I’m anti-contact, as in I’m against chronological adults or other significantly older individuals having sexual or romantic contact/interactions/relationships with chronological children or adolescents. I don’t believe anti-c policy should involve putting restrictions on children/adolescents to prevent abuse; rather, the adults/significantly older persons have an ethical obligation to not engage sexually/romantically with them. I don’t believe this would be ok if only everyone stopped believing it was wrong, or if youth were no longer oppressed.

 

I’m an anarchist and supporter of youth liberation. For example, I believe that violent self-defense against child abuse(rs) is urgently needed.…

Is he a wm and is his “love interest” a child from the Global South? That’s pedophilia × sex trafficking (I cant use the euphemism of “sex tourism”). The “courageous” thing to do, would have been to leave the child the f*ck alone and register himself into a f*cking program.

To understand why Stephen acted as he did, it is critically important to consider the appalling circumstances in which boy-loving men of his generation found themselves living. Just as he finished his education, his native land began to be gripped by a moral panic about children and sex which made loving boys infinitely more dangerous than it had been before. Many at the time believed that reason would soon prevail. When Stephen realised this was not to be and that he must travel abroad if he was to hope for a fulfilled existence, it was still possible in many countries for men and boys safely to have love affairs, in South East Asia quite openly. However, no sooner had he begun to explore these lands and to consider moving to one of them, longing for a love life such as people with different sexual longings could take for granted, than the writing appeared on the wall: the English-speaking countries were not satisfied with Gestapo-like repression of boy-love in their own countries, but were set on using threats and financial inducements to cajole every other country into succumbing to their new sexual order.

Hey Idiot,

If you actually read books on the subject you have an unhealthy and malicious obsession with,[2] you’d know that Amazon has always carried books that feature sex between men and boys.[3] In a lot of cases, the sex happened at a time when the age of consent was lower than it is today and when there was less hysteria about CSA. God bless the soul of Edmund’s deceased friend.

You’re not a MAP, Iris. You’re just mentally ill.

Go see a doctor for your POCD, schizophrenia,[4] and autistic retardation. And if you’re so fucked in the head that doctors can’t help you, please kill yourself. Here’s a website[5] with information about humane suicide methods. The world would be much better off without mentally deranged imbeciles like you.

Women[6] are teleiophiles at heart and can’t be MAPs except in rare cases. A female MAP is like a two-headed sheep; a true freak of nature. They’re so rare, they might just as well not exist.

99.9% of women who claim to be MAPs either have POCD or psychotic delusions about being pedophilic. They’re not genuinely attracted to minors at all. Women are viscerally disgusted at the thought of sleeping with someone who lacks physical and psychological traits associated with maturity. For women, nothing screams “sexual turn-off” as much as immaturity. Women expect their male partners to be more mature than they are themselves.

Even in the rare case where a female teacher gets caught for having sex with an underage student, it’s always the most mature and socially dominant boy in her class that she developed a relationship with. And even then, those women are unicorns. 99.9% of women have zero interest in minors, even if they’re mature for their age.

Straight women prefer manly men. Lesbian women prefer mature women and lack men’s sexual preferences for neoteny. It’s incredibly rare to find a lesbian who likes barely legal girls; finding one who likes minors is pretty much impossible.

Men are the only ones who can truly love boys. Women are completely incapable of it. Teenage girls can love boys their own age who look and act mature for their age, but they can’t love younger boys, and once they become women, they have eyes only for mature men and couldn’t care less about boys.

• Actions you take, including:
  
  • Sharing text, photos, videos, or links
  • Marking a review as “helpful”
• Interactions with other community members and Amazon

The guidelines don’t apply to content in products or services sold on Amazon (for example, content of a book).

tweet by another user: With the amount of bigots calling LGBTQ+ pedos, the rigid anti-pedophilia stance is a dogwhistle. Offenders should be punished and rehabilitated, however we must first and foremost, as Marxists, recognize that pedophilia is a mental illness and therapy is available and works.

punished

tweet by another user: The question is whether they can be rehabilitated. That means they recognize they did something wrong and atone for it, and become a productive member of society. There’s no reason sex offenders can’t be rehabilitated like any other criminal if we actually tried

become a productive member of society

https://sci-hub.st/10.1007/BF02685564

Up until now the ideology governing the approach to the problem of rape posed man as a sort of goat in rut whose ardor does not bear any shackling, as an unrestrained bestial being. This was a naturalist discourse, which defined man with unequaled violence and horror, and which permitted the situation where the injustice of contemporary social relationships was not posed. The male rapist had to be ascribable to nature, not at all to an oppressive society. It was preferable to propose a lobotomy[9] to reduce his “instinct to rape,” rather than to make him recognize the oppression of women in which he as a (social) man participates.

[9] A psychosurgical technique aiming at severing a part of the brain matter considered responsible for a behavior disorder. The fact that a television program on rape displayed a rapist who had been normalized by a lobotomy shows the extreme ascendancy of the naturalist ideology. It is probably considered just a sample case; doubtless few men would have to submit to a lobotomy. But ideologically the “explanation” and its practical implication are ready to hand. But it is not without interest to point out that when it is a question of rape, man is treated as a biological entity (something which is ordinarily reserved for women), and that one can even think of applying to him a “curative” (mutilating) technique that is also more particularly “reserved” for women. Cf. for example: Peter Breggin, “La lobotomie revient,” Les temps modernes, no. 321 (1973), pp. 1773-1792.

[2021-2022 Newgon meme, now deleted after pressure (an extremely rare occurrence—they now claim they can’t/won’t take down any memes or graphics for being bigoted). The meme depicted a crying boy labeled “Indian rational thinkers” saying, “Science proves that adult-minor sexual relations are natural and exists [sic] among animals as well, our grandparents did it too. It is a White man’s taboo.” Another boy, drawn with a malicious/jeering expression and labeled “Indians with slave mentality,” points at him and says, “Are you trying to justify pedophilia ? Kids can’t legally consent, you are sick.” A much taller woman, wearing a dress, handbag, and heels labeled “white master race” is behind the second boy, with her tongue as a long leash extending all the way through his own mouth as well, implying that his words are actually hers speaking for him. It was claimed on the grapevine and by Newgon members on the pediverse that this meme was made by a PCMA member who is Indian themself.]

