Personal Woes and Advice 5

[Jormengand]

It is assumed that children are uninformed and manipulated into sex because they largely are. As you go on to say Trying to determine whether someone has given informed consent or been manipulated is a pain. How are courts expected to parse this out if the child has been manipulated? Why go through this trouble after the fact instead of simply making it illegal to do the act in the first place?

As you also go on to say, The vast majority of sexual interactions with people below about 14 are abusive. This is not a coincidence. Children are preyed upon because they are easier to manipulate and take advantage of. That's why the law is there. It isn't arbitrary to the degree that you are making it seem. Instead of trying to go about proving that a child was manipulated into given uninformed consent, you can just prove that they had sex and justice can be served.

I'm aware of this, which is why I'm not actually against abolition of the AoC unless someone can come up with something that does the same job without the drawbacks. Just because I don't like its flaws and don't think it's perfect doesn't mean I have a better idea or want it gone.

It's not silly. A line has to be drawn somewhere. That they are within a year of each other is fine.

Two, in fact. But the fact that some places have an AoC five or more years apart makes it seem a little as though no-one's quite sure where the line's meant to go.

There is a difference between adults and children. We trust that in general adults can fend for themselves and have the mental faculties to not be manipulated into unwilling sex.

This is why I said, specifically, "Vulnerable" and went into a tangent regarding the DBS, which is there primarily to protect children and vulnerable adults, yes.

I'm assuming by 'teleiophile' you mean younger people who are attracted to much older people, since it's the only definition of the word I found. And it's still not analogous. It's possible to have sex with an adult without it being rape. It's not possible to have sex with a child without it being rape. And as I said earlier, the protections afforded to children are so afforded because they are recognised as a vulnerable population. Their development-- planning, decision-making, judgement, higher cognitive reasoning-- is considered insufficient to make certain choices, including whether they want to be sexually involved with people older than them.

As above, so below, and also, I did already post a link which explains that teleiophilia is just an attraction to adults, no matter by whom.

It's not silly, because it recognises that while rape is already illegal, children are a particularly vulnerable population-- vulnerable to coercion, to being preyed upon, because they lack the mental development of people considered adults before the law.

True, but just because something is more likely to happen, doesn't mean that you need to have a second law making it illegal when it's already illegal.

It's the same reason children don't have, say, the right to vote, the reason they grow up with a legal guardian instead of marching off into the world on their own right out of the womb, and it's why the majority of countries in the world hold eighteen years old to be the age of majority.

Sure. Incidentally, I support a party who is currently trying to get the voting age reduced so that 16- to 17-year-olds can actually have the right to vote. But let's try not to steer this conversation in that political direction.

In fact, seeing how you're dedicated to reading implications into my words that aren't there, maybe we can not have this conversation at all? The fact is that I'm not planning, or going, to do anything untoward, and this conversation about whether a particular way of handling what would happen if I did is silly or unsilly is not only very politics-adjacent but also totally peripheral to the main point, which I hope stands resolved.

(Also it would be great if people could get actual advice in this thread rather than everyone critiquing my existence.)

[Aedilred]

The age of consent isn't "Ridiculous", it's only "Arbitrary and a little silly" but only silly because ostensibly the things that it protects against should be "already illegal". That is, I only think that the AoC is silly at all because if its basis (that all children are incapable of consenting) is true, then that should actually be a point against its implementation because existing rape laws cover that already.

I don't follow this. The two are surely complementary rather than in competition.

Rape laws = non-consensual sex is illegal.
Age of consent = anyone under a certain age is automatically incapable of consenting.

If you remove the AoC then every time a child is sexually assaulted you have to go through the process of proving that they did not consent. The burden of proof favours the defendant, which is why it's so difficult to secure a conviction in adult rape cases where the victims are likely to be more cogent and articulate witnesses. And without an AoC you can't fall back on the argument that a child is by definition incapable of consenting. People would just get away with it a lot more.

