Quote# 134297

You have to understand, your actions, set an example to other whites. You could have had a white child, who could go on and produce another white child, and so on. If every male, divorced his non-white women, married a white women and produced children that= more whites. At current rates, the white male/females really, can't afford to be selfish and a policy of mixed-race marriages being forbidden, would help immensely.

From a Christian perspective, god hates race-mixing, multiculturalism, and diversity. It is , literally , a pagan practice of Baal worship.

ShinnSeedMode, Reddit 21 Comments [11/17/2017 4:01:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 134296

Unknown, Neatorama 22 Comments [11/17/2017 4:00:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Hu’s On First

Quote# 134295

I... actually agree with this. I personally do not stigmatize pedophilic feelings granted that these feelings are kept to oneself and never acted upon. It's not far fetched to conceive of a situation in which someone who sees children sexually would work a job in which they interacted with them regularly and yet was otherwise a perfectly normal person and upstanding worker. I see it no differently from a nurse taking care of a patient they find attractive. So long as no one is diddling kids then let people work where they want to work, are we the god damn thought police now?

If you know that you are a pedophile, the responsible thing to do is not to deliberately put yourself into a position where you are required to be in close contact with children. That's just common sense.
I'm sure there are people who do it, who have these feelings and work with kids. And I am sure that there are plenty of them that never act on their feelings. Fine. I don't like it, but neither can I really prevent it.
But if you go on to the internet and announce that you are a pedophile AND that you believe you should be working with children, people are going to think you are an irresponsible creep. That's not thought policing. That's reality.
If my alcoholic cousin came to me and said they thought it would be a grand idea to start working as a bartender, I'd suggest they reconsider. That's not thought policing. It's saying, "Hey, you have a temptation that most people don't and that could cause some real damage to the people around you if you give in to, so maybe you should try a job where you aren't constantly surrounded by the one thing that you want but cannot have."
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.

As I've said before, I'm arguing from the position that the pedophile in question is otherwise a perfect teacher who has had their heart set on being one forever. Of course, if you knew them and you knew their temptation you'd talk to them about it, but if they were dead set on it would you truly tell them to just give up on their dream? Also, your analogy isn't too good, drinking alcohol is not illegal, and an alcoholic has already indulged in their temptation enough for it to be a legitimate problem, the pedophile in question has never acted on their lust and in all likelihood never will.

the (adult) patient can tell the nurse to fuck off / press charges / get a restrainin gorder / clock him/her in the face, your choice. children are defenceless.

But they are both exposed to similar temptation, and in the case of both being professionals who are serious about their job, neither would give in.

it doesn't matter: the other party is too vulnerable, the risk is unjustifiable.
it's like saying "I am a very careful smoker, I will make sure my sigarette doesn't drop and make your gas station blow up." You are not allowed to light up, period.
just NO.

Your analogy fails, a smoker already smokes and does so regularly, the pedophile I am discussing has never acted on their lust and likely will never act upon it. It's a thought, not an action.
So you believe we should be policing thoughts? Telling people what they can and cannot do based upon their feelings? Should other professions start doing this too? Should a Nurse in a Convalescent Home be fired for thinking about how much they hate their job?

the disbalance of power (lack of ability to protect him/herself) for a child is so great, you are practically placing him/her totally at mercy of the person who may or may not act upon their feelings. Nope, nope, nope.

ays me, this is the point I am arguing from, if you don't like it then you can stop responding. I described the pedophile in question from the very beginning as someone who has never acted upon their feelings and in all likelihood never would.
You didn't answer my question. Do we start thought-policing people?

When it comes to the vulnerability of a child over an adult's desire to have a specific job, yes.

If you really believe that anyone has the right to control the mind of others for any reason then we've nothing to talk about.

Believe me, I don't condone pedophilia and I'm not trying to protect molesters who would take advantage of children. I just see a group of people who may have legitimate psychological problems they may need help to get over being stigmatized so heavily that they can't find that help and it makes me sympathize with their situation.

yummyfish, /r/TumblrInAction 4 Comments [11/17/2017 3:59:44 AM]
Fundie Index: -1

Quote# 134293

-Sexual activity between adults and children is found in all primate species, and all pre-industrial cultures without a taboo on child sexuality. It is just as "normal", biologically speaking, as homosexual behavior.
-Pedophilia is not a mental illness, but a sexual orientation. The conclusion of the final DSM-V is that the term "pedophilia" by itself does not refer to a psychiatric disorder. There is no longer an entry for "Pedophilia" but only one for "Pedophilic Disorder", and it states that if individuals "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."
-There is no evidence pedophilia is the result of any kind of abuse. This is an urban myth discredited by scientific research.
Freund, Kurt; Watson, R.; and Dickey, R. (1990). "Does sexual abuse in childhood cause pedophilia: an exploratory study," Archives of Sex

Cannibalism is also found in primate species. I guess we should just make cannibalism legal? The whole point of being human is not giving in to disgusting impulses like pedophilia and cannibalism.