“Is it tacky to say—you were my father?”

“Oh, look. I told you at the time it was perfectly natural. Besides, look it up. Use your brain. You’ll find it’s perfectly natural in nature. And some native cultures certainly encourage it.”

“Since when do we emulate animals and savages?”

Research: Nonwestern Intergenerational Relationships

Most societies which have not been influenced by the west have less, no or different sexual taboos. It is worth mentioning that absent modern western influence, anthropologists and historians have found far more societies where homosexuality is prohibited than societies in which pedosexuality suffers similar censure. Many encourage intergenerational sex for various reasons. Due to ongoing westernisation, much of what is listed here may already be consigned to history (see, for example, Nieto (2004), for an anthropological review).

Burger, G.C. (Date unknown). The Sexual Mistake of the West.

“Enamored of travel, he went to a different country every year, and, that year, he visited the Philippines. Not wanting to stay in the capital, he had taken the bus in order to get closer to the population. He thus found himself next to a mother who had reserved only one seat for herself and her eight-year-old daughter. […] when he noticed that the mother began masturbating the child, as if it were the most natural thing in the world. You can imagine him blushing, asking himself what he should do, looking all around him to see how the other passengers would react, feeling that he would be accused of complicity in incest. But all the neighbors watched with big calm smiles, as if it were obvious, and worthy of the greatest discretion. […]”

I only read up until the first chapter because it’s insufferable and there’s obviously a lot wrong with it but as someone who lives in the Philippines the bit where they say “oh adults masturbating young children in public transport is just their culture” is baffling

These specific types of “muh natural human nature” arguments always have something to say about the Strange Yet Enlightened^TM ways of us third-world countries ~divorced from Western modernism~ or however they wanna put it

It is naïve to believe that the police, a violent, militaristic, and intrinsically patriarchal organ of the state, could be genuinely committed to eradicating violence against women. It is even more naïve to think that Israeli police, a law-enforcement tool for the occupation, would be determined to abolish violence against indigenous Palestinian women unless it is under immense pressure to do so. The stories of Palestinian women who complained to the Israeli police about threats by their family members—only to be turned down by the police and later killed by their family members—are too many to recount. For instance, few months ago in Rahat, the largest Palestinian city in the Naqab, A young woman approached the social service office and reportedly informed the police that she feared for her life. Police officers reportedly told her to go back home, assuring her that she would be safe. Almost 24 hours later, she was found dead.

 

The latest incident occurred on 21 May, 2013: Two girls, aged three and five, were strangled to death in their home in Fura’a, an unrecognised Palestinian village in the Naqab. The girls’ mother had approached the police station in the nearby Jewish colony of Arad and said that her husband threatened to kill the girls, but her plea was ignored. These horrific events demonstrate marriage between the state—a patriarchal, masculinist entity—and the conservative patriarchal elements in the community.

 

The Israeli police treat domestic violence among the Palestinian minority as a “private affair” that should be left for the clan and its leaders to solve. It is much more comfortable for the police to link domestic violence against Palestinian women to “family honour” and thus absolve themselves of the responsibility to intervene under the pretext of respecting “cultural sensitivity.” Using this pretext to justify lack of enforcement of women rights stems from Israel’s racist presumption that the abuse and oppression of women are intrinsically tied to Palestinian culture and tradition. It also stems from Israel’s double standards in respecting and protecting multiculturalism.

 

On the one hand, Israel claims to respect the principle of multiculturalism to buttress and sustain the oppression of women. On the other hand, Israel shows little respect to multiculturalism when it comes to the recognition of minority rights: The ostensible status of Arabic as an official language is solely ink on paper; Palestinian culture, history, narrative, and political literature are intentionally snuffed out of school curricula; and collective memory is targeted through constant attempts of Israelification. In addition, the same Israeli police that evades its duty to protect women from domestic violence because it is a “family” affair is, in the end, has no such concern for “Palestinian family affairs” when its forces demolish homes and displace entire families on a regular basis in the Naqab.

 

Not only is protection desperately scarce in all of this, but so is accountability. The majority of cases involving violence against women are closed either for lack of evidence or lack of public interest. Although Israel, unlike many Arab states, does not have a provision in its criminal law that mitigates punishment for so-called “honor crimes,” women’s rights organisations repeatedly accuse the police of not investing enough effort in the attempts to find the killers and hold them accountable. Some of the worst cases of violence against women occur in Lydd, Ramleh and the Naqab. Those places also happen to boast some of the highest poverty and unemployment rates; they are also subjected to a targeted Israeli policy of extreme discrimination, denial of basic rights and services, and constant threats of eviction and home demolitions. Add to that the inaccessibility of the Israeli justice system for Palestinian and under-privileged women, and the social retribution that women face for approaching the police and complaining about their family members, and it should be no surprise, then, that Palestinian women do not trust the state to protect them.

- Budour Hassan, “Palestinian women: Trapped between occupation and patriarchy”

Afary and Anderson go on to point out, again to the chagrin of some, that while the dualism in Foucault’s work centred around the modern and the pre-modern, his descriptions of “premodern” were often Eastern and a “counter-discourse that appropriated oriental lore in opposition to Western strategies of control.” Foucault’s counter-discourse, they allege, reifies the oriental (presented as the pre-modern), in stark opposition to the traditional orientalists who denigrated the barbarism and uncivilised “otherness” of Eastern thought. It is thus a final and complete reversion of its modern predecessor. Having laid the philosophical foundations of Foucault’s thought, Afary and Anderson transpose on the presented philosophical landscape, the historical event that is the subject of the treatise. Hence, the cataclysmic reaction between the anti-modern philosophy of Foucault and the anti-modern but unassailably theocratic movement precipitated by Ayatollah Khomeini is exculpated. On the one hand is a philosopher whose world view is a scathing and seething reaction against the modern world; on the other, a theocratic leader whose rallying cry managed to appropriate the unifying rhetoric of anti-imperialism to institute a draconian and repressive order in Iran.

