Silk Road forums

Quote from: kmfkewm on January 05, 2013, 10:57 pm

Quote from: Moon Fried on January 05, 2013, 07:37 pm

Quote from: Limetless on January 04, 2013, 06:08 pm

Who cares, we are making money this way.

This, I'd be pissed if I woke up one morning and found out that all drugs became legalized. That would be the end of my business for me.

Limetless who cares if I kidnap you at gun point and let truckers butt fuck you for $10 an hour so long as I make some money?

Law Enforcement and Prohibitionists = Cockroaches
Drug users who are prohibitionists = Traitors

No one, that's the beauty of it... you get your money, and the world keeps going round.

If you're in this game for the money you should be ready to accept consequences. If you're not... well, that's your fault, just don't fucking rat on me.

but what if someone offers me money to rat on you ?!

actually I take it back, I can still see things as linear. Everyone from all of the other forums is moving to a one massive singularity at SR.

One of the earliest online drug forums that has a direct lineage to the community today was good old sandoz labs. Of course the real pioneers were places like the hive of course, and the RCML (research chemical mailing list). Those two were pretty much as far back as anyone around these days can remember. As far as sandoz labs, I guess it must have been around 2005 or so. It was hosted on the clearnet on some free forum host with ads and all. I guess technically speaking undrug predated it, but undrug was more like the first incarnation of what safeorscam is now, although run by completely unrelated people. Pretty much on undrug you had to know a vendors contact information to look up reviews on them. The people on sandoz labs got their starts collecting source information, back in the good old days people would scour search engines and such for hours at a time trying to find one lab in a place like China that was willing to synthesize research chemicals, or one of their resellers. Those were the semi-modern days of sourcing, post operation webtryp though (prior to that it was trivial to find sources online, they had nice google ads and everything. Kind of like today actually.) Anyway it was pretty common for people to trade their sources. And although undrug wasn't strictly speaking a community, after all it had no private message system and I believe it was against the rules to even try to network with people from it, there were names that you saw on review threads pretty frequently. A lot of the times you may recognize the same names posting on non-source forums. I am not sure exactly how it happened, but a lot of us knew a few of us. Then one day one of us made a forum for trading sources on and invited some of us, and it went from there until a nice little community was formed, although it was fairly English Native centric it did have people from several other sorts of countries on it as well. And we all posted all of our sources and they became our communities sources.

Then one of the European members made his own forum, which I guess I will just call the religious forum out of respect to the now long obsolete rule of never discussing it or naming it off of it. He was part of a European community of drug traders, still with interest in research chemicals but a lot more interest in more mainstream illicit drugs as well. SL sort of merged together with his community into the new community. This was of course the best drug forum that ever existed, and was one of the first largely international drug forums, if not the first. The reign of the religious forum lasted quite a while and it was awesome, the community consisted of highly intelligent people and had its fair share of people with highly technical chemistry and even computer knowledge, although the forums security standards were no where near the standards used today.

The next major forum was also started by Europeans, r-c.n is what I will call it. This forum wasn't as high quality as the previous two, however it served a nice purpose and brought a lot of new blood into the online scene. It also caused a bit of a culture clash, and actually the religious forum shut down partially due to paranoia about one of the members on this forum, who acted sketchily and actually managed to use some pretty skillful measures in order to determine the existence and partial membership information about the religious forum. Anyway I cannot recall exactly how it happened, but part of the people from the religious forum and part of the people from r-c.n came together into a new forum called FTWR, which later turned into FTGB.

