Where does "don't kink shame" start and end?

[Goblin]

Trigger warning

I recently saw some tweets about a high profile celebrity being into cannibalism and related mutilation, I then saw people defending this saying don't kink shame!

In general I'd say I have a very relaxed attitude to kinks - if it's consenting adults happy to take part then it's not any of my business what you want to pretend or play out in private

But I do have a problem with someone being interested in cannibalism, even if it's just they like to talk about it as fantasy and have no inclination to make it a reality; Maybe it's that I think there must be some underlying mental issue for someone to take an interest in it?

Just as an aside I would also say I have a distinction in my mind between someone wanting to carry out an act or if they want an act carried out on them - obviously the latter is only a danger to yourself

Someone reading this might think "as long as it's just fantasy" but where does that stop and end?

If someone plans out a bombing because they find it hot and stockpile weapons and search online about how to make bombs etc if the FBI come knocking can they say "ohhh no, I had no plans of carrying it out, it's just a fetish I was masturbating to whilst roleplaying it out" will the police say "oh ok cheeky none of our business then"

I don't think don't kink shame can be a blanket answer for everything, but what it can and can't be and what's a grey area I'm not sure.

 

[AussieCosplay]

Ok so, shaming people is not cool. About kinks or anything.
That said there are clear lines in the sand on what is acceptable and that line is informed consent.
That includes talking about kinks and enacting kinks.
Any other party who may be exposed to your words or actions should first be given the choice to engage or not.
It's often done with trigger warnings on posts, or simply by asking one on one, or in a chat room by asking the moderator or room.

If you're concerned about the person who is sharing these thoughts it's a good idea to speak to them about seeing a professional or if you feel comfortable you could try to help them work out what the root of their desire really is.

 

[Goblin]

Ok so, shaming people is not cool. About kinks or anything.

I guess it becomes a little difficult because how would 'shaming' be defined and how should saying 'don't kink shame' be interpreted

In the the shorthand twitter context I've seen it I've been viewing don't kink shame as another way of saying "who are you to judge"

But if someone's fantasy is centred around cruelly harming someone or worse wouldn't it be wrong not to raise concern? and if someone's fetish is concerning would labelling it as concerning be shaming

If you're concerned about the person who is sharing these thoughts it's a good idea to speak to them about seeing a professional or if you feel comfortable you could try to help them work out what the root of their desire really is.

It's not someone I know just random trending tweets with support

 

[Sevrin]

Ok so, shaming people is not cool. About kinks or anything.
That said there are clear lines in the sand on what is acceptable and that line is informed consent.
That includes talking about kinks and enacting kinks.
Any other party who may be exposed to your words or actions should first be given the choice to engage or not.
It's often done with trigger warnings on posts, or simply by asking one on one, or in a chat room by asking the moderator or room.

If you're concerned about the person who is sharing these thoughts it's a good idea to speak to them about seeing a professional or if you feel comfortable you could try to help them work out what the root of their desire really is.

In this case, I kind of doubt there had been a prior meeting of minds, or else the people on the receiving end of these fantasies would have been less eager to share them. The charming cannibal-fantasist comes from old-ish oil money, has a drug problem and defends sexual harassers, and mostly ignores his kids, so maybe there's such a thing as too much benefit of the doubt.

 

[AussieCosplay]

In this case, I kind of doubt there had been a prior meeting of minds, or else the people on the receiving end of these fantasies would have been less eager to share them. The charming cannibal-fantasist comes from old-ish oil money, has a drug problem and defends sexual harassers, and mostly ignores his kids, so maybe there's such a thing as too much benefit of the doubt.

I was speaking in a more broad sense, rather than about one person specifically. But my thoughts have not changed. It's still not ok to shame others, but it is ok to bring up unwelcome behaviour in a respectful way.

Eg. I don't do explicit role play in my chat so if someone begins to do it I explain that it's not the place and that they should discuss it with me privately to determine if we can organise some fun or not.

 

[AmberCutie]

I'm pretty open about speaking my thoughts on what is "kink" vs. what is "mental illness".

