My dear, it’s legal to have any thoughts. I’m sure that many would see me dead. If thoughts were illegal, I’d have all of those people drawn and quartered in “self-defense”.
1 Like
My dear, it’s legal to have any thoughts.
No it’s not. Attempted crimes are still offenses. If you planned to commit terrorism, you are still guilty.
Attempted crimes means that you physically attempted it. Thinking is not attempted. Similarly, commiting crimes in a virtual setting also has no real consequences, or else you’d have to convict me of cannibalism, murder, theft, and terrorism, long before rape.
2 Likes
Yeah… That’s a bit extreme. By this logic it’s perfectly legal for someone to fantasize about raping a REAL child even if they don’t act on it. I do believe it should be illegal for someone to create an image in their head that involves real children being raped. If I knew someone was having sexual fantasies in their head, creating images in their head that involves rape of MY newborn baby, I would want the state to intervene and do something about the sicko. Images stored in your head are still… images. May not be a digital file but it’s still an mental image of a child being raped. I want something to be done about people with these horrible thoughts.
This is a work of fiction. Any relations to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Or so that’s how the saying goes.
1 Like
No one gets to have a rape fantasy about my baby. If I catch anyone doing so, they will find themselves six feet under.
Don’t worry. I doubt your baby is attractive, either way.
1 Like
Thoughts are not criminal. 
4 Likes
Don’t worry. I doubt your baby is attractive, either way.
Keep talking about parent’s children like that, and one day you are going to get knocked out by one of them. Not threatening just warning you. When does the attractiveness of the victim play a role in the rapists mind? Rape is usually about power and control. The attractiveness does not matter.
Thoughts are not criminal.
But attempted crimes are. Having rape fantasies about a child arguably is a form of attempted crime.
No, just no.
People think about killing their boss, that’s not attempted murder.
People think about stealing, that’s not attempted theft.
People think about having sex with people who’d never consent to them, that’s not attempted rape.
I have fantasies about children, that’s not attempted anything.
3 Likes
Please use it now. It’ll shut you up, at least. Trying to use something like that as a criminal evidence, be warned. Many have thought as you do. I have broken them all.
Confession of what? Having thoughts? Yes I have sexual thoughts about children, I make no secret of this and have always been open about my sexual thoughts, I also think about killing my boss; neither of those things are crimes.
2 Likes
Oh, dear, something tells me that cewisil is going to have a Wang Lang moment one of these days:
2 Likes
No they’re not?? Not even remotely the same thing.
You’re conflating attempt at a crime with conspiracy to commit a crime.
Conspiracy is usually defined as intentionally taking the necessary steps required to to commit a crime, in that the crime, or an attempt at a crime, is all but guaranteed to follow.
An example of conspiracy would be planning out a bank heist. You haven’t made an attempt yet but you’re gathering supplies and organizing and planning. An attempt would be to actually go over and “do the deed” (or try at least).
Assault and battery are crimes, so should everyone whose first thought is to “knock the crap out of” someone who upsets or angers them be charged with conspiracy to commit or attempted assault and battery??
Thoughts and fantasies of crimes, even if they manifest in expressive or artistic fashion, cannot qualify because they don’t fit the defininition.
7 Likes
Interesting. So, it looks like this particular case just deduces to two conflicting beliefs that both want to be point A:
A. “Thoughts alone toward people are illegal” - True to some, apparently
A. “Thoughts alone toward people are legal” - True to some
There cannot be a debate where two truths directly invalidate the other. Laws should always follow the path of final truth, in the form of proof of harm toward others or the destruction of their possessions, which is what the goal of funding for research is. Those who are most opposed towards a hobby or idea they’ve just discovered should just donate to research to verify if what they are feel is proven enough to be lawfully enforced. Even $1 a month goes a long way. If only we were just more inclined as a society to get to the bottom of things factually instead of emotionally.
Maybe we should use a better term rather than “legal” as well, one that is less dependent on human opinion and emotion:
A. “Thoughts alone toward people cause them harm” - False to all
B. “Thoughts alone toward people are harmless” - True to all
Here we can clearly see the discrepancy. Product laws should follow this simple principle: is someone’s life being jeopardized against their will? It must be evident that a product or article causes someone else to become harmed in its use or consumption, and then further deduced to whether it is a direct or indirect harm.
In the case of indirect harm, we allow these things while depending on the consumer’s own sensibility and responsibility to be well-behaved and considerate adults:
- Alcohol: Legal, just don’t drink and operate dangerous machinery.
- Pharmaceutical drugs: Legal, just don’t abuse to the point of mental impairment and then harm others.
- Adult-consenting porn: Legal, just don’t partake in anything where someone real is being harmed against their will.
- Video games/knives/guns: Legal, just don’t go on a killing spree.
- Tobacco: Legal, just don’t smoke in non-designated areas.
- Sex dolls: Legal, just don’t go sexually assaulting others.
If one of these must be made illegal, then they ALL must be made illegal for the same reason, whether it is “we don’t want it because we don’t like it.” or something other. But that is an unrealistic goal towards a fantasy Utopian world built on maximally restrictive law.
In our world, we must save the children without criminalizing adults who buy personal objects that have nothing to do with children being abused, bar their own harmless imagination.
Being an advocate for legalizing a material-based sex outlet is NOT the same as being an advocate for legalizing human abuse and trafficking.
We should not even need research to understand these things. Just common sense.
3 Likes
No fantasies are not attempted crimes.
3 Likes
JUST BAN THEM!!! They’ll just come back after dec7 and keep it up. Also I dont see evidence many are the scary scary “”!!QANON!!""
“A lot of them create lots of threads because they are in shock and terror that Prostasia exists.”
OHHH NOOOO someone on the internet was shocked and horrified!!! Okay do you mind telling me why this is unique or meaning full.
Because their posts were either hidden or deleted where they admit that they heard about Prostasia from Facebook groups comprised of uneducated, uninformed, and emotional middle-aged people.
2 Likes
Frankly, knowing about the “shock and terror”, I feel like Uncle Vlad laughing it up in Bran Castle (AKA the RL Castlevania) or Nobunobu laughing it up in Azuchi Castle.