Originally published at: Stop using "pedophile" as an insult - Prostasia Foundation
Quick: What’s the worst word you can think to call someone? Ask the majority of folks this question and aside from racial and ethnic slurs, they’ll say ‘pedophile’. And sadly, that’s one of the slurs most commonly used against the LGBTQ+ community. Below, we dive into why LGBTQ+ folks are so often the target of…
4 Likes
No, I will refuse to stop using pedophile as an insult. Their thoughts disgust me to no end.
It’s possible to keep pedos stigmatized without having that branch over to LGBT people. The left thought by increasing acceptance for LGBT people would mean pedos would eventually be accepted. Such fucking idiots I swear. As a neo-reactionary, I have come to accept LGBT, but I still refuse to accept pedos.
Best definition of “pedophile” thus far. You could also read it literally.
paed means child.
phile is lover.
phile doesn’t actually refer to pure “sexual”.
Fitting.
If we go past random Greek / Latin geeking:
A pedophile, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a person who has intense and recurring sexual interest in and/or fantasies about prepubescent children.
Yeah. Pretty much. But, this is the sort of definition, which can lead to normies getting pathologized. Pedophilia, also known colloquially as “pedophillic disorder” is when an individual has an attraction to children, which is stronger than their attraction to adults.
Attraction intensity fluctuates over time, but it’s usually strongest on the onset, and weakens over time as you get used to it. If you reject it, it will usually become stronger and more intrusive, although accepting it is easier said than done, if a backwards country and very primitive country, threatens to imprison for something as simple as viewing pornography, even if they reduce it to an absolute minimum, or try to dilute it with competing sources.
Oops, I’m ranting. I do that. A lot.
I see a lot of pedophiles. I saw more in the past. Fewer now. And more law abiding ones. From interactions with ones who like lolis, a few are really nervous, and frankly, ridiculously paranoid about “molesting people”, but they quickly discover they would never do that. I don’t even know who or what put that ridiculous notion in their heads.
Pedophiles are usually fairly gregarious, friendly, and happy. Sometimes, they do things they shouldn’t, like breaking some law. But, they usually try to reduce that to a minimum, whenever possible. I could tell them off. But really, that would just be infantilizing them, someone can make their own decisions about their own lives.
Being a pedophile naturally means someone can invent new laws at any given moment to screw you over. And they will this for no reason, other than that they can, and they feel sadistic. They don’t actually care about children. They defund and dismantle safeguards to prevent children from being abused all the time. They just want to shit on the “other”. In Asia, drug dealers are the other who get executed. Not that long ago, homosexuals were the boogeymen in the West. Before that, Communists. Those filthy
commies. Remember that?
On the contrary, the pedophiles who seem disordered and weird, are the ones who play weird abstinence games, even when they’re perfectly capable of doing something positive with their lives. They then whine and rant and appear in pointless little sob articles, which get twisted by conservatives and people with an agenda like Jeremy Malcolm, along with Rahm who appeared out of thin air a year ago, and gets funds from questionable sources, and whose entire platform is built on providing questionable sketchy wonder cures.
Good gracious, this field is fucking corrupt with all sorts of “organizations” making all sorts of impossible and ridiculous promises about recidivism reduction to get more funding. It’s just a game to them. Normies don’t give a shit.
And it all empowers the leftist pseudo-progressive bullshit machine which can’t remember what it was prattling about a few minutes prior. Probation is the best thing ever. Probation is now the worst thing ever, it’s just a revolving door to throw people back in prison. Pitiful. Pathetic. Vice can’t keep their story straight with whatever quack appeared last week, and wants to get their shot at five minutes of fame. Now, they can’t even decide if unverified content on Pornhub is a “bad thing” or not, when they were going on about it for years. Are they just doing this to be edgy and get more clicks by going against the mainstream? The left is cancer.
This is the sort of bullshit pedophiles have to deal with. Not only do people not really understand pedophiles, but every special interest group wants to use pedophiles as a tool to get ahead, and don’t care in the slightest beyond that.