I think cannibalism would fall in line with mental illness. Just like my recent replies about crushing small animals as a "kink". It's not a kink, it's a dementia.

 

[ElektraDivine]

I'm very open minded about kinks. Like whatever floats your boat, no shame.

The only exception being that if it puts someone/something in pain or danger, or degrades/humiliates them and they're not ok with that. If both parties are genuinely down for it then theoretically I don't see the problem.

Getting off to seeing people/animals in pain (non-consensual ofc, although no animal can ever really consent) is a serious cause for concern. There's no free pass because it arouses you sexually too. If anything, that's even more concerning.

There's a good chance I've watched too many serial killer documentaries though, so my mind probs automatically goes to the darker side of things. But I just can't imagine that isn't going to lead to, or "normalise" something more fucked up.

 

[Miss_Lollipop]

So like... i am wondering if what the media is reporting as cannibalism kink is actually just a vore kink? That's more common.

I have some stuff that i guess could be called "cannibalism" fetish. I have like "meat lines" drawn on my body and i talk about how im going to cook myself.

The guy who ordered it has like a whole rp universe in mind filled with characters on this ranch where women are used as a willing food source.

I dunno do what you will with that info. But i never got the impression that he is/was mentally unstable or would actually want to eat someone. I think the idea of someone so submissive they would want to be consumed is the fixation here.


But that never crossed any lines for me personally.

There are two things i think about w kink and crossing lines:

So 1. RACK ..risk aware consensual kink

2. If it's being produced as consumable (i.e. if it's porn or a dirty story etc) are you being responsible towards the audience.


I produce a lot of extreme fantasy porn.. like castration fetish. I've never had an interaction yet that's made me think any of the ppl who buy them (its a LOT) are at risk of actual doing themselves bodily harm. They just wanna fantasize about it. My dime store psych take on it would be that it's about a desire for immasculization and the thrill/fear.

So i think it's important to remember there really is a wide gulf between fantasy and reality. Fantasy can be a safe place to unpack a bunch of very fucked up feels.

 

[SMuser69]

So like... i am wondering if what the media is reporting as cannibalism kink is actually just a vore kink? That's more common.

I have some stuff that i guess could be called "cannibalism" fetish. I have like "meat lines" drawn on my body and i talk about how im going to cook myself.

The guy who ordered it has like a whole rp universe in mind filled with characters on this ranch where women are used as a willing food source.

I dunno do what you will with that info. But i never got the impression that he is/was mentally unstable or would actually want to eat someone. I think the idea of someone so submissive they would want to be consumed is the fixation here.


But that never crossed any lines for me personally.

There are two things i think about w kink and crossing lines:

So 1. RACK ..risk aware consensual kink

2. If it's being produced as consumable (i.e. if it's porn or a dirty story etc) are you being responsible towards the audience.


I produce a lot of extreme fantasy porn.. like castration fetish. I've never had an interaction yet that's made me think any of the ppl who buy them (its a LOT) are at risk of actual doing themselves bodily harm. They just wanna fantasize about it. My dime store psych take on it would be that it's about a desire for immasculization and the thrill/fear.

So i think it's important to remember there really is a wide gulf between fantasy and reality. Fantasy can be a safe place to unpack a bunch of very fucked up feels.

First media is using clickbait titles to get clicks on this cannibalism thing. The Armie Hammer situation is mostly cancel culture. All that's proven is he has a bite fetish (not even sure about that since her story only speaks of one time) as his ex came out discussing the bite mark he left on her when they were dating. This allowed some sexting, 'I want to take a bite out of you' by him to be reconstrued as a statement of action unfairly. The media is making money so they aren't interested in the truth of the matter just the fallout.

Also I think a lot of extreme fantasy falls into the same logic as video gaming. Just because you laugh and get entertained murdering and killing in GTA doesn't mean you're a serial killer in disguise and enjoying a dark fantasy doesn't mean you don't know right from wrong or can't maintain a moral compass within society. Most fantasies are outlets of stress than fulfilments of instinct. There's even science research on entertainment medium like video games to back up that what you like to do in a virtual sense doesn't cross over into your regular ideals.