Why is consensual and mutually pleasurable sexual activity between children and adults "disgusting"? Plenty of people find homosexuality "disgusting" as well. Does this mean we should ban homosexual sex? Why is it any different with sex between children and adults?

svarog123, /r/TumblrInAction 8 Comments [11/17/2017 3:54:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 134292

A sex addict has a behavioral problem. A pedophile has an abnormal sexual orientation. To say that all pedophiles are dangerous to children is like saying all straight men are dangerous to women. Should male doctors never be in the same room with attractive female patients? Why not? You would be constantly exposing them to temptation, after all. What's the difference?

Just like an alcoholic should not work in a bar or a gambler in a casino, a pedophile should not work or be around children.
Especially since the consequences of a pedophile slipping up are much more dire

Alcoholics and gamblers have a behavioral pathology- they are unable to control their behavior. Pedophiles are people who are sexually and emotionally attracted to children- it is a sexual orientation, and is not comorbid with a lack of impulse control.

"In fact, this blog strongly advises against sexual relationships with children, and will explain why in a future post|".
If you need to explain this, you have a problem.

Can you explain why children should be prevented from engaging in pleasurable, safe, and consensual sexual activity with adults? Why do you want to prevent children from experiencing sexual pleasure? Do you hate children? Why else would you want to impose upon them an artificial asexuality, in spite of the fact that children enjoy and desire sexual activity?

svarog123, /r/TumblrInAction 8 Comments [11/17/2017 3:52:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 134291

I do agree with the assertion that simply having pedophilic thoughts should not exclude an otherwise fitting candidate from a position in which they would regularly interact with children. Should we also not allow male nurses to perform procedures on women near their age? Are we seriously to be policing thoughts?
But stating that pedophiles somehow have a natural proclivity to teach kids is just...creepy.
Also, there's a significant difference between a pedophile teaching a a male nurse taking care of women.
In the case of the male nurse, presuming that he likes adults, will be able to have access to ample women outside his job who are completely valid candidates for his affections and interests.
A pedophile doesn't really have a healthy outlet for sexuality. Even watching erotica with kids is...not okay. This person would literally be sitting around kids all day with pent-up sexual frustration. The nurse...not so much. That still doesn't mean that the pedophile would turn abuser, but the temptation and opportunity is simply much higher.
Obviously you can't police thoughts, but I'd certainly wouldn't advise a pedophile to work n a primary school

I'm just saying that people shouldn't be denied a job because of their thoughts. You could very well teach teenagers or adults instead of children, but many teachers are good teachers because their styles work well with their students. A great elementary school teacher may not be a university professor.

I disagree, it's like keeping a loaded gun in a house with children. The consequences of something going wrong are so horrific, it outweighs any benefit of having a good teacher who keeps their hands to themselves. In any case, why would someone's pedophilic thoughts be known to anyone unless that person already got caught doing something inappropriate?

The concept is a hypothetical but perhaps they'd confided in someone they trusted, and I disagree, I think that the benefit of good teachers outweighs the risk.

yummyfish, /r/TumblrInAction 2 Comments [11/17/2017 3:51:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 134290

Why are you so bent on defending pedophiles

I’m bent on defending innocent people from stigma, demonization and false accusations. I’m bent on decreasing csa, protecting children from actual abusers, improving people’s mental health and in general making the best for everyone. I’m totally into using scientifical evidence to support my views and apply what science has proved us as the best way to help innocent people with pedophilic disorder and to prevent csa. I’m totally down for don’t adding a moral sense to an amoral category as sexuality is and judging people for their chosen actions and not for their impossible to choose feelings. So yeah, I’m really bent on defending pedophiles because that is good for everyone, it decreases people’s suffering, mental illness and csa. Any problem with that?

Tags: anon map positivity map support pro map nomaps asks answer anti antis therapy pedophilia psychiatry

aleskakolja, tumblr 1 Comments [11/17/2017 3:49:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 134289

I have been thinking a bit about this, and since we have some numerical data maybe we can put numbers in the issue of “pedophiles genocide”. Maybe seeing the numbers could help to have clearer visions of the implications of some people’s desires and intentions.

So, there are a large part of antis who think that all pedophiles, no matter what, should die. I want to believe that most of them don’t think that for real, that they talk without thinking first and that they aren’t actual genocidals waiting for a chance. But I would like to show the implications of following this sentiment.
The numbers: 

The global population is around 7000,000,000. The number of pedophiles is estimated to be around a 5% (and maybe it could be bigger, since the female population hasn’t been deeply studied and we are talking only about pedophiles, not ALL MAPs. But well, we’ll go with that number. An estimation).

What does this mean? That around 350,000,000 people are pedophiles. 350 MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ARE PEDOPHILES.

Think slowly about it. USA population is 323 millions. The whole Europe population is 743 millions. Murdering all pedophiles would mean that you want to kill more than what the USA’s population is. Half of the european population. Can you see it now? Do you have the number and its implications in your head?

