Roguerouge, you make some interesting points, but I again find myself in disagreement. Let's go through these point-by-point.
roguerouge said:
Do you believe that your identity is at least partly determined by your thoughts, emotions, desires, fears and fantasies? Or do you believe that crafting a fantasy ceases to be outside the "real world" the moment that you perform it in front of others? If so, then you agree with me that your imaginings in game both reflect ONE aspect of you and shape you in complex and small ways over (a great deal of) time,
There's no denying that everything a person does, thinks, feels, etc. is part of the gestalt that is an individual. However, you seem to be implying (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that "immoral" thoughts/fantasies are necessarily indicative of similarly immoral desires - repressed or otherwise - to commit similar actions. I hold that this is not so. And even if it is so, the majority of the time these are co-opted by the much greater sense of morality that people possess.
In other words, even if these fantasies do shape you in small ways over a great deal of time (and I hold that even that isn't necessarily a truism), then they're still immaterial in regards to the other ways that people are shaped over time. Having a rape fantasy is not the same as being a rapist.
When you say "crafting a fantasy ceases to be outside the "real world" the moment that you perform it in front of others," I'm honestly not certain what you mean. If you mean engaging in a fantasy scenario publicly, then - presuming it's done with the knowledge and consent of those who are viewing it - then no, I don't believe that it "ceases to be outside the real world." Just because someone else is seeing you fantasize doesn't mean you're no longer fantasizing.
as well as those with whom you interact.
Incorrect. Just because the audience sees something does not mean that it has any effect on them. Merely seeing something is not enough to shape a person.
These changes become non-trivial with extreme subject matter, such as that posted by the OP, and through the build-up over time of a great many of these imaginings.
And here's where I have the biggest disagreement with you. Just because a subject matter is "extreme" (which is incredibly relative) does not make them non-trivial. Furthermore, the idea of them "building up over time" to become even more "non-trivial" is untrue. A person who repeatedly engages in a fantasy is not necessarily more inclined to act that fantasy out in real life.
And, as my girlfriend, krissbeth, pointed out, they do use role-playing quite frequently in therapy.
And I'd like to point out to krissbeth that just because role-playing can be used as a therapeutic tool, does not mean that all instances of role-playing carry that same weight and effect.
So, yes, I think your pleasures are political and reveal something about you.
I suppose that's a fair point. I simply hold that a person's actions matter much more than a person's thoughts and feelings. The guy who role-plays a rape fantasy (after making sure it's okay with the other players in his game) and then goes to work and has a productive day afterwards, is a much better person to me than someone who never has any such fantasies, and then goes out and commits a sexual assault.
I think that's an entirely obvious and non-shocking stance to take.
I don't think it's shocking, I just don't think it's necessarily an accurate gauge of a person's character.
First, what's "entertaining" or "enjoyable" varies widely over time and culture. For example, Seinfeld doesn't translate well to the Australian outback or to Egyptian television because it depends on very specific cultural mores. Second, I think that any look at the last 40 years in America would acknowledge that the inherent politics of pleasure became more overt, in the areas of gender, sexual identity, and repression, for example. Heck, Victorians regarded pleasure as political.
This isn't really related to what we're discussing, though. We're not looking at fantasies in the context of society, nor are we discussing the "politics of sex/pleasure." We're debating whether or not a person's fantasies say anything about them as a person, and if so, to what degree.
I agree with people who argue that embracing pleasures considered "wrong" can be liberating or cathartic, although I may disagree with them in individual cases. But, no, I don't understand people who argue that publicly shared thoughts, emotions, desires, fears and fantasies neither reveal anything about them nor shape themselves or their audiences in the slightest way.
Whether or not they reveal anything about the person is debatable; my point isn't so much that they reveal something, as that what they reveal is largely irrelevant to what kind of person they are. As someone else pointed out, writers of horror fiction are not themselves horrific monsters.
I certainly don't think that having, nor revealing, those fantasies shapes the person to any degree, and I certainly don't think it shapes their audience. People are not empty vessels waiting to be filled by whatever images are put before them, and can accept or reject what they experience in regards to letting it change their attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
So, yes, I think that the fact that you enjoy watching cricket reveals something about you as a person. Obviously, something in the game's culture or rules appeals to you--perhaps something about the virtues of teamwork, patience, individual excellence; or an appreciation for grace under pressure; or nostalgia for British empire, whatever. Your pleasure in it reveals something about you.
But that revelation is virtually meaningless in its lack of context. You've already admitted that you can't accurately gauge precisely what it reveals about him, and even beyond that, it has no meaning for how he'd act towards himself, other people, etc.
I'm not making a literalist argument, however. I teach classes on horror, and the appeal of facing death in that genre is a complex one (and just one of the pleasures). I'm not going into that in depth here, mainly because I don't need to. The case put forward by Alzrius, however, is not similarly complex to my mind.
My case isn't complex - complexity is not a measure of merit. I'm saying that a person's fantasies are not a barometer of them as people, nor any credible way of judging how they'll act.
And, for the record, I never stated that I believed that all fantasizing about evil will cause you to mimic the events that you fantasized about.
You're holding that people who have evil fantasies need therapy, and that such fantasies say something about them as people, and that such fantasies build up in people over time. Those are all the things that lead to evil actions; you may not have overtly stated you think that, but (again, forgive me if I'm wrong) the implication reads quite strongly.
That's simplistic and you should be suspicious of someone trying to sell you that snake oil. In some cases, such as those outlined above, one real world impact would be a decline in empathy, which has a ripple effect in your life and those lives you come in contact with. Which was why I would either leave a game that required me to "enjoy" sexual slavery or recommend therapy. I would regard it as a sign that they lived a life that was both damaged and damaging.
Again, I don't agree that this is true. Engaging in fantasies of damaging other people does not necessitate that the person having those fantasies will have a dulled sense of empathy. There is a very strong difference between fantasy and reality, and so long as the person doesn't lose sense of that difference, it won't affect their ability to relate to others.
You presume that a person's fantasies can be used to judge them; I presume that their actions are the measure by which they should be judged (if they must be judged at all).
Finally, Elf Witch asked about looting and related her own dislike for real world examples of it. Well, talk to your DM about setting up a campaign in which he doesn't force your character to loot to survive as they level up. It's an easy hack, frankly, with the addition of a sponsor or sponsoring organization to your campaign. Alternatively, other kinds of narrative provide for ways to make survivalist behavior perfectly justified. Perhaps you'll make an enjoyable activity even more enjoyable without having to take a step to justify these actions. You may grow even more close with your characters. The same goes for the violence argument: either the narrative should justify it and you should have ways to resolve some events nonviolently.
You seem to have misread Elf Witch's post rather badly. She did not "ask" about looting, and while she did relate her own dislike of real-life looters, she made it abundantly clear that she has no problem with playing one in an RPG. This is about as clear an example as can be made that playing a character who does wrong has no bearing on a person's ability to judge right and wrong in real life. She doesn't need to ask her GM to change the campaign; she (and presumably the rest of her group) are having fun with it. And that's their prerogative; it doesn't need to be justified by anything.
