This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

DiscussionGay Rights... Trans Rights...

submitted by Happy_Blueberry3910 from (pbs.twimg.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

Look at this guy, lots of people have send message of hate toward him. But he cannot control it, he discovered the attraction toward kids as teen like gays do, but don't act on it. That's not a monster:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Fx6P7d21o

[–]AlexisK 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Just because pedophile is holding down his urge and not grooming girls is not a reason to praise him or saying it is fine.

What if there was a man, who said he feels bloodthristy, but is not killing men and not raping women? He would be praised too? Don't be ridiculous. Pedophile is pedophile, they don't need protection, and they don't need laws to "lower consent, so they can be happy with little girls".

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (5 children)

He doesn't deserve praised, but shouldn't be hated for something he has zero control over. How is that rational? I thought like that too, they were all monsters, but actually they're people with a wrong attraction they didn't choose to have but that doesn't make them bad people. I feel pity. It must to be hell for them

[–]AlexisK 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So are you are saying that pedophilia is an orientation, if it cannot be controlled and changed? So it should be added to LGB, like another orientation?

It must to be hell for them

Why they chose to speak about it at loud? They are potential danger.

If person said they are maniac and they can't do anything with it. Would you feel sorry for him too, because people seeing him as potential threat?

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

Not added, of course. For what he said, he started to get attracted to kids at puberty and never stopped. Seems innate. But there might be also cases of people who were abused.

If he wanted to do harm he wouldn't put himself out there. Exposing only makes him a target. I think he is speaking to get people know the difference between having pedo feelings and actually being a chld abusers, and that's not right to consider monster people just for their feeling. Can be an example for others in his situation, to speak with someone and control themselves.

[–]AlexisK 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For many decades MAP ("Minor-attracted people") are trying to normalize it and show that this is not harmful and that laws should protect them and open hands to pedophiles to do their ugly stuff. He can be just one of those used to show that "lets normalize pedophila".

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

There is a big difference between saying sexual activity with children is right and saying that pedo can't control their feeling and you shouldn't hate people for feeling out of control. A pedo who doesn't touch kids is not a monster. MAP were promoting abusing kids. He is not doing any promotion of child abuse, quite the opposite, he is an example of someone who is controlling himself ebcause he knows their actions would be extremely harmful.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

So are you are saying that pedophilia is an orientation, if it cannot be controlled and changed? So it should be added to LGB, like another orientation?

I don't understand this sentiment, you're not the first to share it, I've seen it elsewhere on topics that are not pedophilia. If I say heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, nobody cares, right? It's just a statement of fact. Another, more precise way, of phrasing that statement is that heterosexuality is an example of a sexual orientation. Nothing in that statement implies that heterosexuality should be added to the LGBTQ+ initialism, but somehow, that intent is often ascribed to the person making the statement that XYZ is a sexual orientation.

Nothing about pedophilia--having the attraction--strikes me as volitional. It appears to be identical to heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality with the obvious and very unfortunate difference that the age of attraction is generally under 10 years and does not correspondingly increase with the age of the pedophile.

There's significant biomarkers in pedophilic men--lower IQ, shorter in height, left-handedness, structural differences in the white matter (wiring) of their brains. These are not volitional things.

What would the definition of sexual orientation be? Well, I'd say, it's obviously sexual, has an early age-of-onset, it's not volitional, it's innate, immutable, and life-long.

Anyhow, my point is, pedophilia looks like a sexual orientation to me (statement of fact) and the letter "P" for pedophilia should not be added to the LGBTQ+ initialism (my personal opinion that happens to be quite popular.) I don't understand why people constantly conceptualize that any sort of non-heterosexuality must be added to the initialism. If you could help me understand that, I would appreciate it. It would be useful to know because there's a bunch of things waiting in the wings that want a place in the alphabet soup.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This person also defended pedophiles in my post about age gaps. Just ignore them.