Having “non-offending” as an identity or label has got to be the biggest joke of all time. I mean, that’s your identity? That you’re not a rapist? “Hi, I’m Jane and I have never raped anyone.” Is that supposed to be reassuring? Like… to paraphrase Chris Rock, you’re not supposed to rape. What do you want, a cookie?
I’m really uncomfortable with this idea that Rey being as strong in the Force as Killoren supports Reheelo rather than Rey Skywalker/Solo. I mean, does that strike anyone else as uncomfortably eugenic? Of course, the idea of a kind of divine lineage (which just happens to be white/white-passing) deciding the fate of the universe already lends itself to illiberal interpretations. See David Brin’s “Star Wars” despots vs. “Star Trek” populists on this point.
However, the idea that Rey is Force-destined to marry Kul-de-sac, a man she hates, so they can have a new generation of super-strong Skywalker babies takes this already problematic premise to new and disturbing lows. Rey’s own feelings of disgust and pain from her interactions with Kal are brushed aside or outright romanticized in this process, making the way this pairing is shipped frequently misogynistic as well. And let’s not even get into the blatant misapplication of the concept of a Force bond making them love each other against their will. The Force is not a date rape drug, damn it.
If Rey is a Skywalker or Solo, on the other hand, it makes sense within the existing canon that she would be as strong in the Force as her cousin or brother. It also preserves the recurring theme of choice, that one’s moral choices matter more than blood, making this canon palatable. As others have pointed out, Rey and Krill being the opposite ends of Anakin Skywalker’s legacy both underlines that theme and neatly ties off the three trilogies. To me they’re the only parentage theories that make thematic sense and make for a satisfying conclusion.
Pedophilic attraction is not a sexual orientation, it is an urge to rape. I’ve seen people compare it to orientations like being straight or gay, and that’s a… really misleading comparison. Same-gender attraction, for instance, is capable of being expressed in a consensual way and usually is. So can heterosexual attraction.
But say you are a woman attracted to adult men and you gain sexual satisfaction by raping them or fantasizing about raping them. This part of your attraction, if expressed, can only result in the pain and suffering of the people you are attracted to, or may be steps toward ingratiating yourself to them and undermining their will to say no. In this case YES, I would have huge issues with this straight woman’s sexuality, and would urge her to get help and stay away from men.
The real parallel to being attracted to children is not any straight or queer orientation capable of consensual expression, but rather an urge that leads to rape or emotional abuse. Because that is what attraction to minors is, the urge to rape children, and that is not an okay thing or an identity to celebrate. It is a condition to be managed so that people won’t be hurt.
Also, it’s not “MAPS” and “NOMAPS.” Or any of that garbage.
It’s pedophiles and…pedophiles.
I’ve seen pedophiles claim that, because they are “NOMAPS,” children should be left alone with them.
That the label “pedophile” could be an obstacle between them and children.
Fuck that.
They’re pedophiles.
I don’t have an urge to rape!
or maybe….
THE FUCK.
You’re not a nomap. You interact with Children AND WANT TO RAPE THEM. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
And this, children of Tumblr, is why I want “ Nomaps ” and “ maps ” to die.
It’s partly satire my friend. I just love seeing you guys get so hot headed over words with no meaning
Please do not joke about wanting to rape children. It detracts from our message that we 100% do not want to do that.
Is that the message or the reality, though? A lot of so-called “nomaps” seem perfectly fine with openly lusting after children. I love how the “respectable” pedophiles on this thread are more concerned about message and image than, you know, how fucked up it is to act like pedophilic attraction is OK and something to be normalized on an open site.
yes, the fact that we do not want to rape children is 100% reality. hence why we do not approve of those conducting themselves in a manner contradictory to this fact.
You’re using an unsupported assertion here, that no one who identifies as non-offending would want to rape a child. You don’t know that. You may know that about yourself, but you can’t vouch for the desire and behavior of people you don’t know. Non-offending is a behavior, not an identity or orientation.
So instead of assuming that no self-identified “nomap” could or could ever want to offend and that these gross statements about child rape are just an image problem that doesn’t reflect the reality, maybe you should be more concerned about the effects of normalizing pedophilia online and how pedophiles are talking about their attraction like it’s any other attraction. It’s not, as I discussed in the op.
