This website has moved from it’s current domain to:
I will probably have this one around, just because I can, but it will no longer be used for future posts, which includes my latest one: The Growing Of Platforms
Thank you! n.n
When it comes to consent everyone becomes a champion for it to be acknowledged and promoted throughout modern societies. Everyone becomes an advocate and agrees that each individual should confirm and feel comfortable with whatever situation they are exposed to. Modern democratic systems also endorses that people should be alright with whatever it is getting done in their respective environments and also be allowed to complain if they do not?
How much truth does this when it comes to younger members of our society? Are they partially allowed to some and/or given the illusion that they have some control over their life? In children’s eyes, is democracy actually even applicable to them or are they forced to submit to authority regardless of what their opinion on the matter is? How could this be changed?
According to the Dictionary Merriam-Webster, the definition of “Consent” is to “give assent or approval; to be in concord in opinion or sentiment”. When it comes to consent in the MAP community, many individuals quickly jump to intercourse = sex, which is not always the case, in fact, I would say it is almost never the case to use that word to solely represent just that. In spite of that, many still choose to misinterpret it into exclusively intercourse, when in reality, an ideal adult-child relationship would constitute into so much more than mere contact. There are feelings, teaching, growth, communication, you know, like regular relationships, but not explicitly the same due to the nature of it being promoting growth, mentoring and love.
One thing people like to point out when it comes to these relationships are the “differences in power” as something diabolical and that all pedophiles will use in order to get what they want which, given the nature of such claim, it is entirely false in that context. There is no denying that in current society there would be differences in power and trust implicated in adult-child relationships, but that does not mean that such elements should be exploited in order to take advantage of the child, rather it should be completely the opposite, using your position in order to maximize the growth of the young one, as well as introduce them to other things in life as they grow up.
The complex approach towards these relationships mostly emanate from the thought that these would emulate a regular adult relationship. That statement couldn’t be further from the truth of what most adults, as well as children, want from these relationships. Some people just want company, younger companions who make them feel more comfortable and make their lives perhaps more lively, as well as the same contributions for the child’s life. This means having a stable relationship that doesn’t exactly consists of all the variables that are mostly present in other types of interactions of this nature.
There is also the fact that children are mostly taken for granted and their input never seems to be valued, unless it’s a reply from them confirming to blind obedience to their respective guardians. Why choose to ignore what the child wants and preset the experiences they have to go through their entire youth? Where is their agreement in this? Why do you use your authority to over their will, sometimes not really in the best hopes for them, but to get them to do what you want, but then refuse to give them any freedom to do certain things without proper reason to do so? In fact, why isn’t it immoral to prevent for children’s rights to have their own experiences fully? Just like everyone, they learn from their mistakes, but also acquire from their experiences, and that’s part of them growing up.
I mostly tackle current raising methods as being limiting and selfish when it comes about actually caring about the child. Current methods goes against the child will at times and enables parents to have the absolute power in what children should say, think and what their general approach to life should be, amongst other restrictions, unfortunately. Where is their acknowledgement in all of this? Are children your property or a life that should be taught to grow open to everything that there is to life, rather than keeping them from reality?
I really think a more open and less restrictive approach should be taken when raising a child. One where the main worry is not getting the child to do what you tell them to do all the time, but let them explore what they wish to seek instead. Society itself also needs to change it’s view towards children as the inherent to explicitly the current society that is now. What if they want to go about it differently and create something to replace today’s society? Schooling systems need to drastically be changed from just adapting children to work and obey to something that equips them with analytical thinking, allowing them to actually learn subjects and approach them in a logical/rational manner in order to truly appreciate their observations and perhaps even willingness to learn about more subjects, as well as explore them on their own, not just focusing on their memorizing capabilities, which aren’t certainly a bad thing, but it shouldn’t be the main focus of modern education.
The link above is an example of what constitutes indoctrination, in this case it would be Islam taken as an example, but it can be the case with any and all religions, including atheism. While people appeal over pedophiles using “grooming” methods to manipulate children, many times against their consent (which I condemn when done so), they disregard religious folks doing the same in their given raising methods. Children are subject to learn traditions and to behave in certain ways, but receive punishments if they drift out of their ways. According to Islam, “Parents would marry their children off at a young age to ensure they did not commit any acts of disobedience.”, meaning that they are to be held to be married against potentially their consent just because they are not allowed to “commit any acts of disobedience”, but what if they want to follow a different path in their life?
