What I was trying to argue though was I think, pretty much what you say; that having a particular idea necessarily entails having certain other ideas (/beliefs/etc), and that the particular network of ideas a person has is precisely what informs their behaviour. Whether or not they actually commit rape or murder, being “turned on” by such an idea automatically entails certain attitudes which are harmful to others in ways that would pass below a judicial radar, as you put it.

I was trying to distinguish between the harm arising from the act in and of itself, and the harm that comes from the communication of the idea/belief behind the act, which may exist whether or not the person commits an actual act of violence. The act of violence is only one way of communicating the idea behind it, and to suppose that someone who is turned on by, say the idea of raping a woman or child has an otherwise entirely respectful, empathetic and kindly network of ideas and attitudes towards women/children strikes me as rather bizarre and unlikely.

I’m not entirely convinced that it’s possible to have an idea and not act on it IN SOME WAY. Our ideas and beliefs inform ALL of our behaviour, directly or otherwise. To have an urge to molest a child and yet refrain from actually doing so does not mean one doesn’t act on that idea, which is what your argument above seems to assume. I would argue that such restraint is not a triumph of right over wrong, while it allows such desires to remain unexamined, and having who knows what effect on the rest of their behaviour. I hope I have made my argument more clearly this time.

I also wonder where people think the damage that abuse (of children or adults) does actually comes from?

Absolutely, which is why I said “without harming a hair (or synapse)” - note the parentheses. Clearly non-violent and non-sexual actions can cause harm. But nevertheless, you still need an action of some sort, against a victim. I don’t see such an action in the case of computer generated images. Or is a CGI woman some kind of Platonic ideal?

Please note I’m talking about the principle of the matter. ‘Acting’ in this sense would include the kind of subliminal behaviour that might pass under any judicial radar, yet still be harmful in a social sense. Its fine if you believe that having an idea (be it sexual, crimminal or whatever) will necessarily entail an alteration in behaviour (the current law assumes this). But that does wall off the interesting moral question: Can you attach moral value to an idea that is not acted upon?

Well, I would say yes, Rob, it can be. Ideas, thoughts, beliefs and so on do not occur in isolation but are influenced by and entwined in a network of all the other ideas, thoughts, beliefs etc held by that person. Also, they influence future thoughts ideas, beliefs etc of that person.

So, an unexamined desire to do sexual behaviour to a child, or to punch someone, or to humiliate or degrade an adult sexual partner (and so on) kind of *is* wrong, since a) it must be founded on certain other beliefs, assumptions and so forth about those people and where we stand in relation to them, and it is our assumptions, beliefs, desires and so forth that give rise to our behaviour; and b) if it’s unexamined, it’s more likely to be acted upon.

What a person chooses to imagine in the privacy of their own mind is of course their own business, but I believe there is a moral duty to also examine (”explore”, if you will), the sources and implications of one’s desires, thoughts, beliefs and so forth. So it’s not wrong to try and imagine what it would be like to rob and murder an old lady, say, but it *is* wrong if the imagining gives you some kind of pleasure or satisfaction, surely? So perhaps it is not the *idea* that is morally wrong, (though what the idea refers to clearly *is* wrong), but where one stands in relation to the idea.

I think in some ways it is a *good* thing that people are so protective of children and vociferously repulsed by paedophiles - the cultural consensus of disgust cannot go unnoticed by such people and might give them pause for thought, whereas the cultural climate as regards adult women seems to operate to maintain a fairly unhealthy status quo.

I also wonder where people think the damage that abuse (of children or adults) does actually comes from? I would argue that it is not solely the deed itself that does the harm, but crucially, what it communicates to the “victim” that is upsetting and damaging to them. On this view, the damage is done by the communication of the idea, even if the idea is expressed in “acceptable” ways (ie no actual violence or sex is done to the person). If this is so, then surely the *idea* itself *is* morally wrong, however it is expressed?

What I’m trying to discern is whether any idea can be morally wrong if it remains in the confines of one’s own head (and one’s own bedroom).

I am also questioning the “one thing leads to another” premise that apparently informs the current law.

Also very interesting, and at the heart of the debate over how paedophiles should be treated, is the origination of the sexual preference. Many put it down to their own experiences of abuse as a child, but some might claim to have been “born like that” which is an argument we accept for homosexuals. The answer to this question should inform how we treat people with that inclination: chop off their testicles, and then their head… or proscribe them free CGI kiddie-porn on the NHS… or something in between?

I also don’t think that “exploring” one’s sexuality (whatever that means) should mean acting out fantasies either in virtual or real reality. It should mean asking oneself honestly *where* one’s desires originate, and *why* one finds certain things arousing, and everyone has the freedom to do that, although very few people seem to have the inclination. And why should they, when they can download virtual sex perversions on the internet as easy as abc?

Have you heard of the Turing Test?

What’s not been questioned or explored in this case is where this places Japanese Hentai (animated porn) - for entirely genetic reasons many oriental women look considerably younger than their actual age, which is reflected in the prevalent imagery used in Hentai creating real ambiguity in this area.