I think most people that pay for extreme fantasy roleplays like CNC, vore, blackmail, mindcontrol, executionix ask for it in ways that remove all the real reality and consequence from the story only really using them as a premise for a submissive/domination scenario.

The danger in there is how when the puritans succeed in cancelling something they use the momentum to cancel something else. These are the same people that will make an extreme leap of logic and turn something general as liking anime into pocket pedophilia.

 

[Miss_Lollipop]

So like... i am wondering if what the media is reporting as cannibalism kink is actually just a vore kink? That's more common.

I have some stuff that i guess could be called "cannibalism" fetish. I have like "meat lines" drawn on my body and i talk about how im going to cook myself.

The guy who ordered it has like a whole rp universe in mind filled with characters on this ranch where women are used as a willing food source.

I dunno do what you will with that info. But i never got the impression that he is/was mentally unstable or would actually want to eat someone. I think the idea of someone so submissive they would want to be consumed is the fixation here.


But that never crossed any lines for me personally.

There are two things i think about w kink and crossing lines:

So 1. RACK ..risk aware consensual kink

2. If it's being produced as consumable (i.e. if it's porn or a dirty story etc) are you being responsible towards the audience.


I produce a lot of extreme fantasy porn.. like castration fetish. I've never had an interaction yet that's made me think any of the ppl who buy them (its a LOT) are at risk of actual doing themselves bodily harm. They just wanna fantasize about it. My dime store psych take on it would be that it's about a desire for immasculization and the thrill/fear.

So i think it's important to remember there really is a wide gulf between fantasy and reality. Fantasy can be a safe place to unpack a bunch of very fucked up feels.

I've just realized I misspelled emasculize then I googled it and found out that wasn't a word either. Emasculation is the word I was looking for.

*hangs head* I'm passed the edit window. And it's going to bug me forever now.

 

[Goblin]

SMuser69, Miss_Lollipop thanks for your thoughts

 

[MarieElise]

I think if the act the person is fantasizing about is legal, doesn't hurt anyone, but is just different from maybe vanilla, it's a kink. Not to be shamed.

If the act the person is fantasizing about, and wanting to roleplay is illegal, and hurts other people or animals; then it is likely mental illness, and should not be normalized or validated to the point where it is socially acceptable. It's a continuum though.

I was taught during my Masters that fantasizing about acts, is often a step out to acting out on it, especially with sex offenders. So if it's something common and the person is fantasizing about it, but it's illegal, then they are having mental health issues. Like pedophilia, rape, bestiality etc.

There is no cut and dry answer to this. These types of questions only have an answer that is more subjective, and has subtleties. For example, my bias is from education and work in the Mental Health field. A lawyer would have a different bias in their answer, based upon their knowledge of law etc. Lol, a priest likely way differently etc etc.

Like under my definition, if I sexually fantasized about marinading my boyfriend in butter and seasonings, then licking them all off of him, that would be a kink.

But if I fantasized about baking him and actually eating his flesh, and that got me off, that would be more cause for concern regarding my mental health. Or if the butter had to be like sizzling or something similarly anti-social sounding, that would be more mental health.

To me someone sexually fantasizing about mutilation and cannibalism has issues, and to say that is normal and not cause for concern would be an example of taking political correctness way too far. I would also wonder of the "don't kink shame" comments were meant in a dryly sarcastic way. Snuff films are a thing. It's not completely uncommon for people to do horrible things to others, to get off sexually, or to at least want to. This can't be normalized and accepted.

 

[zippypinhead]

Taboos are almost always arbitrarily defined, and are almost never universal or lasting.

