling her breasts for example.

However, viewing it objectively, as an outsider, one cannot see anything wrong going on. You would have to pay super extra attention with a professional psychological eye in order to see the clues of the immoral thoughts going on in the father's mind, and even then you might not see anything. As long as the daughter and everyone else remains innocent of the horrible thoughts there is nothing objectively wrong IMO.

OTOH, regarding morality in the personal sense there I think it is definitely wrong. The father should realize that his thoughts are dangerous and most of all untruthful. He should take the initiative and seek professional counsel, or depending on how bad he feels it is get away from her daughter until she is at least older. You could argue that the daughter might feel hurt if she thinks her father abandoned her, but I think she would feel even more hurt if she knew actually why she abandoned her, or worse if a sexual assault occured.

The problem I see here though is that once the father actually acts, whether by telling a psychologist, or leaving the daughter, etc his thoughts have lead to actions that have made a cause and effect in the actual world. His immoral thoughts are now out of the bag, and can cause damage or are already causing it. For example the psychiatrist notes might be accidentally read by the daughter.

The only other solution I can think is of is that the father tries to repress his fantasies consciously, or at least stop stoking them. It is still up to him only.

livius drusus

August 28, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by viscousmemories
This is a very interesting assertion. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the father�s conscious decision to fantasize about his daughter is likely to result in an unconscious, negative modification to his relationship with her. An �imbalance�, as you call it. That is a fascinating perspective. That�s the first time I have ever heard an argument for how a fantasy could be immoral, because of a resultant action, that isn�t plagued by the slippery slope fallacy.

You understand me perfectly, sir. The possible permutations of fantasy leading to obsession leading to action are specifically excluded by the premise of your OP. The sole issue is whether the fantasies in and of themselves can be damaging to the relationship between father and daughter.

On this part I don�t know if I agree. IMO the only relevant aspect of the �imbalance� that you suggest occurs between them as a result of his fantasies are the effects on his interaction with her, not her perception of events. In other words, if he acts differently toward her as a result of his fantasies (which I�m now willing to believe he very well might) that difference, and the resultant negative impact on their relationship, is evidence of the immorality of his fantasies. The fact that she doesn�t know the true nature of his actions is irrelevant, both because nobody ever really knows another person�s true motivations, and because she especially would have no idea what his touches or glances mean.

You are right, of course. I had great difficultly expressing myself in that passage. It was really a minor corollary to the deception issue, that she is to some extent the chump because of her inaccurate perception of events. As you point out, his questionable motivations could not directly cause her harm unless she knew about them, but the fact that she's to one degree or another the mark in a con is another shade in the immorality spectrum.

I think you�re probably right, but I don�t consider this an additional argument as much as a justification for your first one. I think you can quite reasonably expect that he will think of her differently, and I think that�s precisely why he would (even unconsciously) act differently toward her. Which, as I see it, is what would cause the �imbalance� you suggested.

Correct again. I swear I was going to take out that damned "Furthermore" somewhere between rewrite/restructure number 5 and number 5000. The imbalance is mainly rooted in his fantasies changing how he thinks of her. The deception/conning aspect is an ancillary to that basic sea change in the nature of their relationship.

Loren Pechtel

August 28, 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by 99Percent
My first thought immediately after reading the op, was to think it wasn't immoral. No, having thoughts, even stoking fantasies is not immoral, basically because you aren't hurting anyone. But Livius Dresus' reply really got me thinking. It isn't so simple. What sets this example apart is that as LD says, the father has close contact with his daughter. He has "exclusive" access if you will. He has an on going relationship which is untruthful because the daughter has an incorrect idea of what this relation is about. While she views a nice good hug as affectionate, her father is only feeling her breasts for example.

Only? As I see it, in her eyes there's one relationship. In his there are two. Having the second does not mean the first does not also exist.

The hug is a hug to both of them. So what if he also enjoys her breasts touching his chest?

As long as the daughter and everyone else remains innocent of the horrible thoughts there is nothing objectively wrong IMO.

So long as he's not going to act on them, how are his thoughts so horrrible?

OTOH, regarding morality in the personal sense there I think it is definitely wrong. The father should realize that his thoughts are dangerous and most of all untruthful.

Dangerous? So long as he keeps a solid line between fantasy and reality, where's the problem?

Untruthful? You mean the daughter isn't sexually desirable??

Or are you thinking of a paedophilia situation? I'm picturing a post-puberty daughter.

viscousmemories

August 28, 2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by 99Percent
While she views a nice good hug as affectionate, her father is only feeling her breasts for example.
Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Only? As I see it, in her eyes there's one relationship. In his there are two. Having the second does not mean the first does not also exist.

