Stephen Speicher

Rape fantasies in women

162 posts in this topic

Oh good :wacko:  Yes yes yes for a non-angry!  I like the blinking one,  :blink:  but its name is "rolleyes" which isn't it at all.  Can you rename it????  It should be "listening".  It's smiling so really it's not a rolleyes; rolleyes is disgust, ie mouth downward/flat.

Perhaps you have a point, but I am not a smilie expert. Frankly, I still don't understand half of the ones there. But, if you find a smilie that is particularly attractive to you -- a fantasy smilie, if you will -- I may be able to incorporate it into the store of smilies. (See, here on THE FORUM we try hard to make your fantasies come true! :lol: )

What I hear you saying is that IRL the fantasy would be named rape and the perpetrator would be put in jail.  Sure. To me, that doesn't mean the -fantasy- is named rape.  The fantasy is only named rape if the pleasure is due to [s&m], and if she names her Sally-plus-prefix-fantasy "rape",

I don't know what you mean by "Sally-plus-prefix-fantasy," but as I use "rape" it means without consent but not necessarily S&M. But, look, I have no great investment in calling this a "rape fantasy": if the name is standing in the way of understanding I'll be happy to call it a "fluggelhig fantasy" (with apologies to Mr. and Mrs. Fluggelhig).

I advocate let's persuade her, in the name of sanity and etc, to call it a mastery fanatasy.

We no longer have her to persuade; it is just you and me now. Whatever you want to call it, do you now understand the fantasy? (I ask because in your previous post you said "I don't understand what their fantasy -is-." Did my further explanations make it any more clear?)

I get really hopping about this because I really think rape is far too important a problem to use the word in any inexact context.  I want zero chance of a rapists saying, well, women wanted it.  No.  Women want mastery.  Sometimes they can't clear the path to mastery without a prefix.  OK.  Still, even then, women do not want rape.  Women want sexual mastery from men.

I hear your concerns, but, sorry, "mastery" does not seem to describe the fantasy. Perhaps I should stick with "fluggelhig." ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In thinking about this fantasy I have come up with a slightly different view. When a woman has a (passion?) fantasy in which a man lustfully takes her the essential thing about his action is that nothing in him stops it. It is not that he has NO concern for her, but 100% concern for her----as a value which he must totally experience right now. There is absolutely no uncertainty expressed in his total all-self-consuming passion that she is his highest and only value. Nothing else in the world means anything at all.

So, as I see it, the primary purpose of the fantasy for her is not to be the object of his passion, but to picture her ideal man in action---in valuing action---toward her. This action is the meaning of life and, ideally held in her consciousness, sexually arouses her.

Regarding terms, "mastery" is good for getting away from "rape", but I agree with Stephen that it still lacks something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am starting to feel a little better health-wise and I've got a ton of deadlines looming over me, so most likely I may not post much more for a bit. I also am feeling lost on what the purpose of the topic is now and have many meta-questions. It might be that this kind of topic requires face to face interaction - a high intensity of feedback. For example, I feel I asked a lot of questions and didn't hear back all the answers. To debug what is the crux of disagreement, I normally focus a lot on each fact, one by one. And of course on a board there's not really such a linear process. For myself, I feel like I clarified my views, which was very helpful, and had a little fun yesterday/etc, which was VERY helpful :wacko:.

Quick items;

.How about "a perverted sexual mastery fantasy with a leifmotif of rape"? So the genus is the mastery fantasy, but it's a contorted one.

.I think I am clear that Steve's friends' fantasy is the same as in Harry/Sally plus the prefix of a rape setup

.Is "rape" Steve's term or the women's term?

.re smileys, I meant that when we post [me, right now in the editor mode, page=index.php?act=Post] there is a panel of smileys to the left. If you hover over them you'll see labels. I propose to change the nice friendly blinking eyes one to the label, 'listening'. Indeed I would be much obliged to the service of Forum to incorporate this improvement. :blink:

It is not that he has NO concern for her, but 100% concern for her----as a value which he must totally experience right now.....

So, as I see it, the primary purpose of the fantasy for her is not to be the object of his passion, but to picture her ideal man in action

The first part is absolutely true! :lol: How wonderful that feeling is! I think it's something both men/women like from each other, like Jason said about finding your love.