But well, we’ll keep going over this. I’m strongly against death penalty. I don’t think we have any right to decide who lives and who dies and I don’t believe in a punitive justice system. That is not justice, that is just revenge. I believe in rehabilitation and reinsertion when it is possible, in turning criminals in good, productive members of society and approach the penitenciary system not as a punishment but as therapeutic, educational system. But I’m going to let this for a moment. We are going to say that we accept death penalty for some criminals and that child abusers get that. By this genocide you aren’t just killing offenders, but millions of innocent people. Gonna imagine that a 25% of pedophiles are offenders in some way (and I’m being generous with the number. Too high). If that is true, you are still mudering 262,500,000 of innocent people. Even if half of the pedophiles where child abusers, that would be 175 millions of innocents murdered. The studies with higher numbers about the nazi holocaust talk about 15-20 millions of victims. When you say you want all pedophiles dead that means that you want a genocide 20 times worse than the nazi one. Even if you are full of hate and approve capital punishment, you should be able to see that the genocide of 350 millions of people, innocent or not, just for a specific and unchosen trait of them is too radical and useless. But I’ll go over this now.
“It is for a greater good”

Ok, just for a second, we are going to pretend that the murdering of innocent people (or just, murdering in general) is justificable in some way, we are going to imagine that there is such a thing as a greater good that is above the most basic human right of millions of people and that makes their murder ok. What would you achive with this? Well, acknowledging that only around 33% of CSA is commited by pedophiles that means that this genocide wouldn’t stop even half of the abuse children suffer. 66% of it would still happen. So we would have millions of innocents dead and children still being abused without no one taking serious actions to stop it, because they have focus all the effort in the murdering of pedophiles.

But that is not all. Pedophiles would keep borning, of course. Because pedophilia is not a choice, an ideology or something you can control. People would still born with this trait and would develop it, so you’d have to keep murdering a 5% of human population every generation. This would include a lot of CSA survivors, of course, that turn out to be pedophiles when they grow up. But since you are killing pedophiles CSA is impossible so there isn’t survivors, right? This approach will just lead to a total invisibilization of CSA, because to justify the genocidal attitude you need to support the idea that only pedophiles commit CSA, so the voices of most victims wouldn’t be hear. 

And of course, if your intention is murdering pedophiles as a “prevention” strategy, it would be the best that you kill them as young as possible, before they can commit any offense. Since most people became aware of their attractions as teens, you would be killing mostly minors. Probably the millions you are killing are all under 16. But that is ok, because it is for a greater good… Or maybe not.

Because by killing all pedophiles you would still have most of CSA happening and you would have to keep an eternal genocide for the rest of the history without any perks coming from it. Because you would see friends, family, neighbours… dying constantly for a trait they didn’t choose and you would have to accept it because that is supposed to make some kind of good for society. This is not effective. This doesn’t save children. This is heinous. There are way better things we can do about this topic.
So, what can we do, then?

We, as a society, have a principal role here. We can prevent CSA before it happens and the way to achive this is not murdering, it’s not genocide, it’s not hate. It is knowledge and understanding. We need to be aware of the risk factors for CSA and treat them as soon as we notify someone has them. Treatment is not murdering, but therapy. And this is not a thing just for pedophiles. This is something for anyone with these risk factors (lack of empathy, self-control…). On the side of pedophiles, literature is clear about it: isolation only hurts and create risk factors. The way to prevent pedophiles from offending is offering them a supportative, open society. If instead of making them feeling like mosters doomed to abuse we teach young pedophiles that they are ok, that they are in control of their actions and that people are going to still love and care about them we are protecting these teens from developing the distortions that can lead to abuse. An open society would mean that pedophiles who need it could go to therapy without fear, learning to accept themselves, to empathize with children, fighting cognitive distortions and developing self-control skills that would prevent them from commiting any kind of offense. This therapy is the way to prevent CSA. And to provide it we need that society stops to hate and demonize pedophiles so they can take this step. But therapy alone is not enough. Human beings need acceptation, need people who show love for them, need to be part of a group and community. That is why you shouldn’t isolate pedophiles. Because it hurts their mental health, because maybe the only ones who show acceptation would be pro-contact communities, because maybe their loneliness pushes them to do something terrible that we all could have prevent if we had had enough understanding and vision for it.

When you say you want all pedophiles to die you mean that you want 350 millions of people dead. These aren’t light words. This is a terrible statement and maybe you should think about it carefully before support it. You should keep in mind that pedophiles are human beings, with family and friends, most of them innocent, and that all this death would bring a lot of pain to the world without actually helping anyone. The dead of pedophiles wouldn’t stop CSA. Most children would still be abused. The way to prevent this is a good konwledge of the causes and risk factors of CSA and early intervention on these. Genocide, demonization or isolation is not the right intervention, it is an useless preventive strategy with a lot of negative impact. If we want to actually help children we should start by understanding what pedophilia is, who are the pedophiles and heping them to remainn non-offending and anti-contact. We should all work together with MAPs, who can be actually the first step in CSA prevention and the ones turning pro-contacts and potential abusers in riskless people, so we can help children. We should guide ourselves by science, by research, by what we learn and not by what we feel or just blindly believe.
Some last reflections for antis

Please, next time you type something like “I hope all pedos die” “I wish you all were dead” “Please, die” “kill yourself” “best you can do is killing yourself” or any form of suicide baiting and death wishing try to think in the effect of your words. Try to think that in the other side of the screen there is a human being, a person with their life, their problems, their suffering. Someone who didn’t choose to be like that and who has to learn to live with a part of themselves that they probably hate way more than you do. The person you are talking to is not your abuser, is not any child abuser. It is another scared person who is seeking a bit of help and empathy from another human beings. It could be anyone. Your best friend, your nice classmate, your parent, your children. Anyone. 

