An Argument I got into that made me think

Art and fiction
1

So I spent a lot of time on Twitter, scouring threads looking for people to argue with, and potentially persuade into seeing why lolicon/shotacon and other forms of fictional pornography are, and ought to remain, free and protected speech.
This usually involves explaining the difference between real-life and fantasy, citing studies, statistics, and other types of empirical data on psychology, pedophilia, and even US law and precedent.

However, there was one argument that made me think. One argument, that makes me scratch my head. Not that it destroys my premise, or disproves everything I say, but it does require an understanding of law, common law, as well as general dialectic.

Anyway, here’s how it went. This was from an IRC chat I had with someone on Twitter who insisted on going to IRC, for whatever reason.

Me:
Lolicon is free speech. There is nothing wrong with it, as it is a form of fiction with no relevance, or effect, to reality aside from the expression and glorification of a sexual interest you happen to find distasteful or offensive, or even harmful, which it isn’t and here’s why.
proceeds to cite studies and statistics on abuse and fiction

Opponent:
Okay, fine, it’s not real, but I think it should be banned because it expresses intention to commit a crime. Loli/shota is basically saying “I have a sexual interest in children, here are drawings of children being sexually abused, I like this, this is what I like to see”
specifically cites a manga where the main character shouts “I want to have sex with a gradeschooler!”

Me:
That’s not an expression of intent to commit a crime, that’s expression of a sexual preference through the use of explicit imagery and character dialogue.
You wouldn’t consider the main character in a violent video game, story, or movie shouting “I’m going to kill someone right here, right now” and then depicting scenes of them doing just that, notwithstanding the lack of context within the narrative to justify or explain it, to be a form of intent by the author to go out and commit murder, would you?

Opponent:
No, I wouldn’t, but that’s because it’s unlikely that someone would express their intention to murder someone through a fictional book or story, and then do it. You can’t take that kind of risk with this type of fiction, as it’s far worse of an implication if an implicit or thinly-veiled threat is expressed and followed-up on right under our noses because of your desire to allow pedophiles their right to express themselves.

How far is
“I want to have sex with a gradeschooler!”
from
“I’m going to sexually assault a child!”?

Me:
Pretty far, considering that the line of dialogue you’re citing is from a fictional character in a fictional story, a story whose purpose is to narratively and artistically express the mere sexual interest in children, as an abstract concept, rather than the reality of children.
Moreover, you’re completely mischaracterizing the whole function of fictional works, which are designed and understood by their creators and consumers to be “fantastical”, where the laws, rules, and functions of the real world don’t apply, in a disingenuous attempt to misrepresent the function of the work you’re citing, while also not justifying the lack of consistency with what you said about the phrase “I’m going to kill you” in fiction, since it would be equally unwise for a rapist to express his intent to commit a forthcoming sexual offense against a person, as it would be for him to do so if the crime was of a violent or murderous nature.
Also, if you want to argue ‘likelihood’ and ‘occurrence’ as deflector points, I can easily say that threats, regardless of their nature, are typically more straightforward and less cryptic. Their purpose is to intimidate their victim, not play mind-games.
What’s the point of making a threat if it’s not going to be taken seriously or even read as a threat?

Also, those two phrases ARE different. The average, reasonable person, is not likely to interpret “I want to do X” as an expression of an opinion, to be interchangeable with “I am going to do X”, a statement of intent to perform said action, especially in the context of something so heinous and serious, like murder or rape.
Yes, people may say things like “I want to knock the shit out of you.” as implied threats, but those are typically context-driven.
And given the context of the citation you’re giving is from a work of fiction, and that the average consumer isn’t likely to be spurred to action or motivated to act on their sexual desires by simply reading it in a comic book, I’d argue that your claim is unfounded.

Opponent:
When you see an advertisement for a McDonald’s burger or something, it’s [sic] whole purpose is to make you go “Ohh I want to eat that…” so you’re more likely to go out and eat it.
That phrasing I cited right there is precisely what they want you to think because that’s typically how advertising persuades people to buy or do things.

Me:
Again, you’re missing my point about context and subject matter being more relevant here. A person going out and buying a burger because they’re hungry or want something tasty to eat isn’t really applicable to a fictional character expressing his desire to commit a heinous act against another fictional character in a story that’s, first and foremost, designed to express and appeal to a specific sexual interest through literary and artistic means.
You’re overlooking the meaning and value of abstraction.