The second part I'm not clear follows. Are you saying, B., that since the fantasy ended before anything sexual happens that it can't be the being taken that's the primary? And instead the primary is the actions taken towards it? I could buy that.

I wish I'd heard the ladies' stories from themselves. I hope that we haven't scared any Oist women away who have such a fantasy ;).

Both parts are really :) :), though!! On that happy note, adieu :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not that he has NO concern for her, but 100% concern for her----as a value which he must totally experience right now. 

This equivocates on the use of "concern." The concern, or, rather, the lack of concern that was expressed in the fantasy I related, was in regard to the man not caring whether the woman consents.

So, as I see it, the primary purpose of the fantasy for her is not to be the object of his passion, but to picture her ideal man in action---in valuing action---toward her.  This action is the meaning of life and, ideally held in her consciousness, sexually arouses her.

I'm sure that that is a very nice fantasy, but that is not the particular fantasy I related. I think the women who did the fantasizing are the best judge of what their own fantasy means to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, I feel I asked a lot of questions and didn't hear back all the answers.

If there is anything really important outstanding on my end, feel free to ask.

.How about "a perverted sexual mastery fantasy with a leifmotif of rape"?  So the genus is the mastery fantasy, but it's a contorted one.

I for one am not willing to grant any perversion or contortion to the fantasy of these women. Nor would I grant any of the same in regard to their own psychology.

.Is "rape" Steve's term or the women's term?

That is the term that each of the women used independently to characterize their fantasy.

.re smileys, I meant that when we post [me, right now in the editor mode, page=index.php?act=Post] there is a panel of smileys to the left.  If you hover over them you'll see labels.  I propose to change the nice friendly blinking eyes one to the label, 'listening'.  Indeed I would be much obliged to the service of Forum to incorporate this improvement. :wacko:

That smilie is one of a standard package, and were I to change its designation that would retroactively change each previous use by other posters, dating back to posts made when we opened last February.

I wish I'd heard the ladies' stories from themselves.  I hope that we haven't scared any Oist women away who have such a fantasy :blink:.

I too wish more women chimed in, but I completely understand anyone's reluctance to discuss such private information in a public forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish I'd heard the ladies' stories from themselves.  I hope that we haven't scared any Oist women away who have such a fantasy :wacko:

Oh not at all! Not at all! I do not have much time lately to respond to this thread. I am one month away from school break. Got to keep my grades up :blink: .

What did I miss anyway? Will anyone update me? This is a very interesting thread indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's extremely gratifying (and a huge turn-on!) to know that a woman has chosen to be a possessed by me, and that her primary goal is to make sure all of my desires in every area of life are fulfilled.

And the best thing is that it's a two-way street. A woman isn't just any possession, but one that surpasses all others. She is such a tremendous value that fulfilling her desires becomes my highest goal, so that in serving my wants, she has to sacrifice none of her own.

              That's beautiful!

          ~C~

I was reading this thread when the above comments jumped out at me and screamed for dissent. I may be possibly reading your comments out of context as I haven't read the entire thread and excuse me if someone has taken you to task for this already.

But, certainly you can’t believe that the primary goal of your life and your lovers life is to fulfill each other’s desires in "every area of life".

First of all, you've set yourself up for failure. You can't fulfill another’s every desire (value) even if you actually wanted to. Nor should you want to. And it’s not a selfish act to want to do so even if you rationalize to yourself that since they are my highest value, I am achieving my values by fulfilling theirs. That seems kind of altruistically circular. Another’s value to you should be their achievement or fulfillment of their own values. Maybe you would care to explain further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real point of what I was saying is that is is the woman's highest goal to see the man's goals fulfilled, not necessarily that she is directly fulfilling them herself. It means that she gets satisfaction from his satisfaction. In a great many cases, this does mean being the one who acts to fufill the others values, however.

Also, by "all," I did not mean a collective "all," but a non-exceptional all. That, if a woman is in love with a man, she truly wants to see his values achieved--all of them. Now, this does not mean that she cannot disagree with certain values when they conflict with her own. That's why communication is so important in a relationship.

I don't regard acting on behalf of one's partners values altruistic in any way. If the fulfillment of one of my partner's values conflicts with one of my own, I'm not saying that one should shove one's values aside and do what one's partner wants. In that case, it needs to be addressed, and a value must be chosen that makes both partners happy. Sometimes this involves persuading ones partner to change what they value.