The hug is a hug to both of them. So what if he also enjoys her breasts touching his chest? You both seem to be missing the point of livius' argument. The problem is not the disparity between how the father and the girl view their relationship. The problem is that his conscious choice to indulge in sexual fantasies about her alters how he interacts with her, which in turn causes their relationship to stray outside of the boundaries of a healthy father/daughter realtionship.

I don't believe for a second that there is a psychologically healthy person who can maintain two distinct and unrelated relationships with another person. I believe that unless you are a sociopath, when you fantasize about having sex with someone it will at least subtly alter your relationship with them, and if they happen to be a child in your care, that alteration will be negative.

In other words, in this case it seems that having sexual fantasies has a quantifiable negative impact on someone else, and as such is immoral. Originally posted by 99Percent
As long as the daughter and everyone else remains innocent of the horrible thoughts there is nothing objectively wrong IMO. Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
So long as he's not going to act on them, how are his thoughts so horrrible? The thoughts are horrible because they are immoral. The are immoral because they damage the father's relationship with the daughter, as explained above.
Originally posted by 99Percent
OTOH, regarding morality in the personal sense there I think it is definitely wrong. The father should realize that his thoughts are dangerous and most of all untruthful.
Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Dangerous? So long as he keeps a solid line between fantasy and reality, where's the problem? The problem is that it is impossible to "keep a solid line between fantasy and reality". I'm not saying that fantasizing about something will cause you to do it (slippery slope and all that) but that it will alter your behavior toward the subject of your fantasies in some way, and in the case of the father/daughter interaction, that way is negative.
Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Untruthful? You mean the daughter isn't sexually desirable?? Of course he wasn't saying that. He meant untruthful in the sense that the father isn't being honest with the girl about the type of relationship they have. In any case, I disagree that his dishonesty is the crux of the problem, and based on livius' most recent clarification so does she. See above for elaboration on that point.
Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Or are you thinking of a paedophilia situation? I'm picturing a post-puberty daughter. You should be picturing a 15 year old girl, the vast majority of whom are post-pubescent, because that's how I described her in the OP. This isn't any more about pedophilia than it is about incest. It's about the morality of fantasies.

vm

xorbie

August 28, 2003, 03:37 PM

I do understand LD's objections, and I appreciate that this is a tricky issue. However, I was under the basic assumption that the father thinks incest is not immoral, just that revealing his fantasy was (as was stated in the OP).

Now, I personally feel that no thought can ever, ever be immoral. And I would argue that saying "though shalt not have fantasies about your daughter" does so much more moral harm than good. I think the damage done to the relationship is dubious and circumstantial at best (i.e. not inherent). That is like saying "driving is immoral, bad stuff can happen." Well sure it can, but it shouldn't if you are careful. I do not think this fantasy does any inherent damage to the relationship, and said damage would pale in comparison to the harm of setting the "moral precedent" if you will that what goes on between a consentual adult and himself is immoral. Especially if he does not even harm himself.

Looking at it more pragmatically if you will, what if the guy refuses to acknowledge these fantasies? This can lead to stress, depression and other problems. It is just like gay people who try to become straight, only end up commiting suicide. I just don't see an argument that can state "what this guy dreams about when he is masturbating, or making love to another woman" is immoral.