I never made that assertion. Yes, unfortunately there self-asserted “nomaps” who are actually pro-contact. however, truth is more than just self-assertion. my assertion is that no true anti-contact wants to hurt a child.
One, that’s called a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Two, it doesn’t even make sense in the framework you propose. If the “we” in the assertion that “we do not want to rape children” refers to “true” no-contact pedophiles, then the logical answer to @flyloverdove would be “you’re not actually no-contact” as @garchomp-anti said, instead of “it detracts from our message” and that it is “contradictory to this [purported] fact [that true no-contact ‘nomaps’ do not want to rape children]” as you said.
As you yourself admit, some self-identified non-offenders are in fact pro-contact because, surprise, non-offending and no-contact are behaviors, not identities. If flyloverdove is pro-contact as they appear to be, then their conduct cannot contradict your assertion that true no-contact pedophiles do not want to rape children, since they are not a true no-contact pedophile.
calling it a “no true scotsman” fallacy ignores the fact that there is a strict definition of anti-contact; being outside of that definition excludes one from actual membership of the ideology. It’s the same with any other ideology. if you call yourself progressive but don’t have progressive views, you’re not a progressive. if you call yourself conservative but don’t have conservative views, you’re not a conservative. if you call yourself anti-contact but don’t have anti-contact views, you’re not anti-contact.
If @flyloverdove actually believes it is acceptable to rape children, then yes, he is pro-contact, and therefore not among us. Otherwise he is anti-contact, in which case it remains true that he must be conscientious of how he represents himself among us.
Non-offending is the behavior of not committing any sexual offense against children. anti-contact is the ideology that it is wrong to do so because of children’s inability to meaningfully consent to anything sexual.
Anyone who believes that it is okay to rape children does not meet the definition of anti-contact and therefore is not anti-contact. if flyloverdove meets the definition of anti-contact, he is misconducting himself; if not, he is conducting himself consistently as pro-contact.
So under the no-contact view is it wrong for people to talk openly about how sexually attractive children are and how one would like to take them home and snuggle with them? Or is it only wrong if the person talking this way is pro-contact, or is no-contact and creates an image problem for other no-contact pedophiles?
I ask because the person in question doesn’t behave like a no-contact pedophile, and your disapproval of their behavior doesn’t address the fact that they appear to be pro-contact, and also doesn’t discuss whether it’s okay to talk about children this way.
Yes, it is inappropriate to talk about wanting to take a child home and snuggle with them. It would also be wrong for an adult-attracted person to talk about an adult stranger in such a vexing manner. What makes it especially wrong for a self-proclaimed anti-contact to talk thusly is that either they are being sincere in wanting such inappropriate contact in which case they truly are pro-contact, or they aren’t in which case their negligent comments grossly misrepresent both themself and the movement.
I agree that the individual behaves inappropriately and certainly does not behave as an anti-contact should, However, one cannot determine conclusively that he is pro-contact as long as his sincere beliefs concerning children’s inability to give informed consent to sexual activity to adults and the consequential immortality of engaging children in sexual contact is nonevident.
Inappropriate the same way as talking about an adult is inappropriate? Do you see no difference between talking sexually about a child and fantasizing about an adult? Hint: the former, according to your own beliefs, can never be consensual.
By your logic we can’t ever know if anyone is pro- or anti- contact. We don’t know if you’re sincerely anti contact, for instance. We can only take you at your word. And we can only take @flyloverdove at their word, that they think the idea of preying on children is funny and worth joking about to rile people up.
it is neither appropriate to talk about a child in a sexual manner at all (as children can never give consent to anything sexual) or to talk about an adult sexually without their explicit consent. The former is always wrong, as there can never be the required consent; the latter is wrong as long as the requires consent is not given.
Exactly, because mind-reading is impossible, we give people the benefit of the doubt that they are sincere in their beliefs unless probable cause indicates otherwise.