Because when you express this desire you are telling 350,000,000 of human beings that they would be better off dead. And these are strong words, directed towards people with a high suicide risk. With this, you aren’t protecting children, you are hurting them. With this, you are just spreading your rage to feel a bit better about yourself in the most twisted and egoistic way, but you cause harm. Even to yourself, no matter if you can’t see this now. Drowing in hate, rage and such a toxic ideology won’t bring you peace or happiness. You will only feel worse and worse, more full of wrath, until the day you can’t hold it anymore.

Try to be careful. Think in your words, in their true meaning, in society, in what we can do to make this world better. Stop for a moment, breath deeply, ignore the hate, the rage, your pain, and then try to open your eyes and start to learn. You don’t have to agree in everything. You dont’ have to be a MAP supporter. But just stopping to spread a message of hate and genocide and starting researches and discusssions would do a lot of good. For society, yes, but specially for yourself. Because you are the one who is getting more hurt with this. I hope you can think slowly and see this someday. And for that day I’m here. And for the day before too. I want to know you, I want to help you, I want to show you kindness and empathy. I know you are a good person, that you mean well and that someday you could see what was wrong in your actions. Until then, I’ll be here anyway. I’m open to talk, to discuss, to share my sources and research and to give you support when you need it. But please, stop to support genocide. Don’t let yourself to think that the murdering of 350,000,000 can be in any circunstances for a greater good. Never. Genocide is always wrong. 

And if you are an anti who is against cross-tagging, against suicide baiting and death wishes and who believe in therapy even if you don’t like the MAP community, please, try to be vocal about this. Help to make your community less toxic and hateful, help another people to be less dogmatic and more open to talk and discuss in respectful ways, try to make them see why wishing people dead or telling them to commit suicide is wrong. You have a lot of power in your hands and you can stop a lot of harm just by making your community a bit more open, tolerant and safe, by making it less harmful for its members and less anti-science, anti-recovery and anti-therapy. If you believe that something is wrong don’t be afraid and speak up against it. I have talked with antis who only were antis and who wrote hateful stuff because they were scared to be called out and hated for not being like the other antis. That is not good. No one should feel forced to do something they don’t agree with and that makes them distressed just for the fear that their own community causes them. Be helpful, be there for the ones who show more humanity and empathy. Suport therapy and understanding, not genocide, rage and hate. Give everyone a hand.

So, summarizing, if you support the idea of wanting all pedophiles dead, try to think slowly, be aware of the implications, keep the numbers and facts in your mind. Genocide is not an option. If you want to fight monsters, try to don’t become yourself in one.

aleskakolja, tumblr 6 Comments [11/17/2017 3:48:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 134288

Don’t call yourself an anti contact MAP if
You work with or around children
You have children
You interact with/play with/befriend children
You let yourself be alone with and responsible for children

You seek out public spaces filled with children like playgrounds of schools.
You chat with minors online.

You can only call yourself an anti contact map if you do everything in your power to stay as far away from children as possible at all times.


Demanding the essentially impossible.
You’re literally no better than people of the past who decided mentally ill people with “scary” thoughts were better locked up in some asylum because they’re all “ticking time bombs.”
You’re a disgrace to the mental illness community in every way.
Also before you decide to forget how to read, no I never said being a MAP is a mental illness. It is a brain disorder, it is unchosen, it puts “scary” thoughts in our heads that we can’t remove but we can control our response to, because we are not ticking time bombs that need to be shoved in a dank cave somewhere for the comfort of mentally healthy people.

Why would hating pedos make me a disgrace to the mentally ill communities when we both agree that pedophilia isn’t a mental illness? Genuinely wondering…

I’m a pedophile, I also have trauma-born homicidal thoughts (and other mental illnesses). As someone who actually deals with this brain of mine every damn day, I’m pretty sure my take on how this is experienced is a hell of a lot more accurate than yours.

We do not want to be MAPs. We did not choose to be MAPs. Our brains are doing something a brain should not do, they are disordered.

A disorder and a disability are not the same thing. A disorder and a mental illness are not the same thing.

What they do have in common though, is that they’re all detrimental to the sufferer and sometimes those around them, they usually can’t be cured, and they should be medically treated so everybody can live happily and safely.

Telling us to do nearly impossible things like “never be near children” is just as shitty as telling anyone else with a brain issue that they should “never be near knives” (if they’re suicidal or have homicidal ideation), or “never go outside” (because people are afraid someone with psychosis is just waiting to snap and kill someone in a fit of paranoia), or “never date” (because they have bpd or aspd and could be abusive).