[…]

In tracing the transformation of traditionally significant epithets of Shia Islam, Afary and Anderson bring attention to the question of whether the “pre-modern” East truly exists outside the philosophic imagination of the Western Left represented here by Foucault.

[…]

Anderson and Afary’s endeavour casts critical light on these very questions. In the quest for understanding, is the post-modern glorification of the “other” a valuable corrective to the repressive orientalist discourses that preceded it? Does either do justice to the reality of engaging the “other” devoid of predeterminations? Foucault’s Iranian escapade seems particularly to raise these questions. As Anderson and Afary illustrate, the very notion of pre-modernity itself is a glorified fiction motivated possibly by the post-modern dissatisfaction with their own world, a world that takes for granted the advances of modernity in terms of individual freedom. Their thesis exposes the limits of cultural relativism in its inability to give credence to real desires for freedom and liberation that may be stymied by culture traditions reified for their apparent pre-modernity or “otherness” in relation to modernity. In essence, Afary and Anderson expose the “other” orientalism, a phenomenon perhaps as dangerous and disconcerting in its passive encouragement of fictive and retrogressive notions; their value is coined not in the cultures where they exist but in that of a West that nostalgically laments their loss.

The Enlightenment had its critics, of course, and given the centrality of childhood to European thought many of these critics sought to reconceptualizing the figure of the child. While it appears on the surface that a sense of dignity was being associated with childhood itself, the figure of the child was not removed from its conceptualization as the tragic antithesis of the emerging modern condition. In general, childhood animality became the object of nostalgia and fetishization rather than overt disdain: “Children’s essential animality has sometimes been viewed as problematic; at other times the animal nature of children has been idealized. The equation of child with animal remains.” Resisting what they considered a stifling culture of rationalism and a political fixation on a utopian political future based on reason, Romantic writers valorized the child’s free, spontaneous and creative way of being as indicative of humanity’s paradise lost. The inherent superiority of mature modes of modern freedom and agency were not fundamentally challenged. Modernity is characterized by the loss of childhood innocence, natural freedom, and connection to nature, but the loss is inevitable and indeed necessary for moral progress towards the political freedom realized in the constitution of civil and political society. The romanticized child is thus the centre of a tragic story of lost human authenticity and our alienation from the world.

These themes were most famously explored in the work of J.J. Rousseau. In Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, for example, Rousseau claims that children and parents would, in the state of nature, have no relationship of mutual responsibility. Accordingly, we learn in The Social Contract that despite its flaws, modern society is essential for moral improvement and the highest forms of human freedom and sociality. Likewise, Rousseau’s celebrated work on children, Emile, was not intended to be an education manual but rather a lament on the impossibility of raising children to be both free and functional within modern society. In civilizational terms, Man’s original freedom—his childhood—must be sacrificed in order to pursue education. The child’s courageous and impulsive state of playful being is simply incongruent with what bourgeois artists and intellectuals saw as constraining yet inevitable strictures of modern civilization. If a child somehow goes without education they are left in a feral or natural state of being that is identical in many ways to that of the “Indian.” Sankar Muthu observes that Rousseau at times “manages to equate savages (understood as the earliest purely natural individuals of his conjectural history), the ‘Savage Nations’ of the New World, and feral children (such as the ‘little savage of Hanover’) as ‘natural creatures.’”

Here’s the timeline of events surrounding Valiumboy/Wayne/OffenderX and my involvement.

- 2017-2018 Valium has been around the Twitter MAP community since like the Enderphile days, I never liked him because I had seen screenshots of him saying gross shit about sexually assaulting his daughter on Amos Yee’s community, pretty much bragging about it, he has a long history of doing this, what he did on F.U Ask isn’t new.

- 2018-2019 All old-school people from Virpeds keep repeatedly giving him a chance and he was allowed to walk freely around the community, I thought this dude was a lost cause but ok “second chances” and all so I never said anything

- 2019 Gets called out by a minor for sexually harassing them and as result gets banned from all MAP communities at the time

- 2020 Minor ally reaches out to me in DM’s and tells me Valium is sexually harassing them and I made a call out post about it to expose him. During all of this one of his dedicated hunters reaches out to me in DMs and tell me this dude has an even darker history and shared a news article about him which I shared with everyone else so we could get rid of him and we did for some time. (Of course he’s not saying anything about how all the shitshow only started because he was being a fucking creep to minor allies and only wants to paint it as me working with antis or something, I never had any interaction with his hunters besides saying “thanks” for the new article)

- 2021 He keeps showing up around Twitter, since I know he has a long history of being a creep to minors in the community I keep calling him out.

- 2022 I see him getting a F.U account and I decided to say nothing about it, I decided to let him be because he has proven to be a roach very hard to kill and I didn’t have the mental stamina to deal with any of it again, if he behaves that’s good, if he misbehaves well it’s the problem of F.U’s admins not mine.

- 2023 See your timeline

[screenshot of an ask on FUA by OffenderX: Why are lots of people blocking me on mastadon [sic]?

answer by Katie: I dunno. People are weird.]

[screenshot of a post by @OffenderX@freak.university on February 16, 2023: It’s weird I’m blocked by people I’ve never even talked with.]

It’s “weird” (as in relatively rare, and also socially stigmatized/counter-hegemonic) to set boundaries with abusive, bigoted, oppressive people who harm you, will harm you, or use their platforms to harm others. Normative society shames people for choosing to not go through uncomfortable or dangerous interactions. Normative society pressures people into excusing harm and picking perps over survivors because Not That Bad, well what about The Community^TM.

It’s normal, sure, and it’s weird right now to break away from that. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or unreasonable, or impossible to understand the motivations for.

