Thoughtcrime?

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