The "Cannibal Cop" case -- The ethics of fantasizing about someone in a way they would disapprove of

The_Ink_Goddess

we're gonna make it out of the fire
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,206
Reaction score
312
Location
England
Yes, except that I'm not talking about erotica.


Do you have anything other than hypothetical suppositions that show that many people have sexual fantasies about something they are repulsed by in real life? If this were really true, I'm sure it would have been studied and written about somewhere.

Feeling like the idiot on this thread, but do you mean like the whole act itself? e.g. ku used the example of humiliation, but finding it "too humiliating" IRL. But I can totally see why parts or the aftermath of a fantasy might repulse you - like maybe rape fantasies? idk though.
 

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
40,775
Reaction score
5,947
Location
Some personalized demiplane
Do you have anything other than hypothetical suppositions that show that many people have sexual fantasies about something they are repulsed by in real life? If this were really true, I'm sure it would have been studied and written about somewhere.

I have more than a few sexual fantasies I'd never want to see actually happen!

I mean, despite some of my more deranged moments, I still wouldn't want to meet a xenomorph face to face.

(Hey, don't look at me like that, we all know the xenomorph is basically a bunch of penises and teeth...)
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I'm not saying they are somehow wrong.
I'm saying that those reasons support my theory. Like, you say you don't want the real version of it, thus, the real version and the fantasy version are different. So you can't get it exactly the way you want, because you want the fantasy version, not the real version. Or, you say that in real life, it's too humiliating--that's the price thing. In fantasy, the price does not need to be paid. So, it turns out--from your very words--that you don't want to experience it in real life not because the experience itself is suddenly undesirable, but because the circumstances and the baggage attached to its real life version make it not similar enough to the fantasy and not worth the effort.

Err, not quite. You're saying what makes reality and fantasy different is always about the price.

I'm saying that the desires they reflect are sometimes fundamentally different things.

Do you have anything other than hypothetical suppositions that show that many people have sexual fantasies about something they are repulsed by in real life? If this were really true, I'm sure it would have been studied and written about somewhere.

I'd think most people with rape fantasies are disgusted by real-life rape.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
I'd think most people with rape fantasies are disgusted by real-life rape.


I think it depends on if they're getting raped or doing the raping. There was that 80's UCLA study where 1/3 of men said they'd engage in "sexual coercion" if they knew there would be no consequences.

But even then, assuming physical female arousal developed as a mechanism to protect against rape, I wonder if there is a difference between the physical arousal women tend to experience in response to "real life rape" (not necessarily being raped, but any exposure, like witnessing, or reading about it) and the physical arousal experienced during a rape fantasy. I also wonder if the two are ever conflated.

There was another interesting study on a sort of related topic where both women and men were read accounts of rape and when men said they were disgusted, they weren't physically aroused. The same wasn't true for women. So it seems we have two pretty different mechanisms as far as the disconnect between psychological and physical arousal are concerned (this isn't based solely on that study, I've read a few on arousal in men and women).
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
I'd think most people with rape fantasies are disgusted by real-life rape.

Yes, but they're disgusted by it because they 1) think it's wrong, 2) they don't want to actually hurt someone or 3) it would hurt or frighten them too much. That's not really the same thing as fantasizing about being humiliated, but not wanting to do it because it's too humiliating.
 

Windcutter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
2,181
Reaction score
135
Err, not quite. You're saying what makes reality and fantasy different is always about the price.

I'm saying that the desires they reflect are sometimes fundamentally different things.
Not always the price, sometimes it's the difference between fantasy and reality which makes reality undesirable or lacking or both. Like, I dunno, sex with a mermaid. You can have sex underwater, you can even play dress-up while doing it, it's not that dangerous or impossible, but it's not the same anyway.
There was another interesting study on a sort of related topic where both women and men were read accounts of rape and when men said they were disgusted, they weren't physically aroused. The same wasn't true for women. So it seems we have two pretty different mechanisms as far as the disconnect between psychological and physical arousal are concerned (this isn't based solely on that study, I've read a few on arousal in men and women).
An interesting study, but it also makes me curious about two things:
1) how many women in that group were inclined to have rape fantasies vs the amount of men with similar preferences (of course, it's impossible to really determine that unless we involve lie detection)
2) how many people said they found rape accounts unappealing (from the sexual point of view) because they thought they were supposed to say that.
 