Sometimes people block other people just because they’re annoyed by seeing certain types of content on their social media feed, or dislike someone else’s aesthetics, or have an OCD trigger around some username/words, or have trauma from parental abuse and can’t emotionally safely interact with any parents even if non-bigoted/abusive so they just preemptively block any parents they see, or any other case in which someone decides to not be around someone else while not judging the other person as unethical. And that’s fine, actually—coercive neurotypical social norms (“must interact with people even if you don’t want to”) are bad, even when there is no victimization occurring.

Though that’s not really what we’re talking about here, is it—ethics have been explicitly added in as part of the discussion throughout. (Note: One person I had contacted with information about his past in private beforehand said that they would like to be able to block him, but they felt significant pressure from their surroundings to keep themself open to him and not block anyone, and were afraid of social censure and moral condemnation from their friends if they tried. This person self-identified as a feminist.)

Valiumboy/OffenderX/Wayne is a transphobe. A few months back, he made a post sneering at “pronouns” and made transphobic commentary at people who argued with him. (He also frequently sneers at other paraphiles on fedi whom he views as excessively microlabeling/weird, fakeclaims their identities, the usual anti-“SJW” cringe-culture -type bigotry.)

Now, it should be obvious why a trans person, for example, might block Wayne preemptively instead of sitting around waiting for him to invalidate their identity and mock the way they choose to present themself/exist. That sucks to experience and a lot of people like to practice this thing called “self-care.” Or even just self-defense.

And, also, a cis person who cares about trans people might look on and go, oh, that’s shitty. And feel that even if they wouldn’t have their pronouns/gender mocked in an interaction with him, it’s unfair that they’d be safe around him while others are not safe, so they choose to not cash in on their privilege, they don’t want those cancerous practices around them either, they want to show solidarity with their trans friends/comrades and want to work towards social norms where transphobia is not platformed so they block him too.

As most people around here probably know by now, Wayne is also someone who sexually assaulted his daughter when she was a young child for years; he’s spent several more recent years putting up an image of repentance/reform/regret and presenting himself as a sort of “voice for ex-offenders”; he was removed from a MAP space a few years ago for making fetishizing commentary about the sexual abuse he perpetrated; his Twitter feed (@Valiumboy2) is full of misogynistic content feeding into the rightwing moral panic that there is somehow an epidemic of “false accusations” and “false reporting” of assault and abuse among children regarding their fathers, or among women regarding cis men, and tweets and retweets and replies advocating for policies to further trap age- and gender-oppressed victims of domestic violence with their abusers (i.e. “father’s rights” family-court lobbying).

Since at least a few months ago he’s made posts about how his interactions with his daughter were actually “consensual” / that she had “falsely accused” him to “ruin his life” and that she had been “brainwashed” “into believing he abused her.” He has continued making sexualizing and trivializing commentary about her and what he did to her. He made a post romanticizing their relationship, posted her IRL (first) name, and reminisced about “loving” her and naming her as a child. Many of us here are survivors of parental abuse, survivors of sexual violence as children, or experiencing ongoing abuse and violence right now and it’s not only triggering to see all this bullshit, and see people joining in on his disgusting threads and agreeing with him and carrying water for him; we also can spot immediately how that—his actions, his casual treatment of what we know was years of oppressive control and traumatic violence, his unapologetic attitude and stances, his refusal to respect clear boundaries that any truly “reformed” abuser would have the ethical awareness to not break—were/are obvious disrespect and consent violations which further the harm he has already done, trying to keep a hold on his power and all the fucked-up shit that has wrought.

On top of comments mocking other sexual violence survivors and a history of allegedly harassing other CSA survivors and minors (note: I now remember that I had gotten this allegation, of “harassing CSA survivors and minors,” from the bio of a Twitter account dedicated to calling him out. I am unsure whether this was MAP-community-related or not, and I cannot verify which particular incidents the Twitter user was referring to) and abusing other children/young teenagers from online platforms (note: I had gotten this accusation from intracommunity discussions I had heard before about his sexual harassment of minor MAPs/allies, as well as from a Tumblr thread alleging that “ex offender map” “darkmap9/valium” had “just got caught flirting with a 12 year old” and that “When it came out that he did that, the entire [MAP] community rejected him”) and comments he has made on his Freak University account admitting to perpetrating other abuse/sexual assaults that have not yet surfaced in public or in the criminal justice system (note: this was posted on January 2, 2023: “Back in the eighties I dated a 14 year old I was in my twentys [sic]. I took her in my local pub no one batredyan eye lid [sic]. Some even said your [sic] a lucky bugger”), he’s just fucking unpleasant to be around in general, even when the person interacting with him is one of his apologists who are fine with his past and ongoing actions—he’s made numerous replies here and there even to his friends that test boundaries/outright disrespect boundaries/consent—he doesn’t see anything wrong with any of this, clearly. (Note: As this whole drama went down, a trans girl who defended me from Wayne’s apologists also stated that there had been an incident where he’d made unsolicited sexualized commentary about her, and that it was indicative of his objectifying worldview which “saw the women and girls in his life as fuckmeat.” I think this is a relevant example of the way he was casually disrespectful, entitled, and toxic in social interactions.)

Additional note: Some of this could be chalked up to the general atmosphere of the pro-c pediverse, which is overwhelmingly dominated by rightwingers who hold and practice social norms such as denigration of perceived “cringiness” or “weakness,” not valuing consent or boundaries, believing that saying “no” to requests regarding social interaction or expressing discomfort/pain/distress is indicative of weakness/inferior character, and regularly crossing the boundaries/comfort zones of or behaving in casually toxic ways with their friends around them, as well as (and especially) opponents, including with sexual harassment, and which tends to foster such practices among its members and people in proximity. (Lecter has covered the issues with this in some recent blog posts.) However, Wayne certainly did have patterns of questionable behavior in casual contexts before he ever joined fedi. For example, in 2021, we interacted in Twitter DMs. Several times during that conversation, he out of the blue made bizarre and inappropriate comments at me with what he assumed about my sexuality.)

