The concept of 'thoughtcrime' is one of the many legacies of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the idea that one is as guilty of a crime by merely thinking about it as by committing it. In the story, thoughtcrime was used by a self-sustaining oligarchy to maintain their position of power, by suppressing any possibility of political opposition, but it seems to me that it could be, and, indeed, is used in a nominally 'liberal democratic' society, such as those that those of us in 'the west' supposedly inhabit, to suppress or vilify those who hold opinions, or espouse lifestyles that the so-called 'majority' disapprove of. This isn't done, at least overtly, by the apparatus of surveillance and propaganda in force in the fictional scenario, with the implicit threat of torture and death to enforce conformity, it's somewhat more subtle than that, through opinions reinforced by way of the popular press and other media, portraying certain individuals and groups in terms of simplistic stereotypes, which can then be used to demonise such 'disapproved-of' elements.
Needless to say, my perspective as far as this discussion is concerned comes from my self-confessed status as a boylover - a hebephile, if you prefer a more 'academic' label, not a paedophile, either in the correct definitive sense of being exclusively attracted to prepubescents, or in the pejorative, tabloid press (mis)usage of the word - I prefer boylover, so without apology, that's the word I'm going to continue to use. My consideration of this topic comes from the reaction to my post of last Friday, where it seemed to me to be suggested that to find a 13 year old boy attractive, even with no intention of acting on that attraction, is 'wrong'. 'Wrong' in what way, and to whom? Is the boy 'violated' in some way by my viewing him as sexually attractive? I've never approached him, never spoken to him even in passing, although he lives within yards of me, so far as I'm aware he has never even been conscious of my looking at him, on the odd, fleeting occasions I've been able to do so. Despite that complete lack of interaction, has he been 'damaged' in some way by my desire? I can't imagine that he has been, but maybe someone has a different take on that. It seems to me that the attitude of 'wrongness' comes not from my actions, but from the disapproval of my very thoughts. As with most arguments, there are degrees of opinion - there are those, probably relatively few in number, but vociferous, who would quite happily ship the likes of me off to indefinite imprisonment, if not death, to 'protect' children from my desires, but even those who don't tend to that kind of extreme still find my attractions hateful. Not my actions, because I don't do anything, but my thoughts, my fantasies, my desires. All of which are merely in my head, a product of my brain. I sometimes use the comparison of someone who might read and enjoy a novel, or perhaps even more so, watch a film with violence and death as plot elements. Does the person reading or viewing such material become a murderer? Should they be locked up to 'protect' society from the potential that they might 'act out' their interests? I can't imagine anyone seriously advocating such a thing. So why the double standard? If I was to rape a boy (or anyone else), I could justifiably be called evil. I object to being thought of as evil when I haven't done, and wouldn't do, any such thing.
Love & best wishes to all
Sammy B
What is wrong, was your reply to my comment is that you would not have sex with him unless he consented.
ReplyDeleteWe are both aware that legally a 13 year old cannot consent to sex with an adult. But more important than that, you would take the consent at face value, not considering the consequences for the child, how confused, thorn he might become if he is mature enough to deal with sexual activity, it could really harm him mentally. Which is why the law is there.
You tried to justify in response to my emails, but you really can't. Which is why you deleted the post with my comments attached.
The reason, I think you prefer Boy lover is because it makes it sound less dangerous, less serious and more playful. Hemophilia is certainly the more appropriate word to use.
Hello Ian
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you've been looking, but the post, your comments and my replies are still very much in existence - I've never deleted a comment that has been left on my blog, and I've only ever deleted one post, which was overtaken by events a few hours after I'd posted it.
I am well aware of what the law says about the age of consent, and it's a law I've never transgressed. I came close to doing so on one occasion, well over a quarter of a century ago, when I was younger than you are now, and the realisation of the mistake I'd made with the individual concerned, and the harm I could have done brought me, for the only time in my life, genuinely close to suicide. I'm not playing games with this issue. I might draw your attention, though, to the fact that the age of consent in Spain is 13, and is 14 in several other Western European countries. I don't think British teenagers are any less mentally or morally competent than their European peers, but others, including you and our lawmakers, obviously do.
I presume the word you intended to use in your last sentence was 'paedophilia'. Assuming that to be the case, your usage of the word is, as with most people, only indicative of the fact that you don't actually know its correct definition, or, indeed, its etymology. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a boylover. In psychological terms, I'm a hebephile. If you choose to cleave to the kneejerk pejorative, that's your choice, but it doesn't alter the truth.
Love & best wishes
Sammy B
It is quite clear that I intended the word hebephile as the word, considering there is just one letter misspelled.
ReplyDeleteThe age of consent in Spain is 13, as specified by the Spanish Penal Code, Article 181(2). However, if deceit is used in gaining the consent of a minor under 16 years an individual can be charged under Article 183(1) upon parental complaint.
Hello Ian
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that we're going to need to agree to disagree on this matter. You, as most people do, evidently disapprove of my predilections, and that, of course, is your perfect right. As in said in response to your comment on the earlier post, though, the knowledge of others' disapproval, even if I was in Winston Smith's position of a 'minority of one', isn't going to make the boyloving side of me go away. That said, and again to repeat something I've said elsewhere in the blog, I'm not interested, at all, in coercing or deceiving anyone into bed. I don't want to have sex with anyone who doesn't want to have sex with me, irrespective of age or gender.
Love & best wishes
Sammy B