The next major Era came when one of the members of FTGB splintered off and made a new forum called su.pplier.info , this was one of the most active and large forums of the time with several hundred members. Quite a lot of new people also joined the party at this point in time, and a lot of the people around today got their start during this time. Another forum also came up about this time, I will just call it L , and I wont talk much about it simply because the people from it probably don't want me to. I always viewed them as rather distinct, where as SL -> Religious / r-c.n -> FTGB/FTWR -> Su.p was sort of a merger of groups and the same members over time, I don't exactly know much about their history. 'OS' was another such forum during this time, and additionally I will out of respect not go into much about them either, even though today it is entirely pointless to keep these things secret as all of these forums are long gone or evolved into completely new things. DZF also came out around this time, it was the first 'really big' drug forum with something like 600 members, unfortunately it turned out to be run by the FBI. Around this time we had been really starting to beef our security up to the standards they are at today: GPG became more common and on some forums mandatory, we were not using hidden services but pretty much everyone was using Tor. Of course DZF banned the use of Tor because after all only scammers use it. I think that this is the first time when the forum communities started to attract law enforcement attention, there is pretty good evidence that there was not a law enforcement presence on the earlier forums simply because despite an almost complete lack of security busts were essentially unheard of.

su.pplier split off into a series of hidden service forums, BBS, TLG and then BB. Those were the first real hidden service forums, although DrugsTor was sort of the first proof of concept, it didn't last very long and was misconfigured and leaked its IP address anyway. During this time our security continued to improve substantially as well. There have also been several dozen other English speaking forums, I don't know all of their histories and I know some of them wouldn't want me to say anything at all about them. Some today are still quite insecure, using no proxies and hushmail, they really do rely heavily on security by obscurity. Others today are still quite secure though. I really can't even look at the forums today as a linear thing , growing from old groups changing server administrators or leadership / merging together with each other and gaining new members. Simply because there have been so many now, so many different people in administrative positions, so many server and name changes , so many different distinct groups of people that it is just impossible. Not to mention that this is only the communities I have been a part of or been aware of , I am sure there are dozens I have not. There have been forums for communities that don't speak English as the primary language, Russian, Dutch, Swedish, etc. I know little about those forums except from the people I have met on international forums (which speak English as the common language).

The first actual marketplace style site similar to SR would have to be the farmers market, actually that is another community as well that had a pretty early start. I believe they started as a mailing list for a specific vendor and only evolved into a forum at a later point in time though. I had heard of their operators before but I think my first presence on one of their community forums was their the farmers market Tor hidden service. OVDB was sort of the SR equivalent from the more mainstream forum scene. Then of course there is SR, which has in all honestly been completely unprecedented in its popularity. Although some of the forums I have mentioned have had very big bulk vendors doing single deals in the hundreds of thousands of dollars on them, the number of people doing smaller deals on SR probably adds up to more than any other forum has managed to move, I think SR has been estimated as having 22 million dollars worth of drugs a year move through it and that is certainly quite a lot.

I am sure I have missed a lot of forums, and I am sure that this is not a very comprehensive history of the online scene, however it would literally take a book to make that and would require a lot more people than just me.

Let's see.

Health:

1. Purity would be guaranteed, much as it is with acetaminophen and aspirin. Varying purity between batches of drugs is one of the leading causes of overdose.

2. Substances would be what they are marketed as. No more people dying because they took PMA that they thought was MDMA.

3. IV use could be made safer. No more bans on buying needles without prescriptions , as exist in some areas. Needle exchanges can be set up, they are also banned some places.

4. Serious drug health education can begin, drugs can come with harm reduction sheets on how to minimize the damages.

5. Drug combinations can be created that reduce the risk of damage from the drug use. Recreational drugs can be mixed with neuroprotective drugs to inhibit brain damage.

6. The new found purity of drugs means they wont be cut with dangerous substances like cocaine currently tends to be cut with levamisole leading to people having flesh rotting away from their faces and arms where they inject it at

7. Actual research on the harmful effects of drugs can be carried out. Research chemicals can actually be professionally analyzed with animal experiments and such carried out, in the hopes of preventing people from using inherently highly dangerous drugs.

