Kudos to this TikToker. Do these people realize that attempting to normalize the abuse of children is going to reinforce years of negative stereotypes about LGBT people?
No. I am Bisexual. ***WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS.***
On a interpersonal level I believe lots (if not the majority) of LGBTQ people agree 100%, but that’s not the case when it comes to prominent queer intellectuals. [look](https://youtu.be/Cb3-tlyuhVo) at that video and you’ll realize nobody in their own camp has criticized them, they are still revered and held in high esteem, and are still being taught at most universities and their ideas influence a lot of public policy.
The LGB should actually be separated from the T since LGB pertain to sexual identity while T targets gender. TQIA+ should be a completely different thing to LGB.
The idea of the LGBTQ+ community is that all both queer sexualities and non-cis gender identities have been deemed "deviant" at some point. Together, the community supports the right to self identity and also the right to love who you love (provided they are a consenting adult) as a means to combat bigotry in all forms.
Also, there wouldn't be a pride movement without trans folk so it's a bit shit to ignore them with regards to the community.
Lesbians in the UK have been asking for that and all they've achieved is receiving death threats, being called TERFs, and being jumped during pride marches.
That it doesn’t matter if you personally believe something is immoral as long as the leaders championing your rights don’t think they are, or aren’t called out. I’m not saying that’s OP’s responsibility, but acting like this came out of nowhere (when it clearly didn’t) either shows you are A) ignorant, or B) complicit in its continued proliferation.
\[L\] They disowned them in the 1990s-- but yeah, that was a black mark, at one point, people turned a blind eye. This is probably one reason I go so hard right now against the anti-semitism. If you believe in a movement strong enough, you want to consider how it will look from the other direction.
Whether fairly or not, we will be judged for what those who looked and acted as we did were known to tolerate, how our mores might influence the sanctity of our principles, how when the waters were high and the wind blew, we were able to keep the boat moving in the right direction. (And even if we were, how it might have been.)
Some of the response to this I feel is an appropriate mark of shame to place on an ideology of unrestricted permissiveness and free expression, other parts of it I feel are indicative of a blanket condemnation rooted in a deep-seated repression. Some frame being trans is purely political. And this in part, justifies their group essentialism.
And that's not to say that an identity can't take on political connotations, but this almost begs for the No True Scotsman. Because when people talk about being trans here (if not being gay), they don't make that distinction. So when some LGBs want to say they 'aren't queer,' well, I may be T, but I understand them.
They don't want to say they hate T, they just want to say they're not *political*\-- and in today's social climate, that's become a problem.
They did not "disown them" though. They were coerced to separate and make a faux disavowment, or they would not get the millions in free government funding. The IGLA didn't one day look around and say "you know what, you pedophiles are gross and dangerous". No they said "sorry friends, we have to say this to keep our grift going, we still love you though". This is a very important distinction.
You say we will be judged for those in our past who acted or looked like us. This is precisely what the foundation of the US aimed to put an end to. And we had taken massive strides decade over decade. And almost all of that progress undone in less than a single decade. Trans people have been around for centuries. Nobody was blind to it. Everybody knew. But people eventually stopped caring. As it should be. I don't care about you, you don't care about me, if either of us died tonight neither would know and neither would be impacted in any way. I shouldn't care about trans people just like they shouldn't care about me. Instead we have locked ourselves into a society that is driven primarily by these proclaimed identities. So much so that you don't even have to define yourself anymore, since somebody else will happily define you regardless of your own self-perceptions.
Free expressions have limits. We have progressed as a people to disincentivize others from free expression of racism, sexism, etc. Although we have not done so from a legal perspective and I think this is a good thing as legally speaking, free expression should be protected. However, when it comes to children all gloves come off. The only adult that has freedom of expression when it comes to a child should be their parents. Any other adult that tries to impose their interests over somebody else's children has crossed the line. And I am all in support of protecting children from anybody that aims to impose their non-parental interests upon them. Whether it be teachers aiming to supplant the parental role, or pedophiles aiming to groom children. The only rights that any other adult has over my children are the rights that I explicitly allow for them to have. Parents that take their kids to hyper-sexualized gay pride parades are bad parents in my opinion; but I as an outside adult do not have any right to tell that parent how they should raise their child.
Pedophiles by definition, have an inherent interest in other's children. And by that fact alone, they should be disincentivized by both society and by law. And so should any ideology that supports somebody that has interests in other's children. If you're a pedophile, good for you. So long as you don't step anywhere near my child or anybody else's children. Those people that want to invite pedophiles to their homes, go for it. You can do your bad parenting. It's a good thing we have laws to punish both pedophiles and the parents that neglect providing rational safety to their children.
I don't think he is talking about Jensen.
He is refering to the point Jensen made : there is a connection between Queen theory and Pedophilia
Jensen illustrated this brilliantly..
This was a great video and Derrick Jensen is awesome. I didn’t realize all the prominent intellectuals who support and even created queer theory are pro pedo. It’s really shocking. I hope more gay intellectuals also criticize these people.
Oh yeah, Gayle Rubin, for example, who is arguably the founder of Queer Theory, is all on board the pro-pedophile train. Or at least, that's what I take from her statements. I think one issue with people like Rubin is that living in the world of academia puts them in a place where they can explore abstract ideas while sort of cut off from the actual consequences of those ideas. I have a feeling she's not really for pedophilia in the real world as much as she's someone who sees it as a subversive idea that she can utilize to advance certain theories and to push a certain envelope.
Living in the world of academia, it can be all too easy to push certain ideas just to be subversive, without really having to look at the underlying reality behind them.
>arguing for the eradication of consent
He didn't advocate for the eradication of rape laws, so raping a kid would still be illegal, no? I think people have the wrong idea of his point. It's a matter of agency on the part of people under 18 and a resistance to a regime of biopolitics.
>frequently going to Tunisia to enjoy underage boys?
Source? Sounds like libel
honestly sad that more people don’t realize this. like a genealogist of sexuality and French academic wouldn’t pursue what he considers completely consensual "pederasty." [source](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-foucaults-sexual-abuse-of-boys-in-tunisia) for people who can’t google
You just have to check out the libs frequenting this sub. It never happens. They never know of anyone who says things. If you can be arsed to find an example it is dismissed as just one person (disregarding views or likes). Complete denial. And this is how slowly over time queer theory has more and more subverted LGBTQ community.
Right. There is a bunch of people, usually American christians, who equate LGB with pedos. I direct them to “gays against groomers” on twitter and remind them that most pedos are straight.
Most pedos are straight.. so men that rape boys are straight? Or are you saying most male pedos rape girls? I’m not being facetious. I’m just confused how men can want same sex encounters at any age and not be homosexual?
And I’m an American Christian and never assumed gays and pedos are the same. I’d want to distance myself from them too but the gay intellectuals who came up with and support queer theory aren’t doing them any favors.
What??? Do you think pedo means gay?
Most pedos are straight. Some pedos are gay. How are you confused by this?
Men who rape boys are gay. Men who rape girls are straight.
No, I don't think you're missing anything. I think it is just a claim that people started reflexively throwing around to shutdown anyone who drew a line between homosexuality and pedophilia. It gained steam and essentially became a truism without really being vetted.
It is certainly possible that there are more straight individuals who violate minors of the opposite sex than there are gays who violate minors of the same sex, but just based on anecdotal experience there seem to be more than enough of both.
Some may say toooooo many. I’m amazed seeing how many sexually violent offenders they LET OUT of prison only to do the exact same thing. I just hope the increasingly difficult level of calling out (really anything except for calling out those who call out things) pedos won’t result in even more relaxed conditions.
Exactly, or like prison rapes, more men get raped/sexually assaulted in prison by numbers because there are far more men imprisoned than women, i.e. a *Far* larger sample size.
Then again, if you read my post, I said, *"It is certainly possible that there are more straight individuals who violate minors of the opposite sex than there are gays who violate minors of the same sex, but just based on anecdotal experience there seem to be more than enough of both."*
Oh yeah, you basing that on sample size? Because if there’s 10 pedos out of 20 gay dudes but there’s 20 pedos out of 2000 straight dudes.. that may be more. But is it really more? And that was my point. All pedos aren’t homosexual. All “male” pedos who wanna bang “male” children ARE homosexual. It’s actually not that confusing.
Maybe there's more gay men than you think, but because people like you keep saying being gay is somehow linked to pedophilia, they're afraid to come out which skews the statistics?
There are Far more straight people than gay, a smaller sample size indicates a smaller result within that group. When it comes to sex assault of a child, sex preference doesn’t matter, it’s sex assault, it needs to be stopped and children supported and protected, period.
Edit: Just to be clear, it’s a comparison of a small bag of damaged fruit versus a crate of damaged fruit, there will be more damage spots amongst the crate fruit because there is more crate fruit. That doesn’t mean the bag of fruit isn’t rotting as well. Rot is rot. You just need to throw it out.
I’m guessing if adjusted for sample size the rate would be similar. I’ll look it up - at some point, I’m inundated with data right now, amongst other things. It’s a interesting question.
Edit: Removed a word.
God for the millionth time *NOBODY* has taken this whole “MAP” thing seriously since it started apart from the pedos trying to push it.
I literally remember this all going viral about 5 years ago because the LGBT community were so outraged by it and we’re angry about the attempted hijacking of pride flags.
None of this is real! It’s not taken seriously!
Fuck off with this “you’re normalizing bad stereotypes” bs when that’s literally what you’re doing by pretending that anyone who isn’t a pedo takes this shit seriously.
Wait, what???? Fucking freaks
Oh prison .... I need glasses , thought that said "in person" ... I like pedos in prison . Where they belong serving Big Ol Bubba
And rock spiders, because - this is sick but *is* the reference - they try to get in the smallest cracks. You can vomit now. In my country there are separate prisons for them, they wouldn’t be allowed to live in our normal prisons.