It is hypocritical to think that implemented raising methods actually care about children, while thinking that MAPs in general do not care about them. Most believe pedophiles have ulterior motives with them, bending them against their. Same people who are also imposing these kinds of ideologies on kids that are currently growing, instead of valuing the liberty of them to explore different aspects that will eventually constitute their thoughts and general perspective towards life. Children need liberty, not restriction. They need guidance, not submission. These variables will constitute into creating a child who can be more self-dependent, but also kind and open-minded.
Recently, there has been an uproar about the presence of the MAP community on YouTube, in particular to those that are probably a little more than watching meme compilations and video games trailers. As you all know, YouTube is basically available for everyone to upload millions of videos per day. Among those uploaders, it will also include minors who decide for that platform to upload the videos they love to make for different reasons.
All is well and good, the girls don’t complain, they enjoy the videos they upload and overall using the freedom the internet provides to them to do what they want (most of the time). Certain MAPs also enjoy them, leave comments, some are decent, other perhaps very decent, but in the end of it all, it doesn’t result in acting against the uploader, making them feel uncomfortable and/or removing their videos, does it?
Well it does now, if not sooner, when Shane Dawson decided to attack pedophiles who were making comments in videos where little girls are featured, claiming as conspiracy and as if the innocent videos that those girls created were child porn. I am not endorsing the comments some individuals did left there, if say the child or preteen in the video did not like them which might or might not be the case, but personally I wouldn’t enjoy having people making lewd comments in a regular video I happen to make, though I wouldn’t get offended by it either because I recognize individuals have the liberty to speak their mind, though I would filter spam comments for the sake of keeping discussion (Shane’s mentioning of YouTube videos).
Now the real problem is actually not the pedophiles who are being attacked by those who claim “I came from Shane” as their flags and then proceed to bash them because of their lascivious comments, it is not the insulting and further stereotyping the MAP community, though that’s still an issue but not the main one I wish to focus on in here.
What I really want to aim at here is to who exactly are they causing the harm here and why, and that would be to those they swear to “protect” themselves, children. Ever since that video Shane made 6 days ago, people have been invading certain YouTube channels where, in some of them, they are monitored directly by children. They claim to be hunting the pedophiles and “rescuing” the children from the harmful hooks of random, generally harmless comments from strangers over the Internet, but when it come to the actual thing, they also resort to attacking the child as well.
Here are some examples of how these “heroes” are really helping the children:
Yes, because nothing teaches children you want to protect them from “violence” while actually being violent them and killing their parents. This is what fear-mongering brings, people who are afraid of what they do not know, but choose to think they know and approach on a general thought that is next to even slightly true.
Well this certainly does help the child be “safe” now, does it? Insulting her, plus literally telling them otherwise things they are against saying to them in order to prevent them from uploading videos they enjoy because the person who wrote this comments demonizes all pedos, therefore the child must not have freedom whatsoever.
Calling a child disgusting and to die then in order to protect children from pedophiles? How would that work out? How is that caring for them at all? So according to this comment, if a child is a teleiophile they simply must die along with the pedos these people are trying to protect them from(?)
As if these comments left by antis wouldn’t affect the children themselves as well as they read through them being constantly classified as incapable of making YouTube videos because they cannot control the comment feeds, being told to get out of the Internet, insulting them, leaving dislikes and reporting their videos. Sure, there will be comments from MAPs perhaps, but are they really affecting the child? No, they’re not in most cases at all, and if it were the case they would just turn the comments off and/or delete said comments.
In reality, how is any of this actually helping children at all? Most comments are directed towards the child rather than pedophiles and even criticizing them in harsh ways that I doubt any of them would tell to their children over the net. It is evident that for anti-pedophiles this is no longer about children, but just a fight to remain the status quo they conceive as “right”, nothing more to that and it is unfortunate because that means disregarding what the future generations might want to do with their own lives because they are being forced into accomplishing expected roles. Censoring children in order to attack pedophiles will only make the situation worse for both parties and people will see that in the long run. I will venture into saying even more, they are already experimenting the consequences of trying to restrict children from their liberties.