Opponent:
Okay, sure. But good luck convincing others of that.

Conversation has ended

Their arguments got me thinking really hard, specifically their point:

How far is
“I want to have sex with a gradeschooler!”
from
“I’m going to sexually assault a child!”?

Were my points reasonable? Did I win the argument? If so, how well? What other points could I have made, and what else could be said about both my points, and theirs?

@terminus @richardcsummerbell
Pinging you guys since you seem like experienced and knowledgeable debaters.

3 Likes
2

Logically, yes, but stupid witch-burning peasants don’t listen to logic.

1 Like
3

Speaking of more of the stupid peasantry: GodtuberGowasu - YouTube

4

Does a non-offending pedophile actually “want” to have sex with a grade schooler? Saying that they “want” to have sex with a grade schooler seems to be a statement concerning what they want to do in reality - not fiction.

We use different language to refer to desires within a fictional setting. Ie. No one refers to a desire to cause some mayhem in Grand Theft Auto or what have you as “wanting to commit mass murder”, because that’s a desire to commit a fictional action within a fictional setting.

A non-offending pedophile, a principled one at least. Doesn’t want to molest a grade schooler, they have desire’s, and a certain stimuli which satiates them. And they are making a conscious and deliberate choice to satisfy said desires using fiction and inanimate objects, precisely because they do not want to satisfy them through molesting children.

3 Likes
5

More than this, whether or not they want to have sex with a grade schooler seems wholly irrelevant to the topic of whether or not loli/shota ought to be banned.

Are they suggesting that loli/shota causes these desires? Strengthens them? Is merely emblematic of them in some way?

Because of it’s the latter, and it seems to be, that’s an absolutely terrible reason to ban something. What practical benefits would doing this have? I frankly can’t see any besides shielding their precious eyes from from a reality they would prefer to pretend doesn’t exist.

4 Likes
6

I’m just more or less concerned over the optics of the discussion, as well as whether or not I’m even looking at it correctly.

I defend virtual/simulated pornography and child sex dolls on the premise that they do nothing more than express a sexual interest in children in a way that does not exploit or harm them, and are understood by their consumers to be mere fiction.

Is it reasonable to equate a sexual interest in children with the desire to engage in sexual activity with them?
(this isn’t a rhetorical question, I’m being serious)

Surely, in an idealistic and inconsequential fantasy world, I’m sure they’d like to be able to act on their desires, but the reality that governs our existence isn’t that.
And they know and respect that. So what’s the harm in giving them that escapist fantasy when they want it?
Why should that be taken from them if they’re not going to try and act on those fantasies?

Like, you have someone saying:

“Do you believe that expressing a desire to have sex with children, even if it’s through fiction, should be allowed?”

And me having to say:

“Yes, because works of fiction of this kind are not the same thing as a statement of intent to commit a sex offense, or a ‘true threat’. They are designed as a way for the artist/author to creatively and artistically express their sexual interests in a way that appeals to, entertains, and sates the sexual appetites of like-minded audiences. They are understood to be fictitious, and the specific acts and imagery depicted within, no matter how shocking or graphic, will remain fictitious, in that they’re not likely to incite or inspire them to act them out against another person.”

I’m still trying to think about this, because part of this feels wrong. I’m not sure if I’m comfortable with adopting “the desire to have sex with children, expressed through and confined to the medium of fiction and fantasy, is safe and free speech” when I’m not even sure that’s how it really is perceived by the MAPs who consume the material in the first place, since to them, it could just be an appealing sexual release and nothing more than that and accusing them of “having the desire to have sex with children” might run the risk of mischaracterizing them.

This would make more sense to me if I were a MAP, but I’m not.
Maybe a NOMAP on the forum could elucidate further on this?

Maybe it’s the lack of sleep that’s making me extra paranoid about this discussion.

Am I just overthinking things again? I tend to do that sometimes.

3 Likes
7

“Is it reasonable to equate a sexual interest in children with the desire to engage in sexual activity with them?
(this isn’t a rhetorical question, I’m being serious)”

I think this is where “romantic/aromantic” maps may differ. Speaking just myself, I am attracted to the pubescent form but not pubescent individuals themselves. Their bodies alone are attractive, but person it belongs to isn’t.

