*kath*
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 26 | |
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 7:01:22 AM | Whilst I am itching to shout yes paedo definately,can anybody really be guilty of anything by thought alone?.
I dont think they can. | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 7:24:37 AM |
Zee: There is no way that I or my two children at the age of 13 was ready to make a decision about having sex , when, where and who. This must open a door for the young girls to be openly vicitimized sexually in Spain, due to their immaturity and lack of ability to make sound decisions in this area. Of course an older boy or man can coherce a 13yr old insecure, unbalanced girl into having sex. It may be legal in Spain, but it doesnt make it right.
I didn't say it was 'right' for the Spanish to have such a low age limit for sexual consent - I was merely agreeing with another poster about our moral stance with regard to paedophilia.
The Spanish government thinks it's morally 'right' for 13 y-o to have sex with adults, whereas the British government does not. This means that people here cry 'paedo' at an act that a Spaniard probably wouldn't - therefore, it's possible that we are basing our morals on the law.
I know I shouldn't have found it funny, but Borat made me chuckle when he said that in an attempt to modernise Khazakstan, the age of consent was being raised to 9..... | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 8:17:17 AM | Also, as I pointed out, one of our closest cousins practise same sex, child sex etc as a form of greeting...Had we evolved the same social attitudes and courtesys we would be singing a diferent tune, indeed, as I have poited out, it wasn't that long ago that we indeed did, and it wasn't that long ago that children where seen as such, that is, "children" before that, they where simply small adults...Does that make you or anyone "right"?
Not long ago it was totally tabbo for same sex couples, and if it did occur, was behind closed doors, now society has changed and you openly and actively see same sex couples engaging in lovemaking acts in open public and on the media, infact, it's against the law to say you don't like it!
How long will other (relatively newly aquired) taboo social attitudes change and any disenters face the might of the Law?
Very interesting ain't it? | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 12:13:56 PM | There is a saying what sober is thinking a drunk is saying... our thoughts make our life philosophy and our opinions and our stance in our society.
So, clean mind and clean and kind thoughts make up good people. | |
|
HenXX
|
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 30 | |
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 12:51:13 PM | Saddle tramp......I am all for acceptance of what adults do together,no matter how perverted it may seem to others,their choice.....they have the maturity to deal with it.Child sex is something completely different,i am sure you understand this..........nope,i dont find it very interesting in the least.
vvvvvv I did read this,got me thinking.........are sexual thoughts what we desire? or like sexual dreams,you have no control over them?.........I know how i think, but how do men think? | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 12:58:29 PM | Theasurus. Noun 1. paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children......Doesnt say anything about having to act upon their desires.....As long as the attraction is there, then they are one.
The medical definition of Pedophilia:
Sex or sexual activity with children who have not reached puberty.
| |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 1:06:22 PM | So, clean mind and clean and kind thoughts make up good people
Not really....I'd be inclined to say that people who have a "clean" mind and think only clean and kind thoughts are probably more disturbed than your average Joe or Josephine Bloggs who fantasises what they'd like to do to with the hot stuff next door or who has homosexual, lesbian or bondage fantasies and imagines what it might be like to screw someone who is under the age of consent every once in a while. Fantasies are quite healthy and the more we try and keep them "clean" then they will catch up with you in other ways.....either through your health or through dysfunctional relationships where you like to be rigidly in control for fear of losing control and allowing yourself to think in-appropriate thoughts which are actually quite normal, even though society deems them unacceptable in some quarters.
Only you can decide whether your paedophilic thoughts are guilty or not. The law decides for you if you decide to act on them. | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 2:42:35 PM | ^^^^VERY astute...
To the last posters...
I don't recall anywhere inn my posts where it is said that we should accept it (paedophilia) I just pointed out it was once accepted, indeed encouraged, and is curently encouraged in the society of one of our closest relatives...
My point is, taboos in society change, as we have seen in recent times...I find it interesting in that certain people who are vocal in denouncing, are sometimes vocal whilst rushing the wind of change... | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 2:54:24 PM | Thought-crime is something that exists in most religions, North Korea and a book by George Orwell. So far those in agreement with the premise are not in very good company.
As far as I'm concerned, you can think as much as you like about anything you like, as often as you like. Your mind is the one place in life you have where you can live exactly as you want to. Now, in my case that would be a Bugatti Veyron, a lorry full of supermodels and my own Island in the Carribean.
Fantasising about sex with children is probably not a sign of a healthy mind however, depending on how often it occurs and whether the desire is projected outside of the self (as common desires often are). The difference is the intention to act along with whether it is suppressed or acted on in real life, rather than the thought in itself.
Did that make sense?
Edit: indeed I would have saved myself 5 minutes of typing if I'd read Brown-eyed's response: "Only you can decide whether your paedophilic thoughts are guilty or not. The law decides for you if you decide to act on them." | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 2:57:29 PM |
Fantasising about sex with children is probably not a sign of a healthy mind however, depending on how often it occurs and whether the desire is projected outside of the self (as common desires often are). The difference is the intention to act along with whether it is suppressed or acted on in real life, rather than the thought in itself.