Thanks to the privacy and security invading procedures adopted by most of the popular social media websites, individuals seek for alternative and less intruding options in order to preserve a sense of personal privacy. You have social media giants, like Facebook, constantly threatening to censor individuals with different ideals and/or marking many things as spam or “fake media”, sometimes out of convenience, all while leaving other apparent fake media still up until this date. When it comes MAPs they get censored almost everywhere they go in many different ways, and of course, popular social medias are no exceptions. So how does alternative platforms comes in order to promote our movement? Are those websites who claim freedom of speech actually live up to their standards? Today I will focus on a social media site in particular, one by the name of Minds (Website’s Link).
Minds is an alternative social media site that has been gaining popularity for being a more privacy respecting site, in contrast to the privacy invading tyrant known as Facebook. It combines Facebook, Youtube and Google + to make it’s site work, as well as some other added features, some which are pretty interesting, others that needs improvements, but Minds is still in Beta, so it’s fine in that aspect. The real things to address here is how freedom of speech is convinced by Minds. This website, like many alternative websites, have been adopted by those who are normally censored by other websites because of their controversial views and many who advocates for establishment of violent institutions and/or pseudo-scientific movements. There are also those who merely wishes to socialize without having to sacrifice the comforts of privacy and security.
This particular website called attention to some in the pedophile community, given the stance it had on freedom of speech (or so it had), as they have as recently as 7/19/2017 changed it’s Terms of Services after banning a number of pedophiles from advocating for pedophilia, with the excuse of “inciting to violence against children” (Minds TOS). Among those in such sudden banning actions, myself was included. Unfortunately, this is the second time I get banned from Minds unfairly, so I was already disillusioned with it, but still decided to give it another second try for to this time advocate for pedophilia. As it was common, warm greetings were not the case and hateful comments were directed, but for the time being I was able to post and talk about my views without being exactly censored, because said site promoted freedom of speech. Everything was mostly going good as to propagating the message was until incidents started happening in where individuals were claiming that pedophiles in the Minds community were promoting “child abuse”, while we made it clear in different ways that we advocate for law changes in current society, not promoting the breaking of laws while it still being illegal and definitely not “abuse”, because we’re pedophiles, and that’s not the same.
It is truly disappointing for websites to claim to respect freedom of speech, but then decide to deprive of such things to those groups who actually need them. What would be the point of promoting such a thing in the first place then? (and cowardly change the TOS to cover their asses afterwards?) Is alienating the MAP community from discussion really the right choice? What possible benefits could be achieved in ostracizing a group people into such a situation in where technically not even freedom of speech (nor any type of freedom for that matter) is allowed to them? Is censoring really more cherished than than embracing fierce and productive rational discussion?
“US law is Minds benchmark and all legal content will be allowed. These same channels and content are posted on several social media sites as legal content.”, John Ottman, Co-Founder of Minds. Ironically enough, that was stated by John a few days before we all got abruptly banned for “offending speech”. What is even more ironic were that the hate comments we received were by far more “offensive” and even graphic than anything any of the pedophiles in that platform, during then, ever posted. It is truly sad that even websites that refuses to follow the path of social media giants, when it really comes to it, they also comply with the same censoring procedures as their competitors. Here I will now end showing a few examples of some of the things that were posted to us in that website in general.
There were by far more graphic material posted against us in a lot of ways, but I do not want to make this entry a distasteful one. Anyways, having shown these, it is truly unfortunate being disappointed by Minds for a second time, as it was a website stating to defend freedom of speech but resulted to be telling no more than lies, while letting real inciters to violence to freely advocate for our unjust persecution in their domains. I am also aware that this post has become more than a ranting than usual, but this was something I really needed to get out of the system, as well as my duty to call them out for not really promoting what they advertise and then change their term of services to fit their convenience and not lose traffic. So at the end, they are nothing more than any of the other websites, if anything they’re probably worse from what it seems apparent.
