The Romanticism of Violence.

[Sajainta]

I'll start off by describing a dream I had a few nights ago.

Monday night, D and I visited my parents up north and I took a quick nap at their house, having not slept the night before.  While I slept I had a rather disturbing dream.

I had written a short biography of what happened my freshman year of high school, and the outcome was unsettling.  Quite a few women, after reading said biography, developed an unhealthy obsession with Jeff (if you don't know who that is, I'm sure you can guess).  They had crushes on him, they found him endearing, they claimed they wished they could have been in my place so they could have been his little whore / object / personal cutting board / personal knife sharpener, and his "favourite doll" (his words, not mine).

They said I didn’t understand him, that I was wrong in passing judgment on him.  That he was simply misunderstood.

The sad part is the dream wasn’t far from the truth.  We glorify criminals.  And I’m not talking about petty criminals, nor am I talking about people who are simply fascinated by people who commit serious crimes, because that is understandable.  I’m talking about people who glorify violence, describe serious criminals as being “misunderstood”, and think it is somehow romantic.

I’ve read stories upon stories about people sending letters to inmates who are pedophiles, serial rapists, serial killers, and the like asking them to marry them.  All while fully knowing that the criminals are guilty.

I do not know what possesses said people to want to be in contact with those kind of criminals, let alone want to marry them.  I do not know.

You see this happen in fiction all the time.  People attaching themselves to awful, evil characters and saying they have crushes on them and that they admire them.

And I worry, I worry so much whether someone who knows what happened to me during that time in Hell walks away thinking that Jeff was simply misunderstood.  That despite everything he did, it was somehow admirable.

He was charming, yes.  He was powerful, yes.  He was brilliant, yes.  He was probably the most intelligent person I have ever met.  I am certain that he was a genius.

But he was devoid of empathy, of remorse, of any kind of emotion.  He thrived off of manipulating and intimidating other human beings.  He did not consider them to be human beings.  In his mind, he was god.  In his mind, everyone else was simply a pawn.  In his mind, what he was doing was beautiful.  What he was doing was creation.  In his mind, the destruction of a human psyche was the greatest artwork of all.

He harmed people for the sheer pleasure of it.  There was nothing that gratified him more than brutalizing someone physically, sexually, or emotionally.  Or, in my case, all three.  Because I have the best luck.

And I know if he were a character in a popular book that people would fangirl and fanboy over him.  They would giggle and write fanfics and draw fanart and swoon over this violent, psychopathic, sadistic rapist, murderer, and slave-driver.

Because we glorify violence.  Humanity always has.  It’s the aestheticization of violence.  There will always be people who have crushes on people like Patrick Batemen and Hannibal Lecter.  Or real-life criminals.

There will always be people who think that people like Jeff are simply misunderstood, and find what they do to be beautiful or romantic.

The romanticism of violence disturbs me in so many ways.  And why do we do this?  Why does humanity do this?  Why do we find violence to be somehow sublime, artistic, and (in some cases) beautiful?  And I'm talking about humanity as a whole, not just in this day and age.

Why do some people see violence as sexually pleasing, or artistic, or sophisticated?  Because I honestly do not understand.

[tushantin]

I think most people would think it wise to step back from posts like this, rather than dabbling with sensitive matters or causing unnecessary emotional strain to the one who simply needs to blow steam once in a while. Yet, at the same time I also think that if you'd spend precious minutes to write this then you probably also value people's insights and require essential responses and opinions.

I'm torn between the two, and hence wouldn't risk distressing you. However, if you give me a confirmation then I'd gladly give you my most honest response.

For now, I can only tell you this: paint anything in excellence and even crap would seem an appealing masterpiece.

P.S.: I just had a Deja Vou...

[Sajainta]

I wrote it out, so I really do want honest opinions.  I wouldn't make an entire thread and ask questions if I simply wanted to let off steam.  I have a blog to let off steam.

[FaustWolf]

This reminds me of the (hopefully apocryphal!) tales of women sending Scott Peterson love letters while he's in jail. I don't think it's just women -- I've read rather, I guess, "interesting" comments about men's yearning for Casey Anthony while she was still in the news too. And, like, this was when everyone pretty much assumed that she offed her child. In both of those cases, the elements of fame and physical attractiveness were in play though -- it's even more creepy that your readers were basing their feelings entirely on description, where the visual reaction and element of fame are absent.

I'm not sure what I want to say just yet 'cause I'm still thinking, but thanks for broaching this subject Sajainta. It touches on many aspects of our lives, including videogame and film content. I'm interested in seeing what everyone has to say about it.

[tushantin]

One of the biggest problems is that I forget things fairly quickly, thus disabling my ability to explain well. I'm still thinking, though I have plenty to say I'm actually trying to assume the best position to approach this controversial topic. We've had plenty of flame wars, and I certainly wouldn't want this interesting question drowned in it.

Nevertheless, being too honest and straightforward might result in outrage amongst the readers, so I'll do my best to be gentle and productive with this. Sorry for the delay, but do await my response when I'm able.