Is it surprising then that pedophiles come off as strange and “disordered” to people who never tried to understand pedophiles and simply want to pretend pedophiles don’t exist? Perhaps, they should try living without ever looking at pornography (with some bullshit exaggerated excuse barely grounded in fact about how they have magic psychic powers which can mind rape someone), having a relationship, and being told they’re the son of Satan whenever it strikes the fancy of some third rate hack. Hah.
This isn’t the post you wanted to read, the one I wanted to write, but it gets a point across. Thoroughly. It is also why I fundamentally don’t think the whole “pedo friends” progressive thing will ever work out. But, thank you for writing an okay article without saying my friends need to be locked in a mental hospital, or brainwashed into thinking they’re evil. This is a good step forward. I look forward to more.
4 Likes
“…phile doesn’t actually refer to pure “sexual”.”
Absolutely, anymore than in “Bibliophile”, “Oenophile”, “Francophile” or “Technophile” to name but a few. Similarly, this should also apply to “Necrophile” (eg: a Taxidermist or enthusiastic Mortician), or “Zoophile” (eg: David Attenborough).
When the DSMMD included the term in 1952, it was no doubt assumed that as “pedophilia” was the generally accepted term, they had no reason to consult the text that has pretty much been universally ascribed as the source of it; Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s seminal (ironically) work “Psychopathia Sexualis”. If they had, then they should have discovered that he did not use this term for the sexual attraction to children (because he was a clever man who understood Greek and new that this is not what it meant) he actually led with the term “Paedophilia Erotica”. “Erotica” used in this way alters the meaning of the word “Paedophilia”; it is what linguists term as qualifying the noun.
Another clue can be gleaned from the word “Paraphilia”. This is a more scientific way of saying “perversions”. However, although etymologically the prefix “para-” can have many meanings (from “resembling” to “abnormal”), one thing it most certainly does not mean is “the same as”. Indeed, other than when it has been co-opted in recent times as the prefix in portmanteaux (paragliding, parasailing), regardless of whether it has a Greek or Latin root, it specifically infers a meaning that excludes the interpretation it would have without it. So “Paraphilia” means “anything but a philia”, ie: NOT a love or attraction of.
So when this article suggests that “Paedo-(or Pedo-)phile” is the worst word that someone can call you, technically it should be one of the nicest words that someone can call you.
Shame I can’t find a similar argument for the word “Nonce” (other than it sounds childish).
1 Like
What’s to explain? Cantor is universally acknowledged as one of the world’s leading scientific experts on pedophilia. We are lucky to have him on our Advisory Council. But that doesn’t mean we agree with everything he says; he doesn’t speak for us and we don’t speak for him. His opinion on LGBTQ+P is a politial opinion, not a scientific one. It doesn’t represent Prostasia policy and we directly challenged him on it in our podcast interview with him.
2 Likes
I personally think that non-offending pedophiles and MAPs could become part of the LGBTQ community, providing that there’s an emphasis on not committing offenses against children and keeping desires and impulses relegated to fantasy.
This is also furthered by the fact that it was de-pathologized by the DSM-5 and distinguished from pedophilic disorder as “pedophilic sexual orientation/interest”.
But that’s just me, quite frankly.
1 Like
act like a mature adult and stop raging and letting irational thoughts control your actions
I’ve had a lot worse thrown my way.
2 Likes
I don’t think that’s a good comparison.
Morality and ethics aside, I don’t think the two are comparable unless you want to compare lolicons with furries.
Fair enough, but I still believe MAP activism should be kept separate from the LGBTQ+ community. Wouldn’t really make sense to combine them, with the current direction they’re going.
3 Likes
This already happened. There are whole communities online, some of them private. There are also websites and blogs that promote ideas, art, etc… My website, for example, will be done soon, and it will debunk myths and stereotypes about pedophilia. The first and most important step, is to make minor-attraction more tolerated.