Last edited:

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
An interesting study, but it also makes me curious about two things:
1) how many women in that group were inclined to have rape fantasies vs the amount of men with similar preferences (of course, it's impossible to really determine that unless we involve lie detection)
2) how many people said they found rape accounts unappealing (from the sexual point of view) because they thought they were supposed to say that.

For the second question, the men who denied it were supported by their physical reactions, they weren't aroused. I'm inclined to believe the women were honest as well because the same results can be found when women are presented with images of animals mating, which is obviously a fetish for some, but not widespread. I also don't know the details of how they monitered the reactions, but I did signed up for tons of studies in college and everything was anonymous. I never lied because at no point could they link my answers with me/my face. But again, not sure how they did it in this one.
 

Windcutter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
2,181
Reaction score
135
For the second question, the men who denied it were supported by their physical reactions, they weren't aroused. I'm inclined to believe the women were honest as well because the same results can be found when women are presented with images of animals mating, which is obviously a fetish for some, but not widespread. I also don't know the details of how they monitered the reactions, but I did signed up for tons of studies in college and everything was anonymous. I never lied because at no point could they link my answers with me/my face. But again, not sure how they did it in this one.
Yeah, if those people just needed to describe their reactions--men could have lied, too.

If they checked the physical reactions, though... I had this argument quite a few times with my female friends, saying a woman could never be aroused by something she didn't like, excluding the pure physical stimulation (the mechanical kind). I might have been wrong, it seems.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
Yeah, if those people just needed to describe their reactions--men could have lied, too.

If they checked the physical reactions, though... I had this argument quite a few times with my female friends, saying a woman could never be aroused by something she didn't like, excluding the pure physical stimulation (the mechanical kind). I might have been wrong, it seems.

Oh yeah, definitely not the case. You should check out this one too: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, [women] showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person.

And none of this involved physical stimulation, obviously. It's extremely interesting that women would respond more to apes having sex than attractive men walking down the street.
 

Windcutter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
2,181
Reaction score
135
Oh yeah, definitely not the case. You should check out this one too: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
o_O Yeah, pretty much everything I argued against as being not possible. I feel like I must be a man or something. Guess I need to get a video of apes and check it out. xD
And none of this involved physical stimulation, obviously. It's extremely interesting that women would respond more to apes having sex than attractive men walking down the street.
That theory of having to be able to endure unwilling intercourse at any time (and passing this trait on) kind of makes sense. Even if it's pretty unpleasant. But then, I wonder how it is for females of other species. Like, are female apes like that? What about female wolves? I mean, just from watching dogs you can tell it's not just her standing there thinking of England, there is at least some choosing going on, often involving claws and teeth to put an unwanted male in his place.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
The jury actually came to a decision and convicted him of both plotting and the lesser charge related to the improper use of the police db.

Ethics still up for debate, criminal liability for now seems clear.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,097
Reaction score
8,846
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
The 2013 conviction of a former New York City police officer in a plot to kidnap, torture, kill and eat women was overturned late Monday by a federal judge who said there was not sufficient evidence to support it.

The judge, Paul G. Gardephe of Federal District Court in Manhattan, granted the former officer, Gilberto Valle, a verdict of acquittal on the most serious count that he faced, kidnapping conspiracy. He could have faced life in prison on that count.

“The evidentiary record is such that it is more likely than not the case that all of Valle’s Internet communications about kidnapping are fantasy role-play,” Judge Gardephe said in a 118-page opinion issued late Monday night.

Mr. Valle, who was convicted in March 2013, had not yet been sentenced, and his federal public defenders had asked Judge Gardephe to grant him a new trial, arguing that the Constitution granted people — including police officers — “the right to fantasize about whatever and whomever they like, free from government interference.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/nyregion/officers-conviction-in-cannibalism-case-overturned.html
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
If a man is considered guilty
For what goes on in his mind
Then give me the electric chair
For all my future crimes-oh!