[Lord J Esq]

Why do some people see violence as sexually pleasing, or artistic, or sophisticated?  Because I honestly do not understand.

I may respond to other parts of your post later, time and energy permitting, but it was a given that I had to respond to this.


Violence and Art

Violence can be artistic because of its powerful impact on people, and art deals in making impacts. Let me illustrate some of the forms that a “powerful impact” might take.

Violence is a means of achieving control, and when utilized it can overwhelm nearly all other forms of control. Control is essential for us to develop our lives, and essential to the maintenance in society, yet violence often disrupts the development of a life and the order of a society. Violence settles disputes. Before humans had invented the concept of justice, there was the reality of physical domination.

Violence traumatizes people, yet most of us are born with an inherent desire to inflict it. Has any person here never hit another person? I can be relatively confident that the answer is no because all of us were children once, and children hit each other. If you were one of the few who didn’t, you probably still got hit. Violence entwines even the people who do not themselves commit it. It is a part of our human nature. It may achieve control, but it inflicts trauma too—and not necessarily just on the victims. Both aggressors and bystanders can be traumatized by it, too. Indeed, the trauma itself is a part of why violence is so effective as a means of control.

Violence can be enjoyable or even delightful, even though the result is pain and sometimes injury. Moreover, it can be completely free of emotional trauma.  Violence is a behavior that evolves from physical roughhousing—from play. Many humans like violence even when it doesn’t pose a threat and doesn’t burden the conscience. Most of our competitive sports are just highly stylized forms of violence. (And some aren’t even all that stylized.) There are also sexual connections to violence, which I’ll discuss in the next section.

In violence, art finds much to ponder. Human society has yet to approach and master the concept of violence maturely and satisfactorily. Meanwhile, the allure and the fear of violence remain, as well as the very real threat of it. Artists often strive to explore what societies do not yet understand but cannot seem to escape.


Violence and Sex

Violence can be sexually pleasing because of our animal heritage. We evolved, as many animal species did, with violence as an integral component of social life. Violence is a very simple form of communication, behooving the simplicity of the animal world. Before the dawn of Civilization, there were no laws to constrain behavior abstractly, and no words for the mature resolving of differences through conversation. But violence was always there, and can manipulate the social context. In particular, violence can chide, violence can intimidate, and violence can kill.

Animal societies exist for one reason: They promote the propagation of the species. If animal human society involved violence, it’s because, in some way or another, the violence helped. And when it comes to the propagation of a species, there is no social function more direct than the facilitation of sex between individuals whose offspring are likely to survive and procreate. Violence, and the threat of it, was a means of organizing mating pairs. Violence was an instrument to sex—including violence between humans who were vying for the same prospective sexual partners, and between humans who subsequently became sexual partners.

This has been true for so long that the human species has evolved so that many individuals are sexually attracted to being violently dominated, being violently dominating, or both, and to being the object of violence between others.

Sexuality itself is one of the most primitive components of human nature. It originates in the deepest, most primitive parts of the brain, far below the realm of reason and rational choice. It is a part of our nature that we have never domesticated—which is why sexual violence is still such a problem today. Most people can control their sexual behavior, when they choose to do so or are compelled, but nobody can control the impulses of their underlying sexuality—and, for many, that includes some kind of resonance with violence.

It’s difficult to think about. Violence was, for so long, integral to sexual success. Essentially all sexism, sexual violence, and human aggressiveness is the consequence of our sexual evolution. If my understanding is correct, males are physically stronger than males because our male ancestors competed very fiercely with each other to mate with females. Both sexes are violent amongst themselves, and violence between the sexes established a patriarchal system that, for better worse, ensured that the males who triumphed over their male peers would have sex with the females of their choosing. Outright rape often led to lasting partnerships. Rape even became a means for males to dominate other males (as well as females), quite apart from pursuing procreation—a sign of how primitive that area of the brain is, and how closely connected sex and violence are.

Evolution doesn’t care if we have comfortable lives. It only sees to it that the species which survive are able to live long enough and well enough to procreate successfully. At least we’re not one of those species where sex is a death sentence. But that’s about the most charitable thing I can say. In some regards, our animal legacy is pretty shitty.

The desire for violence didn’t go away with the inception of Civilization, even though today many sexual pairings begin (and continue) without violence—a testament both to the power of humans to control their behavior and to the power of attraction. Instead, people have begun to live out their violent sexual desires more in the realm of fantasy and consent. And some still resort to actual, non-consensual violence.

Today there are plenty of males and females who fantasize about copulating with dominating, physically brutal members of the opposite sex. Presumably this extends into the non-heterosexual segments of the population as well. And there are plenty of people who fantasize about the opposite, about having sex with timid, weak, or otherwise submissive members of the opposite sex. And so too are there those who take the Klingon view, where both partners just beat the shit out of each other, as well as those who like the tamest, plainest, most vanilla sex you can imagine.