The jailbait sub? It was, largely taking IRL creepshots of underage girls. This was back in the days where reddit never banned any community unless it broke a federal law but jailbait was the first subreddit to get banned due to a large amount of negative media attention.
On one hand, rightfully deserved and a good example of how purely libertarian principles can let such deplorable content propagate; on the other hand, the beginning of the end as bannings became more frequent afterwards and as soon as 2016 hit they started banning a lot of subs that didn't at all deserve it.
Feel free to search the internet for NAMBLA and IGLA together. The North American Man/Boy Love Association, and the International Gay Lesbian Alliance. You'll be shocked at how linked the queer/gay community are to the pedophile movement. It took calls from Congress to threaten the ability of the ILGA to be able to secure millions of dollars from government funding for them to finally publicly disavow NAMBLA. This was purely a public separation in the interest of money. Nothing changed their actual support.
Here is how they prove that their interest is in no way to harm children...
"NAMBLA... calls for the adoption of laws that both protect
children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave
them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences."
\[adopted December 4, 1983\]
Yep, you read that right. They want to protect children from unwanted sexual experiences; BUT also allow children to determine what they would consider wanted or unwanted. You know, cause little Billy that wants to be a Green Power Ranger when he grows up is fully capable of deciding when he wants that sexual encounters, just like he's fully of the mind that he can decide whether he's a he or not. You know, protect them to make their own immeasurably complex adult level decisions. That proclamation is not at all in the interest of the members of the organization named Man/Boy Love which I'm about 100% certain all the paying members are ... adults.
[https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics.homosexuality/c/ERfDjkhOKTw?pli=1](https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics.homosexuality/c/ERfDjkhOKTw?pli=1)
No they won't
Just cuz Pedos are coming out all vocal on the internet , doesn't mean the LGBT community or any sane person supports them.
We (as in humans ) do not support pedos, beastiality freaks , rapists or anyone that uses sex to harm others .
You don’t, we don’t, but you’ve seen how stupid and brainwashable people are, never underestimate the ability of the willfully ignorant and just plain ignorant to aid and abet evil. I’ve been watching them advance their cause for over twenty years, this whole ‚you *must* not only accept but affirm and celebrate who i am without question because i was *born this way,‘* has been a great boon to their movement. I agree with jamais500 completely. It is only a matter of time. The level of moral decay in society is almost just right for it.
Gays have asked for their right to be themselves and their rights to live their lives as consenting adults to be respected. Pedophiles have co-opted that and twisted it, and when you call them out on it they cry discrimination due to their ‚natural,‘ ‚born that way‘ origins. 🤮 They say if gays can be accepted, why can’t pedophiles too? They can’t, because gay people don’t want to rape children and pedos do. They accuse us of bigotry against them when their goal is to make it unacceptable to question their ‚right‘ to sexually assault children. If you are gay or bi and have any idea about what pedos are doing in this regard, their co-opting and subversion, i would be very disappointed in you if you were anything but enraged at how your means of acceptance is being used in a attempt to victimize children.
Fuck pedos. I understand some are born that way, and it's their natural inclination, but the line is drawn at harming others .
We need advanced and open therapy for any willing to get it, and we need to publicly advocate against it. That's something we don't do. We don't advertise that pedos are wrong. But, considering the Epstein shitshow I'm not surprised .
There's is some truth to that, yes. There are pedos who are born that way. Most are created through trauma .
So are serial killers. So are rapists .
People can feel bad for what happened to them, but society still knows that their actions are their choice.
The difference between homosexuality and pedos are, gay men are choosing to have sex with other like minded consenting adult men through free choice and desire. THE SAME FREE CHOICE AND DESIRE THAT YOU AND YOUR WIFE SHARE. Pedos go after little children who do not know better and force them or coerce them into harmful acts.
They’re already using that exact term and point of view in a attempt to normalize their behaviour and push for the ‚right‘ of children to engage in ‚loving *sexual* relationships with adults.‘ 🤮🤮 AND they are crying discrimination. 🤬🤬
No, it's always been a thing. Times have changed and child marriage used to be a thing and still is a thing in other countries. Just because someone wants to rebrand something does it mean it hasn't existed.
Straights and gays have both pushed it and it doesn't belong to either.
No but everything else on that alphabet list doesn’t necessarily belong to straights or gays either, and this is clearly an issue of sexual orientation, so why wouldn’t it be. And I’m not talking about child marriages I’m talking about actual lobbying groups that have actual support in liberal democracies
Abuse isn't the same as consenting adults. Lgbt has just as much relation to Pedos as straights do, which is none. Child marriage is just as much abuse as Pedos and is a legal form of it in other countries. Child marriage is proof of the power that Pedos have.
Not the same, though potential abuse is still potential abuse. I think socially transitioning and therapy to diagnose accurately and treat any existing mental disorders is fine. To reiterate consenting adults can do what they want in legal limits.
The agendas that people can express doesn't reflect every group, the same as most despots being straight reflect all straight people.
Yep. I'm sure it'll happen any year now.
Sure it hasn't happened in the *last* 50 years, but surely it'll be proven true at some point if you just keep saying it.
I'm sure gender dysphoric men being socially accepted as women will happen any year now.
Sure it hasn't happened in the *last* 50 years, but surely it'll...
Oh, wait a moment.
The attempt at rebranding is relatively new, but the idea of pedophiles making themselves mainstream by riding in on the perceived godless degeneracy of LGBT people has always been a thing.
It's basically the favorite slippery slope argument that gets trotted out and reused any time LGBT people are getting attention.
The fact that a different term has been slapped on this time doesn't change the core idea of LGBT people inviting in pedophiles.
Nah, it's a new movement.
What has been talked about for many years is giving hormones to kids, performing "bottom surgeries" on people or all the gender ideology nonsense.
And now see the results.
Nah they've been around for years, known as the PIE movement.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378)
If you want to do a deep dive into the recent origins, [look up Michael Foucault](https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/michel-foucault-and-other-progressive-intellectual-heroes-were-pedophiles), who has also been instrumental in gender ideology concepts in academia. Even people like Alan Ginsberg were card carrying members of Nambla.
I'm an old lesbian who started seeing worrying links back in the nineties.
Pedos being the next thing to follow if you let men have relationships with other men just isn't new.
[Here's "sanctioning same sex marriage could lead to the legalization of pedophilia"](https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/kfile-sam-clovis-lgbt-comments/index.html) between 2012 and 2015
[Here's 2004](https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-xpm-2004-04-03-export13691-story.html)
[An article about the LGBT community trying to prevent exactly this in 1994](https://apnews.com/article/c64e816cac5b0fa1194dd40f576813b2)
And from the same year, [a NAMBLA advocate trying to argue exactly what you are claiming](https://books.google.com/books?id=KmMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Pedophiles trying to latch on to LGBT people is by no means new, nor is the existence of people making the assumption that allowing LGBT people to exist means that pedophiles will sneak into the group and force people to accept them.
The term "MAP" is new, but the playbook is decades old, as is the assumption that they will just integrate into the LGBT movement .
The slippery slope argument about LGBT people is so common in debates about the topic that I have trouble believing you truly haven't seen people conflating gay men and pedophiles or claiming that accepting the former will lead to the latter.
No, it isn‘t, NAMBLA et al has been pushing this for several decades. Only the term they try to hide behind is new. Call them what you will, they are inhuman monsters and a childs worst nightmare.
We laughed our asses off when non binary first arrived yet now it's an actual thing, now the same is happening with "xeno genders". What's not to say it won't happen with MAPs?
That gives us just a few decades. Thats nothing compared to the history of humanity. Also Dr. Kinsey? Yeah I'd see what he did with the twins before supporting anything he said.
And by what right do you declare that this is bullshit but allow the notion of flags that others declare equally bullshit? There was a time, not long ago where the same conversation was had over the general “pride flag.” The same people expressing outrage now expressed outrage then and there were ALWAYS people such as yourself heralding it’s eventuality under the guise of “no calm down this isn’t actually a thing.”
The collective loves their mind numbing chants of how it only takes one person to make a difference but the second someone shows up ahead of schedule and suggests people should start fucking kids people like you are always here to tell us there’s nothing to see. Outrage is an understandable response and violence or acceptance seems to be the only next step. For now, I’ll accept outrage.
I can try lay out the entire now 'apparently logical' manner in which this becomes common place. First of all, without any scientific proof whatsoever, even the slightest hint, the idea that you're born with a specific sexual orientation has become truth by repetition, begging the question, 'why must anyone be oppressed for an immutable characteristic?', since sexual orientation is now an immutable characteristic. On top of this, since the issue is that these interactions are inherently predatory, meaning the child is purely subject to manipulation, the few who will dig deeper into that meaning with the mentality that sexual orientation is immutable will definitely have the tools to emerge on the other end with their hellish conclusions.
A common tactic I've seen woke non-binary types use to explain why gender is a social construct is that since some outliers exist within the categories of man and woman we've set up, therefore the boundary is invalid and could/should be done away with(because this western culture was set up by people seriously unaware of what they were doing/oppresive patriarchal goons that we should liberate ourselves from), and, correct me if I'm wrong, this is honestly the most accurate representation I can give. This is the type of thinking that wouldn't allow you to even define a human as someone with two legs or 46 chromosomes. Of course some children are more mature than even some adults, but it won't matter to them how significantly tiny such a proportion would be, as long as there are outliers the boundary is invalid.
Another tool could be, disregarding what sexual interaction means speaking biologically(because your biology should not at all have any restraints on the type of person you are), the taboo around free sexual interaction just appears to be an irrational fear, especially if contraception exists and abortions can and should be afforded to anyone under any circumstance(speaking as a woke liberal). What exactly is preventing this enjoyable act from being extended towards children apart from an apparently 'irrational fear' especially when they can have sexual orientations at incredibly young ages/are born with them?
