deano

yup your right.though what alexander did was as a king,just the same as what nations do now.

viscousmemories

I stated in my OP, �Because he has no desire to cause her pain, and he tries his best to be a moral person, he never intentionally gives her any indication of his feelings.� Hence, our hypothetical man has already concluded that �leering� at his daughter (as �leering� implies a communication of sexual interest) is an immoral action, and therefore doesn�t do it.

So, assuming the only two actions he takes are �watching her sunbathe� and �masturbating to that image�, let�s look at them independently. What is immoral about �watching her sunbathe�? Is it her physical position? Is it because she�s in a swimsuit? The length of time he watches her? The thoughts he has while watching her? Is he supposed to avoid looking at her at all times, or avoid looking at her for more than 30 seconds at a time? What if he watches her playing a board game on the living room floor? Or playing catch in the yard with a friend? What if he watches her sunbathe and has no illicit thoughts whatsoever? Is it then still immoral for him to watch her?

As for �masturbating to (her) image�, the question of whether that is immoral is the one stated in my OP, so I obviously can�t accept your assertion that it is as an argument for why it is.

First, I retract my earlier suggestion that our hypothetical man �allowed thoughts to become fantasies�. Of course we can choose to create and/or dwell on fantasies, but I believe they can also occur spontaneously. In any case, no matter the origin of the fantasies, in my opinion anything that occurs only in the brain cannot be immoral. Saying that sexual thoughts about his daughter are immoral because they�re inappropriate begs the question.

vm

xorbie

Not only is there nothing immoral about this, but I fail to see how there is anything immoral with incest at all. However, that second one does not appear to be the focus of this thread, so I will stick to my first point.

Even assuming incest was somehow immoral, fantasizing about it would not be. Also, the argument about not wanting to tell people about something as an indicator of morality is pure bullshit.

Like being gay? Or an atheist? Let's toss 'em all out, right? This is such an idiotic assertion that I don't even feel it justifies an intelligent response.

livius drusus

Much to my amazement, I am going to go ahead and take the position that the father fantasizing about his daughter is in fact immoral.

First, I think we should pin down what we mean when we say fantasy, I believe a fantasy does have a conscious element that distinguishes it from desire. A fantasy that is entirely outside our control is a dream. I don't want to oversimply the discussion by bringing in dictionary definitions, but for the sake of clarification I see fantasy in this discussion as the 5th definition from dictionary.com:

Imagination and daydreaming can sneak up on you and meander around, but they are nonetheless conscious. They are more often than not consciously begun and can certainly be consciously ended.

Now, given that definition of fantasy, I believe the father's indulgence in his daughter's sexuality, even when restricted solely to a mental indulgence, creates a concrete imbalance between them. From this perspective, the fact that he is able to hide his thoughts and feelings in no way resolves the moral problem. Quite the opposite in fact. It exacerbates the imbalance by introducing a constant undercurrent of deception into their relationship.

Every glance, every touch which she thinks means one thing might very well mean another. What to her is a respectful expression of appreciation and love from her father could in reality be fodder for masturbatory fantasies. Unlike a movie star who intentionally markets her sexuality for personal gain, the daughter in this scenario has no idea that her image or even her flesh are now open to his sexual exploration. The fact that it never translates into 3D action does not excuse the lie.

Furthermore, it seems probable that the nature of his regard for his daughter can't help but be modified by his considering her sexually available to him. Again, I am in no way implying here that he will not be able to control his actions. I accept without question the premise that he will do so successfully and believe such self-control is eminently possible even beyond the boundaries of this hypothetical. But the way he thinks about her must be different and that too is a betrayal, imo.

The complete safety and security that a girl derives from a loving father is in great part vested in how she sees herself in his eyes. If he chooses to indulge his desires by tapping into her under construction sexuality, he is modifying that picture beyond recognition and then lying to cover it up.

Loren Pechtel

But he doesn't regard her as available! The original statement specified he knew it would be wrong to actually act on his desires.

If his actions reveal his fantasies he's gone beyond what he should.

livius drusus

He regards her as available for his fantasies, yes, like the movie star you yourself mentioned. Only his daughter doesn't have an agent getting her Maxim spreads to sell movie tickets. He has special access to her because of his special relationship. I believe that relationship requires that he refrain from consciously indulging in her sexuality even in thought.

As I said above:

Well, basically, the entire post.

deano

since when was it immoral to think about an action?

oh no here come the thought police!

Xixax

I don't think anyone is making complaint against the thought or fantasy by itself. I think the complaint is made that it is unavoidable that there be some outward and communicated effect from these fantasies.

As was also said, the daughter doesn't know the father even could have those type of thoughts about her. She may, assuming the innocence of the father, accidentally be seen naked by him, or "tickle" him or some other physical contact that could provide fuel for his fantasies. In this situation, it's a violation of trust. If a woman parades along the beach naked, she expects that other men may see her and find her attractive. If she walks from the shower to the bedroom, taking a slight risk of being seen by her father, she is not expecting that to be the source for any fantasies.

It's that violation of trust that makes it immoral even without any action by the father.

xorbie

Hello? People are making claims that the fantasy itself is wrong. I totally disagree with this. You can go ahead and fantasize about whatever the hell you want so long as you harm nobody. There can never be anything immoral about that. EVER.

the_cave

I can kind of see where both sides are coming from on this, but let me take one side and see where it leads:

So, xorbie, you're essentially saying that if the daughter were asked about the situation, the only moral reply she could really give would be "I might not wish my father to fantasize about me, but so long as he does not act on those fantasies, he is entirely permitted to think about me however he wants, and that won't change my feelings about being his child." Is that what you're saying? This is not a leading question, I'm just curious.

I mean, in some situations, thoughts do matter...in a relationship of love, for example. To be thinking about a beloved--a partner or lover, for example--is to be performing a good act. Imagine a boyfriend or girlfriend, or a spouse, telling their partner that they never think about them. Do you think that relationship would be long for this world?

The same is true for parent-child relationships. It's one of the duties of a parent to have good thoughts about their child--indeed, one hopes it just comes naturally to them. Incest fantasies, I would argue, are not good thoughts. Now look, I'm not saying that people who have illicit fantasies are horrible people. I'm just suggesting they might be doing something wrong--I'm just wondering if perhaps there are good reasons for some fantasies to be more immoral than others.