It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Succubus or a Wet Dream?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Succubus or a Wet Dream??

What is the difference between the two? I mean the obvious defined difference is plain to see, demon vs. dream. But let's consider the facts...

Both of these occur during sleeping.

Both of these are based solely on psychological, heightened arousal.

Neither physically manifest.

Both can leave the "victim" feeling drained.

Obvious lack of evidence.


I read a lot on the paranormal. Succubi and incubi are some of the least referenced "entities" in the paranormal world. More is written / spoken about fairies and trolls, which are more "fanstastical". Based on the sexual nature of both and the overtly sexual nature of the world as we know it here in America, it would be easy for these entities to become more mainstream, at least in conversation.

Thoughts?




posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
>Based on the sexual nature of both

The classic alien abduction scenario also fits your criteria fairly well.

>What is the difference between the two?

Aesthetics.

I have found, for example. that a Shamanistic view explains the behavior of computers equally as well as does a technological one.

>it would be easy for these entities to become more mainstream

Have you ever heard of Lilith Faire?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Succubus and Incubus.
I believe the two were created by the church to explain
"unexplained pregnancies".

succubus: noun
a female demon believed to have sexual intercourse with sleeping men

incubus: noun
a male demon believed to lie on sleeping persons and to have sexual intercourse with sleeping women


A convenient way to cover up the raping of women.

Is this something the priests of the time invented?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Both of these 'creatures' date primarily from a time when religion ran rampant over people's lives. Christianty in particular has always had a problem dealing with the reality of what people do and has a long history of making up reasons that render blameless those who deserve to be held accountable for their actions.

After all, we know that 'wet dreams' are real and we know what causes them. That is because today we can face at least some part of the natural world without needing to 'dress it up' with fantasy.

I think an objective look at the times in which these concepts were promoted is very enlightening. The ignorance and hostility that is revealed is just astonishing.

And even the insanity that characterized religion in those days is not the total picture. What is not known by most is that the so-called 'Witch trials' ended when it was made illegal to confiscate the property of those accused. As long as there was a profit to be made there was no end of people to denounce. But once that motive was removed, quite rapidly the religious reasons became unimportant.

When we do not understand something, we find an explaination, any explaination, to make us feel better. The whole of mythology can be seen as a way to generate answers where none currently exist. This subject is just one of those sorts of things.


A.T
(-)



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
because sex used to be so un-talked about...could these "beings" also have been created by the church in order to cover up the ideas that men have wet dreams, physicilly we have them for a reason. but the church may not have known this and may have invented these creatures to explain this phenominan.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alexander Tau
What is not known by most is that the so-called 'Witch trials' ended when it was made illegal to confiscate the property of those accused. As long as there was a profit to be made there was no end of people to denounce. But once that motive was removed, quite rapidly the religious reasons became unimportant.

Not to derail this subject, but I had athought that the Church also wanted to lessen the powers many of these "witches" had. If you made these witches evil in the eyes of the Chruch, then their knowledge would be taboo and the Church could better control her members. Took a lot of the healing and paranormal talents of these practitioners and made them sinful.
We could probably have a whole thread about this subject.

(But, then, the Church pretty much did that whole sinful thing with sex, too.)



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Succubi and Incubi could very well be real. The church could have found out about them and then escalated their existence to their needs.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I could have imagined this, stranger things have happened; but I believe I read somewhere that the "myth" of succubi/incubi dated back all the way to Sumerian times. Anyone have any thoughts, or not as lazy as me and wants to look for some research?


Also no offense Jockey, but how old are you, would help to know.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Baphomet79]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
One must remember that sex for pleasure was often seen as "evil" by not only "the church", but other religions as well. The invention of succubi and incubi were an easy out to explain wet dreams without the one having them feeling "responsible"...imho.....



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
www.cyodine.com...

From Wikipedia:

In medieval legend, a 'succubus' (plural succubi; from Latin succubare, "to lie under") is a female demon which comes to men, especially monks, in their dreams to seduce them and have sexual intercourse with them, drawing energy from the men to sustain themselves, often until the point of exhaustion or death. This legend was an explanation for the phenomena of wet dreams and sleep paralysis. Lilith and the Lilin ( Jewish), Belili ( Sumerian) and Rusalka ( Slavic) were succubi.


Baphomet, I'm 31 years old and don't see what my age has to do with this anyway. I'm also married with two kids, one dog, one guinea pig, and can hold a steady job...


Interesting that this definition says "especially monks". I think that we are on the right track in finding a base of these beliefs in christianity. I'm a christian and know of some denominations where any premarital or extramarital relations are still considered absolute sins.

Let's open a can of worms here. Who's to say that these succubi or incubi were created as a diversion within the church as an option of explaining away certain abuses between priests / monks / etc. and other younger members of the congregation. After all, it is the Catholic church that is the only branch of organized christianity that will perform exorcisms on occasion while still refusing to confirm the existance of demons.

Seems as though they are just "remaining open" to the possibility of various entities in order to provide explanation or excuses for some misintended actions of their followers. Why else would the church exorcise for "demons" that the church itself refuses to believe exists?

Wow, that can cover mental abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, etc... Certainly food for thought. (Though potentially unpopular...)



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   


Not to derail this subject, but I had athought that the Church also wanted to lessen the powers many of these "witches" had. If you made these witches evil in the eyes of the Chruch, then their knowledge would be taboo and the Church could better control her members. Took a lot of the healing and paranormal talents of these practitioners and made them sinful.


I have found very little to support that idea. The plain fact is that anyone with real psy abilities was far beyond that which the church could even understand. Those with real abilities were almost never touched, they were just too smart to remain in place to be carted off.

However I think what you might be thinking of is midwives. Another element that drove the 'Witch Trials' was the emergence of a professional (hence male) Doctor class. They wished to be rid of the midwives who for centuries had been the best way to have babies. Call a midwife a Witch, remove her, and the only choice left was a Doctor. Those midwives are the ones I feel the most sorry for, they dedicated their lives to helping women and babies survive the trauma of childbirth, gave them herbs for the pain, and then were put to death for it.




Succubi and Incubi could very well be real. The church could have found out about them and then escalated their existence to their needs.


History does not support this idea. If this were true then they would have been doing something good, there was nothing good about these Trials. If what you suggest were true then taking away the financial reasons would have had little effect, when indeed you can directly trace the passing of Laws to prevent taking possession of the accused's property to the ending of the Trials.

You might want to try reading some of the documentation from the times. Any sane and rational person will be horrified at the ignorance, and thinly veiled hatred of that which they did not understand. You will note that many of the so-called-signs were in fact types of mental illness, or even just a mind that thinks a little differently than most.

I am not condeming Christianty here, but I am condeming, in the harshest possible terms, the people who were involved in this insanity. They tortured people for financial gain, and to satisfy sadistic desires that they claimed to be combatting. They were sick, and if the religion they said they believed in had any real power, none of this would ever have happened.


A.T
(-)



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Haha ok, sorry just checking that your age might not have something to do with your....unconscious night time activities, my apologies.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join