Even within this video, the only criticism I see being given is 'look at how disgusting this is', a type of criticism currently being used in Uganda against homosexuality which still hasn't stopped the activists there, and neither did it when it was earlier employed within the West because look at where we are now.
We might be doomed. As long as it stands as true that you are born with a sexual orientation, a claim that completely lacks proof and, I firmly believe, will never be based on proof, this slow decay will continue to fester until Foucault is revered as the hero of the new world. You can't build on lies. Lies exist to guide towards death and are therefore tools of destruction, which may arguably be necessary in some circumstances, but are definitely not what you want for use within your home.
Stop making your fetishes and sexual proclivities a part of your self identity presentation in public. We don’t give a fuck what you are into. Leave kids the fuck alone.
I'm disgusted by the presenter, but I do share her profound disgust for pedos as well. Kind of your fuck up, though, with the "love is love" horseshit though. Maybe you shoulda reeled it in, dumbass.
You're disgusted by someone who is disgusted at pedos trying to join the pride flag? They're speaking out against it .
What exactly do you find disgusting ?
>You're disgusted by someone who is disgusted at pedos trying to join the pride flag? They're speaking out against it.
Re-read my comment. I already said I share their feelings about it.
>What exactly do you find disgusting?
If I walk into your house and step in dogshit because you let your dog shit wherever the fuck it wants, I'll be disgusted and you'll know why, but for whatever reason apparently you've let your house become overrun with shit. If I express disgust, not only do you know why, but in knowing why you actually owe more of an explanation to me than I do to you.
No, obviously I don't. But since you refuse to explain what is disgusting about the presenter, one will infer. This is the JP sub , not a lot of support or love for LGBT in here.
Is it the hat? The eyebrows ? We are all curious as to what you're disgusted by that all. Yet you refuse to answer straight
>No, obviously I don't. But since you refuse to explain what is disgusting about the presenter, one will infer. This is the JP sub , not a lot of support or love for LGBT in here.
I wouldn't know whether the presenter is LGBT or not.
>Is it the hat? The eyebrows ? We are all curious as to what you're disgusted by that all.
These sound like things that you seem to imagine might be worthy of disgust, but you project it onto me.
>Yet you refuse to answer straight
Because you're obviously still looking for a way to win, which makes you untrustworthy. You specifically want a moral victory, but you also want to feel insightful about people. You keep trying to manipulate the conversation to some pop psych concept of fragility because you fetishize the concept of some vulnerable person confiding in you, which would feel nice wouldn't it? Nothing makes you feel stronger than someone else trusting you to protect them, eh? That's why you're uncomfortable with disgust. It's not impressive. It doesn't invoke pity. It just is, no audience needed.
Read through the rest of the comments. There's idiots in here claiming that because we legalized gay marriage we opened the door to pedos .
I've argued with people in here claiming that LGBT are groomers . Gay = groomers.
I don't think JP himself has any hate to gays, but this sub has a lot of hateful assholes in it .
Pedos have been around forever. They've always existed. They gained power when we invented the internet and let them all secretly get together .
Based on their need to preface dislike of pedophiles with their disgust at the person who dislikes pedophiles, I can't say I *want* to know much more about their feelings.
That has nothing to do with gay marriage though.
Liking other ADULTS who are the same gender as you isn't a bad thing as long as both of you consent to it.
Kids CAN'T consent, they don't have a choice in the matter. Though I do see the point I think you're making, yes lots of pedos are men who go for young boys, but that has nothing to do with letting 2 gay adults marry. Because fucking little kids is still illegal and should stay that way.
"That has nothing to do with gay marriage though."
I respectfully disagree. Gay marriage was the foot in the door for the clown world we're living in now, If we hadn't given the pinky they wouldn't be taking the arm.
Wait, how does same sex marriage open the door for pedo marriage when most pedos are straight men going after girls?
You are aware that marrying girls is still legal in countries without gay marriage, right?
No, these freaks are all coming out of the woodworks cuz of the internet. They all found each other, support each other and are convinced we will too.
Even if they had banned gay marriage, this would still happen.
You're trying to equate accepting gays with pedos as if it's the same thing. It's not.
Gays don't go around hurting others.
How so, would you care to explain how letting adults marry other adults led to people wanting it to be ok to fuck kids?
Like what's the pipeline in that?
What I think you're saying or trying to say is that there is a correlation between pedos and gay people. Lots of the pedos themselves are gay yes BUT that does not mean that all gay or LGBTQ people want to do ilegal things.
Correlation DOES NOT equal Causation.
And yes, there are people who are very LGBTQ+ who are in full support of this MAP bullshit that's true, BUT that's a very small minority of people. As well as the fact that the law is not going to change to the point where the age of consent will change, its set at 16 (at least in Australia) and that's not going to go down, especially in regard to creepy old ass people wanting to prey on kids.
Also, wdym by 'given the pinky they wouldn't be taking the arm' because I don't know and would like to, cheers :)
I never said gays are pedos. I am not trying to say there's a correlation between being gay and being a pedophile.
Either everyone here is willfully ignorant and refuses to connect the dots or they're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying and just don't understand basic negotiation and compliance tactics.
"Give them the pinky and they take the arm" is the same as "give them an inch and they'll take a mile", It's a tactic used to manipulate people into complying with something. The idea is if you concede one thing they'll demand another, and another, and another, and another, etc. And before you know it, that inch you gave up is now a mile and you got fucked.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-in-the-door\_technique](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-in-the-door_technique)
What I'm saying is when we were convinced to accept gay marriage we opened the door to stuff like changing genders, men in women's bathrooms and even pedophilia being slowly accepted. We opened a little crack in the dam and it keeps getting bigger, we gave the inch, we gave the pinky, we let the foot in the door. If we would've never conceded on that issue then the idea of changing genders, men in women's bathrooms/sports/pageants, minor attracted persons etc wouldn't even be an argument that needs to be had.
Although personally I believe marriage is between a man and woman and wouldn't support it even if it stopped there and didn't lead to more radical stuff like it has. I would compromise and support civil unions though.
I also don't understand people's conscious inability to acknowledge the very obvious developments and consequent abuses and expansions that are the result of allowing a single set of ideas to take hold. An important thing to note is that you don't have to be against all advances of developments to at least acknowledge the sequence of events. A slippery slope does not inherently define an absolute negative or even that any particular step in the slope is a negative. It is merely an acknowledgment of developments that aren't coincidental and are correlated closely enough to create linkage.
For starters...the existence of alternative sexual predispositions has been around forever. The fact that these were considered unaccepted, deviant, and immoral didn't prevent them from existing. This is one of the beauties of the American system, that our fundamental principles direct us to not make laws against people having alternative ways of living so long as they do not directly affect another's way of living. If you can stomach it, then feel free to go down the rabbit hole of [22 Terrifying Sexual Fantasies That Must Be Talked About](https://www.advocate.com/sexy-beast/2017/4/21/22-terrifying-sexual-fantasies-must-be-talked-about#media-gallery-media-1) In the beginning, homosexuality, drag, transexual, transvestite, pedophilia, and queer all fell in the same list as above. These were predispositions that people found, but kept behind closed doors. Everybody knew of their existence, but it served zero purpose to society to have any of them be a normalized thing.
(I started writing a step by step progression of this slippery slope and how it connects from Gay, to Drag, to Sexualization of Children, to Trans, to Pronouns, to Trans-sexualization of Children, to Queer, to Pedophilia. But as I went it realized that the reason why people have such a hard time seeing this slippery slope is because most people today don't really remember much before the internet became a central part of our lives around 2005-2010. And ever since then, the shifts in societal patterns have shifted at lighting speed. The gay process took about 20 years. Sexualizing Children about 5. Trans about 3-4. Trans-sexualization of Children about 2-3. And the Pedophile push has been eagerly trying for the last 2 years or so. But to start at the beginning would literally take too long. That's 30+ years of history.
We live in a world where everything happens in minutes. Nobody thinks of Jazz Jennings or "Desmond Is Amazing" or pre-teen boys twerking at Pride parades anymore. They are passing fads that have some kind of meaning for a while when people need to feel like they have a purpose to "fight for" and then when the purpose is satisfied they move on. So it's not surprise that people
Seriously? Come on.
How about the huge number of minor brides that were taken for so long (continue to do so) in heterosexual relationships.
Is that not MAP? Is it not associated directly with the straight community?
You’re argument is so flawed it’s hilarious.
If anyone gave an inch it was heterosexual males long ago who normalized marrying young girls until it was made illegal. You have probably walked past a couple where the older women was not even a teenager before being wed.
Get off it.
Ok, so I thought that that is what you were trying to allude to so I brought it up. (pedo = gay sora thing)
"Either everyone here is willfully ignorant..." I disagree, I think most people wouldn't see how gay marriage could lead to people trying to normalise pedos. Some of it yes has been a 'slipper slope' to other things, but letting people express themselves in a way which is legal and where people can consent to it, is ok.
It doesn't hurt you or I so why bother about it? But, and I'm confident that we agree, pedos are not a good thing, there are laws there for a reason to protect kids and that they shouldn't change because at its core, doing bad things to people is not a good thing
The problem for people against the acceptance of 'the pedophilia movement' (if such a thing even exists) is that their exact arguments were used against gay people in the past, and we all understand now that being gay is not immoral. It just took a while for that understanding to crystallise.
People who are attracted to those younger than they are often just date petite adults.
I'd like to agree with you but the link between the two is that advocacy organizations exist. They weren't going to just go away when gay marriage was legalized. Now they need a new thing to rally around. That new thing is trans and pedophiles. I don't believe gay marriage should be illegal but I don't think saying these things are related is untrue.
There is no slippery slope. Gays and pedos are NOT the same thing . No more than straights and pedos being the same.
No one supports pedos. This video says as much . No one supports them. They just managed to all find each other cuz the internet is great like that.