8. Professional quality control during manufacturing means that we will avoid things like MPPP/MPTP happening again

9.  Prepackaging of drugs means that you will get pre measured doses in the correct units, no more stupid kids trying to eyeball drugs that are active at 1 MG

Other:

1. People will no longer need to go to dangerous areas to purchase drugs (some do!)

2. The Cartels will immediately go out of business, saving tens of thousands of lives every single year

3. Drug oriented gangs will have their profits majorly slashed, leading to an over all reduction in crime

4. Not to mention there will no longer be drug related gang wars, saving thousands of lives a year including the lives of innocents caught in the cross fire

5. Not to mention kids wont be caught with drugs and sent to prisons where they turn into hardened career criminals

6. Not to mention the prison population will be cut in half almost immediately, leading to a major upswing in the economy not only from all of the new productive citizens but also from our lack of need to fund a massive prison industry (but boo fucking hoo some dumb fuck DEA agent will lose his job! IMO they will be lucky to not lose their lives by the time people wake up to this farce)

7. Not to mention trillions of dollars a year spent fighting the war on drugs can be spent on more important things, like rehabilitation for the people who actually need it (hint: not everyone who uses drugs is a fucking addict!), like research into drug safety and all kinds of other good productive things that don't involve ENSLAVING THE INNOCENT

I am sure the list goes on and on but I just wanted to get it started, feel free to add the many things I missed.

Newer Intel processors have lowjack functionality built right into them :/.

Carrying your laptop with you everywhere you go is definitely great for security, but it does get to be a bit cumbersome. I did that for quite a while, but it is truly hard to keep it up. I believe that even if you carry your laptop with you everywhere, that if you are identified and they want you bad enough they will be able to get you. They might sneak into your home when you are gone and install pinhole cameras to spy on you typing your password in. Or they will install mini microphones and get your password by analyzing the amount of time between keystrokes, and the number of keystrokes you type before waiting for your OS to boot up the rest of the way. Or they will do some crazy TEMPEST style attack. Or they will just rush in and pwn your ass before you have time to power down. Carrying your laptop with you everywhere but only using it inside of your sound proofed tinfoil covered blanket fort loses its appeal at a surprisingly rapid rate. But it is more secure .

IMO nobody should really rely on full disk encryption to keep them protected from a targeted attack. It can certainly save the day, but the cases where it saves the day tend to be when the attacker is street level LE, or feds who are not aware that you are using encryption in the first place. I know someone who was arrested for drug trafficking not related to the internet, he also was a member on several private drug forums and quite involved with the online scene. The police and DEA agents that raided him did confiscate his computers and try to look through them, but they just immediately powered them down and since they were encrypted couldn't get shit off of them later. They had no idea that he would have encrypted hard drives, and they just don't have the resources to do raids with a focus on computer forensics in every single case, on the off chance that someone they raid might be using computer security techniques to hide something interesting from them. In the literature on CP raids you can see much of the same theme, it is quite common for an encrypted hard drive to protect someone who has been raided on suspicion of downloading CP from some public P2P network or something, but it is also pretty frequent that the feds will do a cold boot attack or similar in order to defeat disk encryption when they do targeted operations against big time collectors / distributors who are part of targeted and known as sophisticated trading groups.

The original intent of the founders has been perverted.

This is a libertarian argument that I can agree is stupid. First of all , I don't really give a whole lot of a fuck about the founding fathers. I mean, when the USA first came to be slavery was allowed, females couldn't vote, etc. It is insane to think that the founding fathers were highly into freedom, my limited understanding of the matter is that they primarily just did not want to pay tax to the British without political representation. Although they did have a few freedoms in mind, they are not a great example of libertarian minded people. I find that only a certain breed of libertarian holds the founding fathers of the USA and the founding principles of the USA in extremely high regards, after all it is not libertarian belief to think that it is acceptable to enslave black people.

The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.

Often this is presented as "The US wouldn't be so bad if the government followed the Constitution."

"Plain meaning" is a matter of opinion. A plain meaning one century can well be reversed in another, depending on popular usage, historical context, etc. Well intentioned people can disagree on "plain meaning" endlessly, as we see in any non-unanimous court decision. For practical purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.

Libertarian claims of "plain meaning" are often clearly shaped by their beliefs. Where this occurs, it's pretty obvious that their claims to "plain meaning" are not "common sense".