It’s complete bullshit to tell someone who is dedicated to living a non-violent life to just up and vanish because you don’t understand that every human being has free will and rape is a fucking choice.


For the love of god use paragraph breaks. On mobile type < b > no spaces.

Holy fucking Christ though, absolutely no one have said that you aren’t allowed to go outside/walk past a child on the street - my list was specifically about ACTIVELY SEEKING OUT the company of minors which y'all definitely shouldn’t be doing due to your attractions and the risk that you might at some point act on them.

Walking past a playground on your way to work? Fine. Stopping to ogle at the kids? Not okay. Stopping to interact with the kids? Definitely not okay.

Visiting someone who has kids? Fine. Staring at their kids? Not okay. Interacting with their kids anymore than what common courtesy demands? Definitely not okay.

I’m not asking you to disappear from the face of earth (though things would be better down here if y'all pedos did) I’m simply saying that you should go out of your way not to seek out the company of children due to your sexual attraction to them and the risk connected with this attraction.

You work with or around children

This disqualifies working for food service, retail, entertainment, public transport, and public service. Those are only a few jobs I can think of where children will regularly be nearby and are now out of one’s ability to work. This severely limits one’s work options.

You have children

This assumes having a child is always a choice. This also assumes that it’s anywhere near normal for someone to be attracted to their own family. Adult parents aren’t attracted to their adult children, why would a MAP be?

You interact with/play with/befriend children

Now we’re banned from our own families. We can’t work anywhere, now we can’t go to the homes of family members, family events such as weddings and reunions. If a MAP is a minor they must avoid all of their peers and I guess move out and live on the street if they have younger siblings.

If a child is lost and asks for directions, we have to walk away. If a kid is clearly in distress, we’re not allowed to approach them to help, we have to just leave them there. If a toddler smiles at us because that’s just how kids are, we have to turn away (sending this friendly kid the idea that we dislike them and they’re not worth our time, something that harms the self esteem of children).

Adults and kids can’t be friends so that point is moot.

You let yourself be alone with and responsible for children

If your sister has to run to the hospital for an emergency and you’re the closest person there to watch her kids, fuck em. They can fend for themselves. Walk out and never return.

If you’re a parent, throw your children to the wolves of the state, a place where no one is ever abused at extremely high rates /s

You seek out public spaces filled with children like playgrounds of schools.

If you’re there for no reason yeah I agree this is weird.

You chat with minors online.

If you’re 18, you now cannot chat with your 16, 17yo high school friends. Sorry guys, I don’t make the absurd rules, this person does.

cinnamap, tumblr 0 Comments [11/17/2017 3:37:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 134287

why do you lead a youth group when you’re a pedophile? i hope someone exposes you and you aren’t allowed around these children!!

Why do you work with women when you’re attracted to them?
See how ridiculous that sounds?
#minor attracted person #minor attracted people #nomap #pedophile #pedophilia #anonymous ask

dean-the-map, tumblr 7 Comments [11/17/2017 3:33:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 134286

If y'all were “devoting so much time and effort into helping children stay safe” you’d realize that you shouldn’t work with or around children at all - that you should avoid being around and interacting with children as much as possible - cause your pedophilic attraction to them makes you a potential threat to children no matter how “non offending” and “in control” you think you are.

Everyone is a potential threat to everyone else.
There are more cases of an adult raping a minor when the adult is not a MAP then there are that are.

Should all adults stay away from children?
How about children that rape other children? I mean, I guess they should get help right….. but not from an adult, because of the potential threat.

No, that rant ain’t got shit to do with what I wrote. I’m not saying that all adults are threats, or that child on child rape don’t happen, or that you can’t rape a child without being a pedophile. I’m just saying that if you have urges to sexually abuse children, you should stay away from children as much as physically possible because YOU individually are a potential threat due to your sexual attraction to children.

Attraction != Threat
Wanting sex with X != threat to person X.

If you are attracted to someone who is not attracted to you back, do you avoid them at all cost because you believe you’re a threat, and that you may rape them?

Despite how much you all pretend minor attraction doesn’t work like the rest of the attractions…. they do. Having an attraction towards anyone, no matter the classification of attraction, DOES NOT MEAN you’re more of a threat to that person.

I am not a threat to anyone. I have never raped anyone, and I will never rape anyone, whether attracted to them or not.

Your complete lack of understanding in this area does not mean that I must be a rapist waiting to happen.

james-the-map, tumblr 0 Comments [11/17/2017 3:32:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 134285

You’re a pedophile. Working with kids. Thats “inappropriate contact”.
Also i find it very hard to belive you dont work with them to hurt them because YOU’RE A PEDOPHILE

It’s really not, but okay, whatever.
So because I’m a paedophile I must be a liar? Don’t you think it’s possible that someone who, by definition, loves children might want what’s best for them and might want to work to give them a good childhood. You seem to be stuck on the idea that paedophiles want to harm kids, which is complete rubbish. I’ve got no desire to harm kids, I just want to protect them and make sure tey can be safe and happy.