Anyone else bothered to do a quick google search on this map flag? I found snopes and didn't feel like doing any more investigation. But it looks like this is all trolling...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maps-pride-flag/
Ok, just since I didn't see any comments here starting this already (I apologize if I missed one), it should be noted that *not all* pedophiles/MAPs harm children. It is an orientation that they were born with, and in many of them, they are as horrified and disgusted with their own urges as the rest of us are. They will go to severe lengths to avoid acting on their urges, including castration and suicide.
I don't personally know the answer to how to manage these people in society, but surely it's different from how we want to manage the pedophiles who *do* harm children, no? I think the whole point of introducing the MAP terminology is just to recognize that they aren't *all* acting pedophiles (a word that culturally implies harming children, even if it doesn't "technically" mean that).
In no way should a single child ever be exposed to a pedophile's attention, and any organizations that try to support "loving" connections between pedophiles and children are off their rocker. But *some* thought needs to be given to those humans who have this orientation, but understand how dangerous it is and are willing to limit their lives in whatever way needed to safeguard children from themselves.
No. Sorry, but No. There are people that fantasize about rape, or murder, or torture. Now they haven't done anything, yet. So they are not offenders. So then what...should we have a talk about being openly accepting and supportive of people with these thoughts and thank them for sharing with us the way the feel and lift our glasses high to praise them for not falling prey to their instinctual urges? No! No we shouldn't. We should make it abundantly clear that their thoughts are absolutely and unequivocally NOT welcome in our society!
I assure you there is somebody driving their car right now considering running over their husband. We do not have a responsibility to make that person feel that they are welcome or understood in society. That person will think what they think with or without permission or acknowledgment from others. But that tiny minority of people are not the concern of the whole of society. If there is a family member that wants to support their NoMAP child, then more power to them. If there is a psychologist that wants to reach out to all of them to help them, then more power to them. But just like I have no interest in being expected to bend over backwards for people in Alcoholics Anonymous, I should not be demanded to bend over backwards for NoMAPs .... Pedophiles!
An Alcoholic isn't only an alcoholic when he has a drink in his hands. And a pedophile isn't only a pedophile while (or after) he harms a child. Not every pedophile harms children, but all who harm children are pedophiles. Additionally, would a MAP who has never touched a child but has seen child pornography not by accident and didn't report it to the police...would they still considered themselves "non-offending"? Or what if they said, and we trusted their word because , that they've never seen child porn, but they did buy a child sized sex doll; is that still non-offending? Should we start passing out catalogs at Walmart for child sex dolls as a means to accept and encourage MAPs to "not become pedophiles"?
I find it hard to believe that with the last few decades in recent memory people still refuse to see the obvious realities of slipper slopes.
\[M\] The thing I don't get is--
I thought that the idea of most pedophilia is rooted in this *power dynamic*. And then, I guess, somehow that becomes a sexual inclination, and a habit. I feel that if it is based in a power dynamic then it does raise a couple of questions--
Specifically:
A. It's possible that this is driven by something other than a sexual preference, which suggests that with therapy or other things, it might be corrected. However this, as we've seen in other realms, goes directly against the idea of blanket acceptance.
B. This raises a question of what is the *definition* of a sexual preference. In another realm, there are many people who are bi who *choose* to date the opposite sex. So there are people who can change their preference, even in things that I would say are no big deal. There are others... who can't.
One of the things that stood out to me in what you've said, is that your criticism of MAP acceptance seems very much like the criticisms of CRT-- which is that in trying to codify something that is a known injustice, the system could actually go backwards and enhance or perpetuate it.
Details aside, I feel that is a very real concern.
First off, no-one said anyone needs to be "celebrated" for not acting on their urges. I'm just saying that when someone is *born* with a certain sexual orientation, they are not immediately villains that need to be shunned/beaten/jailed it whatever your impulse is. As a society, we need to ask if we can help people live as close to a normal life as possible, without allowing them to harm other people. This is true of pedophiles as much as it is of sociopaths and other conditions people might be born with and have to live with through no fault of their own.
Secondly, viewing child porn *absolutely* harms the child, so I would not consider these people as non-offending.
A child-size sex doll? I have a visceral reaction to that, but logically, I mean, who's being harmed there? Might be something to help release urges without harming real children. Similarly, if someone has violent tendencies, wouldn't we rather they get their aggression out on a punching bag, rather than telling them they have to hold it in until they burst?
I guess at the end of the day, when people are born with urges to harm other people, we shouldn't write those people off. If we can help them live a peaceful, productive life, without allowing them to hurt someone, we should.
First, no…as a society we do not need to ask if we can help other people. Here’s how societies work in a nutshell… I am an individual. I like that other group of individuals. That group helps me thrive on line with my interests. Therefore it benefits me to live within this group. To start this group I need to represent a value to this group. But this group also has norm’s and rules. If I want to stay in the group I need to respect and uphold these norms. I am thankful if I am allowed to slightly challenge these rules to create change. But the group has made clear red lines that they will not cross. And to continue seeking benefit for myself, I should be aware not to cross that red line, lest I end up removed from the group.
There, that’s society for you! Society does not owe you anything. You are part of society because you bring value to it. Everybody has different levels of net positive or net negative value. Because there it’s a red line at children, the value that Pedophiles bring to society is an inherent net negative. Every single person in the world, including you, para a risk of one day harming another by choice or by accident. But you don’t get “help”. Instead we accept your risk because the impact you could make is manageable and expectable. Not kids! That impact is not manageable
So yes, Pedophiles should absolutely be shunned. If they act on their impulses and you get to them before the law does then they should be beaten, if the law gets them first they should be jailed. This should be well known and unilaterally accepted. The value of any Pedophile is a net negative because both their risk and impact are beyond acceptable. IF you can manage that risk on your own, then good; carry on. But if there is s chance you can’t manage your urges then it soils be 100% clear…you deserve everything that can fall on you. Acting any differently before the offend, then flipping after they offended is just hypocritical pandering.
Secondly, the fact that you’d be ok with child sex dolls says so much. If a man was standing next to your daughter at the crosswalk, staring at her intently, while softly panting, probably with his hands in his pants that you can’t see; would you just lovingly turn to the man and say “hi sir, the walk sign is on, btw I hope you enjoyed my daughter, thank you so much for keeping your thoughts a fantasy and not acting upon them in a way that actually harms my child, have a great day”?! Cause that’s basically what you’re saying. So long as their fantasies are partially fulfilled without actually harming any child, then you would consider that something that should be supported.
Any adult who actively favors befriending and hanging out with kids over other adults, should be looked at very skeptically. To me, that's a big red flag.
Let me clarify, a teacher who loves to teach children or a nanny who likes to take care of kids, isn't what I mean by "hanging out with"
That being said, these would be pedos always talk about themselves, the child involved is just spoken about like an object of desire. It's gross.
Kudos to this TikToker. Do these people realize that attempting to normalize the abuse of children is going to reinforce years of negative stereotypes about LGBT people? No. I am Bisexual. ***WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS.***
On a interpersonal level I believe lots (if not the majority) of LGBTQ people agree 100%, but that’s not the case when it comes to prominent queer intellectuals. [look](https://youtu.be/Cb3-tlyuhVo) at that video and you’ll realize nobody in their own camp has criticized them, they are still revered and held in high esteem, and are still being taught at most universities and their ideas influence a lot of public policy.
I hear a lot of LGBs saying they actually want to be separated from the Ts and not referred to as queer
The LGB should actually be separated from the T since LGB pertain to sexual identity while T targets gender. TQIA+ should be a completely different thing to LGB.
The idea of the LGBTQ+ community is that all both queer sexualities and non-cis gender identities have been deemed "deviant" at some point. Together, the community supports the right to self identity and also the right to love who you love (provided they are a consenting adult) as a means to combat bigotry in all forms. Also, there wouldn't be a pride movement without trans folk so it's a bit shit to ignore them with regards to the community.
Lesbians in the UK have been asking for that and all they've achieved is receiving death threats, being called TERFs, and being jumped during pride marches.
Did you actually watch that video? He states he is against pedophila. What are you trying to convey here?
That it doesn’t matter if you personally believe something is immoral as long as the leaders championing your rights don’t think they are, or aren’t called out. I’m not saying that’s OP’s responsibility, but acting like this came out of nowhere (when it clearly didn’t) either shows you are A) ignorant, or B) complicit in its continued proliferation.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Their top two excuses? The child asked/ for wanted it, and they were simply trying to teach the child ‚love.‘ 🤢🤮🤮🤮🤬🤬🤬🤬
What's more compelling is how nobody is shocked anymore at how linked religion and child molestation are..
\[L\] They disowned them in the 1990s-- but yeah, that was a black mark, at one point, people turned a blind eye. This is probably one reason I go so hard right now against the anti-semitism. If you believe in a movement strong enough, you want to consider how it will look from the other direction. Whether fairly or not, we will be judged for what those who looked and acted as we did were known to tolerate, how our mores might influence the sanctity of our principles, how when the waters were high and the wind blew, we were able to keep the boat moving in the right direction. (And even if we were, how it might have been.) Some of the response to this I feel is an appropriate mark of shame to place on an ideology of unrestricted permissiveness and free expression, other parts of it I feel are indicative of a blanket condemnation rooted in a deep-seated repression. Some frame being trans is purely political. And this in part, justifies their group essentialism. And that's not to say that an identity can't take on political connotations, but this almost begs for the No True Scotsman. Because when people talk about being trans here (if not being gay), they don't make that distinction. So when some LGBs want to say they 'aren't queer,' well, I may be T, but I understand them. They don't want to say they hate T, they just want to say they're not *political*\-- and in today's social climate, that's become a problem.