A lot of us know personally how fucking terrifying and devastating it is to experience that kind of prolonged control, theft of autonomy, attacks on our bodies/persons, and total powerlessness and lack of consideration. A lot of us have also thought through this stuff a lot (you kind of have to, when you’re on the receiving end of abuse/oppression), and we can recognize the dynamics of authoritarianism/interpersonal control that follow from and are enabled by “lesser” violations and apologist sentiments like his adult supremacist comments, or his support for police/policing, or any of the other bigotry he’s espoused. And we also know from experience and from extensive studying that abusers and oppressors heavily rely on platforms and social connections to carry out their violence without being able to be stopped. We all know how this shit works. Abusers control the flow of information and discourse. They keep up social and material and ideological support for years because they are believed and cared about and victims are not. A lot of people on this corner of fedi are leftists and fucking angry at this miserable fucking status quo and we’re tired of the bullshit, we’re tired of the privileged interpreting the lives and experiences and conditions of the marginalized, we’re ready to fuck shit up and put social capital and moral comfort on the line to break down institutions of power (both formalized and informal) and these injustices upon injustices and the lack of awareness of and care for people like us and that means not tolerating bullshit like this and taking back the narrative.

Wayne and his circle of apologists make complaints day in and day out about how he’s being “unfairly ostracized,” “unreasonably silenced,” “ignored,” “censored,” “cancelled” as much as the average far-right pundit complains day in day out about how they’re being silenced/censored/cancelled by the Woke Mob and their Cancel Culture^TM—and his complaints hold as little water, people choosing to not be around you (without even much social pressuring, by the way, because even now adult supremacy and misogyny still are socially incentivized a lot) because you are genuinely toxic (along with harmful) to be near is not you being Censored^TM. Sure you can talk. And people are going to talk back and tell you you’re wrong or tell you to shut up because your talk is harmful and also bullshit. People will curate their own online experiences, including not giving a mic to every toxic mf around the area who wants to preach abuse apologia.

You fucked around. Now you’re finding out.

@OffenderX@freak.university: [screenshot showing that Lecter blocked him on FUA]

Let’s all block the bad sex offenders because we are so righteous and non [sic] of us would ever ever offend we don’t even think about fucking kids in fact we are whiter than white and only dream about cute bunny wabbits

 

@Sp@ghetti.monster: Don’t care about Lecter, his group is the worst

 

@OffenderX@freak.university: I’ve known him for years he is not even a paedophile or map but people think he us [sic] king if [sic] the paedophiles he has not even got the balls to tell me why he blocked me like most on here.

 

@Dean@freak.university: It’s the boosting sexualised and/or borderline pornographic images of minors that’s led many to block you or instances to de-federate you. Some may just not like you of course but that’s their right and they don’t have to explain their reasons.

 

@OffenderX@freak.university: Paedophiles attracted to children’s body’s [sic] block another paedophile for boosting images they find a turn on sounds about right. Don’t lecture me on anything when this instance is prepared to doxx me and plaster pictures of my daughter as a teen all over a paedophile forum. I’m the honest one here you lot are most liars [sic] hiding behind a nomap screen.

 

@Dean@freak.university: Not trying to lecture you, just attempting to clarify why you may have been de-federated and blocked by some. Some just don’t want to see that, we have all sorts here including those with PD who might be distressed by seeing those kinds of images; instances want to be careful about who they federate with to avoid trouble which might take them offline.

 

I’ve been doxxed before (as you may well know, we were mutuals on Twitter back then) and I know very well it sucks. I had no part in it nor do I intend to ever have any part in doxxing anyone MAP or otherwise, offending or not, I didn’t see it nor would I look at it if I ever did, if you see a doxx on here report it/let me know and it’ll be deleted. Revealing someone’s personal information without their consent for any reason is not acceptable.

 

@Liminal@youjo.love: Just ban him already please

 

@Sp@ghetti.monster: For what

 

@Himorasikata@lolison.top: rule 3 under technicality

 

@Liminal@youjo.love: also several violations of rule 4

 

@OffenderX@freak.university: What’s rule 4 King nomap no dick.

 

@Liminal@youjo.love: “Being transphobic, homophobic, paraphile-phobic, racist, ableist, fascist, or supporting any oppressions in general” being transphobic is one of the main reason [sic] why Kay and others had a problem with you even before you started saying gross shit about your daughter.

 

@Himorasikata@lolison.top: on the topic of banning why did i get banned for locking someone’s account but liminal isn’t banned for associating with antis

 

two faced [racial slur] fuck @Administrator@youjo.love

 

@OffenderX@freak.university: Liminal is a fragile nomap who gets mad at reality.

 

@Liminal@youjo.love: If you think I have wronged you so badly why were you trying to befriend me for the past 2 months or so? I had nothing to do with you getting exposed this time but you want to make me the central piece of this for some reason.

 

@OffenderX@freak.university: Because I was trying to be nice and I saw you were in distress. I agree you did not start this this time but you were the origin of the original doxx and you never saw it as wrong. I have done nothing wrong on freak except for some minor incursion that happened because I am not well l up on freaks [sic] rules. I am not trans phobic… you know my account on twitter because I follow u. I’m sick of my past being dragged up by paedophile hunters and now maps. Either accept me warts and all or block me any of you who think I’m a monster that’s your own preducices [sic] seeping through. Stop being exoffenderphobic and leave me in peace and ill [sic] stop attacking back.

 

@Liminal@youjo.love: You were being a sex creep to minors in the community, why aren’t you open about it and keep avoiding it? Why don’t you come clean about why you got banned from MSC?

 

@OffenderX@freak.university: Wrong I fell for some bait account like loads of other (nomaps) did at the time it was because of the influx of so called aams into the community which you embraced. 99% of aamsyare [sic] bait accounts and the only reason any of you want them in the community it [sic] to be lewd with themyadmit [sic] that truth iris.

 

@Liminal@youjo.love: What a sneaky piece of trash you are, none of those people were baits and none of them ever behaved inappropriately with anyone, this is why posting the link to get rid of you was a good thing and under the same circumstance I would do it again a billion times.

 

I didn’t do it this time though so stop getting me involved in this bullshit.