If we are talking about creating a whole new class of offence where minors are concerned which is distinct from rape and yet largely overlaps with it, then yes, I think there is an argument that that side of things should already be adequately covered by the laws on rape. But the principle of an age of consent makes consistent legal sense, even if the one-size-fits-all approach is a somewhat blunt instrument for addressing the issue morally and practically.

It is actually a bit more complicated than that because it isn't a strict cut-off and there is a gap between the AoC and the statutory rape minimum. But to go into that in detail would not only be distasteful but start breaking forum rules, I suspect.

[Jormengand]

anyone under a certain age is automatically incapable of consenting.

My theoretical gripe with the AoC is that if this is true, it shouldn't need a law to say it is because it is. Because the law requires consent to be informed, it's already illegal to have sex with someone who isn't able to give informed consent. If children can't give informed consent, there shouldn't need to be a law that children's consent doesn't "Count as" informed if it already isn't informed. Essentially, it's a law whose raison d'etre is also the precise reason it's redundant. Essentially, there's no need to make a law stating something's the case if it really is the case.

...of course, I acknowledge that in practice, the AoC isn't silly and is actually very helpful. But the principle behind it is somewhat self-abnegating.

[Comrade]

In fact, seeing how you're dedicated to reading implications into my words that aren't there, maybe we can not have this conversation at all?

Happily. It's readily apparent from your use of terms like 'MAP' and 'teleiophile' (do we really need a word for adults who are only attracted to other adults-- which is to say, a normal, mentally healthy person?) and efforts to draw parallels between pedophilia and ordinary attraction between adults that you seem to consider the problem to be society, and not your own urges. It's one thing to have those urges and understand they're wrong and shouldn't be normalised. When the notion is advanced that they are normal, innocuous aspects of human behaviour, comparable to attraction between adults, then I can't pretend that's okay (especially when people start comparing pedophilia to the LGBT community).

I'm not sure when 'pedophilia is not normal and pedophiliac urges are a bad thing' became a controversial thing to say, but I'm obviously not making much headway with that argument, so it might as well just end here.

[Jormengand]

I'm not sure when '[...]pedophiliac urges are a bad thing' became a controversial thing to say

About when 1984 ended, I imagine.

[Liquor Box]

The distinction I make is between more or less regular urges and urges that are directly harmful. The difference is what happens when the dam breaks, so to speak, and the person starts acting on their urges. There simply are urges that can never be fulfilled in a consensual way without either doing harm and/or committing a crime (compare the S/M scene with canibalism, for example).

I do not blame a person for their nature, nothing to be done there, really, but there's also nothing to accept about that nature when it is fundamentally harmful.

Keep in mind what started that whole discussion: Jorm complained about being thrown out of a gaming hobby store and seeing that as unfair.

I struggle to see how the urge itself is directly harmful. Sure if the dam breaks and the person acts on those urges it is harmful - but the urge itself is not harmful.

I also don't think Jorm should have been thrown out of a store unless Jorm was behaving badly or in a way that put off other customers.

[Liquor Box]

Serious question: which ones?

Most people on this forum are Unitedstatesian, and my understanding is that the age of consent varies between 16 and 18 by jurisdiction. I'm in the UK, meaning that the age of consent is 13 except that it's 16, because (weird legal stuff that I won't go into), which means that you still can't have sex with 13-, 14- or 15-year-olds but this ostensibly has nothing to do with consent. The age of consent in Bahrain is 21. In Iran, there are ways to marry, and therefore be legally allowed to have sex with, children under 10 (apparently, during 2010, 719 girls under 10 were married).

I'm not suggesting that you should perform criminal activity, only that it's ridiculous to draw a moral line which can shift upwards or downwards depending on location. Is having sex with my 18-year-old lover moral in the UK and immoral in South Korea (AoC 20)?