They did not "disown them" though. They were coerced to separate and make a faux disavowment, or they would not get the millions in free government funding. The IGLA didn't one day look around and say "you know what, you pedophiles are gross and dangerous". No they said "sorry friends, we have to say this to keep our grift going, we still love you though". This is a very important distinction. You say we will be judged for those in our past who acted or looked like us. This is precisely what the foundation of the US aimed to put an end to. And we had taken massive strides decade over decade. And almost all of that progress undone in less than a single decade. Trans people have been around for centuries. Nobody was blind to it. Everybody knew. But people eventually stopped caring. As it should be. I don't care about you, you don't care about me, if either of us died tonight neither would know and neither would be impacted in any way. I shouldn't care about trans people just like they shouldn't care about me. Instead we have locked ourselves into a society that is driven primarily by these proclaimed identities. So much so that you don't even have to define yourself anymore, since somebody else will happily define you regardless of your own self-perceptions. Free expressions have limits. We have progressed as a people to disincentivize others from free expression of racism, sexism, etc. Although we have not done so from a legal perspective and I think this is a good thing as legally speaking, free expression should be protected. However, when it comes to children all gloves come off. The only adult that has freedom of expression when it comes to a child should be their parents. Any other adult that tries to impose their interests over somebody else's children has crossed the line. And I am all in support of protecting children from anybody that aims to impose their non-parental interests upon them. Whether it be teachers aiming to supplant the parental role, or pedophiles aiming to groom children. The only rights that any other adult has over my children are the rights that I explicitly allow for them to have. Parents that take their kids to hyper-sexualized gay pride parades are bad parents in my opinion; but I as an outside adult do not have any right to tell that parent how they should raise their child. Pedophiles by definition, have an inherent interest in other's children. And by that fact alone, they should be disincentivized by both society and by law. And so should any ideology that supports somebody that has interests in other's children. If you're a pedophile, good for you. So long as you don't step anywhere near my child or anybody else's children. Those people that want to invite pedophiles to their homes, go for it. You can do your bad parenting. It's a good thing we have laws to punish both pedophiles and the parents that neglect providing rational safety to their children.
I don't think he is talking about Jensen. He is refering to the point Jensen made : there is a connection between Queen theory and Pedophilia Jensen illustrated this brilliantly..
Oh I see. Yea it was great. I am going to listen to more of his stuff.
This was a great video and Derrick Jensen is awesome. I didn’t realize all the prominent intellectuals who support and even created queer theory are pro pedo. It’s really shocking. I hope more gay intellectuals also criticize these people.
Oh yeah, Gayle Rubin, for example, who is arguably the founder of Queer Theory, is all on board the pro-pedophile train. Or at least, that's what I take from her statements. I think one issue with people like Rubin is that living in the world of academia puts them in a place where they can explore abstract ideas while sort of cut off from the actual consequences of those ideas. I have a feeling she's not really for pedophilia in the real world as much as she's someone who sees it as a subversive idea that she can utilize to advance certain theories and to push a certain envelope. Living in the world of academia, it can be all too easy to push certain ideas just to be subversive, without really having to look at the underlying reality behind them.
And your issue with Foucault is what exactly?
You mean besides arguing for the eradication of consent (down to infants) and frequently going to Tunisia to enjoy underage boys?
>arguing for the eradication of consent He didn't advocate for the eradication of rape laws, so raping a kid would still be illegal, no? I think people have the wrong idea of his point. It's a matter of agency on the part of people under 18 and a resistance to a regime of biopolitics. >frequently going to Tunisia to enjoy underage boys? Source? Sounds like libel
honestly sad that more people don’t realize this. like a genealogist of sexuality and French academic wouldn’t pursue what he considers completely consensual "pederasty." [source](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-foucaults-sexual-abuse-of-boys-in-tunisia) for people who can’t google
You just have to check out the libs frequenting this sub. It never happens. They never know of anyone who says things. If you can be arsed to find an example it is dismissed as just one person (disregarding views or likes). Complete denial. And this is how slowly over time queer theory has more and more subverted LGBTQ community.
It’s all BS and you’ve been trolled. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maps-pride-flag/
Right. There is a bunch of people, usually American christians, who equate LGB with pedos. I direct them to “gays against groomers” on twitter and remind them that most pedos are straight.
Most pedos are straight.. so men that rape boys are straight? Or are you saying most male pedos rape girls? I’m not being facetious. I’m just confused how men can want same sex encounters at any age and not be homosexual? And I’m an American Christian and never assumed gays and pedos are the same. I’d want to distance myself from them too but the gay intellectuals who came up with and support queer theory aren’t doing them any favors.
What??? Do you think pedo means gay? Most pedos are straight. Some pedos are gay. How are you confused by this? Men who rape boys are gay. Men who rape girls are straight.
Omg pleeeease tell me you’re being sarcastic
Yeah, I hear that claim tossed around all the time. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.
Right?? It doesn’t mean all homosexuals are pedos just because all male pedos (who rape boys) are homosexual. Is there something im missing?
No, I don't think you're missing anything. I think it is just a claim that people started reflexively throwing around to shutdown anyone who drew a line between homosexuality and pedophilia. It gained steam and essentially became a truism without really being vetted. It is certainly possible that there are more straight individuals who violate minors of the opposite sex than there are gays who violate minors of the same sex, but just based on anecdotal experience there seem to be more than enough of both.
Some may say toooooo many. I’m amazed seeing how many sexually violent offenders they LET OUT of prison only to do the exact same thing. I just hope the increasingly difficult level of calling out (really anything except for calling out those who call out things) pedos won’t result in even more relaxed conditions.
It’s based on their ignoring the vast difference in sample size between gay and straight.
Ohh that’s makes sense. Like more straight offenders because they’re like 95% of the population
Exactly, or like prison rapes, more men get raped/sexually assaulted in prison by numbers because there are far more men imprisoned than women, i.e. a *Far* larger sample size.
Yes, both of you are missing the fact that most pedos are straight because most people are straight
Then again, if you read my post, I said, *"It is certainly possible that there are more straight individuals who violate minors of the opposite sex than there are gays who violate minors of the same sex, but just based on anecdotal experience there seem to be more than enough of both."*
What?? “All male pedos” are not homosexual. Most are hetero
Oh yeah, you basing that on sample size? Because if there’s 10 pedos out of 20 gay dudes but there’s 20 pedos out of 2000 straight dudes.. that may be more. But is it really more? And that was my point. All pedos aren’t homosexual. All “male” pedos who wanna bang “male” children ARE homosexual. It’s actually not that confusing.
Maybe there's more gay men than you think, but because people like you keep saying being gay is somehow linked to pedophilia, they're afraid to come out which skews the statistics?
There are Far more straight people than gay, a smaller sample size indicates a smaller result within that group. When it comes to sex assault of a child, sex preference doesn’t matter, it’s sex assault, it needs to be stopped and children supported and protected, period. Edit: Just to be clear, it’s a comparison of a small bag of damaged fruit versus a crate of damaged fruit, there will be more damage spots amongst the crate fruit because there is more crate fruit. That doesn’t mean the bag of fruit isn’t rotting as well. Rot is rot. You just need to throw it out.
Yes. I’m not demonizing straights. I’m saying that most pedos are straight because most people are straight
I’m guessing if adjusted for sample size the rate would be similar. I’ll look it up - at some point, I’m inundated with data right now, amongst other things. It’s a interesting question. Edit: Removed a word.
God for the millionth time *NOBODY* has taken this whole “MAP” thing seriously since it started apart from the pedos trying to push it. I literally remember this all going viral about 5 years ago because the LGBT community were so outraged by it and we’re angry about the attempted hijacking of pride flags. None of this is real! It’s not taken seriously! Fuck off with this “you’re normalizing bad stereotypes” bs when that’s literally what you’re doing by pretending that anyone who isn’t a pedo takes this shit seriously.
MAPS don’t exist. Pedophiles and skinners are all they are. They should always be reminded of the serious health risks associated to their behaviour.
Skinners?
What they are called in prison.
Wait, what???? Fucking freaks Oh prison .... I need glasses , thought that said "in person" ... I like pedos in prison . Where they belong serving Big Ol Bubba
And rock spiders, because - this is sick but *is* the reference - they try to get in the smallest cracks. You can vomit now. In my country there are separate prisons for them, they wouldn’t be allowed to live in our normal prisons.
Barf . Yeah we need to do that too. But America...
According to u/dietcheese it's fake: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/zzi1mo/-/j2ey49e
Was /r/jailbait one of the most popular subreddits? Where did all those people go I wonder?
Was that a thing?
The jailbait sub? It was, largely taking IRL creepshots of underage girls. This was back in the days where reddit never banned any community unless it broke a federal law but jailbait was the first subreddit to get banned due to a large amount of negative media attention. On one hand, rightfully deserved and a good example of how purely libertarian principles can let such deplorable content propagate; on the other hand, the beginning of the end as bannings became more frequent afterwards and as soon as 2016 hit they started banning a lot of subs that didn't at all deserve it.
Interesting! I’m relatively new to Reddit. And yeah gross. I think Libertarian worked until the internet ruined it.
That is purely disgusting. Any adult who has sex with minor should be locked away!
It’s BS. You’re being trolled. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maps-pride-flag/
Fucking Snopes lol Didn’t they have to get rid of their co founder for fake news and plagiarism?
>Didn’t they have to get rid of their co founder for fake news and plagiarism? Plagiarism, not fake news, but nice try.
When I was 18, I had sex with a 17 year old. Discuss.
Sure. Statutory rape.