One thing that I find bothersome is whenever this sort of subject comes up -- apparently even in sex-positive spaces like this -- the conversation almost immediately jumps to the most farcically extreme examples one's imagination can conjure up -- shit that probably doesn't even realistically exist in any measurable capacity -- and it's like automatically used as the baseline for discussion. It feels very hypocritical to me, and dangerous tbh, that people allow themselves to imagine the most salacious shit, and even enjoy the thrill of it, as long as they wrinkle their nose and cluck their tongue at it. That's the kind of pious perversion, where the people who don't understand the difference between fantasy and reality are the people who stand in judgement of the fantasy, that leads to insane moral panics and mass hysteria which put people in actual harm's way. It's the sort of thinking that leads the way to the casual erasure and oppression of already marginalized groups, and indoctrinates people into extremist ideologies. Sex sells best to people who want to keep it a dirty little secret.

So, no, I have no truck with ridiculous slippery slope arguments that pull nonexistent "kinks" out of thin air as a way to police perceived thought crime, and I'm most definitely not willing to judge the mental wellness of others based solely on my own hangups. As others have already stated, all's fair in informed and consensual participation. I guarantee I've got fantasies that would squick plenty of you out, and I double guarantee y'all have fantasies, or even actively engage in stuff that would trigger my own gag reflex. Unless we're having a night of it together, I'm completely unconcerned about what gets you off, and I expect the same courtesy from you towards me. "Don't kink shame" is just shorthand for, "thanks for sharing your prejudices, now fuck off with your judgmental, virtue signalling bullshit."

 

[Goblin]

Thinking about it more I can narrow down my issue to the following:

If you can enjoy being cruel in fantasy (I would loosely define cruel as causing non-consensual, permanent physical or mental damage) you must either be able to switch off empathy or not have much to begin with

The idea of either I find alarming - in my fantasies I'm still me, I'm less restrained by my inhibitions but my level of empathy is still the same

I'd like to assume the default feeling towards seriously hurting anyone is repulsion, any different is reserved for 'justice' type scenarios and not sexually driven (all though sometimes peoples idea of justice can be very warped)

 

[Sxmxr]

Trigger warning

I recently saw some tweets about a high profile celebrity being into cannibalism and related mutilation, I then saw people defending this saying don't kink shame!

In general I'd say I have a very relaxed attitude to kinks - if it's consenting adults happy to take part then it's not any of my business what you want to pretend or play out in private

But I do have a problem with someone being interested in cannibalism, even if it's just they like to talk about it as fantasy and have no inclination to make it a reality; Maybe it's that I think there must be some underlying mental issue for someone to take an interest in it?

Just as an aside I would also say I have a distinction in my mind between someone wanting to carry out an act or if they want an act carried out on them - obviously the latter is only a danger to yourself

Someone reading this might think "as long as it's just fantasy" but where does that stop and end?

If someone plans out a bombing because they find it hot and stockpile weapons and search online about how to make bombs etc if the FBI come knocking can they say "ohhh no, I had no plans of carrying it out, it's just a fetish I was masturbating to whilst roleplaying it out" will the police say "oh ok cheeky none of our business then"

I don't think don't kink shame can be a blanket answer for everything, but what it can and can't be and what's a grey area I'm not sure.

That’s wrong. There are just some things that are wrong smh I can’t believe people were defending him.

 

[zippypinhead]

Thinking about it more I can narrow down my issue to the following:

If you can enjoy being cruel in fantasy (I would loosely define cruel as causing non-consensual, permanent physical or mental damage) you must either be able to switch off empathy or not have much to begin with

The idea of either I find alarming - in my fantasies I'm still me, I'm less restrained by my inhibitions but my level of empathy is still the same

I'd like to assume the default feeling towards seriously hurting anyone is repulsion, any different is reserved for 'justice' type scenarios and not sexually driven (all though sometimes peoples idea of justice can be very warped)

I think you bring up a good point, but it's a part that diverges from person to person. Revulsion can be so close in sensation to titillation, I think that's actually where a lot of kink stems from -- dealing with the feelings that come up when faced with certain experiences. In the same way pain and pleasure cross each other, revulsion can certainly be a trigger for arousal. You reading revulsion as a sensation to avoid is valid, but there is overwhelming evidence that people are happy to actively seek that feeling out as a matter of pleasure. It could be as benign as loving gory movies, or wanting to hate fuck a Fox News pundit. Or it could be something extreme, like engaging in vore roleplay, or wanting to marry a Fox News pundit.