Thank you for clarifying that talking about children sexually is never appropriate. That was what I was disturbed about, that some of the commenters seemed only concerned about the image problem such talk would cause for non-offending pedophiles and didn’t talk about how fundamentally wrong it is.
And, speaking at least for myself, the fact that some people talk this way about children doesn’t lead me to think badly of no-contact pedophiles in general. It does make me wonder about the goals of the non-offending pedophile community and how helpful their activities really are, but I wouldn’t paint everyone in a group with the same brush based on their attraction alone. I’m also aware that no one can control every member of their group. My only concern is that people speak out against this behavior by self-identified no-contact pedophiles, and as something wrong in itself and not just a PR problem.
Pedophilic attraction is not a sexual orientation, it is an urge to rape. I’ve seen people compare it to orientations like being straight or gay, and that’s a… really misleading comparison. Same-gender attraction, for instance, is capable of being expressed in a consensual way and usually is. So can heterosexual attraction.
But say you are a woman attracted to adult men and you gain sexual satisfaction by raping them or fantasizing about raping them. This part of your attraction, if expressed, can only result in the pain and suffering of the people you are attracted to, or may be steps toward ingratiating yourself to them and undermining their will to say no. In this case YES, I would have huge issues with this straight woman’s sexuality, and would urge her to get help and stay away from men.
The real parallel to being attracted to children is not any straight or queer orientation capable of consensual expression, but rather an urge that leads to rape or emotional abuse. Because that is what attraction to minors is, the urge to rape children, and that is not an okay thing or an identity to celebrate. It is a condition to be managed so that people won’t be hurt.
Also, it’s not “MAPS” and “NOMAPS.” Or any of that garbage.
It’s pedophiles and…pedophiles.
I’ve seen pedophiles claim that, because they are “NOMAPS,” children should be left alone with them.
That the label “pedophile” could be an obstacle between them and children.
Fuck that.
They’re pedophiles.
I don’t have an urge to rape!
or maybe….
THE FUCK.
You’re not a nomap. You interact with Children AND WANT TO RAPE THEM. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
And this, children of Tumblr, is why I want “ Nomaps ” and “ maps ” to die.
It’s partly satire my friend. I just love seeing you guys get so hot headed over words with no meaning
Please do not joke about wanting to rape children. It detracts from our message that we 100% do not want to do that.
Is that the message or the reality, though? A lot of so-called “nomaps” seem perfectly fine with openly lusting after children. I love how the “respectable” pedophiles on this thread are more concerned about message and image than, you know, how fucked up it is to act like pedophilic attraction is OK and something to be normalized on an open site.
yes, the fact that we do not want to rape children is 100% reality. hence why we do not approve of those conducting themselves in a manner contradictory to this fact.
You’re using an unsupported assertion here, that no one who identifies as non-offending would want to rape a child. You don’t know that. You may know that about yourself, but you can’t vouch for the desire and behavior of people you don’t know. Non-offending is a behavior, not an identity or orientation.
So instead of assuming that no self-identified “nomap” could or could ever want to offend and that these gross statements about child rape are just an image problem that doesn’t reflect the reality, maybe you should be more concerned about the effects of normalizing pedophilia online and how pedophiles are talking about their attraction like it’s any other attraction. It’s not, as I discussed in the op.
I never made that assertion. Yes, unfortunately there self-asserted “nomaps” who are actually pro-contact. however, truth is more than just self-assertion. my assertion is that no true anti-contact wants to hurt a child.
One, that’s called a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Two, it doesn’t even make sense in the framework you propose. If the “we” in the assertion that “we do not want to rape children” refers to “true” no-contact pedophiles, then the logical answer to @flyloverdove would be “you’re not actually no-contact” as @garchomp-anti said, instead of “it detracts from our message” and that it is “contradictory to this [purported] fact [that true no-contact ‘nomaps’ do not want to rape children]” as you said.
