you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MoutonelectriqueBland Straight ♀ 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

To make it absolutely clear, I do not believe or think LGBs are all pedo's in disguise as I have seen some conservatives claim. Fuck that noise. If anything in this example, Amsterdam Pride and most people were quite clearly AGAINST it and told them to fuck off.

However, the Netherlands doesn't have the best track record, as I stated in my previous post, paedophiles have been trying to latch on the LGB movement for decades and were somewhat successful back in the 1970's. Current activists pretending it never happens is just false. It's easy to find out it already DID fucking happen.

Even if you agree paedophiles should get help, as I personally do believe (however, how to help is one big fucking mess as we still hardly know how to treat it), there's a big fucking difference between 'I need help' and '#Pedopride'.

Edit: again stupid mistakes. I need more coffee.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even if you agree paedophiles should get help, as I personally do believe (however, how to help is one big fucking mess as we still hardly know how to treat it), there's a big fucking difference between 'I need help' and '#Pedopride'.

Yeah, It's an acquired paraphilia that they tried and are still trying to pass it off as a sexual orientation. Back in the Sexual Liberation movement, later in the Gay Rights movement, and now in non-descript "Queer" Pride. It's quite a stretch and thus a very hard sell no matter the decade.

I think a way to combat this conflation is to constantly ask the advocates and their target audience(progressive liberals) how it is a sexual orientation. A lot of the definitions for sexuality are conveniently, rather circular now. Even the ones that don't seem so at first glance are, like:

a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are typically attracted; sexual orientation

Sounds simple enough. If gender still meant sex. Too bad it doesn't have any concrete definition anymore. Vagueness allows opportunism. They use that as a Trojan Horse to get in. This is why the opportunists portray definitions as bigoted and exclusionary. Gender-speak has really effed things up in this regard so they love it.

Fortunately, the base word, "sex" is a lot more clear and hopefully it remains so:

the sum of features by which members of species can be divided into two groups—male and female—that complement each other reproductively.

Using this meaning, how does something like pedophilia fit as a SEXuality? Not well. As it is really an "orientation" of age, not sex. And specifically of ages where the target of attraction is the least mentally and physically mature and consequentially least sexually dimorphic. So people should focus on the fact that this attraction is explicitly targeted towards the categorically immature, impressionable, and exploitable demographic. And I don't think most anyone would consider progressing this so-called movement if portrayed in such stark terms.