You just admited to being *sexually* attracted to them lol. Likeing to work with kids is one thing, wanting to fuck them is another.
And if you want to protect them then you can make an active effort to not purposefully engage yourself with them and encourage other “non offending pedophiles” to do the same.

Yep, I never denied that fact lol
I like to work with kids and I also happen to be sexually and romantically attracted to them. The two don’t influence eachother, I’d work with kids even if I wasn’t a paedophile.
You’re implying that anti contact MAPs are dangerous when the reality is they are no more dangerous than teleiophiles.
Source: guesswholovesnomaps minor attracted person minor attracted people nomap pedophile pedophilia

dean-the-map, tumblr 2 Comments [11/17/2017 3:31:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 134284

I'm Dean, I'm 22 years old, from the UK and I'm an anti-contact paedophile exclusively attracted to boys ages 2-13. Paedophilia isn't wrong acting on it is. I'm a leader with a youth group.

My messages and asks are always open and I'm always happy to talk, you can message me here, twitter or discord. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask and I'll do my best to answer them.

I run a discord server for anti-contact MAPs with a friend, if you want more info message me here or on discord Dean#5840, non-MAP supporters and anyone interested in learning more are welcome too.

Daily reminder that if you’re a MAP, considers yourself “anti contact” or “non offending” and you work around children, interact with children or go to public places where there are a lot of children,
You’re not anti contact, you’re not non offending.
You purposely go in places to get close to children, and choose to work around children to get close to them.
Not only is this creepy as hell, but it’s also how offending pedophiles behaves to get closer to children to abuse them.

Um, yes, yes I am. I am anti-contact and non-offending by the definitions of those terms.
I choose to work around children because I like working with children, not to get close to them. Nothing creepy about it, I do it for the same reason any adult chooses to work with children and it’s no more creepy.
To be anti-contact means to be against all sexual, romantic or otherwise inappropriate contact with children. It’s the opposite of pro-contact. You can be around children and still be anti contact learn definitions before you try to use our terms.

You’re a pedophile. Working with kids. Thats “inappropriate contact”.
Also i find it very hard to belive you dont work with them to hurt them because YOU’RE A PEDOPHILE.

Did you even look at my blog for a second? Did you take a moment to look at MAPs blogs? Clearly not, because if you had you’d know we completely agree that adult/child relationships are inherently harmful and we are completely opposed to them! If you truly cared you’d spend just a little time looking at our blogs.
You never know, you might rape someone in the future, anyone could, so we should keep everyone locked away from everyone. 80% of child molesters aren’t paedophiles so shall we keep everyone away from children?
We should keep people that are likely to cause harm to children away from children, not those that don’t pose any immediate risk. Anti-contact MAPs don’t pose more of a risk to children than teleiophiles do, we fully understand that children are not capable of consenting and we understand the harm adult/child relationships can cause.
minor attracted person minor attracted people nomap pedophile pedophilia

dean-the-map, tumblr 12 Comments [11/17/2017 3:28:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 134283

I agree, although I am for abolishing the age of consent entirely, not merely holding it where it is (which it itself elevated from where it used to be, in most jurisdictions). The idea that there is some magical number that transforms rape one day into consent the next is absurd. The whole concept is corrupt and must be tossed out.

Like rape laws, I don’t think age of consent laws originate with feminism, but rather with the idea that some humans (women and children) traditionally have been viewed as property. But as is so often the case, feminism has found these traditionally conservative limitations to be of use by simply inverting the reason to focus on supposed victims. Having consensual and harmless sex with someone under an arbitrary age therefore isn’t a defilement of someone’s property, but some vague offence against the person themselves, and their “innocence” or “honor”.

It is all part of the feminist worldview, which sees all things male, masculine, and therefore sexual, as part of a mysterious and evil patriarchy. In reality, sex is something that men are plainly evolved to want more than women, but when men get it, for that feeling of joy, community, love, intimacy, then women’s power is reduced. You see it in the sex scandals plaguing Hollywood. Men are required to seek sex partners and mates as far as possible away from their daily lives, totally unnatural to human nature (even for women, as schoolteachers show us). A man can’t even ask permission to simply watch him jerk off, without it being cause to lose his career.

Where this becomes most clear is when all parties to the sex are underage (just as if both were drunk). When a mix of sexes are involved, the boy’s life is ruined, and the girl becomes a triumphant victim, even if she was an enthusiastic participant. It becomes a game, where all the moves available to boys amount to cheating, to protect girls’ supposed honor.

There are common principles behind men’s rights, anti-feminism, youth sexuality, the sexuality of the disabled, senior sexuality, and the rights of sexual minorities including gay people and kind people. One of those principles is that sex isn’t bad or dishonorable. There is no virginity to protect, but rather there is intimacy and joy to be shared. It’s simple humanity, and every person, at every time, is entitled to it. Another principle is that facts actually do matter. And the facts show that there is no reason for any arbitrary limitation on sex, based on age. Rather, as common sense would lead us, we simply need to outlaw the behavior none of us would want as adults, which is to say: harm. People who had positive sexual experiences in their youth grow into healthy adults. Harm is what has lasting negative effects. Harm is something feminists don’t understand, which is why you’ll find them in vigorous support of the ritual cutting of baby boys, but it is generally MRAs and kind people who oppose this harm.