• The claim that it was bad for his survivor to bring it up or share the article with her name literally originated with him. Do you think he is an accurate interpreter of her wishes? Do you think you are, working from a paternalistic pacifist blueprint? I think the article itself was pretty clear. She hates him, will hate him forever, will never forgive, wished for a harsher response, and literally waived her legal right to anonymity so that she could tell her story as herself.
• He functionally doxxed her by publicizing her name (and his) along with various other personal details. He wanted to be able to talk about her without her voice ever getting into the mix or him being at risk for any criticism. It is unfair, unreasonable, and oppressive to claim that his voice should be allowed out here (and even unconstrained) while hers is silenced, that he should be able to exploit his past but then complain that people are bringing it up again only when we do so negatively.
• “wEll tEchNiCaLLy” is the refrain of enlightened centrists. Are the oppressed Going Too Far in our violence? Or are patriarchs rushing to constrain any potential violence from us because you know that is what is necessary to uphold the status quo? Does it really matter what we do or don’t do here? You cannot just take events and analyze them in isolation, devoid of all surrounding history, nuances, or context. Might you consider that perhaps levelling these sanctions would be a net loss for liberation, even if we had technically violated some rule in the book?
• It does not matter if an abuser/rapist has X marginalization too. The personal is political; misogynists make great informants; they’re more bigoted/oppressive/harmful to our cause on average than nonabusers/nonrapists are; abuse is abuse, and caring about victims means caring about all victims.
• None of the feared IRL Consequences actually occurred. Regardless of Technicalities, he is, in actuality, totally fine right now. He dug his own grave, he lies in it, stop complaining as if you’re so much better, your objectivity and neutrality aren’t very objective or neutral.

@Liminal@youjo.love: … being transphobic is one of the main reason [sic] why Kay and others had a problem with you even before you started saying gross shit about your daughter.

@Sp@ghetti.monster: Do you have any proof of him doing that

@Liminal@youjo.love: It should all be on Kay’s or Iris profiles [sic].

“iris” whoever iris hates is my best friend
welcome to the community valium, liminal suck an egg

@Liminal@youjo.love: Iris hates me more than anyone else here

iris tried doxxing me and getting me attacked by antis because i told them he was [old, irrelevant drama in which it had gotten me attacked by antis first]

the retarded fuck should either kill himself or get the fuck out of this community (i prefer the former)

So why is this coming up now??

We know you’re an offender

It’s in your name

@OffenderX@freak.university: Because the bastards have spoken to lecter or liminal who posted my offence on twitter and have now done it here.

@Sp@ghetti.monster: Another nnia L

Doxxers should get the rope

The origins of the experience
 

It is understood that the source of the discomfort is not necessarily caused by the encounter. In retrospect the experience is re-interpreted.

This is an essential process that doesn’t take place in a vacuum: This happens in a search for an explanation that one can come across or is offered.

I can see three sources of the re-interpreting in retrospect of the experiences.

1. One’s own psyche developed in the upbringing of the young people. It doesn’t matter how tolerant a[n]d enlightened the family background is. Society itself is still deeply and firmly rooted in sex-negative paradigms (i.e. sex = dirty etc.).

2. The broader cultural society, which includes the family, youth culture, and society as a whole. Look, for instances, the medium of television influences young people.

Young men discover how “society” thinks—read: how one is forced to think—about sex, childhood and youth, sexual orientations and pedophilia. 

Everywhere the present “moral order” is forcefully presented to the young people who aren’t able yet of reaching a critical judgement that makes them resist such indoctrination. (Where can one learn to make such judgements?)

 

This culture is very powerful and has the capability to wipe away the original positive experience and turn the meaning and value of that experience by 180 degrees.

Such ideas fall on fertile soil, as many boys have a great fear of becoming homosexual, so much so that their own trust totally disappears and turns into homophobia.

While one thinks about these things the next source becomes quite clear.

 

3. The “counselors”.... One can hear the words of the RIAGG (Dutch Mental Care Institutions) when the young people talk about their own experiences. “I have a split personality.” “I am a victim of sexual abuse.”

The value of the original experience has now totally disappeared. The now offered interpretation is accepted as one’s own true experience.

 

It is now the norm that “Counselors” ask for the sexual experiences. When, in one’s youth, these experiences have been shared with an adult, there will be an automatic conclusion that all problems stem from that incident only.

This “solution” is readily accepted, for one does not have to look at oneself, be critical of one’s parents or schools. One does not even have to be critical about society as a whole that offers sex violence and drugs in massive proportions.

The problem is now clearly simplified: A scapegoat has been found. The standard “solution” to this predicament is to go to the police and start proceedings.

Where then are my boundaries?

In my relationships with youngsters I am really close with, I have two boundaries.

• At first, I refuse to keep such a long distance that real and good contact is no longer possible.

• The other is that I don’t want any sexual involvement, which includes erotic intimacies that are meant to lead to a full sexual experience.

Within the boundaries of what is, for me, acceptable there are untold ways of connecting, which is enjoyed by one or both, in which there could be an erotic content but is not designed to lead to sex.

P.S. 1

I wrote this article to tell what the youngsters with a negative experience have told me. I also have met youngsters who felt positively about sexual contacts they have had in a positive relationship with an adult.

A response to this post (archived here) that I started drafting; it got too long, so I’m just going to post it here instead:

(to add on:

There’s a very easy answer to this:

“Like any disorder, when these thoughts are not worked on with a professional or are fed into they become dangerous.”

“When you have disorders like these and you don’t even *try* to work on them, or even try to get help with anyone or anything, those thoughts and urges will become actions.”

“If you have urges to kill your entire family, even acknowledging you know it’s wrong and realistically speaking you’d never do it, but if you don’t get help for it eventually that urge is going to break you and that shit will happen.”

“It’s not bigotry or fucking sanism it’s common sense. Pedophiles and zoophiles are dangerous if they don’t try to get help. When you feed into these thoughts they only worsen.”