viscousmemories

August 28, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by xorbie
I do understand LD's objections, and I appreciate that this is a tricky issue. However, I was under the basic assumption that the father thinks incest is not immoral, just that revealing his fantasy was (as was stated in the OP). In the OP, I said: "He believes that it would be psychologically damaging to her, not to mention immoral, for him to even reveal his attraction to her much less act on it." In other words, he believes it would be both psychologically damaging and immoral for him to either reveal his attraction to her or act on it. So yes, he believes incest (at least between father and daughter as it pertains to him) is immoral.
Now, I personally feel that no thought can ever, ever be immoral. I used to share that opinion, but I changed my mind as a result of the discussion in this thread. I believe that only things which can harm other people can be immoral, and I used to be unable to imagine a scenario wherein a thought process could harm another person. Livius, in my opinion, provided that scenario.
And I would argue that saying "though shalt not have fantasies about your daughter" does so much more moral harm than good. What moral harm do you suppose would come from telling a father that he shouldn't have sexual fantasies about his daughter?
I think the damage done to the relationship is dubious and circumstantial at best (i.e. not inherent). That is like saying "driving is immoral, bad stuff can happen." Well sure it can, but it shouldn't if you are careful. Actually, if you accept our reasoning, the two situations aren't comparable. We are saying that a father having sexual fantasies about his daughter will have a negative impact on their relationship. You are saying driving a car might have a negative result.
I do not think this fantasy does any inherent damage to the relationship, and said damage would pale in comparison to the harm of setting the "moral precedent" if you will that what goes on between a consentual adult and himself is immoral. Especially if he does not even harm himself. Obviously I disagree that there is no inherent damage done, as I have already outlined. Furthermore, since I believe the damage done in this scenario is measurable, the imagined "harm" from setting the "moral precedent" actually pales in comparison to it.
Looking at it more pragmatically if you will, what if the guy refuses to acknowledge these fantasies? This can lead to stress, depression and other problems. It is just like gay people who try to become straight, only end up commiting suicide. By that reasoning the guy should be allowed to do anything his heart desires, lest he get bummed out and want to jump off a bridge. Besides, nobody is suggesting that his sexual desire for his daughter is immoral. We're just saying his conscious choice to engage in sexual fantasies about her is.
I just don't see an argument that can state "what this guy dreams about when he is masturbating, or making love to another woman" is immoral. Then you need to scroll back a couple of pages to livius' post, and/or forward to hers and my several attempts at clarifying it. The argument is there. The choice of whether to refute it or simply reassert your original postion ad nauseum is yours. If it's any consolation, you'll be a far cry from alone if you decide to go with the latter.

vm

HumanisTim

August 28, 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
We don't have control over who we find sexually desirable. What's sick about this situation?

There's nothing wrong with merely fantasizing. There could be a problem if he ever decides the fantasy isn't enough. And then goes ahead and acts on it. It probably would be a good idea then to get help before any harm is done.

livius drusus

August 28, 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by HumanisTim
There's nothing wrong with merely fantasizing. There could be a problem if he ever decides the fantasy isn't enough. And then goes ahead and acts on it. It probably would be a good idea then to get help before any harm is done.

Um.... Have you read the rest of this thread, by any chance? Because this all fantasies are equal unless the slippery slope fallacy turns out to have merit argument is getting a bit tiring.

Do you believe that the father can somehow separate his active fantasies from his relationship with his daughter? If so, how? If not, then is it not immoral for him to indulge in this relationship-altering behavior?

HumanisTim

August 28, 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by livius drusus
Um.... Have you read the rest of this thread, by any chance?

My mistake sorry.

livius drusus

August 28, 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by HumanisTim
My mistake sorry.

That's cool. Pardon my snippiness. I edited my post to elaborate.

livius drusus

August 28, 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by xorbie
Now, I personally feel that no thought can ever, ever be immoral.

Is a thought incapable of engendering consequences in the world outside the brain that thinks it? I would say most certainly a thought can effect behavior. Most of the time this is relatively easily contained. I submit that containment is impossible in the OP scenario, because the father, who is morally bound to maintain a protective, supportive, and non-sexual, relationship with his daughter, is intentionally modifying the fundamental nature of that relationship for his sexual gratification.

And I would argue that saying "though shalt not have fantasies about your daughter" does so much more moral harm than good.

Where do you (and others) get this commandment thing? It's a discussion of morality, not law or forced behavior modification.

Looking at it more pragmatically if you will, what if the guy refuses to acknowledge these fantasies? This can lead to stress, depression and other problems. It is just like gay people who try to become straight, only end up commiting suicide. I just don't see an argument that can state "what this guy dreams about when he is masturbating, or making love to another woman" is immoral.

Suicide? That's a tad extreme, wouldn't you say? Is it really such a self-abnegating act to refrain from stoking fantasies about your teenage daughter? Surely there's porn that can help with that before implementing a final solution.

xorbie

August 28, 2003, 08:13 PM

viscousmemories
In the OP, I said: "He believes that it would be psychologically damaging to her, not to mention immoral, for him to even reveal his attraction to her much less act on it." In other words, he believes it would be both psychologically damaging and immoral for him to either reveal his attraction to her or act on it. So yes, he believes incest (at least between father and daughter as it pertains to him) is immoral.

Um, no. He is saying that she thinks it is immoral, so it would damage her. The incest itself is not inherently immoral. Any argument based on this assumption will be duly dismissed.

Actually, if you accept our reasoning, the two situations aren't comparable. We are saying that a father having sexual fantasies about his daughter will have a negative impact on their relationship. You are saying driving a car might have a negative result.

Well I know what you are saying, but I disagree that the "deception" will inherently disrupt the relationship. Moreover, I do not think he is being at all dishonest, and I believe it is very possible to fantasize about people and then not change your relationship with them at all. If his daughter randomly said "daddy, do you find me sexually attractive?" and he lied, it would be dishonest. Now if she were wearing a catholic school uniform and sucking a lollipop :eek: ... but I digress.