Not only that, but the importation of feminist ways of (un)thinking is corrosive and toxic to any philosophy of men’s rights. The idea that boys are somehow victims of the sex they sought out, enjoyed, and bragged about to their friends, is a complete betrayal of those boys, who are then run through a feminist system telling them that what they know about their own selves is false, and always leaving them with the guilt of having resulted in the destruction of someone’s career, or indeed their life itself. It’s the easy siren song of equality, the #metoo-ing of men’s rights, copying rather than comparing all things feminist. Liberty and facts must always come before equality. Being equally poor and equally caged helps nobody.

Last, the age of consent laws are a strong prohibition on speech, something the feminists love, because it frees them from the responsibility of having to prove anything. It’s extraordinarily difficult to provide direct counterexamples to claims of harm, when the evidence itself is criminal. Instead of the strong, instant emotional impact of seeing two people so in love, so enjoying each other completely harmlessly, we are left with dry scientific studies that nobody will bother to read.

Anyway, to conclude, it is the connection between sexuality and masculinity that makes both unacceptable to feminists. We must defend both, even when many MRAs imagine themselves somehow separate from kind people. It’s the same attack, with the same weapons.

No True MRA, Holocaust21 1 Comments [11/17/2017 3:25:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 134278

Religious Right radio host and American Family Association official Sandy Rios continued her increasingly desperate defenses of Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore by begging Alabama voters to not let the “ick factor” of the allegations against Moore prevent them from voting for him.

Rios pleaded with listeners this morning to support Moore despite allegations that he made sexual advances on teenage girls—one as young as 14 years old—while he was in his 30s. Further reporting has revealed additional accusations against Moore and that he was banned from a shopping mall for trying to solicit teenage girls.

“Ladies and gentlemen, please—I’m begging you, really—especially those of you in Alabama, not to stay home. Do not let the ‘ick’ factor set in because that’s what the establishment in Washington wants,” Rios said. “They want to cast enough taint on Judge Moore—and it will be somebody else next. Trust me.”

Rios went on to claim that if the establishment GOP is successful in supposedly orchestrating the downfall of Moore, a popular theory among many right-wing pundits, it will undermine the Religious Right as a whole.

“If they can destroy him, honestly, I don’t think that Christian conservatives will have a chance. We will be so marginalized, and ‘marginalized’ probably doesn’t even capture it. You can already see how hated we are,” Rios said.

Moore, Rios said, is hated because “he has stood so strongly for the Ten Commandments” and “marriage between a man and a woman.” Rios claimed that Matt Drudge, owner of the popular news aggregate “The Drudge Report,” lashed out at Moore because of Moore’s stance on marriage.

“The reason Drudge is so dreadful toward Moore is because Matt Drudge is a homosexual,” Rios said.

Sandy Rios, Right Wing Watch 12 Comments [11/17/2017 3:13:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: kuyohashi

Quote# 134277

On his television show on Friday, prepper pastor Jim Bakker said that people would realize that the End Times are upon us if they would simply study the Bible because if they do, they’ll be able to recognize that the signs mentioned in the book of Revelation are already happening.

For instance, Bakker said, people who have studied the Bible will realize that Apache helicopters were mentioned in Revelation 9:

The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months.
“Everything in the Bible is not a fairy tale,” Bakker said. “It’s all things that you can learn [if you study] … Do you know the Apache helicopter, I think, is in the Bible. John the Revelator saw it, he heard it, he saw it, it’s there. It said it had a face of a man; look in the helicopter, there’s the face of a man. It had a blue breastplate; it’s there. It’s so easy to understand the revelation if you read it.”

jim bakker, Right Wing Watch 16 Comments [11/17/2017 3:11:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: kuyohashi

Quote# 134274

Regarding all this "paedophilia" crap I more and more see the idiotic argument that every adult is automatically in a position of authority over an teen.

What nonsense !

The idea that adults always have a power over a teen in sexual relationships is an ridiculous lie. If you have a teen of about 13 with some intelligence and a needy guy of, say, 25, with not much success with women, guess what will happen? Once she gives him pussy she basically has all the power over him.

SHE WILL PROBABLY LEARN HOW TO CONTROL HIM, believe it or not. She will learn she has something he needs badly and will use that to her advantage. The guy literally has to do what she asks for sex, she makes him buy her stuff and do stuff for her, and at any times she can withhold sex and manipulate him that way.

The idea that HE is somehow in charge is so absurd and unrelated to reality that it boggles the mind. Even if he had some sexual experience before her and she had none it doesn't matter at all, since doesn't stop her from realizing the power she has and using it like a pro.

