Non-consensual fantasizing is tantamount to rape

[Papayastan]

What about the object of your fantasies? It seems highly selfish not consider them. They could be adversely affected as well. Perhaps they are religiously conservative and learning about this would emotionally harm them. That doesn't absolve the masturbator from a moral obligation to seek consent though. If there is no consent, it is rape.

Once again, irrelevant. You seem to equate that the imaginary thing you are masturbating to and the real life counterpart are the same person; they are not.

Just as an artist has a right to consent (or not) whether his works can be distributed, so too does the "inspiration" for your sexual gratification have the right to consent (or not) to your use of their likeness for your purposes.

If you choose to do so without their consent, that is copyright infringement and rape, respectively.

[EnragedMaldivians]

That is correct. And fantasizing about killing someone is tantamount to murder.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Sexual fantasies are tantamount to rape if you don't have the consent of the object of your fantasy to do so. DIscuss.

This is utterly and shockingly baffling and ludicrous beyond comprehension.

[Papayastan]

That is correct. And fantasizing about killing someone is tantamount to murder.

It certainly can be the difference between manslaughter and first/second degree murder.

[The Chaos Heart]

Once again, irrelevant. You seem to equate that the imaginary thing you are masturbating to and the real life counterpart are the same person; they are not.

Just as an artist has a right to consent (or not) whether his works can be distributed, so too does the "inspiration" for your sexual gratification have the right to consent (or not) to your use of their likeness for your purposes.

If you choose to do so without their consent, that is copyright infringement and rape, respectively.

Different. The artists created the work. I created the fantasy. In a sense, I am the artist. Further more, art is tangible. Thoughts are not. I can think about anything I please. Such is the law.

[EnragedMaldivians]

That is correct. And fantasizing about killing someone is tantamount to murder.

It certainly can be the difference between manslaughter and first/second degree murder.

You misunderstood me; wether you act on the intention is irrelavant.

Simply fantasizing about killing someone IS tantamount to murder; it would be utterly and thoroughly absurd to argue otherwise.

[Papayastan]

Just as an artist has a right to consent (or not) whether his works can be distributed, so too does the "inspiration" for your sexual gratification have the right to consent (or not) to your use of their likeness for your purposes.

If you choose to do so without their consent, that is copyright infringement and rape, respectively.

Different. The artists created the work. I created the fantasy. In a sense, I am the artist. Further more, art is tangible. Thoughts are not. I can think about anything I please. Such is the law.

Using a likeness without consent, even in art, is a violation of a person's self-ownership.

[Waideland]

I'm going to sue Welch's and the Japanese, because everytime I see skyscrapers or grapes, I think about rape. They're implanting these thought crimes in my head with subliminal messages.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Definately. Thus, people such as Jessica Simpson and Merilyn Monroe have been raped millions of times if not more. Honestly if you do find out that someone is having sexual fantasies about you you should be flattered. Disturbed and creeped out, but flattered.

[Robert Magoo]

Morally it's the same. Legally it's not, and shouldn't be.

[The Black Forrest]

Ahhh a thought crime debate.

No thank you. My thoughts are my own unless I want to share.

[Papayastan]

Ahhh a thought crime debate.

No thank you. My thoughts are my own unless I want to share.

But you would deny that same self-ownership to another person because they were the object of your sexual desire?

[The Chaos Heart]

Different. The artists created the work. I created the fantasy. In a sense, I am the artist. Further more, art is tangible. Thoughts are not. I can think about anything I please. Such is the law.

Using a likeness without consent, even in art, is a violation of a person's self-ownership.

Please read the second half of my post. The part where I point out that thought are protected by the law.

Once again, I have the legal right to think about anything I please. I have the legal right to fantasize about anything. Thoughts are not, and cannot be regulated.

[Greater Tezdrian]

"Non-consensual fantasizing is tantamount to rape"
^^Utter Bullshit^^

[Georgism]

"Non-consensual fantasizing is tantamount to rape"
^^Utter Bullshit^^

Well, you've convinced me.

[Greater Tezdrian]

"Non-consensual fantasizing is tantamount to rape"
^^Utter Bullshit^^

Well, you've convinced me.

I wasn't trying to.

[Papayastan]

Using a likeness without consent, even in art, is a violation of a person's self-ownership.

Please read the second half of my post. The part where I point out that thought are protected by the law.

Once again, I have the legal right to think about anything I please. I have the legal right to fantasize about anything. Thoughts are not, and cannot be regulated.

Thoughts are regulated, and ought to be more regulated.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ate_speech

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... of_dissent

[Elsass-Scotia]

Well, if so, then I'm a serial rapist! I'd better lock myself up! I've raped thye same girl in my Bio class every day for TWO YEARS!!!! I'M A MONSTER! I'm scared...

[The Chaos Heart]

Please read the second half of my post. The part where I point out that thought are protected by the law.

Once again, I have the legal right to think about anything I please. I have the legal right to fantasize about anything. Thoughts are not, and cannot be regulated.

Thoughts are regulated, and ought to be more regulated.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ate_speech

Hate speech is not a thought. Hate speech is an action. I have every right to think about how much I hate the filthy mud niggers.

EDIT: Likewise with censoring. It's an action. Censoring other actions. No one can tell me how I can and cannot think. To do so is a violation of civil rights and right to privacy and property.

[Trotskylvania]

It is neither a sign of mental health nor is it rape.

[Papayastan]

It is neither a sign of mental health nor is it rape.

It is, in fact, rape.

See? I can do that too.

[Papayastan]

Here is an informative link on the topic.

http://christwire.org/2011/03/is-masturbation-rape/

[The Black Forrest]

It is neither a sign of mental health nor is it rape.

It is, in fact, rape.

See? I can do that too.

Do you understand the act of rape? Hint: It's not about sex.

[Trotskylvania]

It is neither a sign of mental health nor is it rape.

It is, in fact, rape.

See? I can do that too.

Prove it.

[Papayastan]

It is, in fact, rape.

See? I can do that too.

Do you understand the act of rape? Hint: It's not about sex.

Do you understand the concept of consent? Any type of fantasizing or sex is rape without it.