Over the course of history, environments and cultures have developed themselves into what they are today, meaning that things have not always been how portrayed currently. Human interactions are known to be not always peaceful, leading to many disagreements and establish and/or change many laws sometimes incorrectly thinking that such would protect a group of people. Perhaps some laws might have been relevant over social development, but as time passes, they become but null in face of more updated circumstances. Humanity has been known for breaking the accords they themselves reached at certain periods in time, just as for human rights and in cases of war, when they are pressed to do so. This brings out the questions: Are laws really that just and constantly applicable as they were before? Were such laws even considerate of the ones who they were applied over to? What if certain laws become completely unnecessary and even unethical?
When does it becomes justified then to go against a law? Simply, I would say, when such laws restricts the liberty of one or more individuals who aren’t violating other people’s rights to live however they wish. The problem with this is the perception in which some of these situations are seen, especially in our case. Automatically, many individuals will assume that children cannot consent by default, therefore, already with a common generalized confused approach to what the occurrences actually are (not to mention completely ignoring the child’s input by deeming the “victim” as confused). Age of consent has historically varied over time (Age of Consent in The West) and up-to this date the laws have shown to be nothing but a barrier against consenting adult-child relationships by considering them “immoral and illegal”. Countless of individuals are arrested merely for possessing child pornography, which are but images and videos. What harm have they done by just downloading such?
There are many examples of people breaking laws in order for the greater good. Even if I sound far-fetched, I think this is something we need to see massively in our community in order to start moving towards real changes. Allow me to clear up that I mean consensual relationships, since I am completely against actual violation of people’s individual rights. (Examples of people who broke the law) In this link, there are examples of individuals who broke the law because of merely trying to express themselves how the world was unfair of their causes. They needed to go as far as breaking laws in order to bring attention to what they were trying to say, which led to them being relevant to public eyes and bring about persons to rationalize and have second-thoughts that maybe, just maybe they weren’t right all along. Same would go for us, though the bias encompassing pedophilia is incredible, but it’s not impossible to eventually make our voices heard from our side (at least), rather than what the media chooses to portray.
We have a lot of fake media incoherently representing and generalizing us on a daily basis, as well as active censorship when it comes to our community. Even websites that say to advocate for freedom of speech end up banning us unreasonably only because we choose to express ourselves by words. So maybe we have to show them evidence, real examples of situations (which I know there are some documented, but not that known to public exactly) and break the laws nobody dare to break because of fear propaganda and threats in order to show them that things aren’t how they are always told to be? Humanity needs to know that our claims are as valid as any other group and we should be allowed to argue in favor of what we think it’s correct. Censorship would only lead to people finding other mediums in which they would express themselves directly or indirectly, regardless. So why not open ourselves to full discussion just because of meaningless fears and stereotypes?
For those of us who are MAPs and might profess about it in different places at times, we have received from negative critics to straight death threats and/or otherwise generalized threats of illegal actions described to be done to us just because of merely expressing by words (which is completely legal to do so). It is very common that even a mere comment showing you have even the mildest sympathy for pedophiles will already tag you as one and/or unfairly incriminate you by the standards of people who are unfamiliar with these terms and general laws. Personally, I recall being named “sicko” while following inaccurate “arguments” which are also then followed by grotesque pictures while claiming that “I will be caught and exposed” (Exposed for what? Speaking my mind?), “We will beat you to death”, and other attacks completely avoiding actual engagement in arguments, other wise known as “Ad hominem” (See definition).
For those of us who have gone through such things simply for advocating for what you believe in, you have my deepest sympathy and support (Feel free to reach me out). It feels like not so long ago, those in the homosexual community were also followed, and now here we are, while they currently have rights and also some have chosen to persecute us as well, which I find very hypocritical given how their condition were not so different from us not so long and in some places they still are marginalized as we are, though still not in the same intensity as us. Moving on then, the problem with these insults is their nature of misleading and disrupting what would otherwise be an intellectual exchange by different parties with their respective perspective and an active attempt to directly censor our movement. Then how could we deal with such thing and also be safe, since some people do actually decide to inappropriately take matters into their own hands and unreasoningly hunt us down?
Best steps is to make an attractive approach towards the audience you select to communicate with them in the most respectful manner you can, as long as they are also willing to listen on what you have to say. Introduction is very important since it would be the first impression you would give to them of what they are going to expect from you. Despite of this, some people will immediately assume you are the incarnation of the devil themselves, due to the to flawed database they have on stereotypes of our community. However, some people are bound to actually listen and give reasonable exchanges of opinions, which would mean our message is still coming through. On occasions, your post just end up in a flood of negative comments with no accuracy to the subject at hand whatsoever, the best recourse for those individuals is to avoid responding to them, since they have little to nothing for contributing on anything discussed (and probably didn’t even read any of it).