This is silly. Just because different societies draw the line at different ages doesn't displace the point that it is important to have some age of consent. I agree that the difference between being able to have sex at 15 or at 16 is arbitrary (some 15 year olds being more mature than some 16 year olds) but at a practical level you have to draw the line somewhere, and each country has chosen that somewhere.

I agree with Comrade that it is concerning that you seem to be advocating that age of consent laws shouldn't exist or should be lower, because it suggests that you would like them changed so that you can have sex with people who are younger than you are presently able to. For me that reinforces the importance of those laws so that they provide guidelines to people like yourself so you can resist your urges (hopefully), or so that people who are not non-offending can be imprisoned.

I don't draw the line at the same place as Comrade, Florian and Half Tangible that your urges are themselves morally wrong - I don't think you need to apologise for them. But I do think that you ought to be very clear that you understand it would be morally reprehensible for you to ever engage in sexual activity with any person who is below the age of consent in your country - to act on your attraction would indeed make you a monster. Do you acknowledge that?

Certainly, I want to see a world where MAPs can get mental health help if they need it

What is it that prevents pedophiles from getting help in your home country? Or do you mean that you want someone to pay for it so it is free?

[Aedilred]

My theoretical gripe with the AoC is that if this is true, it shouldn't need a law to say it is because it is. Because the law requires consent to be informed, it's already illegal to have sex with someone who isn't able to give informed consent. If children can't give informed consent, there shouldn't need to be a law that children's consent doesn't "Count as" informed if it already isn't informed. Essentially, it's a law whose raison d'etre is also the precise reason it's redundant. Essentially, there's no need to make a law stating something's the case if it really is the case.

But without a law saying that children are incapable of consent, then legally they're capable of consenting, and it needs to be proven every time that they're not.

Laws contain lengthy definitions for a reason, and it's to make sure that they're applicable to all the situations to which they're intended to be applicable. We might be able to agree that it is factually true that children cannot consent but it is not inarguably so and so as a point of law it cannot be taken as read unless explicitly stated so. Even if the majority of people would say it's self-evident, all you need is for the defendant to claim that it wasn't evident to them and that creates room for doubt. It's a social truth, not an inarguable fact of nature.

If you want something to be applied universally in law, enshrining it in statute is not just a handy shortcut but completely sound jurisprudence, indeed possibly the only responsible course of action to take.

[dehro]

what Aedilred said.
everybody knowing that a child can't give consent isn't enough in a legal procedure, if this principle isn't also spelled out in the form of law. That's the only way to make the principle have legal value. It's a self evident truth, but in a court of law, even self evident truths must either be affirmed by law or proven every time they are invoked.

[Bartmanhomer]

I still haven't heard what the moderators and Admin take in this situation. I understand if they don't want to respond and I already explained my two cents on this one.

[Bartmanhomer]

I can't imagine they haven't seen this, so I'm guessing "don't want to respond."

And I can't believe we still actually talking about this topic.

[Mith]

I've been trying to keep my head out of this, since this sort of things takes specific momentum from any input given. But I feel we've reached our lines here.

I can't imagine they haven't seen this, so I'm guessing "don't want to respond."

Rigjt then.

So, I lost my first ever real job. Woo. I still have a vulnerable person to try to save...

Hey, if nothing else I at least raised some money that might save some lives. So there's that. Also I got paid four days' wages, but most of that is going to go on things like getting home so never mind.

I have no idea how to continue, though. I have trouble even doing things I want to, let alone things I need to.

Depression sucks.

Any luck with any of this, Jor? I assume by now you are home at least.

[Jormengand]

Spoiler: Oh my GOD this thread

Show

I agree with Comrade that it is concerning that you seem to be advocating that age of consent laws shouldn't exist or should be lower, because it suggests that you would like them changed so that you can have sex with people who are younger than you are presently able to. For me that reinforces the importance of those laws so that they provide guidelines to people like yourself so you can resist your urges (hopefully), or so that people who are not non-offending can be imprisoned.