This is a ridiculous claim. The constitution is a document which as it was worded is set in stone unless those words are changed through the system provided by the constitution. The meaning of the constitution does not change with time or with different cultures living under it, if it did then it would entirely destroy the point of having a fucking constitution in the first place. Popular usage of words has absolutely nothing to do with what the constitution means! The primary beef I have with the government clearly violating the constitution is related to the possession of child pornography, which is clearly protected by the right to free speech and by the right to free press. The plain meaning of the right to free press is that anything can be published, the clear meaning of the right to free speech is that anything can be said. The Supreme court unconstitutionally allowed for the prosecution of people found in possession of child pornography by saying that the right to free speech and free press takes second seat to the good of the community. This blatantly disregards these constitutional protections. Another constitutional protection they routinely violate is governments being banned from favoring one religion over another. Sorry, it is plain and simply unconstitutional for the government to say people in some religions can use DMT but people in other religions cannot, or people in some religions can use mescaline but people in other religions can not. Plain and simple. It is a total violation of the constitution for this to be allowed, no matter the word games they want to play or the bullshit they want to pretend to believe, they are violating the constitution.

If the government followed the constitution as it is plainly explained, then we would indeed be in a better society, although by no means will it solve all of our problems. I find that it is the people who want to VIOLATE the constitution for their own ideological reasons are the ones  who find ambiguity in the constitution.

The Declaration Of Independence says...

See my thoughts on 'the original intent of the founding fathers'

Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.

The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments. National defense, police, courts, registries of deeds, public defenders, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, etc. all are government efforts that work towards defending freedoms and rights.

Libertarians frequently try to present themselves as the group to join to defend your freedom and rights. Lots of other organizations (many of which you would not want to be associated with, such as Scientologists) also fight for freedom and rights. I prefer the ACLU. (Indeed, if you wish to act effectively, the ACLU is the way to go: they advertise that they take on 6,000 cases a year free of charge, and claim involvement in 80% of landmark Supreme Court cases since 1920.)

It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a mom-and-apple-pie issue as freedom and rights: better to point out that there are EFFECTIVE alternatives with a historical track record, something libertarianism lacks.

Nor might we need or want to accept the versions of "freedom" and "rights" that libertarians propose. To paraphrase Anatole France: "How noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners!"

Certainly libertarians are the defenders of rights. They defend our right to freedom of living, as do liberals to a certain degree, and our right to financial freedom, as conservatives have traditionally done to a certain degree. They take the best parts of liberalism and conservatism and cut out all of their freedom infringing communistic and fascist religious aspects.

The police are not defenders of our rights. That is simple as shit to see. The police want to throw me in jail for smoking a god damn plant for fucks sake. It takes a truly brainwashed statist to think that the police want to defend our rights. They want to control us. The Mafia will protect you from the Yakuza killing you and extorting you because they don't want the competition themselves. The government is the most powerful criminal organization in an area, they protect you from the other criminals so they can exploit you for their own gains. The courts are just as bad as the police! We wouldn't even need public defenders for ourselves if we were not god damn prosecuted by our corrupt government for causing harm to nobody, simply so they can extort money from us and enslave us to the prison industrial complex. What a fucking joke! National defense can be privatized! Also this person is the one who argues that the constitution is entirely open to interpretation, clearly the constitution is worthless for protecting the people who most need protecting, the people who the majority of society want to unjustly prosecute (in no small part thanks to intensive government indoctrination operations and propaganda, which by the way is funded with stolen tax dollars, leading me to....)

Taxation is theft.

Two simple rebuttals to this take widely different approaches.

The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is that A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it? Arguments about "mixing of labor" with the resource as a basis for ownership boil down to "first-come-first-served". This criticism is even accepted by some libertarians, and is favorably viewed by David Friedman. This justifies property taxes or extraction taxes on land or extractable resources if you presume that the government is a holder in trust for natural resources. (However, most people who question the creation of property would agree that after the creation of property, a person is entitled to his earnings. Thus the second argument)

The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for example, essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the contract.