Human sexuality is very fascinating, and rather disgusting. It is not civilized at all. Human sexual preferences are extensive, encompassing all aspects of human existence. The world of fetishes is immense and unfettered by rationality. Violence is a part of our sexual heritage, and many people react to the idea of it with pleasure or desire. It’s times like these that I feel fortunate that I “only” have a fat fetish. I do not, myself, have a violence fetish, nor a weaker preference for, or attraction to, sexual violence. I have only sympathy, or else outright pity, for the people whose sexual wiring is incompatible with a healthy sexual relationship that preserves the self-determination of both (or all) partners.

Thankfully, there is the realm of fantasy. Many people, friends, have said to me that they fantasize or have a fetish about sexual violence in some form or another. The most common version is rape. People have told me that they fantasize about raping others. People have told me that they fantasize about being raped themselves. It is not uncommon at all, unless I am disproportionately surrounded by people who enjoy rape. Clearly, in addition to all the traumatic sexual violence out there, there are plenty of people who are really getting a lot of satisfaction out of it, or the thought of it.

To me, the idea of sexual violence is abhorrent. I wouldn’t want to give it or receive it. And yet, because of my own sexuality, I understand what it is like to experience a fetish. I understand how primitive human sexuality is, by its very nature. And I do derive sexual pleasure from the thought of dominating, or being dominated by, a female partner. The only difference is that for me, violence itself is not the instrument of that uneven pairing. Fat is. I can’t relate to the appeal of violence, but I can relate to the driving fixation of a fetish. And I understand how non-rational human sexuality is.

That’s the really difficult part. Most people who derive pleasure from sexual violence are not “evil” for that reason alone. With so much genetic predisposition toward sexual violence floating around in the human genome, it’s quite understandable that such a large minority of the population is the cause of, or victim to, non-consensual sexual violence.

Everyone who has a sexuality—and that is almost all human adults—is stuck back in the animal ages with regard to their sexual impulses. In such a relatively well-ordered society as ours, most people can control themselves. But some can’t. They are a danger to others, and they need to be educated, rehabilitated, medicated, or killed. They are set up to fail, not even by society but by their own bodies. It’s terrible. And the destruction they cause to others (and themselves) is terrible. And, oftentimes, they build a worldview around their violent sexual desires that is repulsive and odious and terrible all on its own. Did I mention that our animal legacy is, in some ways, pretty shitty?

Ultimately, the evil of sexual violence exists in the injuries and harm it causes...not in the underlying propensity toward it.


Violence and Sophistication

As for violence being sophisticated, that’s a harder one. Violence is inherently a primitive behavior, and the impulse to commit violence is primitive. Mature, rational-minded people only engage in violence when they have a good reason to do so. “Wanting” it is not a good reason.

Thus, after thinking it over for a while, I can’t say I know of any reason why people would justly find violence to be sophisticated, other than sheer ignorance.

(This isn’t to imply that the form of violence cannot be sophisticated. We have created some truly remarkably exquisite forms of violence. It’s really amazing to think about all the ways there are to use technology to commit violence on people.)

I suspect that what people probably mean when they talk about violence being sophisticated is that the violence is committed by sophisticated people. Lots of folks here like Magus...so suave, so debonair, so intimidating and dangerous. Lots of folks like Ayla as well...whose worldview and social status are predicated on successfully committing violence. By her wisdom and power, she is in her own way a sophisticated person.

It’s not that the violence itself is sophisticated. The conflation that people may make is a mistake. I suspect that it has to do with the idea of dominance. Both violence and sophistication are generally understood as forms of dominance.

It’s interesting...before I even saw this post of yours, this morning I happened to be thinking about the original series Star Trek episode, “Space Seed.” That’s the episode which introduces Khan, a genetically engineered superhuman who once ruled a quarter of the Earth before being defeated. He fled to the stars in cryogenic stasis, and was eventually picked up by the Enterprise. While there, he promptly attempted to murder Captain Kirk and seize the ship. But before it came to that, a member of the Enterprise crew, Marla McGivers, fell in love with him. She was the ship’s historian and had always romanticized the great rulers—Alexander, Napoleon, and so forth. When presented with a living, breathing Khan, she fell for him immediately. This demure, submissive person was sexually enthralled by the fantasy of being spirited away by a noble brute. And that’s exactly what happened. She went away with Khan at the end of the episode.

I remember it because it makes me bristle. But, whether I like it or not, many people feel that way. They see a sophisticated, vaguely threatening figure...and they swoon. And other people aspire to be the sophisticated, vaguely threatening figure. Violence itself may not be sophisticated, but the idea of a sophisticated person using it can be irresistable.

[rushingwind]

I think Lord J covered it very well. As for that kind of behavior extending to the real world, to the point where women would send love letters to sex offenders/murderers... I have no idea. While I can somewhat grasp the reasons why this may be, I can't truly comprehend them. These people aren't "misunderstood." When someone gets super-excited when its time to go out and kill/maim/assault someone, there's no misunderstanding. They need to be removed from society!