A “romantic” MAP likely has a sexual interest in children, along with some desire to engage in sexual activity with them. For non-offending MAP at least, I I would think that this desire rarely if ever presents itself as a genuine “want”.

All in all, I think maps are diverse enough that you won’t find some maxim which can accurately describe the nature of their attractions as a whole.

2 Likes
9

I would agree with that. I enjoy the appearance of the adolescent, but have no interest in dating them. That said, if it were possible, wild meaningless sex would be my choice.

Like any group this seems pretty obvious. People vary all over the place and trying to pigeon-hole a group to a single definition is impossible.

1 Like
10

I made a blog post on this issue a few years back: "Want", "would like to", "dream about" -- treacherous words | Celibate Pedophiles
But the gist of it is that “want” is a tricky word that can lead you astray. If you’re on a diet, do you want that piece of cake or don’t you want it? In one sense, you both do and don’t. You have reasons to eat it and reasons to not eat it. Will you eat it? Who knows? Some people will say, "Absolutely not, whatever I may dream about I will not eat the cake. So here, a MAP could say, "Yes I dream about sex with a gradeschooler, but also I don’t want to hurt anyone. And every time, 100%, guaranteed, my ultimate choice is to not assault a child. Other people face the same sorts of problem. Do you want to punch your boss in the face? Do you want to quit your job? Do you want that expensive jewelry you can’t afford? Do you want to max out your credit card for a trip to Tahiti? Do you want to have sex with that hot woman who is very, very drunk? What’s hiding in your debate opponent’s logic is just an assumption that pedophiles struggle terribly to resist their desires, so any connection, including fantasy, looks dangerous to them. The assumption should be that until proven otherwise, a pedophile like anybody else is assumed to be in control of their actions, and can fantasize or look at fictional material. The non’s reaction is understandable and not pure bigotry – the news is full of pedophile molesters, but the ones who have happy fantasies and do not offend stay completely invisible.

5 Likes
11

You know? I would like to meet that guy on Twitter, he seems WAY more rational than most people I used to talk about this stuff. Well, I like the example of Mc Donald’s he said. BUT… he’s still wrong. And I will try to explain why:

So, yes, a commercial of a… let’s say… Big Mac, intends to make you want to eat that sandwich. And we know for a fact that it achieves that goal since we all know that commercials work. Companies won’t spend millions of dollars on it if that doesn’t work, right? So, I agree, the chances of a person go from “I want to do that” to “I will do that”, increases a lot, in that particular case. BUT, that’s not how it works with sexual preferences, and, again, I will try to explain here why.

First I have to say that I’ll have to take here the point of view of a pedophile. Like, someone that sees those figures of Lolis as real children, and it’s kind of “feeding” his sexual desire with it. And, well, I’ll have to do that because that’s not really my case :sweat_smile:. First, because I don’t see Lolis as being the same thing as real children. And second because “feeding” that desire literally won’t make the chances of me doing that in real life bigger, since… you know… is impossible for anyone to do anything with something that doesn’t exist :sweat_smile:. But, anyway, again, I’ll think about a pedophile perspective here. Also, sorry again, as you see I usually digress a lot. But, I guess that’s a result of thinking a lot :3 so I don’t see that as a disadvantage. But let’s continue.

I’ll start by explaining why those examples are NOT the same thing. So, the problem is, even if we can “kind of” compare the desire for sex, with the desire for food, those things won’t work well in this particular case. Like, Ok… I think that was a reasonable analogy since they both came naturally. :thinking: Like, you don’t need to see a picture of food to be hungry. In the same way, you don’t need to see a picture of a naked girl to feel the need of having sex.
Anyway, both things, the urge for sex, and the hungry for… food will come to you naturally, doesn’t matter what you do, that’s true. BUT, the source of the problem we are discussing here is very different for those things.

You see, the problem of pedosexuality is that the pedophile (at least an exclusive pedophile) wants to have sex with something VERY SPECIFIC. So, we all agree that it would be ok if a pedosexual “satiates” his urges to have sex with an adult, right?. But unfortunately, the reality is that some pedosexuals simply can’t do that. :sweat_smile: That is IMPOSSIBLE for them. So, for some pedosexuals, having sex with an adult simply will not “satiates” his urges for sex. And maybe some of you already get where I want to go with this.