Does that help to clarify what I meant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real point of what I was saying is that is is the woman's highest goal to see the man's goals fulfilled,...

Does that help to clarify what I meant?

It does not clarify the exact point SamAxton was highlighting when he asked about "every area of life".

I do not think, "... woman's highest goal [is] to see the man's goals fulfilled,... " in every area of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not think, "... woman's highest goal [is] to see the man's goals fulfilled,... " in every area of life.

-sometimes- it is, and it's right to be so, imho. That's why I was so happy about Dave's post. But this is a big topic, and I have my typing skills full with just the rape issue, which is very urgent and must be resolved before any other items are discussed imho.

so after that's done, I'd be delighted to come back to this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the barest hint of an answer, note the wildly positive evaluations Dave got on this statement from two rational women, me and a woman he likes [in his words, the "beautiful beautician"] :). We not merely agree, we are impressed tremendously with his powers of integration, which are rare... There's a reason for the rarity, which I"d like to help correct...

Somehow I'm not sure Dave really reeeeeally knows how right he is, because it is quite a complex thing that needs some unpacking to add in all the proper contexts.... but maybe I'll be happily surprised yet again by him :D.

Normally, the 'rule' is, never help a man who isn't sick or under the age of 5... and I don't believe Dave is either.... :D I'm too excitable about this... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[i hope I'll get better at being able to put all my ideas out at once!! But it could take a long time for that...]

So... what I'm doing here is saying,

Dave! -Don't- lose that thought!!!

I'm not actually answering the questions raised, which were quite valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fantasize about male dominance...always.

I don't view life as bad, or the world as malevolent....but I do view life as hard.  I experience such an endless ammount of challenges in my day-to-day life, that the thought of a woman is to me a reward. A good example of how I feel can be seen in a picture from right after World War Two, which can be found here.    I believe it essential to my masculinity that I am a strong, dominant, conqueror.  To engage another conqueror is war.  But love is not war.  Sex with a woman is that one time where the man can revel in his abilities as a conqueror while, at the same time, satisfying the woman's needs to be conquerored.  It is the most perfect trade I can think of. 

Even a fantasy about such a woman fulfills a desire within me.  I honestly am unable to picture myself enjoying, by any means, a dominant female.

Jason, I hope you'll post on the other thread, heroine worship. I'm mulling over the word 'conquer,' not satisified with it yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not think, "... woman's highest goal [is] to see the man's goals fulfilled,... " in every area of life.

I don't really understand what is so confusing about "in every area of life." By every area of life, I mean literally that. His work, his sex life, his hobbies, his friendships, etc. By "highest goal" I don't mean "fundamental" goal; I don't mean that the man's happiness is at the root of every action the woman takes. What I mean is that it's the goal that brings her the most joy qua woman. It's what makes her be a woman at all.

Granted, I can't introspect this. Also, it's a psychological issue and can probably vary greatly from woman to woman. My statement is largely drawn from statements from perhaps a dozen women, and I only had in-depth discussion on the subject with two of them. Basically, I don't claim universality here, but generality based on what women have told me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real point of what I was saying is that is is the woman's highest goal to see the man's goals fulfilled, not necessarily that she is directly fulfilling them herself. It means that she gets satisfaction from his satisfaction. In a great many cases, this does mean being the one who acts to fufill the others values, however.

...

Does that help to clarify what I meant?

You’ve said very good things about romantic relationships, but I thought your original thesis was wrong and a bit exaggerated. (Of course I should talk, after rereading my response to you I thought it was a bit hyperbolic. Please forgive my altruistic inference it was wrong and uncalled for. I don’t want to discourage anybody from submitting their thoughts for fear of another jumping down their throat.)

What struck me in your comments was your emphasis. You’re a bit clearer here but I think it’s still a mix of premises. You’re moderating your first comments but it still sounds like you’re saying that a woman’s “highest” goal, not simply a cheerleading role or not just one of her goals (which is much different), but her “primary” goal should be for her man to achieve his goals. You reason that if he achieves his goals he would be happy and that would make her happy and her happiness is her primary purpose so she should make his happiness her primary goal.

I think one of a woman’s or man’s highest goals would be to find a romantic partner. And once found and in the context of that relationship, one goal of each would be to want the other to fulfill their goals. But the way you put it sounds more like it should be a primary goal.