The first argument against taxation being theft sounds like it is straight out of The Communist Manifesto. Okay, so government forcibly taking my money is NOT theft, but me having money IS theft because I prevent another person from spending my money? That makes a whole lot of sense! Actually wait that makes no sense at all and it patently fucking absurd. Tax is a social contract that you are forced into? Oh that makes even more sense! Sorry contracts require two parties to agree to the terms. If I say that I have a contract that you will give me your house, you are not required to give me your house. Just saying that I have a contract that requires you to do something is completely meaningless unless you have agreed to the contract in the first place. Social contract is a euphemism in every sense of the word, a euphemism for extortion which is what tax really is. Taxation is the forcible taking of value from a person, that is the dictionary definition of theft and it doesn't matter if the person taking the value is the person with the biggest stockpile of guns, not a damn thing changes theft is theft. Guess what Mafia Extortion Rackets are 'essentially a payment in exchange for services from the Mafia', does that mean that they are not theft? Libertarians think that you should decide what to pay for yourself and get the services that you pay for, they are not fucking retards so they realize that if someone puts a gun to your head and threatens to blow your brains out unless you buy an apple from them for $100 , that you have been STOLEN from, not that you have 'essentially made payment in exchange for an apple'. Fucking insane that anyone could buy into that nonsense.

If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail.

This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they would still enforce with guns.

There is an explicit contract in Italy between store owners and the Mafia, that they will pay a percentage of the money they make from selling their goods to the Mafia in exchange for 'protection'. It doesn't mean that the Mafia is not initiating force when they show up and break the shop keepers fucking legs for not paying for protection ! What a stupid bullshit claim, the person who wrote this must either be in the government or a complete fucking moron.

Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.

That argument and some of the following libertarian arguments are commonly quoted from Lysander Spooner.

The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government.

There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.

Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?

Again this person makes reference to the constitution , which he defines as whatever the hell he wants since it is written with words that can totally change in meaning on a whim. When you order food from a restaurant you are told the price that you need to pay for that good in advance. That is a verbal contract. I never entered into a written or verbal contract with anyone saying that I will pay taxes to the government or that I will not smoke marijuana. It is a failed comparison.

Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the Mafia.

This is a prize piece of libertarian rhetoric, because it slides in the accusation that taxation is extortion. This analogy initially seems strong, because both are territorial. However, libertarians consider contractual rental of land by owners (which is also fundamentally territorial) ethical, and consider coercion of squatters by those owners ethical. The key difference is who owns what. The Mafia doesn't own anything to contract about. The landowner owns the land (in a limited sense.) And the US government owns rights to govern its territory. (These rights are a form of property, much as mineral rights are a form of property. Let's not confuse them with rights of individuals.) Thus, the social contract can be required by the territorial property holder: the USA.

So as soon as the Mafia overthrows the US government it will be okay for them to continue their extortion rackets? makes sense ! (owait not it doesn't lolol)

Why should I be told what to do with my property? That infringes on my rights of ownership.

This question comes up rather often, since absolute ownership of property is fundamental to most flavors of libertarianism. Such propertarianism fuels daydreams of being able to force the rest of the world to swirl around the immovable rock of your property. For example, there were trespass lawsuits filed against airlines for flying over property.

A good answer is: what makes you so sure it is yours?

What makes him so sure it is the governments?

Libertarians oppose the initiation of force.

How noble. And I'm sure that in a real libertarian society, everybody would hold to this morality as much as Christians turn the other cheek. [ :-( For the sarcasm-impaired.]

"Initiation of force" is another libertarian newspeak term that does not mean what the uninitiated might think. Libertarians except defense of property and prosecution of fraud, and call them retaliatory force. But retaliation can be the initiation of force: I don't need force to commit theft or fraud. This is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand that libs like to play so that they can pretend they are different than government. You know: break a law (like not paying your taxes) and MEN WITH GUNS initiate force. Sorry, but you've gotta play fair: it can't be initiation for government and retaliation for you.

Like most other non-pacifistic belief systems, libertarians want to initiate force for what they identify as their interests and call it righteous retaliation, and use the big lie technique to define everything else as evil "initiation of force". They support the initial force that has already taken place in the formation of the system of property, and wish to continue to use force to perpetuate it and make it more rigid.