This reminds me of when I read Hannibal (the sequel to Silence of the Lambs). Clarice, after being drugged and brainwashed into thinking she's Lecter's sister, comes to her senses.... and goes on the run with Hannibal Lecter as her new lover (and she's supposedly completely sane). What the everliving fuck? The novel's ending generated a lot of controversy, and even the film adaptation completely changed the ending to avoid controversy. I am hopeful that because there was such an outcry about it means that the majority of the public considers these kinds of things unacceptable.

[Syna]

I have a few, brief thoughts on this:

Studies have shown that submissive fantasies, among males AND females, are far more prevalent than dominant fantasies. I can dig up the links to this if you like. (As an intriguing side note, a greater proportion of males had submissive fantasies than females, even though female submissive fantasies get MUCH more press. Males had more dominant fantasies as well, to be fair.)

I can only guess at the motivations for submissive sexual fantasies as an observer; I do not have them. But I do find some of the more common analyses of them convincing. People are ashamed of sex, and want to feel validated and desirable as a person. What could fulfill these desires better (in fantasy) than an extraordinarily intelligent, charismatic person so overcome with desire for them that they physically and intellectually overpower you? You have no choice in the matter, so you're blameless, and don't have to deal with halting insecurities; you don't have to wonder if the other person really wants you; you have the sexual attention of someone unquestionably strong and domineering, the appeal of which probably has some roots in our evolutionary past, as J described. For women, it's a kind of perfect response to societal expectations: they get the powerful, capable male they're supposed to desire without the agony of feeling like a slut. For men, they can escape, for a moment, the constant pressure to be competent and in control and the ambiguity of many women's feelings towards sex. I've noticed similar lines of thinking in homosexuals, who have their fair share of these sort of fantasies, even if the societal implications aren't as clear-cut..

A similar phenomenon occurs with objectification fantasies. When you are in a normal relationship with another person, there is often a sense of uncertainty. You compromise, as is only appropriate, and you often wonder if the other person is really okay with it, if they don't have deep-seated desire to be somewhere else -- or with someone else. Objectification, in its brutal way, removes that insecurity.

I hate to parrot that awful "desensitized to violence" line that many conservatives use, but as with any idea, there's some truth to it. Perhaps not "desensitization," but... now that certain things are less taboo, it is harder to cross the line of "sin." We live in Baudrillard's Simulacrum. We have trouble distinguishing the real implications of a fantasy. People have the luxury of pedestrian lives - they are so removed from the sort of fucked-up-ness of your experiences that they simply cannot take it literally. This is the downside to the compulsively scrubbed and sanitized lives many of us lead. Meanwhile, in fantasy, people are drawn to extremes anyway, and it does, in fact, take more and more to shock us as society becomes relatively more accepting and permissive.

A longstanding problem I grapple with is how to teach deep empathy and sympathy. I can see people doing what you described in your dream, and it is heartbreaking. People need to be able to break out of their mundanity and understand that the horrors you described really did happen, and were more awful than they can likely conceive. I think a lot of the appeal of shock value relates to the fact that people don't have the imaginative capacity to really comprehend such experiences vicariously. I want to be able to propose some way to fix this, but I haven't come up with anything solid yet.

As a last point, I think many people are also attracted to intensity, individuality, and transgression. Your post troubles me because one archetype I hold close to my heart is the Miltonic Satan (who became the Byronic Hero, and Nietzsche's Ubermensch, and is related to figures like Set). It's the source of my deep affection for Magus, my favorite CT character alongside Lucca -- and though I'm not really a Magus fangirl, I am pretty much a fangirl of others of the type; I also strongly seek to emulate and embody it in my own character, which I don't think is quite typical, but regardless. I'm going to make a longer post on this one, in addition to responding to some of J's points (great post, btw).  

[tushantin]

Firstly, contrary to what's been said here, humanity isn't really "stuck" in the animal ages with regard to their (violent) sexual impulses; it's actually a part of our existence and a final straw to preserve ourselves in case of extinction or the like, and is also beneficial for selection even at this point of time. Our animal legacy may be shitty, but it is also gorgeous (and thrilling) in its own right.

Let me be clear on one thing: despite being an artist, I'm not blind to see that the purpose of art on a physical, materialistic scale is little to none, because that "purpose" itself does not exist. Art is attender of emotional appeal, a trigger of beauty, understanding and inspiration, and a whole lot more but detained within the mind. Art can also be the sight beyond logical bounds and also deep within the underlying properties of nature, finding worth in things that sheer logic cannot. That said, you will require the comprehension of an artist to see the depths of even the most abhorant of topics, even if that topic is the mind of a psychopath.

Much has already been said in regard to what I wanted to say (I'm glad; saves me the trouble of trying to explain in a lengthy response), but there are a few things that I still like to point out. I actually wrote Syna's response first, since that was the first I read when I was detracted from project rendering, so you will find much down below. Anywhos, here we go:

Let us begin with morality. There is no such category in universal existence, but morality is bound to human perception and thought as means of labelling between what can be harmful or beneficial to fellow humans or other lifeforms, and the attributes themselves differ between cultures. A particular act can be "sinful" if hurts your fellow group members, but can be "okay" if it's beneficial (the perception can be warped: harming the environment should be a sin, but isn't because it offers temporary gratification to civillians).