I am not, to be clear, advocating that they shouldn't exist. I've made that clear multiple times. I've also said that while I think they should be a little lower (I would draw the line around 13 or 14 if I had to draw one at all) I don't actually really care that they're a little higher. Finally, I've made it clear that while I think that the essential principle behind AoC laws is arguably self-abnegating, in practice there's a reason why they're there.

But I do think that you ought to be very clear that you understand it would be morally reprehensible for you to ever engage in sexual activity with any person who is below the age of consent in your country - to act on your attraction would indeed make you a monster. Do you acknowledge that?

I have no actual intention of having sex with someone below the age of consent in my country.

However, I cannot subscribe to a moral statement which would make it so that if I made love to someone aged 16 in Nevada, right next to the Nevada-Idaho border, then walked three paces north and did it again, it would be moral the first time and immoral the second time. Nor would I think of someone as a rapist if they had sex with me while I was in Bahrain. Yes, it would be illegal, because my poor little vulnerable 20-year-old self is just so easily manipulated into sex, but I can't say that it would be immoral in any real sense just because I happened to be in Bahrain at the time.

On the other end of the stick, I don't think that having sex with Nigerian 11-year-olds is okay just because they're above the age of consent.

To take a stupidly extreme but hopefully illustrative analogy, if there were a law against breathing, that wouldn't make breathing evil. If there weren't a law against murder, that wouldn't make murder okay. Whether something is legal, and whether something is moral, are independent.

The age of consent is a legal ruling, not a moral one. Since both legal and moral rulings should be obeyed (except where the legal ones get in the way of the moral ones, which isn't the case here) there's not much point in this tangent except for people trying to make me look bad because I'm not a cultural relativist. To me, having sex with 11-year-olds is wrong in Britain, it's wrong in Bahrain, and it's wrong in Nigeria. Having sex with 18-year-olds is fine in Britain, fine in Bahrain, and fine in Nigeria. Of course, sex with 11-year-olds is illegal in Britain and Bahrain and legal in Nigeria, and with 18-year-olds is legal in Britain and Nigeria but not in Bahrain, but if you're seriously suggesting that someone would be a monster for having sex with me in Bahrain, you need to take a few steps back.

Here's another thought - in the UK, the age of consent for same-sex sexual interactions was 21, while for different-sex interactions it was 16, between 1967 and 1994. Does that mean that a 21-year-old man would be fine if he had sex with a 16-year-old girl, but a monster for having sex with a 20-year-old man? Copying legal mandates onto your moral compass also copies a lot of societal prejudices onto your moral compass - and of course, not all of them are that obvious.

But, just once more to make it clear: I have no intention of breaking, or campaigning to change, the age of consent in my country. I just don't think that equating morality and legality is a good idea.

What is it that prevents pedophiles from getting help in your home country? Or do you mean that you want someone to pay for it so it is free?

Just mentioning it to the people who are supposed to help me has lost me a home and got the police called on me twice for crimes I never actually committed. This was even when it was tangential to the point actually being discussed (because honestly, no, I don't think my feelings are a problem) The fact is that mentioning it even to people sets panic alarms off, and because it's not a protected characteristic, as we've discussed...

Any luck with any of this, Jor? I assume by now you are home at least.

Right yes thread let's do the thing that the thread is for.

I am indeed home, and I'm back to trying to find work and also look after this abused girl. Apparently she's found somewhere to put her up in the time between her parents finding out that there's a criminal case happening against them and anything actually being done about it, but she'll need somewhere to go after that, especially if nothing actually comes out of it.

