|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
When I was 13 I fell in love with a 13 year old boy. Neither of us had any obvious outward signs of puberty, though I know for sure I had started making semen some time previously. I imagine he probably had, too. He was 9 months older than I.
That sets the scene for my question.
Because the object of my adoration and my sexual desire was physically immature, was I a paedophile?
If so, by what standards? If not, by what rationale? And, does it matter anyway since it is as unlawful today for us to have had sex as it was then?
[Updated on: Tue, 04 November 2008 16:34]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
james
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: England
Registered: September 2008
Messages: 24
|
|
|
at 13 you and the young man you fell you in love with, were just really comparing your bodys and checking out each other, because you felt safe being the same sex, you trusted each other.
As for a paedophile, i do not see where this comes into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Let's assume we had gone ahead to consummate the relationship. We didn't. We didn't even compare. It was one sided!
If we had, what then? Technically and legally I mean?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> We didn't even compare. It was one sided!
>
So nothing happened, it was all within you, in your mind. Can you be convicted because of your thoughts?
If I lusted after young people but never touched one, would I be a paedophile? Is it not one's actions rather than thoughts that are of concern?
In addition, does not paedophilia require an age difference by definition? If not, then any two people under the age of consent that engage in sex are paeodphiles.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Ignore whether anything happened or not. Assume it did. And you tell me if the definition requires an age difference! There was one, he was older than I was.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> Ignore whether anything happened or not.
That is the point, you can't ignore it. If nothing happened then nothing wrong was done.
> And you tell me if the definition requires an age difference! There was one, he was older than I was.
Then he would be the paedophile, not you. But the age difference required is much greater than a few months. I believe that some laws express that the difference must be two or three years. I remember a 17 year-old boy was in trouble because his girlfriend was only 15 y/o. But two 15 year-olds having sex does not make either of them a paedophile.
JimB
[Updated on: Tue, 04 November 2008 22:51] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
In Australia paedophile is not a legal definition.
Legally, in Victoria, as you were both over 10 and there was less than 2 years between you, no crime was committed.
Technically a paedophile is someone that has an attraction towards children. You had an attraction towards a child, so you were a paedophile. However, more technically paedophilia is a paraphilia and I'm pretty sure your attraction wasn't paraphilic, but rather nature for your age. So perhaps you technically weren't a paedophile.
Society probably wouldn't classify you as such. Maybe if you were 15 and he was 13 they would, though...
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, Timmy, that the word Paedophile, which ought to mean a lover of children, actually is taken to mean a sexual abuser of children.
And the definition of sexual abuse isn't at all what it ought to be which is sex forced on a child who is out of his/her depth or unwilling, actually means any kind of sex with someone under the age of consent.
And I suppose your gloss on it which is "If I wanted to do that aren't I just like a paedophile, really?"
Obviously you aren't.
The law, of course only bans actions: not thoughts. But some restrictions on free speech come close to it. And, of course most religions try to make a good many things taboo and many of them are sexual. Some christians, jews and muslims seem to me to wish that they could stop anyone enjoying sex.
I would like society to be good enough at looking after children so that laws wouldn't be necessary. The notion of the age of consent seems to me to do a lot of harm; it implies that suddenly on reaching that age all sorts of things become OK.
Any fool can see that what is legally permissible is NOT necessarily OK.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An article I posted a while back was very adament in that grown gay men took as their lover younger boys. This was true in Greece and also Rome. You are correct Anthony, a peadaphile is a lover of a young, pre pubecent child. The key word here is LOVE not SEX. I often wonder where we should draw the line. One of the things I have debated in my mind is this. I talk to a gentleman in the Checz Republic. He keeps a 12 year old boy. This boy is no kin to him. He found the boy on the street eatting out of garbage containers. The boy was severly underwight, small for his age, IN bad health, and dehydrated. I would assume that it would not have been long till the boy was dead, either thru starvation or desiese. The man took the boy to his home and doctored him and fed him and nused him back to health. The boy to this day lives with the man. When talking to this man Im left with the feeling that the boy is protected and loved and cared for. The boy goes to school and has clean cloths and shoes to wear. Where do we draw the line? The boy stays of his own free will. Which is worse, the society that let this boy starve and become ill or the man who took him in and cared for him and loves him. Would it be right for society to step in and take the boy away and the boy wind up back on the streets?
I wish there were easy answers to all the questions that can come up about this area of interest. I wish I had an easy answer for you Timmy. I do know that in my state there has to be more than 4 years difference in age befor a crime is committed.
From all the definitions I can find, Timmy you are not nor ever have been a peadophile.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right, Roger, and I wanted to add the idea that every parent is a paedophile because a parent loves their children, don't they? And love doesn't always mean sex does it?
And if the sex is secondary to the love then I'm inclined to say "That's all right then." But who could make a law that enforced that?
And I'd like to shake the hand of the guy you mention that took that child off the street and now looks after him. And I'd probably approve even if I thought he had sex with the child when the child wasn't really ready. Death is a lot worse than some things.
One of the people I had sex with was the kept boy of a clergyman. The clergyman was a nice enough guy and my friend had his university education paid for by the clergyman. I met him at Oxford. And he was a talented woodworker and 41 Thorncliffe Road, Oxford has some lovely oak that he installed. But I'm not surprised that the clergyman did NOT like me having sex with his kept boy.
But he wasn't so put out that he cut my friend out of his will. When he died my friend inherited that house and then he got married and had a daughter and my last memory of him is carrying his daughter about on his shoulders. I suppose that means that the clergyman had persuaded him to be gay when he was straight or bi.
I wonder about it sometimes. I don't blame the clergymen.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
Roger wrote:
> Would it be right for society to step in and take the boy away and the boy wind up back on the streets?
>
Unfortunately in many societies that is just what would happen.
> The man took the boy to his home and doctored him and fed him and nused him back to health. The boy to this day lives with the man. When talking to this man Im left with the feeling that the boy is protected and loved and cared for. The boy goes to school and has clean cloths and shoes to wear.
>
Why can't society see the love that exists and the good that has happened here? The world has plenty of bad people but there are many who do good simply because that is what is right. We seem to loose sight of the good in our search for the bad.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