 

[AudriTwo]

The proper term for this fetish is vore, and it's pretty common. Because someone has a fetish doesn't mean they act on it. I had a partner who loved me telling them I'm going to gobble him up and swallow him whole. It was pretty tame for the most part.

I don't get what all the hub is about. Bunch of pearl clutchers in my opinion

 

[Nigerian Prince]

The proper term for this fetish is vore, and it's pretty common. Because someone has a fetish doesn't mean they act on it. I had a partner who loved me telling them I'm going to gobble him up and swallow him whole. It was pretty tame for the most part.

I don't get what all the hub is about. Bunch of pearl clutchers in my opinion

I think a lot of people were joking about it at first and didn't take it seriously until his ex made a few claims of her own. Might have been more than one ex but I can't remember. And then there is the alleged time he ripped the heart out of a dear and ate it fresh....

 

[Goblin]

Because someone has a fetish doesn't mean they act on it

Is your personal feeling any fantasy is fine? as long as it remains fantasy

There wouldn't be anything you would say "hmm this might indicate a deeper lying issue that may need to be addressed"

 

[MarieElise]

I thought we were talking about the cooking fetish and not Vore.
Like there is a separate category of fetishists that are into the fantasy of putting properly life sized people into ovens, baking them, and eating the meat. I thought that, that is what we were talking about here? To me that is not Vore, it is related, but is a subset of fetishists that I don't like to deal with. I have done loads of Vore customs, and have no problem with it. I thought we were talking about meat, basting, cannibalism, live meat etc??? Cmon you guys know what I'm talking about, it was only just in the news when that NY cop, tried to begin plans to act on it, (by kidnapping women for an oven, and got into all that trouble.)

My understanding of Vore is that it's harmless, except for that subset who want to see people swallowing live goldfish and other animals etc. I like Giantess Vore, because it's totally imaginary. It's not possible to shrink people.. as far as I know lol.

There are a lot of different subsets of Vore and eating fetish.
Some go into really dark and sadistic realms, just like is the case with any other fetish.
Some stay in safe realms, others put an extreme masochistic or sadistic twist on it. Deeper waters. Not harmless.
Overlap of sadism onto other fetishes is what I believed this convo was about here.

ETA; Whoops maybe before some of your time it was actually 2012, feels like yesterday to me ... What I read about this case initially was that the issue was that he had been using his job power to jot down the names and addresses of women, and had spoken to friends about acting out on his fantasies, using these names and addresses that he had obtained in his capacity as public servant. Maybe that was fake news, but that's what initial reports were saying, but that is not mentioned now.

United States v. Valle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AudriTwo]

I think a lot of people were joking about it at first and didn't take it seriously until his ex made a few claims of her own. Might have been more than one ex but I can't remember. And then there is the alleged time he ripped the heart out of a dear and ate it fresh....

i have no idea who the celebrity is OP was talking about btw.

anecdotal but my dad once took a bite out of a raw deer heart because he is a redneck, probably was high on cocaine at the time, and i know he was with his buddies. he does regularly pickle or fries it. eating venison hearts isn't that shocking to me. i think they taste pretty good.

Is your personal feeling any fantasy is fine? as long as it remains fantasy

i thought we were talking about fetishes. i believe fantasy is something you find arousing or want to do but not necessarily need to orgasm and /or enjoy sex. fetish is a desire you act upon to achieve sexual gratification. for some people, their fetish is necessary to orgasm and /or enjoy sex. others can achieve it just fine.

There wouldn't be anything you would say "hmm this might indicate a deeper lying issue that may need to be addressed"

only if they were causing nonconsensual harm to others or themselves and /or forcing their fetishes onto someone who isn't comfortable. i have a cbt fetish, and i would never act on it nonconsensually.