By sheer luck, while walking home a gentleman who does buy-to-let work offered to carry one of my bags for me, and the subject of why I was travelling so heavy inevitably turned into one about the lost job, which turned into an interesting conversation about how he buys up all these unliveable houses, and then renovates them into something that can be let out to people. Some of it has to be done by people who know what they're doing, of course, but much of it is just a case of having an extra pair of hands and someone who knows some of the theory behind painting. So of course we ended up exchanging phone numbers and discussing possibilities, and we had a chat about it which essentially reached the point of "When the bit that has to be done professionally is done, I'll get in contact and we'll see about getting you up there to help me with it." He also offered £10/hour which is really nice (One and a third times the minimum wage. £10 is almost exactly $13, or €11.20). Still looking for other stuff, but it could be a decent opportunity.

Also, if I'm getting decent money, I can actually afford to rent a place, and then the girl can come down here and I can look after her. Not sure I want to spend extra money for a two-bedroom flat rather than one-bedroom, though, so I just hope we don't get sick of each other...

[Mith]

I am indeed home, and I'm back to trying to find work and also look after this abused girl. Apparently she's found somewhere to put her up in the time between her parents finding out that there's a criminal case happening against them and anything actually being done about it, but she'll need somewhere to go after that, especially if nothing actually comes out of it.

By sheer luck, while walking home a gentleman who does buy-to-let work offered to carry one of my bags for me, and the subject of why I was travelling so heavy inevitably turned into one about the lost job, which turned into an interesting conversation about how he buys up all these unliveable houses, and then renovates them into something that can be let out to people. Some of it has to be done by people who know what they're doing, of course, but much of it is just a case of having an extra pair of hands and someone who knows some of the theory behind painting. So of course we ended up exchanging phone numbers and discussing possibilities, and we had a chat about it which essentially reached the point of "When the bit that has to be done professionally is done, I'll get in contact and we'll see about getting you up there to help me with it." He also offered £10/hour which is really nice (One and a third times the minimum wage. £10 is almost exactly $13, or €11.20). Still looking for other stuff, but it could be a decent opportunity.

Also, if I'm getting decent money, I can actually afford to rent a place, and then the girl can come down here and I can look after her. Not sure I want to spend extra money for a two-bedroom flat rather than one-bedroom, though, so I just hope we don't get sick of each other...

A good start, then.

[Jormengand]

A good start, then.

Yeah, and the fact of having someone to fight for other than myself helps with motivation, too.

[Mith]

Yeah, and the fact of having someone to fight for other than myself helps with motivation, too.

That is also true. I know I often find it easier to do things for others than I wouldn't do for myself. It's a wierd bit of psychology.

[WarKitty]

That is also true. I know I often find it easier to do things for others than I wouldn't do for myself. It's a wierd bit of psychology.

I half-joke that this is an advantage of having a pet.

I get hauled out of bed because the cat is hungry and wants to be fed. Now that I'm up, I suppose I shall have to fix myself breakfast too. Oh and we can't have her playing with the trash, so it has to all be rounded up. And while I'm washing out her bowl I might as well do some of my own dishes too...

[sktarq]

That is also true. I know I often find it easier to do things for others than I wouldn't do for myself. It's a wierd bit of psychology.

Yep this.....found a woman who has same issue, just I am that "other" for her....I would recommend such reciprocal relationships.

[Jormengand]

I half-joke that this is an advantage of having a pet.

Oh, absolutely. She's far more concerned with her pet's survival and well-being than her own, so the same principle clearly affects her.

[Bohandas]

Are you saying it is okay to want to engage in pedophilia so long as you don't actually do it?

Yes. Yes it is.

There are plenty of people who want to do even worse things (like torture and murder people) and nobody cares because they don't act on it.

I'm still most people's idea of a monster. Huzzah.

Don't let it get to you, people are stupid. Like really really really disturbingly stupid and panicky and prone to overreaction and honestly most of the world should probably be put on tranquilizers

[Bohandas]

Having a particularly disturbing mental illness is not the same thing as acting on that illness.

You must not know much about metal illness. There are way more disturbing mental illnesses out there, particularly a lot of the personality disorders.