There are individuals that will go beyond imaginable and try to dox you for no real reason. Unfortunately, there are many of such people when it comes to us and in order to prevent your personal privacy to be invaded it’s best to just practice safe browsing habits since the beginning. You are doing no wrong in expressing your opinions and you shouldn’t be scared by such insensitive comments towards your persona, otherwise our movement will be known as a weak one and our morale in general will be on the fall. Definitely not good for us in general, though it’s for a fact that it is hard for some to not be aware by all these threats, some which look like they’re actually going to get you, but they won’t, as long as you be safe on what you’re doing and practice reasonably protective habits, just in case.
Our activism is without a doubt a dangerous path for many in this current world. It could ruin careers, family life, social life, and other things, just by merely practicing what it’s supposed to be the “right” to freedom of speech. Consequently, many fear doing this for given reasons that already violates our privacy and therefore our voice is further reduced. Most people hear about this subject from not so based communication medias that attempt to further increase the stigmatic approach to this topic and quote but only a small percent of our community who are mostly convicted, therefore next to never giving the window to others in the movement to give different views from those normally shared. We must strive to make our voices heard loud and clear, but also push for legal action, when able, and to further children’s rights so that they can also be able to communicate their thoughts on the movement, as they are censored heavily when it comes to this.
Something that has caught full attention over these couple months (but that has well over been going on for years however) is the continuous affiliation of the Pedophile movement with specific sides of the political spectrum, as if in some way justifying, in a logically flawed manner, moral superiority over given opposing resistance between themselves, using our movement as a means of incrimination, mixing such name with other unrelated subjects all together. This habit cannot only be seen in disputes amongst different political ideologies, it can be identified in different sources of news. When mentioned in news, it is common trait to label such movement together with terrorism or “hacktivism”, such as groups as notorious like Anonymous in order to propagate fear and privacy-invading propaganda slowly, but steadily.
Allow me to clear something up, in the name of my fellow partners, both anti-contacts as of pro-contact pedophiles. The pedophile movement as a whole is not inherent to any political identity, given that there are so many different pedophiles located throughout the entirety of what it has been known as the political compass. Left-wing, right-wing, centrist, top and bottom, pedophiles are located everywhere in those 4 quadrants, a lot of us even disagreeing with each other over the approaches the movement in general should take. For example, as briefly mentioned earlier, there are anti-contact pedophiles and there are pro-contact pedophiles, and both are indeed of the same nature, but one chooses the advocation of keeping to themselves to not potentially hurt children; while the other advocates for law changes in order to institute and normalize healthy adult-child relationships.
Many vividly remember when Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-wing speaker, advocated for hebephilia, for example (Video shared ahead of CPAC shows Milo Yiannopoulos appearing to speak fondly of relationships between men and ‘young boys’), though many of those in the right immediately went against him just for stating that controversial opinion. It is worth mentioning, however, that in conservative nature, the age of consent laws were relatively very low in the past where more traditional values were being held and practiced. (See here for brief information on pedophilia culture history) Now on the other hand, we have, in the relative modern time line, the liberal left approaching this topic ( ‘I’m a pedophile, but not a monster’: Man writes confronting essay asking Americans to ‘please understand’ the difference between pedophiles and child molesters), among with other groups who are operating independently and/or trying to merge with the existing LGBT (which is worth mentioning that they have officially denied having affiliations with pedophilia movement).
Pedophilia is not limited nor will always be identified with just one political spectrum. This sexual orientation has existed since many times before in history, it’s roots are not located in political but in cultures themselves, such as it was with homosexuality, among others. This is important to understand because everything, especially this movement (for this article’s relevance) is not originated from just mere political organizations, but from human interaction themselves, before there was even such things as politics. For this reason, it is a mistake to either identify pedophilia as either a left-wing or a right-wing movement, it’s just another sexuality struggling in these current times and with many divisions in itself and each respective individuals pursuing the way of life they think it is correct, with independent opinions on politics, rather than a common one as a marginalized group.