So, in your opinion, it's OK for an adult to have sexual fantasies about children as long as they don't act upon them?
Did that make sense?
I truly hope that I've misunderstood your statement.... | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 2:57:44 PM |
or .... imagines what it might be like to screw someone who is under the age consent every once in a while. Fantasies are quite healthy
I do not think so my dear !
Fantasising about children as sexual objects is not healthy and not normal and never would be and it is wrong to think that this ever and in any society was accepted. | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:01:31 PM | | i think that any adult who thinks thoughts of shagging a little child..even though they might never intend to carry out there fantasys..are very sick and dangerous..another poster pointed out that alot of people watch violent movies and violent sex films but dont carry out what they see..but to be truthful..it just aint in the fecking same catagory as kiddie porn..i love watching violent movies..taxi driver.goodfellas.the godfather..scarface..etc fecking great..but please dont compare me with somone who watches kiddie sex films..it just aint in the same league..anyone who has evil thoughts of having sex with a minor..is sick and needs help..simple as that.. | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:02:13 PM |
So, in your opinion, it's OK for an adult to have sexual fantasies about children as long as they don't act upon them?
Let me spell it out:
We have:
(1) The thought
(2) The intention to act
(3) Suppressing the intention to act
(4) Having no intention to act and not suppressing an intention to act
(1) is fine - it's your head, you can live inside it any way you choose
(2) and (3) are not - intention exists outside of the self or one is fighting one's desires
(4) is fine - there are no external manifestations, hence it is not a desire | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:02:29 PM | i saw a programme years ago where a guy admitted to these kinds of thought and tried to get therapy and castrated to ovrercome them becasue he knew they wer wrong and didnt want to act upon them
so if they realise they have a problem and seek help without acting upon them ,no they shouldnt be locked up or thought of as bad as someone who does abuse a child
is it wrong to look at some of my sons friends and think ooooooo 20 years ago i would? | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:17:42 PM | I of course don't think that sex with a minor is something to be advocated but we were having this conversation at work not so long ago about how people were condemning a woman for wanting to have a baby after the menopause. People were saying, God/evolution/whatever, made us so that we'd only bear children at the appropriate times, hence our fertility ending at a time when we'd probably not be around to raise any offspring we produced. (Of course there is also an argument put forward elsewhere on the forums recently about life expectancy and women once upon a time being fertile to the end of their days).
Anyway, I said, well if it's so bad for a woman to want to conceive once she's passed the menopause, why is it so wrong for a young girl to have a baby at say 11 years of age, when she may have already missed a couple of years of child bearing potential? The post menopausal women thing is unnatural but the 11 year old girl having a baby can't be construed as such surely, as the mechanisms are all there in place and rearing to go... Lively debate ensued.
One surely has to ask why we were made this way? Why were we made so that we could have children at such a young age if we were not meant to be active and reproducing? Is it still 12 the age of consent in the Netherlands and as has been pointed out, 13 in Spain. It was common practice here only a couple of hundred years ago for girls as young as 12/13 to marry. Were their husbands perverts?
I agree to an extent about the law influencing the way we think.
However, I do feel that in spite of the law or of the intricacies of the female reproductive system, young teens are kids still and shouldn't be engaging in that stuff willingly, let alone unwillingly. Adults who lust after them have something wired up wrong in their brain - but would they have had that same perceived faulty wiring 200 years ago? | |
|
HenXX
|
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 41 | |
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:21:35 PM | saddle tramp........As i said,i am sure you understand,I do realise you are talking from a different perspective.The reasons why attitudes change is because people have more understanding of certain things and the damage they may cause.This is why they become "taboo".It was acceptable for child labour,but we realised the consequences of this,so it changed.............ok,that example is way out from the topic,but an example of why things do become unacceptable.Just because one culture fails to look at the consequences,does not make it right.
vvvvvvvv I would hope that someone who was having regular thoughts of sex with a child,would seek help.Look at mass murderers....do they not have thoughts for years before going on the rampage? | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:23:30 PM | or .... imagines what it might be like to screw someone who is under the age consent every once in a while. Fantasies are quite healthy
I do not think so my dear !
Fantasising about children as sexual objects is not healthy and not normal and never would be and it is wrong to think that this ever and in any society was accepted.
Which is why it's important it remains in the person's mind and is not acted on. It's really a question of continuum if you are going to diagnose someone as having a mental health problem due to their thinking. It is difficult though to deny someone their thoughts don't you think? | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:33:36 PM |
Let me spell it out
Please do!
(1) The thought......is fine - it's your head, you can live inside it any way you choose
So, in your opinion, it's OK for an adult to have sexual fantasies about children as long as they don't take it any further?
That's what I thought you'd said.......thanks for clarifying! | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:41:05 PM |
So, in your opinion, it's OK for an adult to have sexual fantasies about children as long as they don't take it any further?
That's what I thought you'd said.......thanks for clarifying!
You're confused.
I'm taking a philosophical position that places the boundary between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable at the point at which action (including emotional responses) become real. To put it differently and to show the irrationality of your position, consider that, generally speaking, murder is considered to be at least as bad as child abuse. I would be very surprised if you considered anyone who had thought about killing another person to be a murderer. You seem to make an exception when it comes to peodophiles. Do you not see the inconsistency in your position here?