Morality either had an entirely different meaning in the tribal era (such as the theory of "Betrayal" would say), or it was non-existent, but violence and affection towards the violent were common traits since the beginning. The most violent, intelligent and controlling were often considered to be the best candidates in survival line -- ones who would be able to kill enemies rather than be killed -- and that was the primary phase of attraction. It didn't even matter if the individual was "good" or "evil", and many partners were willing to jump ships simply to stay with the strongest (however, certain clans preserved the sesnse of "loyalty" that has today become a requirement).

However, when the concept of "sin" was established and enriched, we saw the age of civility. Certain violence (or those deemed "wrong" by the people or the government) were tried upon, discouraging competitive practices which in turn discouraged violence itself. The animal urges still survived, but human civics won over, deeply affecting the human psyche. Those with uncontrollable, criminal urges were set on trial and imprisoned, something admittedly logical. However, these criminal urges were seen upon as "monstrous" rather than "primitive factor".

Similar outrages have been triggered at the inception of Sensational Literature, which was feared to incite "sin" or glorify criminal activity, or even sympathize with criminals. The literature class eventually became one of the most controversial phenomenon and many critics antagonized reading of such. However, back then criminals were penalized ruthlessly and severly regardless of their intention, and it wasn't much of a common factor to consider "Why a criminal did what he/she did". Sansational literature brought an event of imagination to consider motivations for the crime in order to understand it and try curb such events. But at the some time, these "monsters" suddenly became "misunderstood humans" in the eyes of many; the assumptions in many cases were logical, however, that sometimes it is the harsh conditions of life that drive crime (and sometimes it's sheer boredom).

One such case would be the prior Islamic terrorists who forged on for war out of vengeance or emotional trauma of losing someone dear at the hands of Americans/Indians; outwardly you would see them as senseless battle-hardened maniacs, but when you actually read about their lives you find them to be misunderstood souls because their pain is something you can relate to and sympathize with. After all, such a trauma can drive anyone mad.

And you've seen it time and time again, too, and beyond the actual reason to be misunderstood: people like Hannibal, Moriarty, Master, Kira, Draco, Mandrake, Artemis, etc. are also swoon-worthy to a lot of fans who haven't had the first hand experience with these guys. Checking them out from the "safe side" is one such factor, and second would undoubtedly be that these criminals are actually interesting and competent compared to the stereotype "gentlemen" who are simply dull. (Yes, that last statement was what a fan-girl actually told me; according to them, an incopetent "gentlemanly" boyfriend is restrictive and boring) But sometimes those fetishes don't end there; there's even a question that quite a lot of people foolishly ask rape victims: "Did you enjoy it?" The last time someone asked that to Mary I broke the poor fellow's face.

As for being a lover af violence, even if the act seems abhorent to you, I can actually relate to how Jeff feels here (but I certainly wouldn't say that he's in any way "misunderstood", because his feelings and visions are an artistic privilege, not a social one). Not only have I lived the life of both a genius and a fool, but also that of a bully and the victim. I know the horrors of being dominated, but I also know the pleasures of dominating. I have a rare skill to be able to gape into the heart of someone else and read their emotions, but I can also go a step further by influencing myself and temporarily become them, so I took a bit to meditate on that, invoked similar emotions as you've pointed and began to think in a similar manner. Because I'm getting a second-hand opinion (i.e., from you) my assessment may be off, but I made sure to take notes.

What I saw and felt, and my logical assessment henceforth, well... it might displease and disrespect you (something I had been fearing before posting this). I think this is one observation I'm content to keep to myself for now. In that regard, yes, I also admire the version of "Jeff" you pointed out in this thread, but I still see no reason to respect him or approve of his methods and fetishes.

(As an intriguing side note, a greater proportion of males had submissive fantasies than females, even though female submissive fantasies get MUCH more press. Males had more dominant fantasies as well, to be fair.)

Hmm, no wonder I fall for chicks who can kick my ass! And that is all despite being a "dominant competitor".

I can only guess at the motivations for submissive sexual fantasies as an observer; I do not have them. But I do find some of the more common analyses of them convincing. People are ashamed of sex, and want to feel validated and desirable as a person. What could fulfill these desires better (in fantasy) than an extraordinarily intelligent, charismatic person so overcome with desire for them that they physically and intellectually overpower you? You have no choice in the matter, so you're blameless, and don't have to deal with halting insecurities; you don't have to wonder if the other person really wants you; you have the sexual attention of someone unquestionably strong and domineering, the appeal of which probably has some roots in our evolutionary past,

That's an interesting observation, and I think I know the theory behind it. There was another tribal system for the Homo Sapiens (and possibly also the Neanderthals) practiced in certain tribes, a predecessor of the Patriarchal element, that identified the strongest and most cunning few as "Fathers" (or in some cases, "Mothers") regardless of your biological heritage. These individuals were equivalent to the "Alpha" prides which it succeeded, but dictated as the head of a larger family system defined by violence and influence, where sectors became divided between the few dominant and several submissive. The idea of competition was occasionally brutal and deadly; those who submitted early were free of insecurities, decision making, were granted favors and what have you (though oppression was certain), while for those few confident enough it was a game of survival, where endless agony was assured until your freedom was taken, your will was broken, your psyche was destroyed, or (worst case scenario) death. "Winning" didn't matter so much as who was stronger or agile (unless it was close combat situation) but who was "smarter" (ability to forge weaponry, armor, setting traps, means of subjugation, etc.) The concept stayed whether it was a matter of politics or reproduction (at that time, both were the same things).