So, when we go back and compare both things, the “temptation” of Mc Donalds and the “temptation” of Lolicon clearly have a VERY fundamental difference here. And, well, in my point of view, just seeing a Big Mac will not make a person became “more hungry”. Seeing a Big Mac, will AT BEST, just REMEMBER the person that she/he is hungry :man_shrugging:. So, in fact, what the commercial will do is to make the person more likely to satiate their hunger with a Big Mac. Like, anyone with hunger could solve that problem by eating a Big Mac. Anyway, again: The commercial doesn’t CREATE hunger in anyone. it just makes a SUGGESTION of how a person can solve that problem, and that end up making that person buying food from McDonald’s.
And again, do the mechanic of that works for the example of a pedophile? No, It doesn’t :sweat_smile: The “hunger” of a pedophile, will not be satiated with the way people want it to be satiated, (sex with an adult). So, the Lolicon itself would, IN WORSE CASE, only make the pedophile be more AWARE of his hunger. But that wouldn’t CREATE or even change the HUNGER itself, since the hunger comes naturally, get it?

Well, I guess someone can argue here that, being aware of your own hunger make that hunger stronger. But, if that is your case I will invite you to think again about that. Like, being remembered that you have a feeling, :thinking: does that make that feeling stronger? I really don’t think that makes any sense dude :confused: Like, How exactly? As I said the SOURCE of hunger, comes naturally for everyone, even if you don’t do anything about it. So again, I really don’t see why being aware of something that already exists, makes that thing stronger. But OK, if this is the argument of anyone, I would like that person to further explain that “idea”.

My second point here will be about, in the case of pedophiles, being aware of his “hunger for sex” doesn’t make that hunger more, let’s say… “dangerous”. In fact, that will make it LESS dangerous. Because the problem for pedophiles is that they need to control that desire, right? Like, there is no “cure” that makes someone change their own desire. So the best you can do is simply control it. And, for you to control something, being aware of that is… even crucial in fact. :thinking:
So, remembering a pedophile of his own “hunger” for sex with children will not make him more likely to rape someone, it will in fact make him less likely to rape. Because the knowledge of having that desire (in a particular moment, since desires are a momentary thing) will make him more capable of solving that problem, either by himself or with help from other people, don’t you agree?

And, finally, another thing that is VERY important, in fact, this is way more important and more relevant than my last points. In fact, I would even say that I could “win” this argument just with this one :sunglasses: But I don’t know :thinking: I didn’t do that here because I like to reflect on those things :sweat_smile: But Ok, stoping digressing here. This new argument is: The guy there is not taking into account that just by masturbating for an image of Loli, the pedophile is ALREADY helping to satiate his hunger for sex. And that’s not the case for an image of a Big Mac, is it? :face_with_raised_eyebrow: Like, you won’t be less hungry (for food) just for seeing an image of a sandwich. But you can’t say the same thing about a sexual desire. You can use that image of the source of your atraction to masturbate dude! :star_struck:. And I’m pretty sure that will solve the problem XD (At least it’s help a lot :sweat_smile:). So I guess that if you want to use anything I said here to “counter-argue” those kinds of things. You can simply say this:

“Seeing an image of food doesn’t satiate your hunger for food. But masturbating for Lolicon DO satiate your hunger for sex.”

Anyway, I hope I was able to explain how I see this situation. I know I’m not very good at explaining stuff to people. :sweat_smile: And doing it in English, that is a language that I don’t actually speak, makes that even harder :unamused:
But anyway, the idea of that guy only made reflect more of the deep reason why a commercial for junk food is a bad thing :grin:

3 Likes
12

Well…I am not a native English speaker. But if I understand these words correctly, I think a sexual interest in children is different from wanting to have sex with children, as by definition every pedophile has a strong and persistent sexual interest in children but some pedophiles know it will be harmful for the children so they choose not to have sex with children on conscientious grounds and they do not seek to abolish the laws criminalizing adult-child sexual relationships. If there were no such laws, they may seek to establish such laws.

And wanting to have sex with children is different from going to sexually assault a child, because although some people claim it is not harmful for an adult to have sex with children or don’t care about whether children are harmed, they are not going to sexually assault a child because it is illegal to do so but they may try lobbying and push to abolish laws regarding age of consent. By saying “I’m going to sexually assault a child”, it literally means that the speaker is a would-be criminal.