The external boundary I'm talking about is the intention to act, or the suppresion of the intention to act (the emotional response). If both of these are lacking, then the thought has no consequences outside of the self. A peodophile is one who either has the intention, or is suppressing the intention, to commit an act of child abuse. | |
|
HenXX
|
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 45 | |
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:52:45 PM | I would say it depend to which degree someone wants to murder someone.Wishing someone dead because of anger is totally different from going into graphic detail,over and over again in your mind.......same with having sex with a child.
I would say that sex with a child should NEVER enter anyones mind,but giving it the benefit of the doubt here. | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 4:00:54 PM | The title of this being 'Guilty by Thought' how many of us have 'thought' of causing serious damage to a child or partner, in a fleeting moment of anger or frustration?
Come on people, hands up, it may have been instantly retracted or taken a while longer, and we wouldn't actually have done it.................. BUT, we thought it, doesn't make us a murderer in waiting.
How many of us have fantasised about someone else when in a relationship, (George Clooney, Angelina Jolie etc etc) but we haven't acted on it ................... we still thought it ( Mine wasn't George Clooney but I have got pretty steamy with Johnny Depp on occasion  ) Doesn't make us an adulterer (although some religions say the thought is as bad as the deed).
But to think sexually about a child ? Would anybody put their hands up and say Yes I think like that? IMO that thought crosses a line that shouldn't even be considered crossable.
All that makes sense in my head, but it is late
 | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 4:09:48 PM |
You're confused.
What about?
You've twice stated that you think it's OK for an adult to have sexual fantasies about children.
I'm taking a philosophical position that places the boundary between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable at the point at which action (including emotional responses) become real.
Yes, I know you believe that thinking about an action is OK, no matter how repellent that action may be, as long as one doesn't act upon such thoughts.
To put it differently and to show the irrationality of your position, consider that, generally speaking, murder is considered to be at least as bad as child abuse. I would be very surprised if you considered anyone who had thought about killing another person to be a murderer.
What 'position'?
And what is 'irrational' about it?
I would be very surprised if you considered anyone who had thought about killing another person to be a murderer.
So, you accept that I haven't stated my opinion on that ?
So why claim it to be 'irrational'?
You seem to make an exception when it comes to peodophiles. Do you not see the inconsistency in your position here?
Again, I haven't stated my 'position' on anything else, so how can I POSSIBLY be 'inconsistent'?
The external boundary I'm talking about is the intention to act, or the suppresion of the intention to act (the emotional response). If both of these are lacking, then the thought has no consequences outside of the self.
I got that earlier, and I agree with it.
A peodophile is one who either has the intention, or is suppressing the intention, to commit an act of child abuse.
Incorrect!
The OED has a paedophile as "a personal who is sexually attracted to children".
Note that it makes no reference to 'intent' or 'action' - it refers to the thought of sexual attraction.
Now, you've twice said that such thought is acceptable:
Fantasising about sex with children is probably not a sign of a healthy mind however, depending on how often it occurs and whether the desire is projected outside of the self (as common desires often are). The difference is the intention to act along with whether it is suppressed or acted on in real life, rather than the thought in itself.
and
The thought....... is fine - it's your head......
So, it's clear that you accept that 'thinking' about sex with children is 'fine'.
It's paedophilia, and, in my opinion, it is NOT 'fine' at all.....
HTH | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 4:19:56 PM | This thread has huge potential to turn into a flame war.
I saw a shrink on a number of occassions. He told me that there was a very big difference between a thought and an action and that an action is what makes the act, not the thought itself.
I do prefer to listen to the words of a professional compared to thoughts of people on what is clearly a very emotion prompting thread and will, naturally, provoke upset and anger. | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 4:27:41 PM |
You've twice stated that you think it's OK for an adult to have sexual fantasies about children
You're deliberately misrepresenting my point to try and paint me as someone who sympathises with peodophiles. I think what I'm saying is probably just going right over your head.
My point, again, to be clear, is concerned with to what extent YOU or society at large has an interest in what I think. The original question is to what extent you can be guilty for thinking something. I don't think as a general rule that thinking about murder makes you a murderer. I don't think that thinking about armed robbery makes you an armed robber. I don't think that thinking about rape makes you a rapist. Shall I continue? The point at which society has an interest in anything you think is when you're (1) suppressing a desire [an intention to commit a crime], because one day you may actually do it or (2) when you actually commit a criminal act. If neither of those two conditions are met, then society has no interest in what's going on inside your head.
My second point, more general than the first, concerns where you would draw the line. That is why I mentioned George Orwell and North Korea. Your inner life, whatever it is, is nobody elses business but your own. That is the very root of liberty and individual freedom. | |
|
| Guilty By Thought ?
Posted: 7/1/2009 4:31:28 PM | | ^^^^ yeah I get it now. Nobody knows what goes on inside your head unless you tell them or act out or on whatever you are thinking so how can people judge on what they don't know is going on? Good point. | |
|
Home
login 