As you yourself admit, some self-identified non-offenders are in fact pro-contact because, surprise, non-offending and no-contact are behaviors, not identities. If flyloverdove is pro-contact as they appear to be, then their conduct cannot contradict your assertion that true no-contact pedophiles do not want to rape children, since they are not a true no-contact pedophile.
calling it a “no true scotsman” fallacy ignores the fact that there is a strict definition of anti-contact; being outside of that definition excludes one from actual membership of the ideology. It’s the same with any other ideology. if you call yourself progressive but don’t have progressive views, you’re not a progressive. if you call yourself conservative but don’t have conservative views, you’re not a conservative. if you call yourself anti-contact but don’t have anti-contact views, you’re not anti-contact.
If @flyloverdove actually believes it is acceptable to rape children, then yes, he is pro-contact, and therefore not among us. Otherwise he is anti-contact, in which case it remains true that he must be conscientious of how he represents himself among us.
Non-offending is the behavior of not committing any sexual offense against children. anti-contact is the ideology that it is wrong to do so because of children’s inability to meaningfully consent to anything sexual.
Anyone who believes that it is okay to rape children does not meet the definition of anti-contact and therefore is not anti-contact. if flyloverdove meets the definition of anti-contact, he is misconducting himself; if not, he is conducting himself consistently as pro-contact.
So under the no-contact view is it wrong for people to talk openly about how sexually attractive children are and how one would like to take them home and snuggle with them? Or is it only wrong if the person talking this way is pro-contact, or is no-contact and creates an image problem for other no-contact pedophiles?
I ask because the person in question doesn’t behave like a no-contact pedophile, and your disapproval of their behavior doesn’t address the fact that they appear to be pro-contact, and also doesn’t discuss whether it’s okay to talk about children this way.
Yes, it is inappropriate to talk about wanting to take a child home and snuggle with them. It would also be wrong for an adult-attracted person to talk about an adult stranger in such a vexing manner. What makes it especially wrong for a self-proclaimed anti-contact to talk thusly is that either they are being sincere in wanting such inappropriate contact in which case they truly are pro-contact, or they aren’t in which case their negligent comments grossly misrepresent both themself and the movement.
I agree that the individual behaves inappropriately and certainly does not behave as an anti-contact should, However, one cannot determine conclusively that he is pro-contact as long as his sincere beliefs concerning children’s inability to give informed consent to sexual activity to adults and the consequential immortality of engaging children in sexual contact is nonevident.
Inappropriate the same way as talking about an adult is inappropriate? Do you see no difference between talking sexually about a child and fantasizing about an adult? Hint: the former, according to your own beliefs, can never be consensual.
By your logic we can’t ever know if anyone is pro- or anti- contact. We don’t know if you’re sincerely anti contact, for instance. We can only take you at your word. And we can only take @flyloverdove at their word, that they think the idea of preying on children is funny and worth joking about to rile people up.
Pedophilic attraction is not a sexual orientation, it is an urge to rape. I’ve seen people compare it to orientations like being straight or gay, and that’s a… really misleading comparison. Same-gender attraction, for instance, is capable of being expressed in a consensual way and usually is. So can heterosexual attraction.
But say you are a woman attracted to adult men and you gain sexual satisfaction by raping them or fantasizing about raping them. This part of your attraction, if expressed, can only result in the pain and suffering of the people you are attracted to, or may be steps toward ingratiating yourself to them and undermining their will to say no. In this case YES, I would have huge issues with this straight woman’s sexuality, and would urge her to get help and stay away from men.
The real parallel to being attracted to children is not any straight or queer orientation capable of consensual expression, but rather an urge that leads to rape or emotional abuse. Because that is what attraction to minors is, the urge to rape children, and that is not an okay thing or an identity to celebrate. It is a condition to be managed so that people won’t be hurt.
Also, it’s not “MAPS” and “NOMAPS.” Or any of that garbage.
It’s pedophiles and…pedophiles.
I’ve seen pedophiles claim that, because they are “NOMAPS,” children should be left alone with them.
That the label “pedophile” could be an obstacle between them and children.
Fuck that.
They’re pedophiles.
I don’t have an urge to rape!
or maybe….
THE FUCK.
You’re not a nomap. You interact with Children AND WANT TO RAPE THEM. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
And this, children of Tumblr, is why I want “ Nomaps ” and “ maps ” to die.
It’s partly satire my friend. I just love seeing you guys get so hot headed over words with no meaning
Please do not joke about wanting to rape children. It detracts from our message that we 100% do not want to do that.