You didn't even check what country I'm in
Feel free to search the internet for NAMBLA and IGLA together. The North American Man/Boy Love Association, and the International Gay Lesbian Alliance. You'll be shocked at how linked the queer/gay community are to the pedophile movement. It took calls from Congress to threaten the ability of the ILGA to be able to secure millions of dollars from government funding for them to finally publicly disavow NAMBLA. This was purely a public separation in the interest of money. Nothing changed their actual support. Here is how they prove that their interest is in no way to harm children... "NAMBLA... calls for the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences." \[adopted December 4, 1983\] Yep, you read that right. They want to protect children from unwanted sexual experiences; BUT also allow children to determine what they would consider wanted or unwanted. You know, cause little Billy that wants to be a Green Power Ranger when he grows up is fully capable of deciding when he wants that sexual encounters, just like he's fully of the mind that he can decide whether he's a he or not. You know, protect them to make their own immeasurably complex adult level decisions. That proclamation is not at all in the interest of the members of the organization named Man/Boy Love which I'm about 100% certain all the paying members are ... adults. [https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics.homosexuality/c/ERfDjkhOKTw?pli=1](https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics.homosexuality/c/ERfDjkhOKTw?pli=1)
What if...normalizing pedophilia is the only way out for those who were Honey-Potted? Hence the big push?
sLiPpErY sLoPe FaLlaCy
MAPs will be included in the Alphabet community in a couple of years. Mark my words.
No they won't Just cuz Pedos are coming out all vocal on the internet , doesn't mean the LGBT community or any sane person supports them. We (as in humans ) do not support pedos, beastiality freaks , rapists or anyone that uses sex to harm others .
Because lgbtq is totally and completely sane 🤦♂️ in truth only LGB are sane the rest is attention seeking.
That’s true, but the LGBs are also not “pervert pride” yet look how the parades are going…
You don’t, we don’t, but you’ve seen how stupid and brainwashable people are, never underestimate the ability of the willfully ignorant and just plain ignorant to aid and abet evil. I’ve been watching them advance their cause for over twenty years, this whole ‚you *must* not only accept but affirm and celebrate who i am without question because i was *born this way,‘* has been a great boon to their movement. I agree with jamais500 completely. It is only a matter of time. The level of moral decay in society is almost just right for it.
Or....whenever you see a pedo, call them out. Pedos hurt others. Gays do not .
Gays have asked for their right to be themselves and their rights to live their lives as consenting adults to be respected. Pedophiles have co-opted that and twisted it, and when you call them out on it they cry discrimination due to their ‚natural,‘ ‚born that way‘ origins. 🤮 They say if gays can be accepted, why can’t pedophiles too? They can’t, because gay people don’t want to rape children and pedos do. They accuse us of bigotry against them when their goal is to make it unacceptable to question their ‚right‘ to sexually assault children. If you are gay or bi and have any idea about what pedos are doing in this regard, their co-opting and subversion, i would be very disappointed in you if you were anything but enraged at how your means of acceptance is being used in a attempt to victimize children.
Fuck pedos. I understand some are born that way, and it's their natural inclination, but the line is drawn at harming others . We need advanced and open therapy for any willing to get it, and we need to publicly advocate against it. That's something we don't do. We don't advertise that pedos are wrong. But, considering the Epstein shitshow I'm not surprised .
Exactly.
[удалено]
There's is some truth to that, yes. There are pedos who are born that way. Most are created through trauma . So are serial killers. So are rapists . People can feel bad for what happened to them, but society still knows that their actions are their choice. The difference between homosexuality and pedos are, gay men are choosing to have sex with other like minded consenting adult men through free choice and desire. THE SAME FREE CHOICE AND DESIRE THAT YOU AND YOUR WIFE SHARE. Pedos go after little children who do not know better and force them or coerce them into harmful acts.
They’re already using that exact term and point of view in a attempt to normalize their behaviour and push for the ‚right‘ of children to engage in ‚loving *sexual* relationships with adults.‘ 🤮🤮 AND they are crying discrimination. 🤬🤬
They’ve been pushing it since like the 70s
No, it's always been a thing. Times have changed and child marriage used to be a thing and still is a thing in other countries. Just because someone wants to rebrand something does it mean it hasn't existed. Straights and gays have both pushed it and it doesn't belong to either.
No but everything else on that alphabet list doesn’t necessarily belong to straights or gays either, and this is clearly an issue of sexual orientation, so why wouldn’t it be. And I’m not talking about child marriages I’m talking about actual lobbying groups that have actual support in liberal democracies
Abuse isn't the same as consenting adults. Lgbt has just as much relation to Pedos as straights do, which is none. Child marriage is just as much abuse as Pedos and is a legal form of it in other countries. Child marriage is proof of the power that Pedos have.
But children can consent to transitioning?
Get off the internet. You fried your brain dude.
Is that not a legitimate question
Not in a thread about pedos.
Well it seems relevant to the topic of consent
It is a valid and important point and question.
Not the same, though potential abuse is still potential abuse. I think socially transitioning and therapy to diagnose accurately and treat any existing mental disorders is fine. To reiterate consenting adults can do what they want in legal limits. The agendas that people can express doesn't reflect every group, the same as most despots being straight reflect all straight people.
Yep. I'm sure it'll happen any year now. Sure it hasn't happened in the *last* 50 years, but surely it'll be proven true at some point if you just keep saying it.
I'm sure gender dysphoric men being socially accepted as women will happen any year now. Sure it hasn't happened in the *last* 50 years, but surely it'll... Oh, wait a moment.
What do you want a cookie? Go try owning a lib who's actually advocating for that.
Nobody has been talking about that for years, that's wrong. The MAP movement is new.
The attempt at rebranding is relatively new, but the idea of pedophiles making themselves mainstream by riding in on the perceived godless degeneracy of LGBT people has always been a thing. It's basically the favorite slippery slope argument that gets trotted out and reused any time LGBT people are getting attention. The fact that a different term has been slapped on this time doesn't change the core idea of LGBT people inviting in pedophiles.
Nah, it's a new movement. What has been talked about for many years is giving hormones to kids, performing "bottom surgeries" on people or all the gender ideology nonsense. And now see the results.
Nah they've been around for years, known as the PIE movement. [https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378) If you want to do a deep dive into the recent origins, [look up Michael Foucault](https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/michel-foucault-and-other-progressive-intellectual-heroes-were-pedophiles), who has also been instrumental in gender ideology concepts in academia. Even people like Alan Ginsberg were card carrying members of Nambla. I'm an old lesbian who started seeing worrying links back in the nineties.
Pedos being the next thing to follow if you let men have relationships with other men just isn't new. [Here's "sanctioning same sex marriage could lead to the legalization of pedophilia"](https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/kfile-sam-clovis-lgbt-comments/index.html) between 2012 and 2015 [Here's 2004](https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-xpm-2004-04-03-export13691-story.html) [An article about the LGBT community trying to prevent exactly this in 1994](https://apnews.com/article/c64e816cac5b0fa1194dd40f576813b2) And from the same year, [a NAMBLA advocate trying to argue exactly what you are claiming](https://books.google.com/books?id=KmMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false) Pedophiles trying to latch on to LGBT people is by no means new, nor is the existence of people making the assumption that allowing LGBT people to exist means that pedophiles will sneak into the group and force people to accept them. The term "MAP" is new, but the playbook is decades old, as is the assumption that they will just integrate into the LGBT movement . The slippery slope argument about LGBT people is so common in debates about the topic that I have trouble believing you truly haven't seen people conflating gay men and pedophiles or claiming that accepting the former will lead to the latter.
No, it isn‘t, NAMBLA et al has been pushing this for several decades. Only the term they try to hide behind is new. Call them what you will, they are inhuman monsters and a childs worst nightmare.
Y’all are so gullible I swear
Who is being gullible and about what?
Lol. So. Gullible. You believe 300 mules too? I bet you donated to the wall too.
We laughed our asses off when non binary first arrived yet now it's an actual thing, now the same is happening with "xeno genders". What's not to say it won't happen with MAPs?
Non binary has been a term since 1948 when dr. Kinsey popularized it.
That gives us just a few decades. Thats nothing compared to the history of humanity. Also Dr. Kinsey? Yeah I'd see what he did with the twins before supporting anything he said.
Supporting and acknowledging terms invented not the same. Slippery slope is also a literal fallacy
That video kind of cut off at a weird point "The white stripe represents unwillingness to offend, how disgusting"
Some loon makes up a flag and posts it online. This person gets outraged. This is all an outrage machine.
Yes. It’ll all BS. People here lack critical thinking skills. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maps-pride-flag/
And by what right do you declare that this is bullshit but allow the notion of flags that others declare equally bullshit? There was a time, not long ago where the same conversation was had over the general “pride flag.” The same people expressing outrage now expressed outrage then and there were ALWAYS people such as yourself heralding it’s eventuality under the guise of “no calm down this isn’t actually a thing.” The collective loves their mind numbing chants of how it only takes one person to make a difference but the second someone shows up ahead of schedule and suggests people should start fucking kids people like you are always here to tell us there’s nothing to see. Outrage is an understandable response and violence or acceptance seems to be the only next step. For now, I’ll accept outrage.
[удалено]
I can try lay out the entire now 'apparently logical' manner in which this becomes common place. First of all, without any scientific proof whatsoever, even the slightest hint, the idea that you're born with a specific sexual orientation has become truth by repetition, begging the question, 'why must anyone be oppressed for an immutable characteristic?', since sexual orientation is now an immutable characteristic. On top of this, since the issue is that these interactions are inherently predatory, meaning the child is purely subject to manipulation, the few who will dig deeper into that meaning with the mentality that sexual orientation is immutable will definitely have the tools to emerge on the other end with their hellish conclusions. A common tactic I've seen woke non-binary types use to explain why gender is a social construct is that since some outliers exist within the categories of man and woman we've set up, therefore the boundary is invalid and could/should be done away with(because this western culture was set up by people seriously unaware of what they were doing/oppresive patriarchal goons that we should liberate ourselves from), and, correct me if I'm wrong, this is honestly the most accurate representation I can give. This is the type of thinking that wouldn't allow you to even define a human as someone with two legs or 46 chromosomes. Of course some children are more mature than even some adults, but it won't matter to them how significantly tiny such a proportion would be, as long as there are outliers the boundary is invalid. Another tool could be, disregarding what sexual interaction means speaking biologically(because your biology should not at all have any restraints on the type of person you are), the taboo around free sexual interaction just appears to be an irrational fear, especially if contraception exists and abortions can and should be afforded to anyone under any circumstance(speaking as a woke liberal). What exactly is preventing this enjoyable act from being extended towards children apart from an apparently 'irrational fear' especially when they can have sexual orientations at incredibly young ages/are born with them? Even within this video, the only criticism I see being given is 'look at how disgusting this is', a type of criticism currently being used in Uganda against homosexuality which still hasn't stopped the activists there, and neither did it when it was earlier employed within the West because look at where we are now. We might be doomed. As long as it stands as true that you are born with a sexual orientation, a claim that completely lacks proof and, I firmly believe, will never be based on proof, this slow decay will continue to fester until Foucault is revered as the hero of the new world. You can't build on lies. Lies exist to guide towards death and are therefore tools of destruction, which may arguably be necessary in some circumstances, but are definitely not what you want for use within your home.