Actually, the pro-“pedophilia” movement and its organizations were part of the LGBT mvement from the beginning, after the Rockefeller’s experiment, that was performed by Alfred Kinsey, but only funded by Rockefeller, proved that humans are sexual from early age. Alfred Kinsey also proved that women are sexual, something that was believed to be a lie from Satan and his army of demons who want to destroy the humanity by spreading sins, and to destroy the creation of God and his son - Jesus.
For example, (edit) pro-MAP organization which name is forbidden here (edit), was part of the Gay Liberation movement. Later, after 10 years of misinformation campaigns and fear mongering by many conservative organizations, the public perception was shifted into thinking things that are evidently false.
By the mid-1980s, (edit) the organization which name is forbidden here (edit) was virtually alone in its positions, and was politically isolated.
Similar fate followed (edit) another organization which name is forbidden here (edit) and many other pro-“pedophilia” organizations. Political destabilization took place, as well.
Don’t be fooled when someone say that minor-attracted people will never be accepted in the LGBT+ community. In fact, minor-attracted people are part of the LGBT+ community from the beginning and no one can deny that. I can prove that by showing footages of (edit) an organization which name is forbidden here (edit) and LGBT movements, conferences, documents of partnership between (edit) an organization which name is forbidden here (edit) and popular pro-LGBT organizations, including the mainstream european LGBT organizations, and ACLU, and many more human rights organizations.
Later, there were many studies that debunk the false narratives of what is meant by “child sexual exploitation”, “abuse”, “rape”, etc…
You should read studies like:
Adult-minor:
Rind et al - 1998 / Rind and Bauserman - 1993
Rind et al - 2000
Rind et al - 2001
Rind and Welter - 2014
Rind and Tromovitch - 1997
Sandfort - 1983
Sandfort - 1984
Ulrich et al. - 2005 - NOTE: It might be hard to find the results by using google.
Studies about “CP”:
Diamond and Uchiyama - 1999
Diamond et al. - 2011
Kendall - 2007
Kutchinsky - 1973
Kutchinsky - 1991
Studies about CSA:
Afifi et al. - 2018
Ney et al. - 1994
Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. - 2018
Some studies on what is called “pedophilia”:
Ponseti et al. - 2018
Seto and Lalumière - 2001
Seto et al. - 2006
Soothill et al. - 2005
I also recommedn you to read the whole text here: LINK REMOVED BY THE AUTHOR OVER WARNING THAT MENTIONING THE NAME OF THIS ORGANIZATION IS NOT ALLOWED HERE.
I didn’t give direct links to the studies, because all these studies are part of archive that also contains a lot of videos that debunk even more claims, and i don’t think so much truth can be handled by the people on this forum. However, if someone wants to watch the videos that are made by professional psychiatrists and psychologists and their studies, ask me for the videos on private message.
And no, no, and no… the studies are solid, and are not debunked. There are rumors that these studies are “junk science”, but these rumors are rejected by members of APA and independent scientists. These false claims were made by the religious right, back then, when some of the studies were created.
Why i showed these studies? Because i talked about how the pro-“pedophilia” movement was part of the LGBT movement from the beginning, but later was excluded because of too much misinformation. I showed these studies, so you can know that even after these studies, people still believe in the stereotypical bogeyman, who is old, fat, ugly, repulsive, hairy male, who lurks around schools and gives sugar candies to children, so children can follow him, so he can abuse them and traumatize them for life. This bogeyman doesn’t really exist.
This bogeyman is a product of the “Stranger Danger” misinformation campaign that is debunked, too.
The Sex Offender Registry is based on the Stranger Danger misinformation campaign. The registry is debunked, too, all human rights organizations are against the registry.
Also, there is a myth that says that pedophilia is a mental disease. There are no genes nor brain changes that are found to cause “pedophilia”, so this claim is not valid.
Homosexuality was thought to be a disease, too. Later, it became clear it’s not a disease. Actually, what will be considered a disease and what not, depends on the public opinion.