Is that the message or the reality, though? A lot of so-called “nomaps” seem perfectly fine with openly lusting after children. I love how the “respectable” pedophiles on this thread are more concerned about message and image than, you know, how fucked up it is to act like pedophilic attraction is OK and something to be normalized on an open site.
yes, the fact that we do not want to rape children is 100% reality. hence why we do not approve of those conducting themselves in a manner contradictory to this fact.
You’re using an unsupported assertion here, that no one who identifies as non-offending would want to rape a child. You don’t know that. You may know that about yourself, but you can’t vouch for the desire and behavior of people you don’t know. Non-offending is a behavior, not an identity or orientation.
So instead of assuming that no self-identified “nomap” could or could ever want to offend and that these gross statements about child rape are just an image problem that doesn’t reflect the reality, maybe you should be more concerned about the effects of normalizing pedophilia online and how pedophiles are talking about their attraction like it’s any other attraction. It’s not, as I discussed in the op.
I never made that assertion. Yes, unfortunately there self-asserted “nomaps” who are actually pro-contact. however, truth is more than just self-assertion. my assertion is that no true anti-contact wants to hurt a child.
One, that’s called a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Two, it doesn’t even make sense in the framework you propose. If the “we” in the assertion that “we do not want to rape children” refers to “true” no-contact pedophiles, then the logical answer to @flyloverdove would be “you’re not actually no-contact” as @garchomp-anti said, instead of “it detracts from our message” and that it is “contradictory to this [purported] fact [that true no-contact ‘nomaps’ do not want to rape children]” as you said.
As you yourself admit, some self-identified non-offenders are in fact pro-contact because, surprise, non-offending and no-contact are behaviors, not identities. If flyloverdove is pro-contact as they appear to be, then their conduct cannot contradict your assertion that true no-contact pedophiles do not want to rape children, since they are not a true no-contact pedophile.
calling it a “no true scotsman” fallacy ignores the fact that there is a strict definition of anti-contact; being outside of that definition excludes one from actual membership of the ideology. It’s the same with any other ideology. if you call yourself progressive but don’t have progressive views, you’re not a progressive. if you call yourself conservative but don’t have conservative views, you’re not a conservative. if you call yourself anti-contact but don’t have anti-contact views, you’re not anti-contact.
If @flyloverdove actually believes it is acceptable to rape children, then yes, he is pro-contact, and therefore not among us. Otherwise he is anti-contact, in which case it remains true that he must be conscientious of how he represents himself among us.
Non-offending is the behavior of not committing any sexual offense against children. anti-contact is the ideology that it is wrong to do so because of children’s inability to meaningfully consent to anything sexual.
Anyone who believes that it is okay to rape children does not meet the definition of anti-contact and therefore is not anti-contact. if flyloverdove meets the definition of anti-contact, he is misconducting himself; if not, he is conducting himself consistently as pro-contact.
So under the no-contact view is it wrong for people to talk openly about how sexually attractive children are and how one would like to take them home and snuggle with them? Or is it only wrong if the person talking this way is pro-contact, or is no-contact and creates an image problem for other no-contact pedophiles?
I ask because the person in question doesn’t behave like a no-contact pedophile, and your disapproval of their behavior doesn’t address the fact that they appear to be pro-contact, and also doesn’t discuss whether it’s okay to talk about children this way.
Pedophilic attraction is not a sexual orientation, it is an urge to rape. I’ve seen people compare it to orientations like being straight or gay, and that’s a… really misleading comparison. Same-gender attraction, for instance, is capable of being expressed in a consensual way and usually is. So can heterosexual attraction.
But say you are a woman attracted to adult men and you gain sexual satisfaction by raping them or fantasizing about raping them. This part of your attraction, if expressed, can only result in the pain and suffering of the people you are attracted to, or may be steps toward ingratiating yourself to them and undermining their will to say no. In this case YES, I would have huge issues with this straight woman’s sexuality, and would urge her to get help and stay away from men.