The implication of the strong and desirable was also not just to be able to overpower someone, however. The most desirable and dominant was one that actually had immense control upon both the people and himself/herself; it wasn't just about punching someone, it was about knowing when to stop. The act of "mercy" and "forgiveness" was usually adopted by those who were actually ready for another challenge, or vengeance, by the very people they defeated and were thus considered "strong", while those who needlessly killed were considered to be the "mad dogs" who were killed by the very group that they aspired to dominate. It was about knowing when the person is finally "broken" to obey you than actually killing them and moving onto the next.

Objectification, in its brutal way, removes that insecurity.

Not to mention that, in the right state of mind, objectification also grants you the first stage of control over that person, and it doesn't even have to be "violence", and can even go so far as to influencing a person's choices.

People have the luxury of pedestrian lives - they are so removed from the sort of fucked-up-ness of your experiences that they simply cannot take it literally. This is the downside to the compulsively scrubbed and sanitized lives many of us lead. Meanwhile, in fantasy, people are drawn to extremes anyway, and it does, in fact, take more and more to shock us as society becomes relatively more accepting and permissive.

It works two ways. Firstly, your observation through Simulacrum: Subjecting yourself to fantasy alone for a long term would have no physical consequence, and there is hardly much to lose save your perception of reality and other things that follow, and thus even the worst wouldn't surprise us in fantastical forms. Secondly, however, is the acute degeneration of ability to handle said fantasy in real life: in comparison to other primates (at least from what I read two years ago, so this bit of info may be inaccurate somewhere) human beings have been showing decline of maintaining short-term mental stability, a side effect of rapid civility growth and conditioning. Meaning, (an example) a distant primate cousins can survive upon the the situations of rape, but those from human side are far more likely to have a devastating impact on the psyche.

(That said, I just can't stand the thought of primates being subjected to violence, it's horrible. They're so adorable and innocent looking! >w<)

I want to be able to propose some way to fix this, but I haven't come up with anything solid yet.

A primary method is to subject them to such, but not only is it inhuman it also triggers an amount of "stability" in the psyche and will have negative reactions to such events. A secondary approach is to have them witness it in third person (not like GTA, but with someone they can relate to); chances are, even that will lead to negative reactions and trigger fetishes. A friend of mine developed a fetish for gore simply because he saw it in real life and felt pangs to watch all seven movies of Saw. He understands the horrible implications of such things (and thus wouldn't repeat the same in real life), but more often than not these fetishes are beyond their control and aren't their choices.

This makes us ponder that despite the steady decline in the expectancy of such horrors in pedestrian life, there's an amount of thrill within these fantasies and fetishes that cling on to the human mind; the higher the thrill the more tantalizing things get, and somehow it triggers an urgency -- like of sound of bells -- upon the subconsciousness to break their current mundane lives where violence has become a sin. It's not that they simply like violence, rather they yearn for it. And one thing we can agree on is that both wrath and violence are incredibly addictive. That reminds me of a Doctor Who quote:

"It's not the urge to jump. It's deeper than that... It's the urge to fall."

[Lord J Esq]

Studies have shown that submissive fantasies, among males AND females, are far more prevalent than dominant fantasies. I can dig up the links to this if you like.

I did not know this. That’s really fascinating, but it also makes sense immediately. In a society, only a relatively few people can be dominant, because dominant people in the same social setting will often clash. (Although, in my opinion, when dominant people decide they can get along, there is often no better company!)

I wonder how much of an overlap there is between sexual submissiveness and dominance, and the broader characteristic of temperamental submissiveness and dominance. Do your sources get into that, Syna?

[Syna]

No, actually, though that would be a really fascinating line of thinking to pursue. I only have anecdotal evidence. Folk wisdom states there is a trend of people who are "alpha" types with submissive fetishes, and vice-versa. But that's not necessarily true in, say, gay culture, where, in certain sectors, the dominant and submissive roles are clear and visible and attached to specific behavioral guidelines, and in the fact that a lot of women do have high expectations for men to be dominant both sexually and socially. (I don't see anything wrong with anybody having submissive fantasies as long as they don't devolve into the sort of delusional thinking this thread is about, but I personally chalk the frequency of this up to sexism. Anyway.) I've had male friends confide to me that they hide their submissive fantasies and inclinations because they don't feel they'd have any romantic success if those tendencies were expressed - but that they enjoy being dominant, which adds some puzzling elements to my theorizing, because that also connotes some inherent enjoyment in fulfilling social roles, and where that ends and temperament begins is anyone's guess!