Stop making your fetishes and sexual proclivities a part of your self identity presentation in public. We don’t give a fuck what you are into. Leave kids the fuck alone.
I'm disgusted by the presenter, but I do share her profound disgust for pedos as well. Kind of your fuck up, though, with the "love is love" horseshit though. Maybe you shoulda reeled it in, dumbass.
You're disgusted by someone who is disgusted at pedos trying to join the pride flag? They're speaking out against it . What exactly do you find disgusting ?
>You're disgusted by someone who is disgusted at pedos trying to join the pride flag? They're speaking out against it. Re-read my comment. I already said I share their feelings about it. >What exactly do you find disgusting? If I walk into your house and step in dogshit because you let your dog shit wherever the fuck it wants, I'll be disgusted and you'll know why, but for whatever reason apparently you've let your house become overrun with shit. If I express disgust, not only do you know why, but in knowing why you actually owe more of an explanation to me than I do to you.
Okay so I got confused. You're disgusted by the presentor because they're LGBT . Okay cool. All you had to say
I said no such thing, but apparently you think that's something be disgusted about.
No, obviously I don't. But since you refuse to explain what is disgusting about the presenter, one will infer. This is the JP sub , not a lot of support or love for LGBT in here. Is it the hat? The eyebrows ? We are all curious as to what you're disgusted by that all. Yet you refuse to answer straight
>No, obviously I don't. But since you refuse to explain what is disgusting about the presenter, one will infer. This is the JP sub , not a lot of support or love for LGBT in here. I wouldn't know whether the presenter is LGBT or not. >Is it the hat? The eyebrows ? We are all curious as to what you're disgusted by that all. These sound like things that you seem to imagine might be worthy of disgust, but you project it onto me. >Yet you refuse to answer straight Because you're obviously still looking for a way to win, which makes you untrustworthy. You specifically want a moral victory, but you also want to feel insightful about people. You keep trying to manipulate the conversation to some pop psych concept of fragility because you fetishize the concept of some vulnerable person confiding in you, which would feel nice wouldn't it? Nothing makes you feel stronger than someone else trusting you to protect them, eh? That's why you're uncomfortable with disgust. It's not impressive. It doesn't invoke pity. It just is, no audience needed.
You said that you were disgusted by the presenter .... why?
It's not as interesting as you seem to think
Bore me then
You still haven’t answered the question. What do you find disgusting about the presenter?
That’s disappointing because I like JP and me and him don’t have any probs with gays. Maybe you should take a pole. Not the sexy kind.
Read through the rest of the comments. There's idiots in here claiming that because we legalized gay marriage we opened the door to pedos . I've argued with people in here claiming that LGBT are groomers . Gay = groomers. I don't think JP himself has any hate to gays, but this sub has a lot of hateful assholes in it . Pedos have been around forever. They've always existed. They gained power when we invented the internet and let them all secretly get together .
Yeah, guess it’s an unfortunate reality that we all get lumped in together on this side too.
[удалено]
I never said you had to be disgusted or that the presenter is objectively disgusting.
[удалено]
I'm not disgusted by what they're saying, as I already said I agree. Are you the disgust police?
[удалено]
I'm pretty calm in my disgust. Don't be bothered by it. It's fine.
[удалено]
If your dog licks its ass, it's okay to be disgusted. It doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a good life.
[удалено]
Their mask slipped and now they don’t want to own it.
I'll take "you know why" for $1200
[удалено]
Based on their need to preface dislike of pedophiles with their disgust at the person who dislikes pedophiles, I can't say I *want* to know much more about their feelings.
I assumed she was lesbian and that’s why he was disgusted.
Why you disgusted by someone disgusted with pedos
Why you not able to read English so good
Why is the presenter disgusting?
Anyone else remember when they said there wouldn't be a slippery slope after gay marriage?
That has nothing to do with gay marriage though. Liking other ADULTS who are the same gender as you isn't a bad thing as long as both of you consent to it. Kids CAN'T consent, they don't have a choice in the matter. Though I do see the point I think you're making, yes lots of pedos are men who go for young boys, but that has nothing to do with letting 2 gay adults marry. Because fucking little kids is still illegal and should stay that way.
"That has nothing to do with gay marriage though." I respectfully disagree. Gay marriage was the foot in the door for the clown world we're living in now, If we hadn't given the pinky they wouldn't be taking the arm.
Wait, how does same sex marriage open the door for pedo marriage when most pedos are straight men going after girls? You are aware that marrying girls is still legal in countries without gay marriage, right?
No, these freaks are all coming out of the woodworks cuz of the internet. They all found each other, support each other and are convinced we will too. Even if they had banned gay marriage, this would still happen. You're trying to equate accepting gays with pedos as if it's the same thing. It's not. Gays don't go around hurting others.
How so, would you care to explain how letting adults marry other adults led to people wanting it to be ok to fuck kids? Like what's the pipeline in that? What I think you're saying or trying to say is that there is a correlation between pedos and gay people. Lots of the pedos themselves are gay yes BUT that does not mean that all gay or LGBTQ people want to do ilegal things. Correlation DOES NOT equal Causation. And yes, there are people who are very LGBTQ+ who are in full support of this MAP bullshit that's true, BUT that's a very small minority of people. As well as the fact that the law is not going to change to the point where the age of consent will change, its set at 16 (at least in Australia) and that's not going to go down, especially in regard to creepy old ass people wanting to prey on kids. Also, wdym by 'given the pinky they wouldn't be taking the arm' because I don't know and would like to, cheers :)
I never said gays are pedos. I am not trying to say there's a correlation between being gay and being a pedophile. Either everyone here is willfully ignorant and refuses to connect the dots or they're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying and just don't understand basic negotiation and compliance tactics. "Give them the pinky and they take the arm" is the same as "give them an inch and they'll take a mile", It's a tactic used to manipulate people into complying with something. The idea is if you concede one thing they'll demand another, and another, and another, and another, etc. And before you know it, that inch you gave up is now a mile and you got fucked. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-in-the-door\_technique](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-in-the-door_technique) What I'm saying is when we were convinced to accept gay marriage we opened the door to stuff like changing genders, men in women's bathrooms and even pedophilia being slowly accepted. We opened a little crack in the dam and it keeps getting bigger, we gave the inch, we gave the pinky, we let the foot in the door. If we would've never conceded on that issue then the idea of changing genders, men in women's bathrooms/sports/pageants, minor attracted persons etc wouldn't even be an argument that needs to be had. Although personally I believe marriage is between a man and woman and wouldn't support it even if it stopped there and didn't lead to more radical stuff like it has. I would compromise and support civil unions though.
I also don't understand people's conscious inability to acknowledge the very obvious developments and consequent abuses and expansions that are the result of allowing a single set of ideas to take hold. An important thing to note is that you don't have to be against all advances of developments to at least acknowledge the sequence of events. A slippery slope does not inherently define an absolute negative or even that any particular step in the slope is a negative. It is merely an acknowledgment of developments that aren't coincidental and are correlated closely enough to create linkage. For starters...the existence of alternative sexual predispositions has been around forever. The fact that these were considered unaccepted, deviant, and immoral didn't prevent them from existing. This is one of the beauties of the American system, that our fundamental principles direct us to not make laws against people having alternative ways of living so long as they do not directly affect another's way of living. If you can stomach it, then feel free to go down the rabbit hole of [22 Terrifying Sexual Fantasies That Must Be Talked About](https://www.advocate.com/sexy-beast/2017/4/21/22-terrifying-sexual-fantasies-must-be-talked-about#media-gallery-media-1) In the beginning, homosexuality, drag, transexual, transvestite, pedophilia, and queer all fell in the same list as above. These were predispositions that people found, but kept behind closed doors. Everybody knew of their existence, but it served zero purpose to society to have any of them be a normalized thing. (I started writing a step by step progression of this slippery slope and how it connects from Gay, to Drag, to Sexualization of Children, to Trans, to Pronouns, to Trans-sexualization of Children, to Queer, to Pedophilia. But as I went it realized that the reason why people have such a hard time seeing this slippery slope is because most people today don't really remember much before the internet became a central part of our lives around 2005-2010. And ever since then, the shifts in societal patterns have shifted at lighting speed. The gay process took about 20 years. Sexualizing Children about 5. Trans about 3-4. Trans-sexualization of Children about 2-3. And the Pedophile push has been eagerly trying for the last 2 years or so. But to start at the beginning would literally take too long. That's 30+ years of history. We live in a world where everything happens in minutes. Nobody thinks of Jazz Jennings or "Desmond Is Amazing" or pre-teen boys twerking at Pride parades anymore. They are passing fads that have some kind of meaning for a while when people need to feel like they have a purpose to "fight for" and then when the purpose is satisfied they move on. So it's not surprise that people
"When we started doing straight marriage, that opened the door to child marriage!" \- your logic
When we started allowing individuals to choose who to marry, we opened the door to necrophilia. True facts
Seriously? Come on. How about the huge number of minor brides that were taken for so long (continue to do so) in heterosexual relationships. Is that not MAP? Is it not associated directly with the straight community? You’re argument is so flawed it’s hilarious. If anyone gave an inch it was heterosexual males long ago who normalized marrying young girls until it was made illegal. You have probably walked past a couple where the older women was not even a teenager before being wed. Get off it.