Prince/"Electric Chair"

:badthoughts
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
Yes, but an important part of that is keeping it in your mind. No telling people about it, no posting, Tweeting, blogging, etc. Nothing that could make the target of your fantasies aware or uncomfortable, in any way. Certainly no using of police facilities to help you 'imagine' your fantasy. Especially not by a police officer.
The construction worker who whistles at you is not likely to have much impact on your life. A police officer who decides that you'll be the star of his fantasies, and then decides that fantasy could be reality can: identify you and your vehicle. Make an excuse to watch you and your house. Make up work-related reasons to interact with you. Punish you for refusing to interact.
He should be penalized strongly enough that he, and anyone who hears the story, understands that he's to keep his fantasies in his head, or else.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
Yes, but an important part of that is keeping it in your mind. No telling people about it, no posting, Tweeting, blogging, etc. Nothing that could make the target of your fantasies aware or uncomfortable, in any way.
The First Amendment just fainted. Since we're talking about a man who was arrested, tried, and convicted of exactly this.

The court got this part right. The man's despicable for what he wants to do to women (Hey, his right to express it is also my right to judge him for it). But the right of free speech gives him the right to have despicable thoughts, even to express that he has them, without being arrested for it by the government.

He can't *advocate* harm upon others, nor act towards it. And it wasn't fully clear that he did. So the higher court said.


Certainly no using of police facilities to help you 'imagine' your fantasy. Especially not by a police officer.

I haven't followed this closely. I'm not clear that he was actually an officer. The last couple of stories I read reported that he "worked for" the police department. I don't think that changes your point, though.

The construction worker who whistles at you is not likely to have much impact on your life. A police officer who decides that you'll be the star of his fantasies, and then decides that fantasy could be reality can: identify you and your vehicle. Make an excuse to watch you and your house. Make up work-related reasons to interact with you. Punish you for refusing to interact.
He should be penalized strongly enough that he, and anyone who hears the story, understands that he's to keep his fantasies in his head, or else.

Throw several books at the guy, but he still has the right to write about these ideas in his head.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
I guess it didn't occur to me that it was a First Amendment matter. One of those foreign-culture differences. Or, maybe the decision would be the same in Canada, and we're just lucky enough that it hasn't happened here yet.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Don't get me wrong, if one person is secretly planning to stalk, abduct, kill, cook and eat people, then yes, I think that should be disclosed to the proper authorities and the partner.

However, if someone is just fantasizing by themselves about killing and eating someone and genuinely has no intent or even interest in actually carrying out any such thing why would that come up? If someone fantasized about, I dunno, being smacked around by Sophia Vegara (one of her Pepsi ads was just on; I have no fantasies regarding Sophia Vegara), should they be required to disclose that?

I basically agree with this about most sexual fantasies. Who among us shares every single fantasy we have with our partner, even ones that involve them? Say a woman fantasizes about her husband getting it on with another man while she watches or participates, and she knows darned well he's not bisexual or polyamorous, so it's never going to happen? She's really fine with this, and has no intent of ever asking him to do this and confines her fantasy to reading a little erotica or watching a little pornography that pushes those buttons for her.

But what if he finds out she's sharing these fantasies with a community of people who are into polyamory and bisexuality, and she's spending an inordinate amount of time indulging in these fantasies and hanging out with this community, maybe even to the point where it's impacting their real sex life and relationship?

That's where it might start to feel a little strange. Not because these fantasies or the lifestyle is wrong, but because it's gotten to the point where it's taking over her life. And this would be even more so with fantasies that entail actually harming or killing someone.

What I'm saying is it's one thing to discover that my husband has a thing for blondes with big breasts and he's been doing some creative photoshopping with pictures of me to make me look like a large-breasted blonde. If he swears he'd never cheat on me and has no desire for me to have a boob job or dye my hair, believing him (if he's lying) could end in heartache, but not in my death. But if I find pictures of him cooking and eating me, and I discover he's involved with a cannibal fantasy sex group, even though he swears he'd never really do this, the price of this being a lie is much higher.

Or to consider another issue. Think about how most people would react if they found a stash of animated child porn on their partner's computer. Even if the partner swore they'd never really do that to a kid (and since it's animated, no actual children were harmed in the creation of this porn).

I don't think I could continue the relationship, and I might be really worried. The issue is, of course, is how can law enforcement differentiate between something that's really just fantasy, even if it's an obsessive one, and something that's morphed (or is in the process of morphing) into an actual plan? I'd guess expert witnesses would be involved here.
 