So, hmm. I suspect it varies tremendously, especially given the whole "forbidden fruit" appeal, but I would personally lean toward the guess that there is some kind of underlying temperamental corellation most of the time. It may be hard to determine what that is, specifically, except on a case-by-case basis.

[Lord J Esq]

The sad part is the dream wasn’t far from the truth.  We glorify criminals.  And I’m not talking about petty criminals, nor am I talking about people who are simply fascinated by people who commit serious crimes, because that is understandable.  I’m talking about people who glorify violence, describe serious criminals as being “misunderstood”, and think it is somehow romantic.

I haven’t directly addressed this so far, even though it is the core of your post.

The romanticization of violence is something I have contemplated for many years. I remember, when Saving Private Ryan came out, some of the people on the news were saying that some WWII veterans who had actually been there in the real battle had had to walk out of the theater because it was too intense for them. To be honest with you, that only heightened my curiosity about the movie. When I actually saw the movie, the violent invasion scene wasn’t too intense for me. It didn’t faze me at all, really. I suppose that means I’ve never been shot at by an army.

In my younger days I really glorified war. I loved the visions of starship battles, the complexity of military strategy, the elegance of swordplay, and the fantasy trope of war as a means to defeat evil.

Something we often assume of violence is that it is a justifiable form of settling disputes. But it’s not. Physical strength, machine power, weapons skills...none of these says anything about which party to a conflict is in the right, if any party at all! When it finally occurred to me to question that convention, I found that I had a problem. In my epic fantasy book, some key conflicts were planned to be resolved with battles and duels. Violence. Suddenly I found myself facing the fact that any outcome of such a confrontation would be illegitimate as a source of ethical endorsement to the victor. It didn’t matter whether the “right” parties actually won; the violence did not justify their victory.

All throughout my twenties I came more and more to understand the brutal reality of violence. For one thing, like you, I realized that we glorify it at every opportunity—and vehemently defend our right to go on glorifying it. Violence is everywhere in our media, quite sickeningly so, I now think—although I did not always think that.

I realized that, in politics, the language of violence often frames the political process. There’s always another “battle” over legislation, or an “attack” on some politician, or a “war” against our cultural “enemies.”

Most Compendiumites will not be aware that two of my credentials are virtual world theorist and video game developer. Although I have not enjoyed the tangible achievements of, say, Radical_Dreamer, the theory and design of video games (and virtual worlds) is a great interest of mine and I have worked on them for my entire adult life. One of my most longstanding grievances in this field is the combat-based nature of RPGs. How many RPGs do you know of where combat is not central to the gameplay? This is partly why I enjoyed Radical Dreamers so much: Even though there are battles, most of the game revolves around mystery and exploration.

Today it actively disgusts me that people cling to fictional depictions of violence so fervently. I think I know why people do it, though. They need an outlet. Most people have aggressive urges that they have trouble working through, an uncomfortable legacy of our animal past that modern society has largely abolished. But the abolition pertains only to the law of the land—not the condition of human beings. Fiction can help diffuse people’s dangerous passions for violence. Religious conservatives often argue the opposite, that fictional violence encourages real violence. Quite apart from liberal orthodoxy, I think there actually is some truth to that, especially as fictional violence becomes more graphic and gratuitous. But I don’t think it is true in the way the conservatives mean. I think the people who commit violence were probably going to do it anyway, and if fictional depictions of violence gave them ideas...well, that’s not really the fault of the fiction.

That visceral need for violence achieves a less destructive form not only in fiction, but in sports, exercise, games, and even communication—as I have learned by reading the wishfully murderous comments on news websites.

Quite apart from a visceral need for violence is a refined appreciation of it. In this case, the attractiveness of violence exists abstractly in the mind, usually quite separated from the bodily ramifications of violence—the bleeding, the terror. I remember the venerable Daniel Krispin once wrote on the Compendium of his romantic views of war. He was quite candid to do so. And, honestly, although I did not say it at the time, I could relate.

I, myself, am not one of those afflicted by violent passions. I never was. But I have always romanticized the idea of violent struggle, especially on the scale of war. The intellectual side. The mellowing process of my twenties has greatly reduced my intellectual attraction to war. It has nullified my previously unwitting endorsement of its validity as a means of settling disputes. It has made me completely rework how I depict violence in my own fiction—as something to make you shudder rather than drool. (Well I know that plenty of people will drool anyway.) It has narrowed the occasions in which I might enjoy fictional violence. Even so, I still do honestly enjoy fictional violence in some cases, and in the real world I still support war as a legitimate solution to some problems in some instances, and an armed security service to protect public law and order.

I don’t glorify it anymore, and nowadays I frown upon those who still do. But I understand where they’re coming from. We are, after all, animals. That’s a recurring theme when it comes to subjects like violence. Every child of our generation is born feral, genetically almost identical to our animal ancestors, and must be raised into the semblance of civility by its parents, guardians, and cultural surroundings. The successful molding of a feral animal into abstract civility, even one as intelligent as a human, is never complete.

