Pedophilia is not a "sexual orientation"

I do not care what pedowood thinks. I do not care what the left thinks. There is nothing in LGBTQ that denotes age of attraction.

Being a pedophile is WRONG. There is nothing acceptable about it. We have zero interest in normalizing your sick perversions.

This issue is really a red herring. Whether or not it amounts to a sexual orientation, as some scientists believe, this implies nothing about whether it should be treated as part of the LGBTQ+ movement. You are welcome to consider an unchosen condition as a moral failing. But doing that isn’t going to save any children. Our approach to abuse prevention doesn’t require you to take a moral position on what goes on in other people’s heads, it only requires you to follow the evidence.

  1. There’s no such thing as “normalization”
  2. See the DSM-V. Pedophilia is not the same as pedophilic disorder, which is the medically and empirically recognized diagnosis for someone prone to commit contact offenses against minors.

Those with a sexual interest in minors who do not meet the requirements for pedophilic disorder are regarded as having a pedophilic sexual orientation, or “sexual interest”.

Be mad at the science, not us. Demanding the criminalization of sex dolls and fiction, which do not harm or involve actual minors, will only serve to cause unnecessary harm to otherwise innocent persons. You don’t get to lock people up or ban things simply because you find them offensive.

Think with your brain, not your heart. When policymakers think with their hearts, people die. People suffer. And nothing gets done to actually correct the issues.


So?.. Yes I actually fail to understand why this would be relevant in any sense :thinking:, and also why pedophiles want to be part of the LGBT group :confused:

Correctly categorising paedophilia would mean conceptualising it as a form of attraction that is unchosen and unchangeable. It would help understanding, allow for better treatment and reduce stigma, all of which are identified as things that would not only benefit minor attracted people but also reduce abuse.

Sexual orientation ≠ LGBT. Paedophilia can be classed as a sexual orientation while still not being LGBT. I don’t want paedophilia to be added to the enormous and somewhat confusing LGBT+ umbrella, I’d rather just have a MAP community that exists on it’s own.

I agree that its A way to reducer stigma, but I’m sure its not the only way. And regarding treatment, I believe that we know it would be a complicated topic. Like, is it really a disease? And even if its, is there a possibility of being treated? Technically I would say no to both, using the same arguments against “gay cure”. Well, I agree that they are different things, one can harm people and the other don’t (or not so much at least) … But I believe that the fact that this is harmful to third parties is not relevant to classify it as a disease (Or it would be a really weird way to classify something as a disease) let alone the possibility of a curing it.

Non binary here. Yeah please don’t identify as LGBTQ. LGBT is about the ability to act on our desires, not just about ending pointless stigma. The anti offending map community is about making the public aware of the differences between attraction vs action. You are aware that child sex abuse is evil as non maps. If you are using fictional outlets, you are going to have to explain (with studies of course) that they reduce real world offending for the public to find it acceptable.

So the goals of anti offending MAPs (pedos and hebephiles) are going to be completely different to LGBTQ. We LGBTQ want the right to act on our attractions with each other. Anti offending maps understand they must never act on their attraction on children and mostly wants people to be aware of that.

1 Like

This is actually a good point, I always thought that lgbt and pedophiles have in common only the fact that they are attracted to something “not normal” (not in a pejorative sense). But just that. So it doesn’t make much sense that they want to be in the same group :confused: I think you managed to show a good argument about why this is true.

I only disagree with you in this part “If you are using fictional outlets, you are going to have to explain (with studies of course) that they reduce real world offending for the public to find it acceptable”.

First, because I don’t believe that these “fictional outlets” reduce the number of children being abuse. I just think that they don’t make any difference to that (don’t increase nor raise that number). Besides, I tend to think it would make more sense that the burden of proof shoud be for the people who say the opposite, that it makes a difference in child abuse. BUT I also think it makes sense for us to try to prove that, since we are the interested party here ^^". But (yes there is a lot of buts here XD) that doesn’t mean that I think it is right that any fantasy is criminalized. Even more if we have no logical reason to think that its bad in any sense :confused:


I’m not so much concerned about it being garden-variety acceptable as I am with it being simply legal. Of course the legality of which will inevitably require a great deal of public acceptance, but I don’t think it should be about “acceptance” or even “tolerance”, per se.
Moreso about understanding the difference between reality and fiction and action vs attraction as they apply to simple ideas and kinks and why censoring them is a pointless and fruitless effort in the end.

The science already shows that it doesn’t increase sex crimes, therein negating any “harm” theory.
These assumptions could easily be dispelled by employing a semantic-style level of argumentation, in that claiming it drives people to commit sexual abuse is extremely flawed because it assumes human beings can’t be held accountable for their actions and that raw desire and emotion should be regulated like controlled substances.
It’s just not a good argument.

What did Hollywood do?

The left wants to redistribute the means of production and wealth. I don’t think they have much personal interest in sexual orientations, or identity groups.

Thank you for your valuable input. The Committee will consider your kind words.

You know, plenty of pedophiles are trans.

They sound like a dull bunch, don’t you think? How about the ambitions of godhood and creating a perfect new loli world? Or barring that, sentient androids. But, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Be creative.

I am sure someone’s sexuality could motivate them to make advances which might otherwise be impossible! Dominate!