I thought we were talking about the cooking fetish and not Vore.

from my understanding, it's considered vore. being eaten or eating someone else. idk fetishes a weird man. it's hard to categorize a lot of them. lol

 

[MarieElise]

from my understanding, it's considered vore. being eaten or eating someone else. idk fetishes a weird man. it's hard to categorize a lot of them. lol

Yeah, honestly Idk what celebrity he is talking about either. It's too complicated a topic to really have a clear cut answer on, because there are too many different pieces of it. Like it's just not cut and dry man. It's one of those things that has to be individual case-by-case type analysis.

From what I've noticed with Fetishes you rarely get a person who has a pure fetish, they usually have some combo of 3-5 fetishes that is individual to them.

Lol, at this point I don't even know what the convo is about. But I do know that if I ever look at my BF and think ; "He looks juicy, I'd like to take a nibble" (and that got me a bit sexually aroused) that's a bit odd, but not an issue. Whereas if I were to actually try and take a bite out of him, that would be an issue.

Lol, Sorry this is making me laugh, I'm in a silly, goofy mood. I don't know why, but looking at my BF as food, makes me laugh hilariously.
If you ever come on this forum and read this Honey, I want to reassure you this was just a hypothetical example I was using

 

[sikayoujo]

I consider myself open minded. Consenting adults are consenting adults. But, I cringe if it's dangerous.

 

[Lelo1]

Not my cup of tea.

Fantasy vs Reality, There are lots of things in movies, tv, books, that I would never approve of in real life.
And I know some of the most common sexual fantasies, no sane person would want any part of in real life.

 

[Goblin]

Fantasy vs Reality, There are lots of things in movies, tv, books, that I would never approve of in real life.

I always find it a little surprising when people equate sexual enjoyment with any other kind

If one person enjoys a murder mystery for the intrigue and another for the description of the murder scene so they can jack off.. different worlds

 

[ElektraDivine]

The fetish isn't about murder though, it's about consuming flesh. Unfortunately the only way (although I'm no expert) you can consume flesh is probably gonna be at least a trip to A&E, but it's important to note the difference in what is getting people off here.

One of the main concerns I have about the Armie Hammer thing was that he was engaged in what seemed to be a fairly advanced BDSM relationship with his GF who was 22 and e was 35.

She said she submitted but didn't really know what she was getting herself into, which is really sad. That's not an OK way to to BDSM, that's pure manipulation and not really consent if you're not telling someone the whole story. Its pretty fucked up, creepy and manipulative for a rich, hot, successful movie star like Armie Hammer to introduce someone a lot younger to the BDSM lifestyle for the first time, then to throw her into the deep end.

Why not find a submissive with experience? Surely he could find someone with tonnes of experience to engage with his type of BDSM play. He's got the money, looks, and resources. But no, he engaged with someone 15 years younger than him with no experience at all, who didn't understand anything about the lifestyle. There's only one real benefit of that. Which IMO speaks volumes about him being a creepy manipulative fuck, although arguably not a cannibal.

He played the Winklevoss twins in Social Network for anyone wondering who he is.

 

[AudriTwo]

The fetish isn't about murder though, it's about consuming flesh. Unfortunately the only way (although I'm no expert) you can consume flesh is probably gonna be at least a trip to A&E, but it's important to note the difference in what is getting people off here.

One of the main concerns I have about the Armie Hammer thing was that he was engaged in what seemed to be a fairly advanced BDSM relationship with his GF who was 22 and e was 35.

She said she submitted but didn't really know what she was getting herself into, which is really sad. That's not an OK way to to BDSM, that's pure manipulation and not really consent if you're not telling someone the whole story. Its pretty fucked up, creepy and manipulative for a rich, hot, successful movie star like Armie Hammer to introduce someone a lot younger to the BDSM lifestyle for the first time, then to throw her into the deep end.

Why not find a submissive with experience? Surely he could find someone with tonnes of experience to engage with his type of BDSM play. He's got the money, looks, and resources. But no, he engaged with someone 15 years younger than him with no experience at all, who didn't understand anything about the lifestyle. There's only one real benefit of that. Which IMO speaks volumes about him being a creepy manipulative fuck, although arguably not a cannibal.

He played the Winklevoss twins in Social Network for anyone wondering who he is.