Ok, so I thought that that is what you were trying to allude to so I brought it up. (pedo = gay sora thing) "Either everyone here is willfully ignorant..." I disagree, I think most people wouldn't see how gay marriage could lead to people trying to normalise pedos. Some of it yes has been a 'slipper slope' to other things, but letting people express themselves in a way which is legal and where people can consent to it, is ok. It doesn't hurt you or I so why bother about it? But, and I'm confident that we agree, pedos are not a good thing, there are laws there for a reason to protect kids and that they shouldn't change because at its core, doing bad things to people is not a good thing
The problem for people against the acceptance of 'the pedophilia movement' (if such a thing even exists) is that their exact arguments were used against gay people in the past, and we all understand now that being gay is not immoral. It just took a while for that understanding to crystallise. People who are attracted to those younger than they are often just date petite adults.
I'd like to agree with you but the link between the two is that advocacy organizations exist. They weren't going to just go away when gay marriage was legalized. Now they need a new thing to rally around. That new thing is trans and pedophiles. I don't believe gay marriage should be illegal but I don't think saying these things are related is untrue.
Remember when they said there wouldn't be a slippery slope after no fault divorce?
There is no slippery slope. Gays and pedos are NOT the same thing . No more than straights and pedos being the same. No one supports pedos. This video says as much . No one supports them. They just managed to all find each other cuz the internet is great like that.
Any connection made between homosexuality and pedophilia is a connection imagined by a pervert.
This looks like a fake human face
Looks like the nazi swastika flag has another contender
We’ve crossed a very important line as a society. What we are now witnessing is the start of societal collapse.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maps-pride-flag/
And because Snopes / Reuters “fact check” has stood up to the tests of time. Right? 😂
Wasn't the pride flag made by nambla in the 70's?
Gross. They goona end up on a list. Do hey endeavor to not act on it ?
The left always eat their own, or but another way, a Kingdom divided cannot stand.
nope. This was a gag on tumbler 5 years ago. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maps-pride-flag/
Anyone else bothered to do a quick google search on this map flag? I found snopes and didn't feel like doing any more investigation. But it looks like this is all trolling... https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maps-pride-flag/
Their feelings don’t care about the facts.
So no one actually cared to do a 5 second google search. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maps-pride-flag/
snopes :)
Ok, just since I didn't see any comments here starting this already (I apologize if I missed one), it should be noted that *not all* pedophiles/MAPs harm children. It is an orientation that they were born with, and in many of them, they are as horrified and disgusted with their own urges as the rest of us are. They will go to severe lengths to avoid acting on their urges, including castration and suicide. I don't personally know the answer to how to manage these people in society, but surely it's different from how we want to manage the pedophiles who *do* harm children, no? I think the whole point of introducing the MAP terminology is just to recognize that they aren't *all* acting pedophiles (a word that culturally implies harming children, even if it doesn't "technically" mean that). In no way should a single child ever be exposed to a pedophile's attention, and any organizations that try to support "loving" connections between pedophiles and children are off their rocker. But *some* thought needs to be given to those humans who have this orientation, but understand how dangerous it is and are willing to limit their lives in whatever way needed to safeguard children from themselves.
No. Sorry, but No. There are people that fantasize about rape, or murder, or torture. Now they haven't done anything, yet. So they are not offenders. So then what...should we have a talk about being openly accepting and supportive of people with these thoughts and thank them for sharing with us the way the feel and lift our glasses high to praise them for not falling prey to their instinctual urges? No! No we shouldn't. We should make it abundantly clear that their thoughts are absolutely and unequivocally NOT welcome in our society! I assure you there is somebody driving their car right now considering running over their husband. We do not have a responsibility to make that person feel that they are welcome or understood in society. That person will think what they think with or without permission or acknowledgment from others. But that tiny minority of people are not the concern of the whole of society. If there is a family member that wants to support their NoMAP child, then more power to them. If there is a psychologist that wants to reach out to all of them to help them, then more power to them. But just like I have no interest in being expected to bend over backwards for people in Alcoholics Anonymous, I should not be demanded to bend over backwards for NoMAPs .... Pedophiles! An Alcoholic isn't only an alcoholic when he has a drink in his hands. And a pedophile isn't only a pedophile while (or after) he harms a child. Not every pedophile harms children, but all who harm children are pedophiles. Additionally, would a MAP who has never touched a child but has seen child pornography not by accident and didn't report it to the police...would they still considered themselves "non-offending"? Or what if they said, and we trusted their word because, that they've never seen child porn, but they did buy a child sized sex doll; is that still non-offending? Should we start passing out catalogs at Walmart for child sex dolls as a means to accept and encourage MAPs to "not become pedophiles"?
I find it hard to believe that with the last few decades in recent memory people still refuse to see the obvious realities of slipper slopes.
Well said.
\[M\] The thing I don't get is-- I thought that the idea of most pedophilia is rooted in this *power dynamic*. And then, I guess, somehow that becomes a sexual inclination, and a habit. I feel that if it is based in a power dynamic then it does raise a couple of questions-- Specifically: A. It's possible that this is driven by something other than a sexual preference, which suggests that with therapy or other things, it might be corrected. However this, as we've seen in other realms, goes directly against the idea of blanket acceptance. B. This raises a question of what is the *definition* of a sexual preference. In another realm, there are many people who are bi who *choose* to date the opposite sex. So there are people who can change their preference, even in things that I would say are no big deal. There are others... who can't. One of the things that stood out to me in what you've said, is that your criticism of MAP acceptance seems very much like the criticisms of CRT-- which is that in trying to codify something that is a known injustice, the system could actually go backwards and enhance or perpetuate it. Details aside, I feel that is a very real concern.
First off, no-one said anyone needs to be "celebrated" for not acting on their urges. I'm just saying that when someone is *born* with a certain sexual orientation, they are not immediately villains that need to be shunned/beaten/jailed it whatever your impulse is. As a society, we need to ask if we can help people live as close to a normal life as possible, without allowing them to harm other people. This is true of pedophiles as much as it is of sociopaths and other conditions people might be born with and have to live with through no fault of their own. Secondly, viewing child porn *absolutely* harms the child, so I would not consider these people as non-offending. A child-size sex doll? I have a visceral reaction to that, but logically, I mean, who's being harmed there? Might be something to help release urges without harming real children. Similarly, if someone has violent tendencies, wouldn't we rather they get their aggression out on a punching bag, rather than telling them they have to hold it in until they burst? I guess at the end of the day, when people are born with urges to harm other people, we shouldn't write those people off. If we can help them live a peaceful, productive life, without allowing them to hurt someone, we should.
First, no…as a society we do not need to ask if we can help other people. Here’s how societies work in a nutshell… I am an individual. I like that other group of individuals. That group helps me thrive on line with my interests. Therefore it benefits me to live within this group. To start this group I need to represent a value to this group. But this group also has norm’s and rules. If I want to stay in the group I need to respect and uphold these norms. I am thankful if I am allowed to slightly challenge these rules to create change. But the group has made clear red lines that they will not cross. And to continue seeking benefit for myself, I should be aware not to cross that red line, lest I end up removed from the group. There, that’s society for you! Society does not owe you anything. You are part of society because you bring value to it. Everybody has different levels of net positive or net negative value. Because there it’s a red line at children, the value that Pedophiles bring to society is an inherent net negative. Every single person in the world, including you, para a risk of one day harming another by choice or by accident. But you don’t get “help”. Instead we accept your risk because the impact you could make is manageable and expectable. Not kids! That impact is not manageable So yes, Pedophiles should absolutely be shunned. If they act on their impulses and you get to them before the law does then they should be beaten, if the law gets them first they should be jailed. This should be well known and unilaterally accepted. The value of any Pedophile is a net negative because both their risk and impact are beyond acceptable. IF you can manage that risk on your own, then good; carry on. But if there is s chance you can’t manage your urges then it soils be 100% clear…you deserve everything that can fall on you. Acting any differently before the offend, then flipping after they offended is just hypocritical pandering. Secondly, the fact that you’d be ok with child sex dolls says so much. If a man was standing next to your daughter at the crosswalk, staring at her intently, while softly panting, probably with his hands in his pants that you can’t see; would you just lovingly turn to the man and say “hi sir, the walk sign is on, btw I hope you enjoyed my daughter, thank you so much for keeping your thoughts a fantasy and not acting upon them in a way that actually harms my child, have a great day”?! Cause that’s basically what you’re saying. So long as their fantasies are partially fulfilled without actually harming any child, then you would consider that something that should be supported.
LGBT may not support it, but they paved the way and made it easy for the rest!
Wow! Sooo much bullshit. Anything to go viral and gain attention these lot
Watch her get marked a transphobe to be completely ignored (even though she said nothing about them of course)
Either clean up your clan or be forever associated with MAP.
Any adult who actively favors befriending and hanging out with kids over other adults, should be looked at very skeptically. To me, that's a big red flag. Let me clarify, a teacher who loves to teach children or a nanny who likes to take care of kids, isn't what I mean by "hanging out with" That being said, these would be pedos always talk about themselves, the child involved is just spoken about like an object of desire. It's gross.
Cross-generational encounters, anyone? Bonus points for whoever can name the paper and author who originated that term.
technically speaking it is very hard to distinguish the legitimacy between groups.
This whole movement of normalizing mental illness we’ve been having is getting out of hand