EDIT:
And folie a plusieurs (induced delusional disorder/"mass hysteria"); I'm convinced that undiagnosed cases of this are responsible for most of the bad thingsthat happen in the world

Oh yes they do. You're honestly going to tell me if somebody told you they routinely have serious urges to kill or rape people that they have to restrain you'd say 'no biggie'? Be real. There's a difference between 'I've thought about doing it' and 'I have to suppress the consistent urge to do it'.

Ok,

firstly I think you're putting words into Jorm's mouth, and

secondly I'm on a couple of forums with less stringent rules about political discussions than this one, and which furthermore aren't dominated by one political party or other, and there's a lot of back and forth there about who deserves to be executed for treason and who people hope gets assassinated and so forth and a lot of the people seem to mean it and I usually don't care

[Bohandas]

I couldn't agree more that laws criminalising (and imposing serious penalties for) sexual activities with children are appropriate. Committing a sexual with a child is properly illegal in most countries. Likewise, it is proper that there be moral condemnation of performing sexual acts with children and of the people who perform them.

With the important exception that if they're both underage and around the same age it's ok (Like a student and their age-appropriate significant other as opposed to a student and their teacher; the former lacks the large potential for coercion and abuse of power that is present in the latter)

[Mith]

God dammit.

I tried at least.

[Comrade]

I deleted my post. Shouldn't have contributed to the thread getting dragged back to a topic that's going nowhere good.

[Pippa the Pixie]

secondly I'm on a couple of forums with less stringent rules about political discussions than this one, and which furthermore aren't dominated by one political party or other, and there's a lot of back and forth there about who deserves to be executed for treason and who people hope gets assassinated and so forth and a lot of the people seem to mean it and I usually don't care

What forums would you recommend for such things? I have a hard time finding active ones...

[Bohandas]

What forums would you recommend for such things? I have a hard time finding active ones...

There's a couple but they all have issues

*4chan has a rightward bias and is poorly laid out
*Bay12 has a leftward bias and wildly inconsistent enforcement of their rule about topics being closed or people being banned if the conversation in a thread becomes contentious; sometimes a thread will be closed as contentious while everyone is being civil, and other times it will be allowed to stay open despite insults and arguments
*The politics subforum on SoFurry, despite low bias, a good layout, and consistent enforcement, only has about 10 or 15 people who post there

[Stuebi]

Jorm, hope you're doing okay.

Far as advice goes, I know this goes into "Captain Hindsight!" but coming out with this was probably a terrible idea. This is something that 95% of people will have a terrible reaction to and make your life as bad as they can possibly manage. You'll probably have self-righteous knuckleheads on your tail for quite a while. I know this is not exactly uplifting, but I think being honest here is superior to making light of the situation.

I know this might not be feasible for you, but it's worth planning for the future if you can manage. Moving away, ideally very far and as anonymously as possible. Depending on if it's a viable option for you, a name change might be required as well. Take it from somebody who's seen this show live: It never ends. It never, ever, ever ends. This is a bandwagon that people will gladly jump on until they've run you over as hard as they possibly can. And even more infuriatingly, there is no amount of talking that will get people to understand or sympathize, it's just way easier to demonize.

I hope you can get your stuff worked out, and get a new job as soon as possible. Thumbs pressed.

For context, this is basically what happened to a person I know in a similiar situation:

Spoiler: Story

Show

Let's call the guy John. John sought help for being attracted to children, he was 22 at the time. He got into therapy, because he was of the opinion that he was a threat to minors at the time. He did this for about a year, and both him and his therapist eventually agreed that he was able to control his urges. He moved on, got into a relationship with a woman about his age and all was good. He still had sessions from time to time, just to keep a lid on the whole deal.