The National Libertarian Party membership form has "the pledge" on it: "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." It's quite amusing to hear how much libertarians disagree over what it means: whether it is or isn't ok to overthrow the US because it has "initiated force" and they would be "retaliating".

Beyond this perceived class interest, libertarian dislike of "initiation of force" isn't much different than anyone else's. It may be humanitarian, defensive, etc.

Nice to see he has no idea what initiation of force means. Stealing my car is initiating force against me. Committing fraud against me is initiating force against me. He is taking force in the most literal way possible, and that is not the way it is meant by libertarians at all.

Okay there is a difference between me responding to someone stealing my car with force, and the government responding to me not giving into their extortion racket by forcing me to do so. Anyone who cannot see the difference is brain dead or washed, or works for the government. End of story.

God what a bunch of shit this guy spews. He really has no idea what he is talking about, he contradicts his own stated principles! pretty much his ideology can be summarized as "bend over and enjoy the nice long dick of the state, as you explicitly contractually agreed to do by being born!"

I believe I can very quickly, logically and concisely reduce to absurdity your argument that fantasy and reality have an intrinsic link. I don't even need to show you the statistics on coercive pornography consumption and its relationship to coercive sexual activity , although I could do that as well.

A. A large percentage of females fantasize about being raped, a decent percentage of them frequently fantasize about this

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085605

This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is somewhat higher than previous estimates. For women who have had rape fantasies, the median frequency of these fantasies was about 4 times per year, with 14% of participants reporting that they had rape fantasies at least once a week. In contrast to previous research, which suggested that rape fantasies were either entirely aversive or entirely erotic, rape fantasies were found to exist on an erotic-aversive continuum, with 9% completely aversive, 45% completely erotic, and 46% both erotic and aversive.

B. Contrary to your claim, many females are not fantasizing about consensual rough sex, in fact they are fantasizing about being forced against their will to engage in sexual acts

http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-196534089/the-nature-of-women-s-rape-fantasies-an-analysis

Kanin (1982) reported the only systematic empirical observations of rape fantasy content. He asked women to describe their rape fantasies and classify them as either sexual, fearful, or a combination of both. Kanin's results indicated that 50% of the women who had rape fantasies reported that these fantasies were completely fearful, 29% reported they were completely sexual, and 21% reported that they were a combination of fearful and sexual

After reinterpreting participants' self-descriptions, Kanin (1982) concluded that women's rape fantasies fall into two discrete categories: sexual and fearful. In sexual fantasies, a woman is aggressively approached by an attractive man, who is typically a friend or lover. She gives only token verbal resistance, if any, to a desired sexual encounter. Kanin described these as highly charged, aggressive seductions. Thus, Kanin suggested that women's self-identified rape fantasies that involved sexual arousal should be thought of more as aggressive seductions rather than as rapes. In fearful fantasies, the man is likely to be older, less attractive, and a stranger; and the woman is more likely to see herself as an innocent victim. These fantasies contain coercive and painful violence and no sexual arousal. Kanin did find systematic differences between fearful and sexual fantasies, but there was also considerable overlap with regard to the man's status as a friend or stranger, male age, male attractiveness, and perceived female innocence.

extrapolating from these two studies, it seems fair to estimate that approximately 48% of females fantasize about being 'coerced and violently raped'.

C. As it is inherently contradictory to wish for something to actually happen to yourself that you do not wish to happen, it is impossible. As I have established that almost half of females fantasize about being violently forced to engage in sex against their will, it therefor follows that a persons fantasies are not intrinsically linked to a persons desires in reality.

In other words, no matter how frequently a female fantasizes about being forced to engage in sex against her will, it is impossible for this fantasy to cause her to have a desire to be forced to engage in sex against her will, as such a desire is contradictory to the very goal of being forced without consent. It is therefor impossible for a female to condition herself with rape fantasy in such a way that the fantasy bleeds over to her desires in reality. I believe that although the case can not be made as strongly for males who fantasize about raping (ie: I can not show that it is literally impossible for there to be a link between fantasy and actions in reality), that the general theme of fantasy and reality being different things will hold.