He was charming, yes.  He was powerful, yes.  He was brilliant, yes.  He was probably the most intelligent person I have ever met.  I am certain that he was a genius.

But he was devoid of empathy, of remorse, of any kind of emotion.  He thrived off of manipulating and intimidating other human beings.  He did not consider them to be human beings.  In his mind, he was god.  In his mind, everyone else was simply a pawn.  In his mind, what he was doing was beautiful.  What he was doing was creation.  In his mind, the destruction of a human psyche was the greatest artwork of all.

Those words remind me exactly of a friend’s description of the leader of a cult—a cult which she survived in a similar sense to how you survived being a human slave.

What you describe is a psychopathic perversion of some of humanity’s noblest qualities. One of the great tragedies of our existence is that the very best human beings are often quite similar to the very worst. The best people are emotionally balanced, devoted to influencing others, discerning in their judgment, mindful of their capabilities and responsibilities, willing to assume leadership roles, and dedicated to improving the human experience.

The best analogy I can think of is an evil twin double.

Unfortunately, mental illness can do that to a person, and mental illness in powerful minds can produce the most destructive outcomes, with the widest reach. But mental illness is not the only culprit. Traumas and terrors, abuse, and other social corruptions can warp a person into a very sordid worldview—especially if those experiences occur during the formative years of youth. A better society would try very, very hard to prevent such fates from ever befalling people.

The broader truth is that many if not most people possess some of these destructive qualities, because of predispositions in the human genome and flaws in the ethical structure of society.

That many people romanticize those qualities...is a result of the same failings of human nature.


~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Folk wisdom states there is a trend of people who are "alpha" types with submissive fetishes, and vice-versa.

Ah, yes. That popular belief is quite well-entrenched, and I too have anecdotal evidence for it. But, like you, I have no reason to suspect that it is actually true for a majority of people, or even a sizable minority.

But that's not necessarily true in, say, gay culture, where, in certain sectors, the dominant and submissive roles are clear and visible and attached to specific behavioral guidelines, and in the fact that a lot of women do have high expectations for men to be dominant both sexually and socially. (I don't see anything wrong with anybody having submissive fantasies as long as they don't devolve into the sort of delusional thinking this thread is about, but I personally chalk the frequency of this up to sexism. Anyway.) I've had male friends confide to me that they hide their submissive fantasies and inclinations because they don't feel they'd have any romantic success if those tendencies were expressed - but that they enjoy being dominant, which adds some puzzling elements to my theorizing, because that also connotes some inherent enjoyment in fulfilling social roles, and where that ends and temperament begins is anyone's guess!

That’s a fascinating line of thought. I had written more, but I realized that it is too sexually descriptive for the general audience here. Because, after all, we can talk about violence as much as we like, but Christ Jesus forbid that we discuss sexuality in the presence of minors.

I will say that, temperamentally, I aspire to a mateship of equals. I couldn’t respect somebody who was submissive to me—certainly not as a mate—and I would chafe against somebody who tried to subjugate me. I have always aspired to a mateship of equals, and there is no clearer manifestation of my sexual egalitarianism, I think, than my own discomfort at the thought of having an unequal relationship.

And, yet, sexually, I sometimes enjoy fantasies of being dominant or being dominated—and I have both. It certainly isn’t the case that I wouldn’t enjoy sex without an unequal pairing; I do enjoy it; but the fact that I have such fantasies at all creates an incongruity with my preference for temperamental equality in a relationship between amicable alphas.

It’s interesting to think about.

[ZeaLitY]

I really don't understand the glorification of the mafia, like in The Godfather and so on. I've heard people try to defend these hoods as being "independent" and that they "did whatever it took", which are so laughably specious that they bolster my argument. Mafiosos were assholes who refused, in their own way, to assimilate into American society. Thanks to their efforts, organized crime, prostitution, and substance abuse reached farther than they might have without. Why romanticize these dirty fucking people? Why romanticize organizations like the Yakuza, which subvert the rule of law and hinder systemic reform?

[Radical_Dreamer]

People romanticize power. Violence serves as a shortcut; an individual who dominates another individual through violence projects power through their actions.

[tushantin]

Thanks to their efforts, organized crime, prostitution, and substance abuse reached farther than they might have without. Why romanticize these dirty fucking people? Why romanticize organizations like the Yakuza, which subvert the rule of law and hinder systemic reform?

XD Firstly, contrary to the popular notion, organized crime was not a forte of the Mafioso. As to "why romanticize them", there are several factors contributing to it (others pointed some out, and I explained a few in my post above). Many of it can even be relevant to human factor of relation, conflict and thrill, though for literates it's more in the lines of exploration. For a stable and developing society, I'm one to think that such an exploration is actually a good thing.

People romanticize power. Violence serves as a shortcut; an individual who dominates another individual through violence projects power through their actions.

Well, yes, that sums it up. And for those in the vicinity of that projection, they either stick to become submissive or desire to challenge that power (each action having its own consequence).

That reminds me. What does everyone think of "charisma" in relevance to social, sexual, political or corporate dominance? (I mention all four because they tend to overlap)