Again, I think one’s highest goal should be one’s own personal work. You shouldn’t have time or energy enough to fulfill another’s goals. I personally wouldn’t want the degree of concern or help from another that you seem to attach to achieve my goals. The achievement of one’s goals should be a very selfish personal activity.

Part of the attraction of a romantic partner would be how they set their goals, how they struggle to achieve them. A romantic partner is someone I want to share that goal with, encourage it and celebrate it when achieved. I don’t want to “fulfill” another’s goals but rather just admire them.

Peikoff says some very good things about romantic relationships in “OPAR” ch. Happiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You’re moderating your first comments but it still sounds like you’re saying that a woman’s “highest” goal, not simply a cheerleading role or not just one of her goals (which is much different), but her “primary” goal should be for her man to achieve his goals.

In hindsight, I think that "primary" a poor choice of words; it's too close to "fundamental." I think that "highest" is more accurate to my intended meaning, but only as defined in my last post. I think it is rather more significant than a cheerleading role. I also don't think it's such that a woman's fundamental goal becomes serving the man's values. There is one exception, however, and that is with specific regard to the romantic relationship, where the woman is the value. But, that a romantic relationship is so consuming (on both ends) that it tends to stick it's fingers in all sorts of other places, too. I can't think of a single area of anyone's life that is completely immune to the effects of it.

Again, I have a great deal of trouble communicating my point clearly because I have to rely on what women have told me regarding the way they view their role in the relationship. Pretty much all I'm doing is repeating what I've been told, and I haven't the faintest idea where this psychology stems from; I just know it's there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is one exception, however, and that is with specific regard to the romantic relationship, where the woman is the value.

I had a thought about this, and I want to throw it out there, particularly for the ladies to comment, since they're the only ones who can validate it introspectively:

There is a key difference between how a woman views herself in regard to a romantic relationship and every other area of her life. This is what women here have said, my best friend tells me, and the one-great-ex said to me as well. In regard to her romantic relationship, the woman generally does not view herself as a value-seeker, but as a man's value.

Now, there is one (and only one) real practical difference between a romantic relationship and a friendship--sex. Ayn Rand viewed sex with the person one loves, philosophically, as an integration of all of one's values concretized in physical sensation. It is, in effect, a way of experiencing all of those values directly. This experience isn't possible with just any woman, but only a woman who a man really loves--a woman who embodies his sense-of-life and values.

Now, my understanding of the way women generally regard sex is that it's quite different from the way men view it (again, this is in a context where the two people are in love). Whereas men are generally seeking a sexual experience for themselves, a woman's primary (and here, I really do mean primary) goal is to be the source (and cause for desire) of that sexual experience. In effect, when one takes the above view of sex, the woman is both causing the man's desire to experience all of his values perceptually, all at once, and fulfilling that desire; she is fulfilling all of his values. In that sense, the nature of a woman's sexual desire is that it is really a desire to be the source of all of the man's values.

Now, this does not mean that the woman's pleasure is not an important part of a healthy sexual relationship, but it isn't metaphysically necessary; it is only through fulfillment of the man's desires that sex is possible at all.

In all of this, I am talking specifically about intercourse, rather than any other sexual activities, which (while enjoyable) do not foster anywhere near the same level of intimacy.

So, while I am modifying the initial statment that Sam questioned, by changing the word "primary" to "highest," as it applies to the entire lives of a couple, I wish it to remain entirely intact, with respect to the sexual relationship. This includes the part about fulfilling all of his desires in every area of life, since sex is a concretization of it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not follow the discussion on this thread due to time limitation, but I find the topic important, and would like to add a relevant example from the novel A Very Long Engagement by sebastien Japrisot. The protagonist is a 20-year old French girl whose fiance is presumed dead in World War I.

Before falling asleep, she fantasizes about being in all sort of disturbing situations, each one more unlikely than the next, although they invariably reflect the same silly theme: she is the victim of a stranger - she never really sees his face - who surprises her somewhere in her underwear, is overwhelmed by desire for her, cajoles her, threatnes her, undresses her, until she resigns herself to the inevitable or welcomes it wholeheartedly...

Not once, ever since the news of his disappearance, has Mathlide been able to bear the thought of her fiance at such moments. And there are long periods when she's ashamed of herself and hates herself and resolves not to open her door to strangers. (71-72)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Michelle!

thank you for your posts :)

a relevant example from the novel A Very Long Engagement by sebastien Japrisot.