When sex between young people and adult people was accepted, the concept of pedophilia didn’t exist, because there was no need to call sex between adult people and young people, differently. However, later, in the late 19th century, sex between adult people and young people was stigmatized, because suddenly sex became bad and evil thing that corrupts the innocence of young people. In the late 19th century, many more things happened - for example, the concepts that were created during the so-called “Age of Reason”, were strongly implemented in the society. These concepts were mostly puritan.
Back then, i thnk, the word “pedophilia” was used strictly to describe attraction to certain age group. Later, the usage of the word, was distorted. Today, the word “pedophilia” doesnt mean anything anymore.
Today, everyone uses the word “pedophilia” to describe anyone who is attracted to young people, and the young people dont necessary need to be under the age of 18.
I know people who would call a 30 years of person, a pedophile, if the person is attracted to 18 years old person. They would call a 20 years old person pedophile, if this 20 years old person is attracted to 17 years old person.
The thing is that the definition of pedophilia, is attraction to prepubescent people, and at the age of 17, you are no longer prepubescent.
The true meaning of the word “pedophilia”, is distorted, so this word doesnt mean anything anymore.
When someone say that pedophiles are sick, i always ask for evidence like MRI scan results and genetic tests. When i ask for this kind of evidence, people just stop talking, because they quickly realize they talk to someone with understanding of the situation. When it comes to pedophilia, people use emotional reaction that are baseless, and this is the reason why people can’t stand when asked for actual evidence, not just some myths and stereotypes.
There are people who have no idea for what they are talking about. They say that teen pregnancy is a crime and pedophilia, because the parents had sex while they are teens. In other words, if you are 18 years old boy, and you have sex with 18 years old girl, they you are a pedophile.
The strict definition of pedophilia, is attraction to prepubescent people, and at the age of 18, you are no longer prepubescent. The word is simply used as an insult, and nothing more.
Teen pregnancy can’t be a crime, because “teen” is not a real thing, but one of the many non-natural human made concepts. NOTE: It will be a crime, if it’s rape. If two people at similar age consensually have sex, then it can’t be a crime.
Many years ago, when the average human life-span was short, around 17-23 years, people had to have sex and to reprodece when they reach sexual maturity which happens at around age of 11-12. They might reproduced a little bit later, at age 13. We can’t know for sure the exact age, but we don know for sure that it was before the age of 18.
A few hundred years ago, 500-600-700 years ago, there were no such things as “teen” or “children”. Young people, back then, were called young adults. The concet of “teen pregnancy” didn’t exist back then.
The pregnancy of a person under the age of 18 (young adult) was viewed in the same way as the pregnancy of an adult person who is above the age of 18. I said “young adult”, because back ten young people were called young aduls, instead of children and/or teens, and they also had the same rights and freedoms as the people above the age of 18. What wonderful times were back then!
Some people think that sex between adult and young people became taboo in 1910s or 1920s. It actually happened ever earlier. The main force behind the stigmatization of the natural human instincts, is the modern concept of childhood - not the conect of childhood, but the MODERN concept of childhood.
The modern concept of childhood includes:
- Playing.
- Curiosity
- Imagination.
- Innocence.
- Non-matuity
The thing is that these 5 things have absolutely nothing to do with being under the age of 18.
Im above the age of 18, and playing, curiosity, imagination, and innocence fit my personality. The reason why the 5th thing, non-maturity, doesn’t fit my personality, is because im on another level of development, i don’t identify myself as a human anymore. But there are a lot of people, above the age of 18, who are non-mature. This is because maturity comes from knowledge, not age. Time doesn’t exist, time is just another concept of humans. Time is function of relativity only and exist relative to some arbitrary point of reference.
People don’t need to age, people need to be educated now. Maturity comes from knowledge, not from age. A 20 years old person, who studied STEM, is much more mature than a 50 years old person who has never been in school, and has never left his/her house.
The reason why teen pregnancy was stigmatized, is because for pregnancy to happen, sex is required.
Here is the “logic”:
Sex is evil and sinful. Everyone under the age of 18, is a child. Being a child mean that you must be innocent, and you can’t be sinful, because you are 100% pure and divine. Sex is sinful, being under 18 mean you are divine, once you have sex, you will no longer be pure, therefore - teen pregnancy must be bad, because teen pregnancy to happen, requires sex before the age of 18, but you are pure and divine when you are under the age of 18, so you can’t have sex.
This “logic” was created during the so-called “Age of Reason” - 1685-1815. Later, however, the so-called “Age of Reason” movement died for obvious reasons. However, some the concepts that were created during the times of the Age of Reason, remained. Later, these concepts were strongly implemented in the society, during the late 19th century. During the late 19th century, the sensationalist reports on human trafficking, began, which influenced moral panic that caused rising in the age of consent, which led to a lot of violation of human rights. People started to believe that kidnapping, rape, and abuse, are everywhere at any moment, which is not true, and has never been true.
The irrational fear influenced the creation of a lot of harmful laws that are based on fear, which leads to restrictions and violations of human rights.
I will explain you how the “pedophilia” came into existence, and how it evolved from just a word, then, to repression today.
Before then, the concept of pedophilia didn’t exist, because sex between adult people and young people was accepted, so there was no need to call such kind of sex, differently. When people started to believe (NOT TO KNOW, BUT TO BELIEVE) that sex between adult people and young people, is wrong, they decided to call such kind of sex, differently. They invented the concept of “pedophilia”. In the beginning, the word “pedophile” was used to describe a person who is attracted to a person who is in a strict age group. Later, however, people started to use the word “pedophile” to describe everyone who is attracted to young people.
For example, if you are a 50 years old male, and you like a 18 years old female, you will be considered a pedophile, even when the person you are attracted to, is above the age of consent.
This is how the word “pedophile” was distorted to the point when it doesn’t mean anything anymore. Everyone uses the word “pedophile” in his/her own way, without even knowing what is the meaning of the word.
Here are examples of the double standards on “pedophilia”:
Action: 14 years old girl has sex wth a 30 years old male.
Reaction: The 14 years old girl is a victim. The 30 years old male is a rapist, monster, and disgusting pedo that must be put to death! Call the police!
Action: 14 years old boy has sex with a 30 years old female.
Reaction: Whoa! Nice! This boy is super-dupe dude! He is lucky. I wish i was him.
When an adult female has sex with underage boy, the female is not considered pedophile.
When an adult male has sex with underage girl, the male IS considered pedophile.
When an adult female has sex with underage boy, there are no death threats, insults, and bad words.
When an adult male has sex with underage girl, there WILL be death threats, insults, and bad words.
These examples are only for the heterosexual sex. When it comes to homosexual version of what im talking about, it’s even worse, but only when two males, one adult and one underage, are involved… but again… when an adult female and underage girl are involved, there are not insults, death threats, and bad words…
When people hear the word “pedophile”, they imagine very ugly, repulsive, hairy, fat, anti-social male, who has no social life, and lurks around schools and gives sugar candies to children, so children can follow him. Then, he has sex, traumatizes children for life.
Notice, that when people hear the word “pedophile”, they always imagine only males, but NEVER females, because people think that only males can be pedophiles, and feales can’t be pedophiles.
Did you know that even the sex offender registry is based on the “Stranger Danger” propaganda?
The “Stranger Danger” popaganda is this: “very ugly, repulsive, hairy, fat, anti-social male, who has no social life, and lurks around schools and gives sugar candies to children, so children can follow him.”
Yes, the “Stranger Danger” propaganda is behind the sex offender registry. These registries are based on emotions and fears… and outrages for isolated cases that were propagated and exaggerated by the media, so people thought that kidnappings, rape, and abuse are everywhere at any time.
The fact that whole laws, registries, fears, and ideas, are based on this stereotypical bogeyman, simply proves that pedophilia is nothing more than baseless fear.
These baseless fears and stereotypes created the repressive system of the sex offender registry. Today, everyone can be registered and labeled as “sex offender”, which will ruin his/her life. There are even minors registered on the registry. You can be registered even for public urinaton. The sex offender registry has nothing to do with sex offences… this registry is designed by irrational decisions, which made the registry very destructive. This is why all human rights orgaizations are against this registry.
This is what the concept of pedophilai led to. Pedophilia is nothing, but baseless idea that describes a bogeyman who doesn’t exist. There is no very ugly, repulsive, hairy, fat, anti-social monster, that has no social life, and lurks around schools and gives sugar candies to children, so children can follow him. This is just stereotype, a myth. Official studies are clear: In most cases, abuse against children, is performed by someone the child already knows, not someone who is stranger and fits the idea of “Stranger Danger”.
Also, keep in mind that there is no actual disease, called “pedophilia”. Pedophilia is completely made up label, just like the races. I know that APA and wikipedia claim that pedophilia is psychiatric disorder. I don’t think this is true.
The definition of mental disorder is:
“A mental disorder or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.”
Okay… if pedophilia is a mental disorder, which cause “distress” and “impairment”, then why do minor-attracted people are completely normal people who behave normally? Im a MAP, and i know many other MAPs - they are not emotionally destabilized, they don’t have poor mental skills, poor self-control, poor learning skills, low success rates on school tests, and many more traits that suggest the personality is not functioning normally?
Where is the chemical imbalance in the brain? Where are the brain changes that pedophiles have, but non-pedophiles don’t have? Where are the genes that lead to these brain changes? Where are the MRI scan results? Well, you don’t see the results of genetic testing, and the MRI scan results, for obvious reasons. There are no pedo-genes nor pedo-brain-changes.
“Another researcher, Howitt (1998), reached a similar conclusion: “The possibility of finding a simple personality profile that differentiates pedophiles from other men has appeared increasingly unrealistic as the research and clinical base has widened. Simplistic notions such as social inadequacy driving men to sex with children become unviable as highly socially skilled pedophiles are found” (p. 44). Another argument for the normality of pedophilic feelings are the percentages of ‘normal people’ who are said to feel attracted to children (about 20 to 25%), and who react with penile erection to ‘pedophilic’ stimuli: more the 25%. One cannot reasonably argue that about one quarter of the population is mentally ill. The last group of arguments refers to the DSM itself: its inconsistencies. So what then of the pedophile who does not act on the fantasies or urges with a child? Where does the DSM leave us? In Wonderland. If a person does not act on the fantasies or urges of pedophilia, he is not a pedophile. A person not distressed over the urges or fantasies and who just repeatedly masturbates to them has no disorder. But a person who is not distressed over them and has sexual contact with a child does have a mental disorder. The APA position with its DSM catalogue is logically incoherent.”
“Confronted with the paradox that in contrast to other conditions designated a mental disorder, such as with persons who hand-wash to the point of bleeding and can’t touch a door knob, or who are harassed by voices threatening their personal destruction, many pedophiles are not distressed by their erotic interest, aside from the fear of incarceration. Some celebrate their interests, organize politically, and publish magazines or books.”
I no longer trust APA. In fact, APA has no clear statement on anything.
APA - THEN AND NOW:
Homosexuality is a disease - homosexuality is not a disease.
Trans-gender is a disease - transgender is not a disease.
Sex addiction is real - sex addiction is not real.
If APA wants people to trust it, they should start saying the truth, instead of working for political ideologies and saying what is a diseas and what is not a disease, based on what the society wants to hear.
The society wants pedophiles punished and harmed, so these mainstream organizations will speak what the society wants to hear, because their rating depends on the society.
Also, the word “pedophile” should not be used as an insult, because the word is not an insult.
When you say “child-lover” instead of “pedophile”, people will start accusing you for normalization of pedophilia, and thy will call you disgusting.
Fun-fact: Pedophile and child-lover are the same thing. Pedo = child / Philia - love. Pedophilia = child-love.
People really need to learn the meaning of the words they use, and stop distorting words, because words lose meaning.
Why do people have problems with the word “child-lover”, but they dont have problems with the word “pedophile”, when it’’ clear these two words have absolutely the same meaning?
Why do people have problems with accepting the idea that pedophilia is not a disease, when it’s clear that there are no genetic tests nor any MRI scan results to suggest the pedophilic brain is different than the non-pedophilic brain?
Why do people have problems with admitting that pedophilia doesnt exist, and it’s entrely made up concept that is used to describe sex between adult people and young people, because today this kind of sex is not accepted as normal, so there is need to be called differently? Why cant people admit that the only purpose of the concept of pedophilia is to call sex between adult people and young people differently? Why cant people admit that in the past the word “pedophile” didnt exist, because there was no need to call sex between adult people and young people, differently?
Why do eope push such harmful double standards on females who are MAP, and males who are MAP? When you are MAP-male, you are disgusting and you must die. But when you are MAP-female, then everthing is fine.
The very idea that pedophilia is male-only thing, comes from the puritan movement. They claim that only males are bad, because males are masculine and strong, while females are skinny and weak, and must be protected, meaning that females cant be bad, only males can be bad.
The fact that this is what people think about pedophilia, proves that pedophilia shares the same definition with black magic, demons, ghosts, etc… It is something that can not be detected by any scientific instruments, but people are 100% sure it’s there, and it’s 100% harmful, evil, and bad.
The fact that people are hateful only towards MAP-males, but never hateful towards MAP-females, simply proves the hate towards pedophilia is stereotypical and made up.
I’ve privately warned @Michael45 about this post and given him the opportunity to edit it to remove positive references to NAMBLA and PIE. If he doesn’t, I will be deleting it soon.
5 Likes
Hi, terminus.
Please, don’t delete the whole post. I already deleted the parts you might don’t like. I deleted some of the parts, check your private messages to see what parts i deleted. However, i didn’t understand you very well which part exactly you want me to delete.
I deleted the names of the 2 organizations you are talking about. But i didn’t write any positive references to these 2 organizations. All studies, i showed, are made by scientists who are not connected to the two organizations.
The 2 quotes i showed, are from a study that is not made by the 2 organizations, but from scientists who are not connected to any pro-MAP organizations.
If there is more text you don’t like, tell me, and i will delete it, but please, don’t delete the whole post.
EDIT: I reviewed my post, but i still can’t see the positive references you are talking about. Be more specific about which segments of my posts i have to delete, and i will delete the segments.
I won’t delete it but please don’t engage in such blatant pro contact advocacy.
4 Likes
…or pro-contact advocacy period. Crap like that is not what the PF is or should ever be about, and allowing such garbage to run rampant on their forum is not and should not be allowed. Period.
1 Like
Okay. Thanks.
Did you review my post? Is there something else i should delete?
Be more specific. What do you call garbage? Can you show me why do you think what i wrote is garbage?
I am not going to review your posts. I don’t have the time and I don’t want to contribute to the impression that I approve of anything you write. Sorry to be so blunt.
5 Likes
Too tired to fully respond to this right now, but have you read this article: https://aboutpedophilia.com/2018/09/07/why-pro-contact-pedophile-arguments-are-bullshit-by-a-pedophile/
1 Like
The article you showed puts some real information and some misinformation. The article mixes truth with non-truth, to make misrepresentation that sounds credible.
The writer/s of the article played with the words and the concepts, and they misrepresented a lot of things, plus they skipped and didn’t say a lot of things.
I will debunk the article in the coming days, when i get my computers and laptops back.
Currently, im on mobile device, and writing long texts in not comfortable, but hard.
I will make my response in less than 2 weeks.
Thanks.