The real parallel to being attracted to children is not any straight or queer orientation capable of consensual expression, but rather an urge that leads to rape or emotional abuse. Because that is what attraction to minors is, the urge to rape children, and that is not an okay thing or an identity to celebrate. It is a condition to be managed so that people won’t be hurt.
Also, it’s not “MAPS” and “NOMAPS.” Or any of that garbage.
It’s pedophiles and…pedophiles.
I’ve seen pedophiles claim that, because they are “NOMAPS,” children should be left alone with them.
That the label “pedophile” could be an obstacle between them and children.
Fuck that.
They’re pedophiles.
I don’t have an urge to rape!
or maybe….
THE FUCK.
You’re not a nomap. You interact with Children AND WANT TO RAPE THEM. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
And this, children of Tumblr, is why I want “ Nomaps ” and “ maps ” to die.
It’s partly satire my friend. I just love seeing you guys get so hot headed over words with no meaning
Please do not joke about wanting to rape children. It detracts from our message that we 100% do not want to do that.
Is that the message or the reality, though? A lot of so-called “nomaps” seem perfectly fine with openly lusting after children. I love how the “respectable” pedophiles on this thread are more concerned about message and image than, you know, how fucked up it is to act like pedophilic attraction is OK and something to be normalized on an open site.
yes, the fact that we do not want to rape children is 100% reality. hence why we do not approve of those conducting themselves in a manner contradictory to this fact.
You’re using an unsupported assertion here, that no one who identifies as non-offending would want to rape a child. You don’t know that. You may know that about yourself, but you can’t vouch for the desire and behavior of people you don’t know. Non-offending is a behavior, not an identity or orientation.
So instead of assuming that no self-identified “nomap” could or could ever want to offend and that these gross statements about child rape are just an image problem that doesn’t reflect the reality, maybe you should be more concerned about the effects of normalizing pedophilia online and how pedophiles are talking about their attraction like it’s any other attraction. It’s not, as I discussed in the op.
I never made that assertion. Yes, unfortunately there self-asserted “nomaps” who are actually pro-contact. however, truth is more than just self-assertion. my assertion is that no true anti-contact wants to hurt a child.
One, that’s called a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Two, it doesn’t even make sense in the framework you propose. If the “we” in the assertion that “we do not want to rape children” refers to “true” no-contact pedophiles, then the logical answer to @flyloverdove would be “you’re not actually no-contact” as @garchomp-anti said, instead of “it detracts from our message” and that it is “contradictory to this [purported] fact [that true no-contact ‘nomaps’ do not want to rape children]” as you said.
As you yourself admit, some self-identified non-offenders are in fact pro-contact because, surprise, non-offending and no-contact are behaviors, not identities. If flyloverdove is pro-contact as they appear to be, then their conduct cannot contradict your assertion that true no-contact pedophiles do not want to rape children, since they are not a true no-contact pedophile.
Pedophilic attraction is not a sexual orientation, it is an urge to rape. I’ve seen people compare it to orientations like being straight or gay, and that’s a… really misleading comparison. Same-gender attraction, for instance, is capable of being expressed in a consensual way and usually is. So can heterosexual attraction.
But say you are a woman attracted to adult men and you gain sexual satisfaction by raping them or fantasizing about raping them. This part of your attraction, if expressed, can only result in the pain and suffering of the people you are attracted to, or may be steps toward ingratiating yourself to them and undermining their will to say no. In this case YES, I would have huge issues with this straight woman’s sexuality, and would urge her to get help and stay away from men.
The real parallel to being attracted to children is not any straight or queer orientation capable of consensual expression, but rather an urge that leads to rape or emotional abuse. Because that is what attraction to minors is, the urge to rape children, and that is not an okay thing or an identity to celebrate. It is a condition to be managed so that people won’t be hurt.
Also, it’s not “MAPS” and “NOMAPS.” Or any of that garbage.
It’s pedophiles and…pedophiles.
I’ve seen pedophiles claim that, because they are “NOMAPS,” children should be left alone with them.
That the label “pedophile” could be an obstacle between them and children.
Fuck that.
They’re pedophiles.
I don’t have an urge to rape!
or maybe….
THE FUCK.