Last edited:

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
I haven't followed this closely. I'm not clear that he was actually an officer. The last couple of stories I read reported that he "worked for" the police department. I don't think that changes your point, though.

He was a cop, yes, for years. He also used the internal NYPD db to find personal information about women he fantasized about, and, in addition, shared some of that info with random people online.

I basically agree with this about most sexual fantasies. Who among us shares every single fantasy we have with our partner, even ones that involve them? Say a woman fantasizes about her husband getting it on with another man while she watches or participates, and she knows darned well he's not bisexual or polyamorous, so it's never going to happen? She's really fine with this, and has no intent of ever asking him to do this and confines her fantasy to reading a little erotica or watching a little pornography that pushes those buttons for her.

But what if he finds out she's sharing these fantasies with a community of people who are into polyamory and bisexuality, and she's spending an inordinate amount of time indulging in these fantasies and hanging out with this community, maybe even to the point where it's impacting their real sex life and relationship?

That's where it might start to feel a little strange. Not because these fantasies or the lifestyle is wrong, but because it's gotten to the point where it's taking over her life. And this would be even more so with fantasies that entail actually harming or killing someone.

What I'm saying is it's one thing to discover that my husband has a thing for blondes with big breasts and he's been doing some creative photoshopping with pictures of me to make me look like a large-breasted blonde. If he swears he'd never cheat on me and has no desire for me to have a boob job or dye my hair, believing him (if he's lying) could end in heartache, but not in my death. But if I find pictures of him cooking and eating me, and I discover he's involved with a cannibal fantasy sex group, even though he swears he'd never really do this, the price of this being a lie is much higher.

Or to consider another issue. Think about how most people would react if they found a stash of animated child porn on their partner's computer. Even if the partner swore they'd never really do that to a kid (and since it's animated, no actual children were harmed in the creation of this porn).

I don't think I could continue the relationship, and I might be really worried. The issue is, of course, is how can law enforcement differentiate between something that's really just fantasy, even if it's an obsessive one, and something that's morphed (or is in the process of morphing) into an actual plan? I'd guess expert witnesses would be involved here.

I don't disagree, but I think there's a distinction in there someplace.

To me, when it's spending lots of time on whichever fetish or interest forum, getting involved with the people online, etc., to the detriment of the relationship in some way, that's not about the fantasy, it's about the behaviour.

Obviously, I'd be upset and concerned if I found someone, say, in some kind of 'what to do with crushed cereal' forum, talking all day about breading things with cornflakes. It's sick. However, the issue would be the pervasiveness of the interest in their life, and what being overly interested in something either detrimental to me or others would mean.

Just having a fantasy isn't that to me, if you see where I'm putting the line.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
I haven't been following this thread, but the title sort-of caught my eye. I read the OP, and it reminded me of the probable-cause and bond hearing I heard on the radio today for the guy who left his 22 month old child in the car all day (see the P&CE thread).

On the very day his child was left out in the car, he was sexting with six women. The defense attorney was talking about this, saying how these pics (explicitly described by a cop on the stand just minutes earlier) were harmless and the defendant was just "fantasy texting."
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
Or to consider another issue. Think about how most people would react if they found a stash of animated child porn on their partner's computer. Even if the partner swore they'd never really do that to a kid (and since it's animated, no actual children were harmed in the creation of this porn).

I don't think I could continue the relationship, and I might be really worried. The issue is, of course, is how can law enforcement differentiate between something that's really just fantasy, even if it's an obsessive one, and something that's morphed (or is in the process of morphing) into an actual plan? I'd guess expert witnesses would be involved here.

I saw a very interesting episode of Law and Order SVU recently that was about a case similar to this one. The man's obsession wasn't about cannibalism, or women, but it was about brutally murdering very young boys.

The man was found not guilty, because the jury determined that despite how deep he was into his fantasies, they were still just fantasies, and he wasn't planning to act on them. The thing was, people who knew him thought he might. His first wife left him because she was concerned about what he was thinking about doing to their son.

Obviously, people who really do these things start off by thinking about them first. And I wouldn't necessarily know the difference between someone who would actually do these things and who wouldn't. Because whether they would or not, they would probably assure me that they were just fantasies, and they would never act on them.