I am not familiar with this book, so I can't seem to understand the quote. Can you help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I have a great deal of trouble communicating my point clearly because I have to rely on what women have told me regarding the way they view their role in the relationship. Pretty much all I'm doing is repeating what I've been told, and I haven't the faintest idea where this psychology stems from; I just know it's there.

hi Dave! You're doing a great job! I printed these pieces out so I can think a bit of what to add/say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi Michelle!

thank you for your posts :)

I am not familiar with this book, so I can't seem to understand the quote.  Can you help?

The book tells about a young couple engaged to be married during World War I. They already have a sexual relationship which is satisfying and happy for both.

The man is drafted and is later presumed dead. His fiancee does not accept his death and keeps searching for evidence related to the circumstances of his death. In this context, during the long time of looking for him, she has the rape fantasies described. She has a healthy sexuality, and needs the fantasies to satisfy herself. She cannot bear to fantasize about her fiance, apparetnly because it will be less than the real sex she experienced with him, or perhaps because of her anxiety about not knowing for sure if he is alive or dead.

The fantasy begins as rape by a stranger whose face she never sees, and ends with her yielding. Psychologically, it is the only way she can allow herself to be "unfaithful" to her fiance: she is being forced by a stranger. Even this way, she sometime feels guilt for responding to the stranger in her fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Michelle!

thank you! Finally I feel like there's a spelled-out play-by-play concrete to discuss. Now I understand. So the movie scene comes under what I think we both believe, ie that a rape fantasy is indeed, at the least, contorted.

In the movie, there's something holding the woman back from fantasy without a violent prefix-scene. You stated it well; guilt and probably war-terror. In the dream the man is unknown [a mask] & surprising/fear-inducing at first. He may be a crook [breaking and entering], but she dreams of a milk and cookies man who -is- influenced by her, -greatly-; he wants her. He makes his passion clear and does not add any new terrors. In fact, the original terror fades, it is no longer stressed or existent. There are only these forces remaining: her guilt, her distaste, his want, and her attention to him.

Attention is a powerful force, especially from a woman :D. That is the start, the precursor to hero worship. There is no worship here, but there is surrender to competence, to Male Sexual Mastery. As many of us know, there is such thing as intense, searing, physical response based on less than love.

[aside;

I was reading the monogamy thread under Dr. Rosman; a male poster declared monogamy impossible because he dreams of other women despite love. Dr. Rosman answered very neatly, in essence, that monogamy is intimately tied to real romance. I agree completely.

[endAside]

Sometimes a less-than-perfect-love affair has virtues, such as clearing false barriers to new loves. At any rate, as you & I agree, Michelle;

If the woman is swept away by the man's passion, then she also feels a passion for him, and it is no longer a rape.

To recap, the violent prefix stopped, just as suddenly as it started. She convinced him, by her desirability, to want her. He probably never wanted to rape her in the first place, but he couldn't get her attention. He wanted her attention on physical love! Now! From -him-. She was too lost in pain for her ex! MysteryMasteryMan [superHero MMM??**] would do nearly anything, including give her the shock of her life, to love her.

She feels mixed about it all; it is -in spite of- not -because- of the violence/force that she responds. After all, couldn't he be more of a gentleman? He really didn't do this the correct way; no denying that. But he is good, he is a master of wanting. That calls for a response.

Response would have been impossible during a rape, for the same reasons [plus more] that a man's body doesn't respond to fear. [btw, physically a relaxation is required for blood flow for the man's response] [This is a newly strong thought; thank you all]

Thus, this is not a rape fantasy in any good essence; the only good aspects of it are the mastery fantasy aspects. In total, it can be named either a contorted rape fantasy or a hidden mastery fantasy. I still feel those names are lacking, but they do convey the mixed premises. Naming psychopathologies is not my thing.

Michelle, do you like the word 'mastery'? No other women have agreed yet on that.

Since my personal summary has changed a bit here are a few points in it;

.There is no such thing as a healthy rape fantasy. There is no evidence for it. [steve, imho your stories were too abstract, without the necessary contextual facts we would require to evaluate them.].