2 Likes
13

It’s a shame most people don’t realize this, for them MAPS are either:

Sex offender’s who’ve molested children

Or

Predators seeking out children to molest

It’s almost a little funny when I compare how cartoonishly evil folks think I am when I tell them I’m a MAP, compared to how plain and mundane the reality of my life is.

2 Likes
14

In my opinion yes, I do want/desire sex with children, whether or not I can or should ever follow through on that is another matter but I certainly want to have sex with them.

That’s how antis will always define desire, they’ll always say “you want to have sex with kids”, and I prefer to simply admit that and show how someone can want something but never seek it.

1 Like
15

It’s important that these types of discussions are had on the forum because they breed a level of understanding that transcends an anti’s mindset and helps explain why they’re wrong, for the right reasons.
We all need to be on the same page when it comes to this.

Now it’s just a matter of convincing them that loli/shota and child sex dolls do not cause sex crimes and that such expressions are not intended to be, nor are they perceived as or function to act as anything more than a work of fiction, a type of fantasy.

I do believe they can be convinced, if not simply have their outrage and vitriol defused and encouraged to have a sincere debate and then at least, see that their concerns should be about the actualization of child sex abuse, not in what preferential light it may be discussed.

I think expressing a sexual interest and having a desire to have sex with children are very much alike, but not the same, yet both are and should be covered by free expression because neither of which equate to an expression of intent to actually harm a child, especially if said desires or sexual interests are expressed via the safe context of fiction.

image
image1128×141 5.07 KB

1 Like
16

Desire does not equate to intent.

I can have a taste for murder mystery novels, graphic gory pornography, or violent video games and music.

Does that mean I desire for people to get murdered and have a romanticized goose-chase occur while a killer remains at large, taking up more victims?
Does that mean I desire to watch people get murdered or raped for my entertainment or gratification?
Does that mean I want to go on a violent grand-theft-auto murder spree, murdering police officers and civilians alike?

In fiction, yes. But in real life? Absolutely not.

The context by which these desires are expressed, as well as their mediums, are what matter the most.

Like @randomdream @anon96873729 @Larry @Chad_Chan @EthanEdwards and @Pseudo_53 said, desire is not action and fiction is not reality. Those things are compartmentalized and expressed in such a way that allow the creator and audience to express themselves while also happily coexisting with what’s right in the real world.
You can want to watch fictional children be graphically and violently raped, while also not wanting those things to happen in real life. That’s the whole point of fiction.

And to want to take that away from people out of the misconception that “desire” and “want” is interchangeable with “intention”, let alone the ideological position that such desires shouldn’t be able to be expressed, is beyond senseless and have no ground to stand on.

Thank you guys for helping me with this dilemma. I could just say “fiction is not real, learn the difference, if you don’t know that, then I can’t help you” but such a position does very little in the way of actually convincing the other party that their position is wrong and that yours is right.

Especially you, @EthanEdwards. I really appreciated your post and how succinct it was. It was exactly what I needed to read.

2 Likes
17

And that’s the part that I worry about. All of this moral-panic fueled vitriol against child sex dolls, simulated child pornography, and anything that could be remotely construed as expressing a positive opinion towards pedophilia, even though it’s not meant to apply to the real world, is all based around how society conforms to a specific ideology.
They see it in the news and evaluate the issue on the face of their own prejudices and experiences, and because it’s such a touchy subject, many of them aren’t willing to entertain a perspective or viewpoint that isn’t what they come up with at first glance, even though others are more accommodating and relevant to the situation.

If people only knew how many pedophilic individuals/MAPs were non-offending and what the actual relevant factors are when discussing child sex abuse, I feel as though they wouldn’t be so quick or easily-manipulated to work against their own interests, or even the interests of others. Superficiality and populistic outrage of this caliber is the way they argue and how they think.

Fighting against that viewpoint involves tackling it head-on and not being bullied by their appeals to morality, appeals to majority, strawmen, and other logical fallacies and incredulities that they may invoke to either attack their opponent or defend their beliefs from scrutiny.
(I know this may seem like a strawman in and of itself, but trust me, it’s really how they argue)

You have to “go for the heart” and try to break them down, while also addressing their claims with evidence to back up your points. Be dynamic in your approach.

The issue, in my opinion, is that people tend to get so worked up over the ideological absolutes that they forget what it means to think critically.

3 Likes
18

I’ve been arguing with antis on Twitter to try and get into their head for why they think loli should be banned or why it’s harmful.

My brain-picking has born fruit.
The following are essentially the same argument, and what it comes down to, is that they think that, normatively and fundamentally, people shouldn’t be allowed to express such interests or desires, and their reasons for this tend to not be logically consistent with their ideology.

“But lolicon expresses a desire to sexually abuse KIDS!”
“Lolicon promotes pedophilia and glorifies child sex abuse!”

They rely on the assumption that a sexual interest in children is always a component of child sex abuse (which isn’t true) and that because of this, fictional expression of a pedophilic nature should not be regarded as fiction in the same way a drawing by a child depicting himself murdering his parents should be regarded as “just a drawing” or that a manifesto by a Nazi/white supremacist should be regarded as “just words”.
They depend on this line of reasoning because they believe that it is these words and expressions that breed or create like-minded adherents to them.
This validation, based on the type of toxic environment that communal spaces like Twitter and Reddit create, is what lends credence to their ideology, and when that ideology is applied in the real world, they tend to outright ignore examples which do not line up with their expectations.

Why?

Because the reality that they’ve made for themselves, which has no value outside of the environment or content space with which it is propagated, also serves as a means to validate the “normalization” fallacy. It’s an example of circular logic that can be easily decimated if they bothered to extend their minds outside of the hugbox that they craft for themselves.
The reason why this doesn’t validate their “normalization” fallacy is that the consumers of loli/shota, both pedophiles and non-pedos alike. know and understand that the materials in question are fantasy, and are to remain fantasy. They understand that adult-child sexual activity is wrong, harmful, and illegal in the real world, because those would count as real actions, as opposed to products of fiction, fruits of the mind, which can be enjoyed and indulged safely without jeopardizing the norms and standards that are grounded in reality.
That’s a big part of why they consume it, because it lets them fantasize and explore parts about themselves that are better off being explored and indulged, rather than suppressed and denied.

The main problem with the normative system that antis and opponents of simulated/virtual child pornography have adopted, as I’ve explained earlier in this thread, is that their position is largely unjustified and is not representative of the reality that we live in.

We all can (and do) agree that the actualization of child sex abuse is wrong and harmful, nobody has the right to sexually assault or exploit a child. It is wrong just like assaulting someone, or murdering someone, or stealing from someone, is wrong.
Yet, we have all kinds of stories, cartoons, video games, and other forms of fiction that depict and glorify these acts. Because people inherently know how to discern real-life from fantasy, these works do not run the risk of “normalizing” theft, murder, assault, etc. People know what those actions really do to people, in addition to the law serving as a valid deterrent.
They are wrong because they are harmful to, or invoke some form of unwarranted injury to a person.

I’ve also encountered other arguments from them, some of which I’ve absolutely decimated already, and I think any reasonable person could see why they’re unfounded.

“Lolicon normalizes a sexual interest in children and causes harm by deflating the severity of their abuse!”
"Lolicon is used as a tool by pedophiles to groom children for abuse! They say ‘hey look! these kids are doing it, you should too!’ and it makes them think it’s okay!

I know it’s not harmful, and it isn’t difficult to prove that it isn’t harmful.
We have statistics and studies which shown that MAPs use it as a means to cope with their desires and that this culture of repressing and rejecting one’s own impulses and desires is maladaptive and actually furthers the stress they feel, in much the same way that conversion therapy for gays was so horrid.
And thankfully, @prostasia is looking further into the question regarding simulated/fictitious pornography and its effects.

3 Likes
19

Hope that you won’t be too upset that Diogenes made this point nearly 2.5 millenia ago. :sweat:

diogenes-of-sinope-quote-lbn9w6u
diogenes-of-sinope-quote-lbn9w6u800×800 61.6 KB

1 Like
20

Not at all, this is a common occurrence for me, like, finding out that something I thought was the first to think about had been thought of by someone else before.

21

I see I’m late answering, and if I read through every preceding comment, I won’t have time to answer.

Here’s how the question would be dealt with in lectics, the study of power and opportunity.

Sexual assault, like any actual sexual interaction between one person and another, requires the commission of acts of power. In the most objective sense, an act of power is simply something that brings a palpable worldly reality into effect, or exerts a stasis that prevents something happening in the real world that otherwise would have happened. Power is defined in lectics as ‘control of destiny/outcome.’ (Though many people use it to mean ‘ascendancy,’ that definition makes no systematic sense and doesn’t rationalize with all the senses in which the word is coherently used.)

Acts of power have five components: basis (you could say ‘prior set-up’), plan, telos/goal, agitation/movement and arbitrat/discretionary style. Someone about to commit a consensual sexual act would have a ‘basis’ in their rapport with the other person and in their having arranged a meeting with the other person and in their sexual orientation facilitating interest in the act. They’d have a plan, which might be ‘start with kissing and we’ll see what happens but hopefully something oral or genital would be a possibility.’ They’d have at least one telos, which might be the short term ‘have an orgasm tonight and make the other person really happy’ and perhaps also the long term ‘get married some day.’ The action in the act of power would be that first kiss or touch that starts the sex act rolling. The arbitrat would be all the distinctive ways they did the act that made them unique and thus worth prizing as someone special to be involved in a sex act with.

Something that doesn’t cause any change or stop any change in the real world isn’t a real act of power. Mind you, a person engaging only with their own mind CAN commit acts of internal power, such as deciding to stop drinking booze, that truly affect the real world. But that doesn’t mean that every mental whimsy is an act of power: most children who are bullied, for example, have countless revenge or justice fantasies, and the only result is that they’re bullied again the next day and still have no idea what to do about it.

In the case of sexual involvements limited to cartoons, dolls or pure mental figures, there are two levels of thought structure, and one of them can very well be purely fictional. So in the fictional story of the fantasy, there can be a facsimile (fake version) of plan, action and even telos, possibly leading to a cry of, for example, “I want to be tentacled by a purple alien.” At the same time, though, the plan in reference to the real world, in the REAL act of power, may be simply “get rid of this horny tension through fantasy that will work” and the telos may even be “not be tempted to bother anyone in real life with my unworkable fantasies.”

So the poor fellow who confuses the fictional telos with the real-world telos is not being realistic. One telos says “I want” and does nothing, and the other says “I want NOT to” and the latter commits the genuine act of power.

Now, there remains the issue of “does the fictional telos eventually insist on crossing the floor and becoming the actual telos?” Here we get into the central problem that we’ve discussed in the context of obscenity law (I think), which is, what happens when people try to read the freewill of others? The reality is that, the more they identify with the person, the more they trust their freewill to be cooperative. If I think you are normal in the sense I perceive that value, and if I think that ‘normal’ also more or less describes me, I will be unlikely to think your fantasies will lead to mayhem, because you’ll be a person like me. BUT, if I think you’re a deviant, then I imagine that there’s no brake of commonality on your intentions, that you are NOT like me and do not value being like me, and thus any attractive fantasy you have may soon jump to become your malicious action, simply because there’s no common-interest/empathy there to brake it. Thus, people characteristically see members of minority groups and sexually different people as reservoirs of broken or highly fragile good will.

There’s no question that in reality, some people who could be perceived as deviants can separate a fictional telos from a real-world telos, and that they may satisfy sexual wants in fantasy for the very purpose of efficiently denying themselves the reality of those wants. Those who believe that sexual difference is based in moral weakness will imagine that every time the deviant defuses his/her sexual impulse by discharging it in fiction, he or she thereby adds to a Skinnerian reinforcement that will eventually crack the separation between fiction and reality, if only out of boredom, wishing for novelty. The self-perceived normal onlooker will exaggerate that tendency, but let’s look at it anyway. Clearly one answer to the tedium, if it’s real at all for any given individual, is to keep the fiction very creative and highly competitive against the appalling awkwardness of trying to perform a real-world act of power that is no good for anyone and will lead to no end of guilt and trouble.

As for the McDonald’s argument, advertising is very straightforwardly directed at inducing real-world acts of power, such as going to the takeout window, placing an order, paying money, and sticking a burger in your mouth. That’s a completely defective model for the question we’re considering here about fictional sexual stimulation/release.

2 Likes