The answer being that if you genuinely think this way—that if someone has any thoughts or urges about harming others without “help” they will inevitably turn into actions—then you yourself are a danger to others and are projecting your own utter lack of self-control/ethics onto the rest of us, or you have significant internalized paramisic/saneist rhetoric and are just projecting your personal fears about yourself onto others, and you are the one who needs help. I see this a lot, actually, with antis with OCD who haven’t worked their shit out—they think everyone who has thoughts about abusing/committing violence experience them in the same way they do, as intrusive thoughts and intense fears that they will act on them. And this is saneism, whether you like it or not: the idea that if you have intrusive thoughts or urges that distress you you are a bad person unless you submit yourself for Correction by The Institution.

But not everyone is like you. There is—shockingly—a diverse range of different brains and different life experiences in this world outside of your bubble, and reality doesn’t become what you think it should be at your whim. The anti narrative doesn’t align with most people’s lived experiences.

Yes John the pedophile whose trying to get help and avoids kids to keep them safe isn’t a bad person, but dinosaurtitconiseur on tumblr whose a pedophile and makes fucking pride flags for it and actively encourages other pedos/zoos/necros to act out on their paraphilias while thinking these thoughts are perfectly healthy is fucking dangerous.

Tumblr has constructed this sort of narrative where “pedophiles who are currently trying to get help + avoid kids at all costs + think their thoughts are unhealthy” and “pedophiles who are proud of their pedophilia + encourage paraphilia pride + thinks their thoughts are healthy (or health-neutral) + actively encourages others to offend” are the only two types of pedophiles there are, and that traits from the two categories never ever overlap. Use your critical thinking for half a second and spend a single minute actually looking at actual pedophiles in actual pedophile spaces and this is obviously wrong.

(And don’t think I don’t notice how default pronoun here is always “he”)

And all of this is occurring before the backdrop of a psychiatric system which is institutionally violent, ableist, saneist, classist, racist, queermisic, and paramisic, which has a long history of oppressing, abusing, and murdering the aforementioned classes of people. For which nearly every single marginalized person attempting its therapy/treatments has been abused/traumatized.

Every demand for a paraphiliac to Get Therapy Or Die is a demand for the poor to spend money they don’t have, for everyone but the most privileged to wait on long waiting lists for months and months before they’ll even consider us, for minors living under guardians who refuse it to accomplish an impossibility or out themselves to high risks of domestic violence from bigots and authoritarians, for paraphiliacs to out ourselves to high risks of violence from psychs, for psychiatric survivors to retraumatize ourselves in the same institutions which abused and traumatized us in the first place, for POC (hi) and queers and gender-marginalized people and neurodivergents and disabled people to force ourselves to endure constant microaggressions, condescension, misunderstandings, gaslighting, or even just general incompetency and uselessness.

I mean this in the most respectful way possible—but the psychiatric institution cannot be separated from its histories in racist oppression and violence, and people who claim psychiatry is good because they had perfect experiences with psych are almost always white and/or otherwise privileged, and OP (who’s white) does not have the experiences that POC tend to have with therapists and doctors.

I don’t know how to tell yts that therapy cannot provide me with what I need, not when my past therapists (nearly all of whom have been white) all were in support of racism and other systems of oppression in some way. None of whom had my experiences with CSA/SA, particularly SA which targeted my marginalizations (particularly my degeneracy and freakness), which is exponentially more ignored and shoved to the side and unrecognized than the already-barely-recognized CSA of normal children. All of them were bigoted. I politely corrected her during every session trying to explain to her why she was wrong about trans people, CSA survivors, queers, paraphiliacs—and every next session she said it again, and she was paternalistic and defended my own abuse to me repeatedly until I was so tired and worn down and desperate and hurting that I did everything I could to get away from her. She didn’t help me. She couldn’t. She didn’t know the basics of how trauma works, she didn’t know the difference between OCD and OCPD, she thought wants to kill animals = sociopath = no empathy = no insight = evil, she was not a revolutionary or a radical and I cannot spend time around anyone who is anything less than absolutely revolutionary and radical because otherwise I find myself performing the same exhausting emotional labor and ignoring my own boundaries and comfort again and again.

I cannot benefit from interactions with someone who does not have all these vast necessary contexts of my life already down. And if you are already inside the institution, you automatically will not think this way. For the sake of my health and wellbeing, I avoid liberals like the plague. I am willing to sacrifice several more decades of prolonged suffering (from my actual disorders) and a miniscule (possibly) slightly increased risk of harm to others (which probably doesn’t exist actually, to be honest) in exchange for clinging to what I have left of my bodily autonomy and dignity, so that I do not throw it away for the promise of everything which turns out yet again to be absolutely nothing.

I have been abusive to others. Part of learning to take accountability was understanding that, unlike the myths saneists perpetuate, that my disorders did not “make” me abuse others, not the C-PTSD, not the three personality disorders, nor the associated sadism or the thoughts/impulses to abuse. I made the choice to perpetrate harm because I believed it was okay and was entitled and valued my own selfishness over the wellbeing of others. Sessions with therapists didn’t stop me, because my therapists were pro abuse too and did not know how to deconstruct the harmful beliefs that I held in a nuanced manner. Community did, and finding others and certain other comprehensive anti-abuse ideologies did, and life experiences did, and figuring my shit out did.

Did you know that psychiatrists are thirty-seven times more likely to rape than the general population is? Did you know that psychiatrists have a long history of promoting and perpetrating our torture, rape, and murder to try to reduce, fix, or eliminate the problem we pose? Including targeting children and young adolescents who are pedophiles or have other paraphilias with sexual assault the moment they disclosed they had attractions outside the norm, among others?

Do you really think someone like me could benefit from an institution like that, where systemic abuses as such are constant, where our pain is ignored and completely erased such that people like you never knew all of this happened until I told you?

So far, from what I’ve seen, pro-map radicalization with like-minded people who understand each other’s struggles is the easiest and most efficient solution to both self-hate and genuine risk of harm to others. Debunking myths; organizing; finding our power. Liberalism will not save you; putting all your eggs in the psych institution’s basket will not save you; nor will it save children, CSA survivors, paraphiliacs, or those of us who are multiple of the above.