You’re not a nomap. You interact with Children AND WANT TO RAPE THEM. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
And this, children of Tumblr, is why I want “ Nomaps ” and “ maps ” to die.
It’s partly satire my friend. I just love seeing you guys get so hot headed over words with no meaning
Please do not joke about wanting to rape children. It detracts from our message that we 100% do not want to do that.
Is that the message or the reality, though? A lot of so-called “nomaps” seem perfectly fine with openly lusting after children. I love how the “respectable” pedophiles on this thread are more concerned about message and image than, you know, how fucked up it is to act like pedophilic attraction is OK and something to be normalized on an open site.
yes, the fact that we do not want to rape children is 100% reality. hence why we do not approve of those conducting themselves in a manner contradictory to this fact.
You’re using an unsupported assertion here, that no one who identifies as non-offending would want to rape a child. You don’t know that. You may know that about yourself, but you can’t vouch for the desire and behavior of people you don’t know. Non-offending is a behavior, not an identity or orientation.
So instead of assuming that no self-identified “nomap” could or could ever want to offend and that these gross statements about child rape are just an image problem that doesn’t reflect the reality, maybe you should be more concerned about the effects of normalizing pedophilia online and how pedophiles are talking about their attraction like it’s any other attraction. It’s not, as I discussed in the op.
Pedophilic attraction is not a sexual orientation, it is an urge to rape. I’ve seen people compare it to orientations like being straight or gay, and that’s a… really misleading comparison. Same-gender attraction, for instance, is capable of being expressed in a consensual way and usually is. So can heterosexual attraction.
But say you are a woman attracted to adult men and you gain sexual satisfaction by raping them or fantasizing about raping them. This part of your attraction, if expressed, can only result in the pain and suffering of the people you are attracted to, or may be steps toward ingratiating yourself to them and undermining their will to say no. In this case YES, I would have huge issues with this straight woman’s sexuality, and would urge her to get help and stay away from men.
The real parallel to being attracted to children is not any straight or queer orientation capable of consensual expression, but rather an urge that leads to rape or emotional abuse. Because that is what attraction to minors is, the urge to rape children, and that is not an okay thing or an identity to celebrate. It is a condition to be managed so that people won’t be hurt.
Also, it’s not “MAPS” and “NOMAPS.” Or any of that garbage.
It’s pedophiles and…pedophiles.
I’ve seen pedophiles claim that, because they are “NOMAPS,” children should be left alone with them.
That the label “pedophile” could be an obstacle between them and children.
Fuck that.
They’re pedophiles.
I don’t have an urge to rape!
or maybe….
THE FUCK.
You’re not a nomap. You interact with Children AND WANT TO RAPE THEM. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
And this, children of Tumblr, is why I want “ Nomaps ” and “ maps ” to die.
It’s partly satire my friend. I just love seeing you guys get so hot headed over words with no meaning
Please do not joke about wanting to rape children. It detracts from our message that we 100% do not want to do that.
Is that the message or the reality, though? A lot of so-called “nomaps” seem perfectly fine with openly lusting after children. I love how the “respectable” pedophiles on this thread are more concerned about message and image than, you know, how fucked up it is to act like pedophilic attraction is OK and something to be normalized on an open site.
I just saw the cutest little boy today! I was walking home from work and he waved at me and said “look at the bikes!” while pointing at the kids riding them. I wish I could take him home with me~
Pedos: I WOULDNT TOUCH A MINOR EVER!!! NEVER EVER!!!
Pedos 5 sec later: I wish I could take this lil boy home with me~~~~~~~~~~~~
Y’all needa do me a favor and just kill urself!
But I wouldn’t have hurt him! I would’ve just hugged and cuddled him while we watched cartoons. Give him kisses on his cheeks and tummy. Nothing bad!
Bruh
Uuuuhhh you wanna stop? And like go to jail? Or just off yourself? Children are children leave them alone.
I want to believe this is satire on OP’s part but I know it isn’t
Partly satire, partly not. I still loved seeing that little boy
Humbert Humbert had almost this exact thought in Lolita. He was just going to drug Dolores and molest her a little in her sleep, he would be sated and no harm done.
L.J.'s Obsessions 