.However, there is a lot* of evidence against dreams of rape being healthy. *Domestic violence victims' stories are the most compelling, tragic and prevalent. I've read some of that research.

.Steve said he'd supply me with counter- [?] cites.

.It's crucial to separate the domain of sex from the domain of force with as wide and impenetrable a barrier as possible. Thus, I'm seeking substitutes-for/chewing-on the words: dominate, submit, conquer, maybe even surrender.

.Force is the negation of the mind.

.Men and women similarly can't emotionally 'perform' under duress.

.Male Sexual Mastery is what is sooooo incredibly awesome for a woman to experience. I think the men like to enact it too... :)

** Part of me wishes I could be lighter about this topic; fun is funner. But it's a small tiny part; rape is serious... It's far too important to me personally... It's more important to be clear than potentially confuse with humor in marginal cases... So I've relegated it in this post to naming my new hero: MMM.

Somehow MMM, does it have enough of a ring to it? Maybe it does if we add a few more m's, like "Mmmmmmmm!!!" I like that a lot but it doesn't go so well with 'super'? Sigh :D Maybe for now it's just Master Mmmmmm.

ok! [breathing again]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point in Elizabeth's last post is that the term "rape fanstasy" is false and should be replaced by "mastery fantasy." I'm afraid I will have to disagree. I think that the term "mastery" does not capture the essence of being forced - initially. Surrendering to a man's sexual mastery does not include his imposition on the woman, *without her consent.* The key words that define rape is "without the woman's consent." It is this definition of rape that is crucial for the difference between fantasy and reality. Rape in real life is not healthy for either the rapist or his victim because it involves the man's imposition on the woman without her consent, which is an initiation of force. Rape as a fantasy can be healthy in certain contexts and under specific circumstances, such as the situation described in the novel (and movie) A Very Long Engagement.

The same movie provides an example of surrendering to a man's sexual mastery. The character of Elodie Gordes (played so well by Jodi Foster) is overwhelmed by the sexuality of her husband's attractive friend and signals him that she is interested. He is not a total stranger, but she sees him for the first time. The man in this case never initiates force and does not have to impose himself on the woman. She gives her consent right away.

There is a common confusion between being overwhelmed by a man's sexuality and being raped. For example, there is such confusion in Henrik Ibsen's play The Master Builder. It is in a short dialogue between the master builder Mr. Solness and Hilde, the young woman who has romantic fantasies about him. Sollness is talking about rape while Hilde is talking about surrender:

Solness: "In the sagas there are tales of vikings who sailed to foreign lands and plundered and burnt and killed men - "

Hilde: "And carried off women - "

Sollness: " - and kept them captive - "

Hilde: " - took them home with them in their ships - "

Sollness: " - and treated them like - like the worst of trolls."

Hilde: "I think that must have been exciting."

Sollness: "To carry off women?"

Hilde: "To be carried off."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hilde: "I think that must have been exciting."

Sollness: "To carry off women?"

Hilde: "To be carried off."

That's the essence of it.

Observe how often we see the sexual metaphor of "a man taking a woman flying."

Bjorn Faulkner and Karen Andre in "Night of January 16th."

Superman and Lois Lane in "Superman."

Robert Redford and Meryl Streep in "Out of Africa."

Howard Hughes and Katharine Hepburn in "The Aviator."

-- and even --

Aladdin and Princess Jasmine

I can show you the world

Shining, shimmering, splendid

Tell me, princess, now when did

You last let your heart decide?

I can open your eyes

Take you wonder by wonder

Over, sideways and under

On a magic carpet ride

A whole new world

A new fantastic point of view

No one to tell us no

Or where to go

Or say we're only dreaming

A whole new world

A dazzling place I never knew

But when I'm way up here

It's crystal clear

That now I'm in a whole new world with you

Now I'm in a whole new world with you

Unbelievable sights

Indescribable feeling

Soaring, tumbling, freewheeling

Through an endless diamond sky

A whole new world

Don't you dare close your eyes

A hundred thousand things to see

Hold your breath - it gets better

I'm like a shooting star

I've come so far

I can't go back to where I used to be

A whole new world

Every turn a surprise

With new horizons to pursue

Every moment red-letter

I'll chase them anywhere

There's time to spare

Let me share this whole new world with you

A whole new world

That's where we'll be

A thrilling chase

A wondrous place

For you and me

And you thought it was a kid's movie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites