Twitter CSE Policy

It appears that Twitter have changed their CSE Policy, this time quite clearly to target the MAP community there as well as being blatantly anti-science.

promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation.

This is now listed as being in violation of the policy.

The previous exclusion for “discussion of attraction to minors as a phenomenon” has been replaced with this:

  • Discussions related to child sexual exploitation are permitted, provided they don’t normalise, promote or glorify child sexual exploitation in any way;

  • Conversations about help-seeking behaviour of individuals who may struggle with an attraction to minors;

  • Advocacy against illegal or harmful activity involving minors provided there is no sharing of, or linking to any material featuring child sexual exploitation

I think this is quite clearly and specifically worded so as not to allow the MAP community to remain there.

They angered the researchers. They think they’re being censored from saying it might be a sexual orientation, which it is.

A sexual orientation has the following components:

Sexual attraction.

Romantic attraction.

Emotional attraction.

Very early onset.

Stable throughout life.

Unfortunately, the concept has become politicized, so an orientation can be considered “good” or “bad” and calling it such starts to offend some very narrow-minded people.


Good riddance. The so-called “MAP community” on Twitter is beyond narcissistic and delusional and seems to do nothing but parade their mental disorder around like it should be tolerated. I’ve seen a MAP say they could be a “1,000 times better person” than someone who is against pedophilia. I’ve seen a MAP make the horrifying implication that if they are pushed off of Twitter, they will lose control and try to prey on kids. I’ve seen a MAP say they will go down “kicking and screaming”.

There is nothing remotely acceptable or normal about being attracted to real children, so I don’t see how banning pedophiles from a website could offend anyone but the sickest people.

I’ve never seen MAPs do anything remotely close to preventing child abuse, but I have seen them time and again throw a fit every time pedophiles are criticized or frowned upon in some way. I think it’s obvious what their real goal is. They have no place on Twitter, or anywhere else for that matter.

As a rule, freedom of speech is very important. I don’t agree with every opinion or behavior. This is why I am even taking the time to respond to you, when you are clearly an alt-right troll spouting opinions, which are not worth the bytes to store them on this server.

I haven’t seen anyone say that, although some simple-minded individuals parrot rhetoric for the sake of activism where it isn’t really appropriate, and think that pointing out they themselves are attending therapy constitutes much in the way of a rebuttal.

Ironically, this means they’re not presenting themselves as normal or regular enough.

What would that something be in your view?

It’s normal to throw a fit when someone calls for you to be killed. You would have to be quite deluded to not throw a fit. I don’t entirely disagree with this statement.

I feel some avoid the more important issues like crimes against humanity / sketchy therapists, and instead focus on what may constitute horrible language, but which is otherwise just regular rhetoric from society at this point in time. They also let bad science makes it’s way.

Beating around the bush to make someone happy who will never be happy is pointless. They should say more things, which would piss you off.

From what I have seen, they’re suicidal and anxious from people telling them to kill themselves, but perhaps you wouldn’t have seen that past your superficial view most likely informed by an alt-right media source. This would not meet the definition of narcissistic. The most delusional ones rather, appear to be the ones who accept the moniker of “mental disorder”. They behave clinically delusional.

Tolerated by whom? A third rate news anchor? What is this tolerance? Being alive?

The sick ones are the ones who have no life, or anything better to do than to whine about what random people, who they think are of no relevance or power, are doing on social media. Simultaneously weak and powerful?

What does reality look like? Reality looks a little more like this. Oppressed group gets pushed too far. Organizes. Finally protests against you. You get mad, because how dare the oppressed group speak out against their betters. They are your inferiors. You are the betters. You have the moral highground, because xyz. No matter what someone does or doesn’t do, you can move the goalpost, and scapegoat them for someone else’s actions. And to make an orange guy look good prior to a national election.


I’ve never seen a MAP say anything close to this. This is however a way anti-paedophiles will commonly try to spin some of the things we do say

Of course you don’t see that. You’re not a MAP, you don’t know about the issues MAPs face, nor about primary prevention. People who do know about these things acknowledge the role a visible online community plays, even if by only decreasing the feeling of isolation. Most actual prevention is done in private.

What would you like to see us doing?

I think most people would if they were being genuinely told to kill themselves all day.


I have seen more than a few Twitter users with “MAP” in their bio who act like their issues are some kind of joke. One with an anime avatar (possibly a troll, but it’s hard to tell) said society doesn’t sexualize kids enough and wanted to see more films like Cuties. Their bio said some nonsense about how they support youth rights (to be lewd/reckless, no doubt).

I have no idea, aside from the obvious. Don’t support or promote anyone or anything that supports or promotes sexualizing minors. But “preventing” child abuse is a bit like preventing murder; even though there are cases where it absolutely can and must be prevented, there will always be people killing others. Similarly, no matter how many pedophiles are kept away from kids, there will always be those people who want to r-pe kids no matter what. Child abuse, and every single other crime, will exist for as long as humans do. Such crimes however should always be prevented where possible to reduce the rate at which they occur.

How serious are they, though? I have played several multiplayer FPS games, such as Black Ops II. And in those games I encountered a lot of users telling me stuff like “Get cancer”, “Get r-ped”, “You need to die”, etc. That stuff doesn’t really bother me because they’re just some angry strangers, and their threats don’t mean anything. I don’t lose sleep over some weirdo in a multiplayer game who doesn’t even know me saying I’m a bad person.

What does the alt-right have to do with anything? I’m pretty left-leaning; I can’t even think of any conservative ideas I agree with. Although, I don’t like rabid liberals either.

People who aren’t pedophiles. Other people shouldn’t have to see their posts on social media about how they’re attracted to 8-year-old girls, or which 1,000-year-old loli vampire they’d like to adopt in real life. If pedophiles got their own isolated country, where no one could harm them and they couldn’t harm kids in any way, then everyone would be happy.

If you’re seeing the posts, it is very likely you went out of your way to see them.

Very serious, especially when coupled with news articles of people getting killed, they too internalize the rhetoric of x should be killed from being exposed to it whenever the subject naturally comes up. One person got doxxed and harassed until they committed suicide. There is no doubt they would inflict harm.

Angry gamers don’t meticulously stalk you and think of ways to destroy you. Or try to infiltrate their communities on fals pretences, Like you for instance. What is your agenda here? Are you with the one who kills people?

I agree it would be impossible to stop it entirely, although it doesn’t mean you can’t try.

I haven’t seen such an opinion thus far, although there is certainly the opinion the lashback against Cuties is overblown.

How so?

There was a long discussion about what this would entail, do you not remember? Reduce the age to vote, oppose them being blocked from social media “for their own safety” (to be honest, it is weird to treat 15 year olds like children and tightly control them), and so on. Do some people have a sexual agenda? Possibly, I didn’t look at that profile. Is it a troll? There’s no shortage of those to go around, there are many trolls.

Is it good to push a problem underground?

Some schools of thinking would say to look out for suspicious behaviors, and to keep in mind anyone you know may be capable of it. Sadly, that means family members, father, son, brother, sister, and so on. No one likes to think one of their family members or friends may be capable of it. And to interrupt it as they become aware of it.

In all honesty, that would be difficult, lest someone sparks a witch hunt, or you become a paranoid wreck who can never trust someone, as any innocuous behavior may be a “sign”. In some countries like Britain, you can see the effect of “stranger danger” taken to an extreme. No one wants to take care of lost children, because someone might think they’re a pedophile. Human beings need some level of trust to function, or they’ll fall apart. It would be so much worse in the family unit, the basic level of trust.

Awareness campaigns would still work wonders, especially in places where individuals work with kids, in order to spot some of the signs. Unfortunately, American politicians are more interested in tough on crime committees, longer sentences, than taking the time to do some of these things, or to do research on where they put resources. No wonder crime is so bad.

1 Like

I would be weary with a lot of “MAP” accounts on twitter, a lot arent even MAPs and are just concern trolls. They just exist to pretend to be the worse type of person and try to associate that with being LGBT and constantly start fights to stir the pot.

1 Like

To be honest, anyone who is a MAP is going to be self-aware enough not to throw the name LGBT around. LGBT isn’t even what anyone thinks of, although some MAPs could be considered LGBT, as they possess traits which would be associated with it, like being trans or attracted to male adults as males.

There is literally no point in trying to associate the label with it, and it only serves to stir up pointless and completely avoidable drama in alt-right / conservative publications.

1 Like

Would you date a sock? Someone may find a sock very sexually arousing. Would you conceive of doing so in your imagination? Do you have romantic attraction to that sock? Could you conceive of marrying a specific sock? Would you date someone’s foot? How about a moonlight dinner with the foot? Would you denounce all earthly things as revolting and only date socks?

Well, there is a difference between a fetish and orientation. This is a clearly absurd example, but it gets a point across.

I don’t know how zoophilia operates, but if you were to say it meets the criteria for an orientation, then it’s an orientation. If it fulfills most of the criteria but not for developing it early on, it is more of a preference.

1 Like

That “normalization”, again! Starting from UN’s attempt to ban manga and literals entirely, when It comes to “normalization,” only bad things will happen. Preventing normalization is such a magical wording to ban things they don’t like, isn’t it?

The MAP supporting groups never normalize pedophilia itself. If they ever did normalize something, it would be the communication and proper treatment for pedophiles, totally normal without the need of normalization.

Nowadays, the word “normalization” has been misused a lot, and “normalization prevention” has become a major excuse to (actually) normalize bad rules/laws.


For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t even be bothering to say it is a sexual orientation (or anyone else for that matter), if it wasn’t some people trying to silence people from saying something they weren’t actually saying. But, since they brought up the subject. Yes, I think it is. Cutting off your nose to spite your face. I will remember to say it once a day.


Stop viewing CP. Stop supporting CP. Stop fantasizing about r-ping kids. Stop condoning child abuse. Stop abusing kids. Stop protecting other pedophiles. Stop sympathizing with child r-pists. The people responsible for CSE existing are pedophiles. There are dozens of active Twitter accounts from users who identify as pedophiles that as of this writing are retweeting blatant CP: Photos of young children posing suggestively in extremely skimpy outfits. One of the accounts is from a MAP who likes dolls and says in their bio that they are attracted to 7- to 9-year-olds. They claim the dolls stopped them from seeking out CP, yet currently they’re retweeting sexualized photos of children (I have already reported all of the accounts I could along with the offending Tweets). Clearly, pedophiles cannot be trusted to control their urges.

Pedophiles who claim to be against child abuse are exactly the same as Neo-Nazis who claim to be nonviolent. Regardless of what they say, they still have terrible ideas.

Heck, one of the former writers for this site is on a sex offender registry for possession of CP.

You’re trying to teach people how to protect their kids. From yourselves. Because you’re the ones who are complicit in, and fueling demand for, the production of CSAM.

Utter hypocrites.

We don’t.

I don’t, even if I did what I fantasise about in my own head doesn’t affect you or anyone else.

We don’t

I’ll protect people from being hated for something they didn’t choose until the day I die.

We’re not.

There are people in every group who do bad things, that doesn’t mean everyone in that group is bad. We shouldn’t judge an entire group because of a minority who engage in harmful behaviour, we don’t treat all straight men like rapists because a small minority commit rape.

As I said above, a small minority of straight men commit rape, so clearly straight men cannot be trusted to control their urges.

There’s a bit of a difference between being racist and having inherently harmful beliefs, and having unchosen feelings.

Maybe you should consider that they may have something important to say. Who better to provide insight into what might lead someone to access CSEM and how that can be prevented than someone who’s been through that? Or I suppose we could just hate someone who wants to make children safer, after all it’s your personal disgust that matters, you’re not really interested in children’s safety.

Maybe you should learn something about the people you’re talking about before attacking them.


This isn’t true, it is precisely that he wasn’t on the sex offenders register that he was able to become a writer on the site, without anyone knowing. It is true that he was charged for possession of CP.

Who knows, anyone can create an account and call themselves pedophiles (antis are known to send real CP to people to try to get them arrested). I understand which account you’re talking about, although a couple of the images retweeted are objectionable, it might not meet the standard of being CP (although, this is mainly because I am not a lawyer). It is worth reporting.

Twitter needs to put more effort into moderating their site. If you think something is CP, try reporting it to NCMEC. Don’t report blatant non-CP, legal child modelling, or artificial content to NCMEC, it diverts resources from investigating serious things.

This user is hardly involved in the MAP Community. I don’t think anyone interacts with them at all.