Then you need to scroll back a couple of pages to livius' post, and/or forward to hers and my several attempts at clarifying it. The argument is there. The choice of whether to refute it or simply reassert your original postion ad nauseum is yours. If it's any consolation, you'll be a far cry from alone if you decide to go with the latter.

I see.... so if I say something it is a "position" but if you make a totally unsupported point, it is an "argument" which I need to "refute." I disagree. Neither of us has any clinical data, so their really will be no refuting.

livius drusus
who is morally bound to maintain a protective, supportive, and non-sexual, relationship with his daughter, is intentionally modifying the fundamental nature of that relationship for his sexual gratification.

I like how you slipped non-sexual in there. This implies incest is inherently wrong. However, even I would consider age restrictions, so I will not merely dismiss this argument. Anyhow it does not really matter, because they are not having sex. The relationship is thus "non-sexual." He is not modifying anything about the relationship, because they are still not having sex.
The relationship, especially as seen from the daughter's POV is unchanged unless he lets on, which he does not necessarily have to do. And sure thoughts can affect your actions, but this does not mean they will. And I still see no inherent damage done by the mere fantasy.

viscousmemories

August 28, 2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by xorbie
Um, no. He is saying that she thinks it is immoral, so it would damage her. The incest itself is not inherently immoral. Any argument based on this assumption will be duly dismissed. Xorbie, this isn�t an insult, but you are not understanding what I wrote. You really should re-read the OP. I created the scenario. The father and daughter within the scenario are my fictional creations as well. I am their God, and I determine what is true and not true in their world. They think, feel, and believe whatever I say they think, feel, and believe. And I am telling you, as I wrote in my OP, that the father believes incest is immoral. So, in the universe wherein this hypothetical father and daughter live (hmm� I should probably give them names if I�m going to have to keep referring to them. I�ll think on that.) as far as he and she are concerned, incest is inherently immoral. Allow me to reiterate that it is not relevant if incest is inherently immoral in the universe wherein you and I live. For the purposes of this discussion, incest is immoral. You may duly dismiss this important point if you like, but doing so is only going to ensure that you miss the rest of the argument I�m making.
Well I know what you are saying, but I disagree that the "deception" will inherently disrupt the relationship. I don�t think you do know what I�m saying, because I never said �deception will inherently disrupt the relationship�. I never even implied it. In fact, and I think I did mention this, I don�t think the deception angle is even relevant to whether or not the father�s fantasies are immoral.
Moreover, I do not think he is being at all dishonest, and I believe it is very possible to fantasize about people and then not change your relationship with them at all. The question of whether or not his concealment of his true feelings for her is dishonest, and the resultant question of whether or not that dishonesty is immoral are interesting, but in my opinion not at issue here.
If his daughter randomly said "daddy, do you find me sexually attractive?" and he lied, it would be dishonest. Now if she were wearing a catholic school uniform and sucking a lollipop :eek: ... but I digress. Yes, you do.
I see.... so if I say something it is a "position" but if you make a totally unsupported point, it is an "argument" which I need to "refute." I disagree. Neither of us has any clinical data, so their really will be no refuting. I�m not sure what you�re on about here, xorbie. You came into this thread spouting off about how there is nothing immoral about incest, much less fantasies about incest (accompanied by some offensive rhetoric to Tom Sawyer, I might add) and then in your second post said: �Hello? People are making claims that the fantasy itself is wrong. I totally disagree with this. You can go ahead and fantasize about whatever the hell you want so long as you harm nobody. There can never be anything immoral about that. EVER.�

Well, xorbie: Hello? People have argued that there is good reason to believe that actual harm can occur, in fact very likely does occur, as a result of a father having sexual fantasies about his daughter. If we could prove beyond reasonable doubt that damage does in fact occur to the relationship between a father and daughter as a result of his changed behavior because of his sexual fantasies about her, would you then concede that thoughts can in fact be immoral? Or would you simply reassert your original statement (if you prefer that to �position�) that �there can never be anything immoral about that. EVER.�

vm

livius drusus

August 28, 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by xorbie
I like how you slipped non-sexual in there. This implies incest is inherently wrong.

You seem to have forgotten the premise of the OP. If you want to discuss the morality of incest, there's another thread right under this one where you can engage it. Viscous made it clear in the OP and in follow-up posts that for the purposes of this discussion the father considers incest immoral.