Then he eventually admitted to this, among his friends, and at work. And then the avalanche hit him. He was fired, most of his friends began antagonizing him. His gf at the time left. The only people still supporting him were his parents and some of his closer friends, who had known for quite a while already. Keep in mind this was at a point where for all intents and purposes, John thought he had beaten his urges and was completely fine again. But this is one of those things where people don't care. It's a bandwagon too easy to jump onto. As far as people were concerned, John was a pedophile, and should be treated as such. He tried explaining himself, integrating again. It wouldnt work. It got to the point where people that stood by him got flak as well. John eventually moved, pretty far. Had his name legally changed, and cut all ties with most of the people he knew from back then. He doesnt talk to anybody about this, he has outright stated he will never again tell anybody about this. And he advises anyone in a similiar situation to do the same.

Get help, if you need to. Professional help, I mean. If you feel like you don't and can control whatever urge you have, just go about your day, and dont tell anybody ever unless you are 200% certain that they either support you, or at least keep quiet about the thing. This goes for partners, even family depending on the relationship. People don't understand, and they don't want to understand.

Took John about half a year to get all this sorted, and he his a happy man today. And I really do wish the same for you.

[Bohandas]

Indeed. Never underestimate society's capacity to engage in pointless witchhunts and react to exaggerated bogeymen

EDIT:
There was an old sci-fi conspiracy novel in the 1970's that the whole situation sort of reminds me of. The novel was called Illuminatus, and part of the premise was that the entire population of Earth had been conditioned so that when they saw certain words their higher cognitive functions would shut off and they would fall into a state of unreasoning anxiety. That's basically what's happening here (except minus the global conspiracy of course.) ([acrimonious rant about society at large redacted])

[Florian]

Broadly speaking, that has mostly to do with the interaction between liberal western societies and our concept of the rule of law in times of raising pressure and insecurity.

I´m not going into details, but the whole "hidden dangers" discussion in Germany is very enlightening when it comes to the subject matter at hand. It contrasts the granted civil rights of a potential dangerous individual with the equally granted rights for personal security, especially in the light that the state has been granted judicial power and the right the use violence in the defense of said security.

Everyone with a liberal mindset knows that trading freedom for security can never be the answer to this question and everyone even remotely active in the political field should know how impossible it is to provide more than just basic security and that only up to a certain point.

Again, not going into details, but we experienced some dramatic changes in the last three years and sadly, the "doom and gloom"-faction was actually proven right in their predictions, which led to a rapid rise in further base tension in the population.

So, yeah, the only correct answer is still "get a grip and live with it", but you can't sell that to anyone anymore. Hence, yes, if for some reason you find yourself on the "hidden dangers" list, it´s basically better to shut up about it and run under the radar, even if you really are a non-offender.

Edit: No wonder that "police procedural" tv shows are so common, as they reinforce the general feeling of security. If I had my way, I´d actually ban the whole "Law & Order" series and all of their spin-offs for silently advocating the illiberal stance that the police can do nearly anything.

[Jormengand]

Far as advice goes, I know this goes into "Captain Hindsight!" but coming out with this was probably a terrible idea. This is something that 95% of people will have a terrible reaction to and make your life as bad as they can possibly manage. You'll probably have self-righteous knuckleheads on your tail for quite a while. I know this is not exactly uplifting, but I think being honest here is superior to making light of the situation.

I know this might not be feasible for you, but it's worth planning for the future if you can manage. Moving away, ideally very far and as anonymously as possible. Depending on if it's a viable option for you, a name change might be required as well. Take it from somebody who's seen this show live: It never ends. It never, ever, ever ends. This is a bandwagon that people will gladly jump on until they've run you over as hard as they possibly can. And even more infuriatingly, there is no amount of talking that will get people to understand or sympathize, it's just way easier to demonize.

You have to face the music if you want to change its tune. I'd rather take the flak for being myself than see the world never change. I know that there are some people whom I can convince - I've done it - and the more people there are who are ready to say that they believe that condemning people for thought-crime is absurd, the easier it is for other people like me. Being one of the good guys means taking the hit for other people sometimes.

Also, I'm just not a creature of the shadows. I'd rather live dangerously than in hiding. The professionally offended will always take exception to something.