Yeah fuck that dude. Him pressuring someone younger and inexperienced than him is more concerning and problematic then his vore fetish.

 

[Goblin]

The fetish isn't about murder though, it's about consuming flesh. Unfortunately the only way (although I'm no expert) you can consume flesh is probably gonna be at least a trip to A&E, but it's important to note the difference in what is getting people off here.

I wasn't trying to discuss Armie or his fetish specifically because as you lay out very well the story of his relationships beyond the fetish was abuse

I was interested in fetishes in general and can there be a this is fine, this is not fine attitude towards them

Some people will say you shouldn't judge and as long as it remains fantasy it's fine - that's not how I feel but everyone isn't me and I can accept the difference of opinion

After more thought I explained my issue with certain fetishes, even if they remain purely fantasy:

If you can enjoy being cruel in fantasy (I would loosely define cruel as causing non-consensual, permanent physical or mental damage) you must either be able to switch off empathy or not have much to begin with

The idea of either I find alarming - in my fantasies I'm still me, I'm less restrained by my inhibitions but my level of empathy is still the same

 

[MarieElise]

I wasn't trying to discuss Armie or his fetish specifically because as you lay out very well the story of his relationships beyond the fetish was abuse

I was interested in fetishes in general and can there be a this is fine, this is not fine attitude towards them

Some people will say you shouldn't judge and as long as it remains fantasy it's fine - that's not how I feel but everyone isn't me and I can accept the difference of opinion

After more thought I explained my issue with certain fetishes, even if they remain purely fantasy:

If you can enjoy being cruel in fantasy (I would loosely define cruel as causing non-consensual, permanent physical or mental damage) you must either be able to switch off empathy or not have much to begin with

The idea of either I find alarming - in my fantasies I'm still me, I'm less restrained by my inhibitions but my level of empathy is still the same

The practical problem is that there is no way of knowing if the person with the fetish has the propensity to actually act upon it. It sounds like the majority probably would not, and likely do have empathy, and its simply a fantasy in the context of fantasy only, and sexual arousal in their own mind. How do you filter out, and know who those people who would act on it if they could get away with it, would be? As far as I know that's not possible without looking at their life and background in detail, and even then it's only a probability, not a certainty.

There is an empathy aspect to it, but it's not that simple. From a biological perspective (as far as I know) lack of empathy results from stunted growth of mirror neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex. There are probably levels of this along a continuum. It's not going to be as simple as a person has empathy or not, there are going to be different degrees of stunting in different people, and no stunted neuronal growth in others. The people of concern are the people who happen to have no/ very, very low empathy, along with very low impulse control. The percentage of people who fall into that category, who also have the fetish, is going to be really small, thankfully. To the rest, it's likely just a harmless sexual fantasy, that comes from a simple past stimulus-response conditioning event, which has been solidified over time. So not something of major concern and their levels of empathy are fine, it's just a genuine kink for them.

 

[sikayoujo]

Spoiler: Off Topic

One of the main concerns I have about the Armie Hammer thing was that he was engaged in what seemed to be a fairly advanced BDSM relationship with his GF who was 22 and e was 35.

She said she submitted but didn't really know what she was getting herself into, which is really sad. That's not an OK way to to BDSM, that's pure manipulation and not really consent if you're not telling someone the whole story. Its pretty fucked up, creepy and manipulative for a rich, hot, successful movie star like Armie Hammer to introduce someone a lot younger to the BDSM lifestyle for the first time, then to throw her into the deep end.

Why not find a submissive with experience? Surely he could find someone with tonnes of experience to engage with his type of BDSM play. He's got the money, looks, and resources. But no, he engaged with someone 15 years younger than him with no experience at all, who didn't understand anything about the lifestyle. There's only one real benefit of that. Which IMO speaks volumes about him being a creepy manipulative fuck, although arguably not a cannibal.

He played the Winklevoss twins in Social Network for anyone wondering who he is.

Spoiler: Off Topic

I can't believe this PREMIUM HOT TAKE IS FREE!