Fight with us. Reject and revolt against institutions of power. Reject the state’s lies that deviance is what causes abuse and not the violence of hierarchy and authority that they wish to keep in the shadows. Kill rape, not just individual rapists. Kill psychiatry, not just individual psychiatrists. Free your mind.

Sexual interest in children resembles sexual gender orientation in terms of early onset and stability across the life span.

I begin by defining pedophilia and sexual orientation, and then compare pedophilia (as a potential sexual orientation with regard to age) to sexual orientations with regard to gender (heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality), on the bases of age of onset, correlations with sexual and romantic behavior, and stability over time.

In opposition to sexual motivations, we propose to use the term sexual orientation for deeply engrained sexual inclinations that are not amenable (or exceedingly difficult) to change (Imhoff et al., 2017). Prototypical sexual orientations are highly typified gender (hetero- vs. homosexual) or sexual maturity (pedophilic vs. teleiophilic) orientations. Empirically, these can be best understood as discrete classes (or taxa) rather than dimensional continuums (Norris et al., 2015; Schmidt et al., 2013; McPhail et al., 2018) and most scholars agree on the facts that sexual orientations a) have an early onset (preceding the start of sexual activities as a form of “sexual awakening”; Bailey et al., 2016; McPhail, 2018) and b) cannot be changed effectively later in life. As sexual orientations are bound to general object features such as gender or pre-, peri,- or postpubescent sexual maturity status they form the frame within which sexual motivations may develop.

The diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder are intended to apply both to individuals who freely disclose this paraphilia and to individuals who deny any sexual attraction to prepubertal children (generally age 13 years or younger), despite substantial objective evidence to the contrary. Examples of disclosing this paraphilia include candidly acknowledging an intense sexual interest in children and indicating that sexual interest in children is greater than or equal to sexual interest in physically mature individuals. If individuals also complain that their sexual attractions or preferences for children are causing psychosocial difficulties, they may be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety, about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder.

Second, at present, in discussing Pedophilia, DSM-5 makes reference to the term Pedophilic Sexual Orientation. Sexual Orientation is ordinarily used to designate the category, or categories, of persons whom a given individual finds to be sexually appealing. Those who are heterosexually oriented are sexually attracted to adults of the opposite sex; those who are homosexual, to adults of the same sex; men with a heterosexual pedophilic orientation, to prepubescent females; and men with a homosexual pedophilic orientation, to prepubescent boys.

In the face of significant criticism of its inclusion in the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated its intention to remove the term Pedophilic Sexual Orientation from the diagnostic manual. Removing that term in response to public criticism would be a mistake. Experiencing ongoing sexual attractions to prepubescent children is, in essence, a form of sexual orientation, and acknowledging that reality can help to distinguish the mental makeup that is inherent to Pedophilia, from acts of child sexual abuse.

There exists overwhelming evidence that minor attraction is a sexual orientation. It is estimated that up to 5% of adults in the United States are preferentially attracted to prepubescent children, to the exclusion of attraction to adults (Seto 2008), and larger numbers of adults have been shown to exhibit some attractions to prepubescent children, whether preferential or not (Hall et al. 1995). The prevalence of preferential attractions to minors who are in the beginning or later stages of puberty is unknown (although perhaps significant, as we later discuss), but the prevalence of attractions to prepubescent children alone mirrors numbers of other sexual minorities: According to Gates (2011), 3.5% of the adult population in the United States identifies as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, while 11% reports some level of same-sex attraction. Yet other research suggests there are additional dimensions to sexual orientation that extend beyond orientation to gender. For example, asexuality is a commonly accepted sexual orientation despite its lack of definitional pull toward attraction to a given gender (Prause and Graham 2007), though asexual people may still prefer to engage in romantic relationships with members of a particular gender.

Seto (2012) compared age of awareness of attractions, romantic behavior, sexual history, and persistence, between those attracted to prepubescent children and teleiophilic straight and gay individuals (teleiophiles are people who are preferentially attracted to adults). Seto’s findings showed that people attracted to prepubescent children experience a similar identity development process as gay and straight teleiophiles. MAPs often report becoming aware of their attractions to children during adolescence, typical of the ages of awareness seen in other sexual minorities (Freimond 2009; Freund and Kuban 1993; Li 1991; Marshall et al. 1991; Seto 2012; Seto et al. 2000, 2003). For many MAPs, this means that they initially are attracted to same-age peers, but as they age, they realize that those who they are attracted to remain in younger age categories (Goode 2010). MAPs also report feeling romantic attachments to children in addition to sexual attractions. In a qualitative study of men who have had sexual contact with minors, multiple participants described feeling love or affection in addition to—or in place of—sexual attraction (Li 1991). Minor-attracted persons may also have fantasies about children that approximate romantic imaginings among adults; for example, a respondent in Goode’s (2010: 104) study detailed that his fantasies were ‘‘sometimes sexual, sometimes not, spending time together, walking on a beach, watching a movie, laughing, having fun, talking.’’ Although there has been very little quantitative research about MAPs, one longitudinal study showed that among this population, attractions to minors persist over time (Hanson et al. 1993).

Due to the similarities between MAPs’ and teleiophiles’ identity processes, Seto (2012: 231) and others have considered pedophilia a "sexual age orientation." In fact, this age orientation may inhibit orientation to a particular gender: MAPs are less likely to have a preference for gender than individuals who are preferentially attracted to adults (Freund and Kuban 1993; Freund et al. 1991). Additionally, while sexual orientation such as gay or lesbian identity is seen as an involuntary and enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction to members of the same sex (GLAAD 2010), it is not uncommon for minor-attracted people to describe their attractions as innate, inherent to who they are, or even that they were born like that, suggesting a similarly enduring and unchangeable orientation (Li 1991).

A substantial majority of men in the sample—nearly 85%—had not been arrested or convicted for sexual offenses against children, including child pornography.

With the harshest calculations, the maximal recorded percentage of maps among offenders and the minimal possible percentage of maps in the population, the percentage of molesters among maps won’t go over 40%, and with more likely and moderate numbers – 8%.