However, even I would consider age restrictions, so I will not merely dismiss this argument. Anyhow it does not really matter, because they are not having sex. The relationship is thus "non-sexual." He is not modifying anything about the relationship, because they are still not having sex.

So according to you unless they are engaging in intercourse the relationship between them is unchanged and unsexualized? That is on its face incorrect. Unless he was sexually attracted to her when she was a baby, a toddler, 8, 10, 13, his desire for her is a new element in their relationship, and not a negligible one. Expand that desire into active fantasy, and the change is radical.

As viscous pointed out in his reply to the_cave here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1144345#post1144345), people act differently around someone they've imagined fucking. They seek out visual data and double entendres, make a series of mental notes for later masturbatory use. In the case of a father who has special access to his daughter's presence based on the presumption that as her father he feels about her a certain way and will therefore not take advantage of that access, such behavior is immoral.

The relationship, especially as seen from the daughter's POV is unchanged unless he lets on, which he does not necessarily have to do. And sure thoughts can affect your actions, but this does not mean they will. And I still see no inherent damage done by the mere fantasy.

Fantasy is not passive. It is active, a mental construct that can be intricate and far-reaching. Regardless of what the daughter knows, the father has a responsibility to contain his behavior. So far neither you nor Loren nor any of the other people who claim that fantasy is all in the mind have denied that he will draw material for his naked mental gymnastics from his rl interactions with her.

So let me ask you explicitly: will he be able to refrain from using his relationship with her to get fodder for his solo fantasies? If so, how? If not, isn't that a major change in the nature of their relationship?

xorbie

August 29, 2003, 11:46 AM

livius drusus
So let me ask you explicitly: will he be able to refrain from using his relationship with her to get fodder for his solo fantasies? If so, how? If not, isn't that a major change in the nature of their relationship?

Let's say I work with a co-worker I find sexually attractive. If I like having fantasies about her, does that mean I will be unable to talk to her ever again because I will be too busy checking out her body? If that is the case, I should lay off the fantasies.

Same thing here. If daddy doesn't think he can stop himself from seeing his daughter as a sex toy, he should stop, and get help. However, there are many people who can want to have sex with someone, have imagined having sex with them and can still carry on totally normal (non-sexual) relationships. Your assumption seems to be that this is totally impossible. And if from time to time checks her out without her knowledge, nobody is hurt.

Also, what is interesting is that you assume that this parent is already like a super good dad. Of course this is your universe, but what if the dad was bad? What if he would always come home late from work, would not check up on how his daughter was doing, etc. But now, he comes home from work earlier, picks her up from school, etc

Would this mean the relationship would be better? Wouldn't this mean that not only are the fantasies not immoral, but they are n fact morally good?

visciousmemories

I don�t think you do know what I�m saying, because I never said �deception will inherently disrupt the relationship�. I never even implied it. In fact, and I think I did mention this, I don�t think the deception angle is even relevant to whether or not the father�s fantasies are immoral.

Keep in mind that I am basically replying to both you and livus in my posts, and livus specifically mentions deception ("Quite the opposite in fact. It exacerbates the imbalance by introducing a constant undercurrent of deception into their relationship")

And guess what? If daddy thinks incest is immoral, I disagree with him. However, then his constant fantasies would make him feel uncomfortable with himself. I fail to see how someone could have such fantasies and seek them out when they believe it is immoral.... he needs some professional help if he strokes off at the same time as thinking "of man, this is so wrong, so wrong, so wrong..."

And as I continue on in this thread, I am becoming more and more convinced that the morality of incest is actually totally irellevant. All that matters is that the daughter believes it is immoral, and that she would be psychology damaged if she discovered her father's lust.

(As a side note, after reading that other thread on the morality of incest, I think the consensus was that so long as nobody became pregnant it was fine.)

Well, xorbie: Hello? People have argued that there is good reason to believe that actual harm can occur, in fact very likely does occur, as a result of a father having sexual fantasies about his daughter. If we could prove beyond reasonable doubt that damage does in fact occur to the relationship between a father and daughter as a result of his changed behavior because of his sexual fantasies about her, would you then concede that thoughts can in fact be immoral? Or would you simply reassert your original statement (if you prefer that to �position�) that �there can never be anything immoral about that. EVER.�
If you could prove that the father knew that damage would come about, and knowingly went on with it, I would say it is immoral. However, since this is apparently all a fantasy world made up anyway, I suspect this may be the new addendum to the father's persona. I do not think it applies to all fathers. And no, the thought is no immoral, but consistently thinking about it, or at least not taking steps to stop thinking about it would be considered immoral... just a technicallity, I know, but wanted to set that straight.