I have seen this first hand, from an experience my, um, "friend" had :D

caamib, Eivind Berge's Blog 12 Comments [11/17/2017 3:06:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 134273

This page is written in a very naive way which assumes that "coercion" occurs as some aberrant behaviour practiced by a tiny minority. No, strict religion *is* coercion. The clue's in the name - Islam means Submission, i.e. Submission to God, i.e. specifically, in the case of Islam, Submission to Sharia Law. It's the same mistake as those Arab hijabis who claim that they freely chose to wear a Hijab. Well no because their whole culture is making them believe that if they don't wear a hijab, they are sluts. It's an oppressive culture.

Of course, even though Namazie is an atheist, this point of view is a little extreme, so that's why she couches it in terms of rights. But the reality is, Muslim women will only be truly free when they become apostates. Arbitration or no arbitration

Greenrd, RationalWiki 2 Comments [11/17/2017 3:05:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 134272

I think enough is enough I don't have any particular religious leanings, but I was schooled in Christian schools.I don't think more mosques should be allowed to be built we have had one open not too long ago and it seems the more they build the more people move into your area but at least there are no minarets in Lancaster yet I really feel sorry for your people in Golders Green but how do you stop these people infiltrating area's which is what has been happening for years now, why can't we have our own country back.

Yvonne Walker, Facebook 1 Comments [11/17/2017 3:04:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 134271

Sierra _, Tom Resendez DC and Sara _, Facebook 12 Comments [11/17/2017 3:03:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 134264

I wish the Kiwifarms wasn't so regressive sometimes and that they could respect trans people so they could listen to us and actually talk to us about stupid shit. In addition, I think we should poke fun at trans cows for more reasons than them being trans. Locria, I feel is a great example, she'd be hilarious even if she was cis.

Making fun of trannies isn't regressive.

We have plenty of real life trannies on here and nobody gives them grief about it unless they start waving it around in an attention-seeking manner.

Being trans isn't the reason we make fun of tranny lolcows. It's more in how ridiculous their supposed transgenderism is, or how they chimp out.

Varg Did Nothing Wrong, Kiwi Farms 6 Comments [11/17/2017 3:01:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 134261

( The emphasis are mines)

Disaster Averted
On our way camping, we came upon a long and steep decline going into the valley. It was very windy, and blew against the car and tent trailer, and along with the high speed of sixty five miles an hour, we started to fish tail and lost control of the car.

It felt like we increased our speed to much more than the limit, as my husband frantically tried to apply the brakes without locking them up.

There were cars in front of us and behind us; thankfully there were no cars beside us, and those behind us could clearly see our trouble, so they hung back, watching.

We came so close to the car in front of us, so very close. I thought for sure we had touched their bumper.

I asked my husband if he was o.k., and when my usually staid and calm husband admitted to me “I don’t know,” I felt panic hit me hard in the chest. My heart skipped a beat and I stopped breathing.

I knew it was time to pray and pray hard, but for the life of me, I could pull no scriptures to mind. The demon of panic controlled me.

So I started speaking in tongues.

I couldn’t watch anymore, so I closed my eyes, but right before I did, I caught sight of one of the four angels that guard the corners of our vehicles. It was looking at me with such peace and calmness, and I knew it was saying to me, “Come on ma petite! You know He’s got this too!”, taking me to task for letting that panic demon hit me so hard, and for that pause in my faith in Christ.

I kept speaking in tongues as I clung to the sides of my seat.

Finally, it seemed so very long, the fishtailing stopped and my husband had control of the car. I opened my eyes to look at my husband. His color was returning to his face (it had gone quite pale before,) and his grip on the wheel had returned to normal.

Disaster averted.

Thank You Jesus Christ of Nazareth!


“The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want…Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me…Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.”

Psalm 23:1,4,6 (KJV)

Dreams of Dunamis, Dreams of Dunamis 10 Comments [11/17/2017 3:00:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: FSM

Quote# 134235

Matt Drudge is gayer than a French trombone. I'm sure that he has participated in many a practice that would make decent people squirm with revulsion. He has no evidence against Judge Moore, merely unsubstantiated allegations and smears. I suspect gay boy Matt Drudge is having a tantrum because Moore won't sanction Matt's ungodly debauched lifestyle.

Governor Dinwiddie, Free Republic 13 Comments [11/17/2017 2:59:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 134232

lol some people have lost it on my main with necrophilia discourse. Antis are really something else.

Anyways, just let you all know that necrophiliacs are amazing and I love you all guys. There is nothing wrong with you and your attractions and you are pretty chill and cool. Ignore the hate, you are the best. Hope you all my fellow necrophiles have a great day!!!

Tags: necrophilia positivity necrophilia kink positivity sex positivity paraphilias positivity paraphilias positivity

paraphilias-are-human, Tumblr 8 Comments [11/17/2017 2:58:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 134229

You mentioned on PAH that you have your own opinions on the morality surrounding necrophilia and zoophilia. I'm curious, what do you think?

ok, hi there! So well, be ready for some little controversy, I guess :P

First of all I would like to state a general and short view of my moral conceptions. I’m a moral nihilist, in the sense that I don’t think that there is a superior moral system that rules them all and that is objective and natural and everyone should follow by the law of god or any other superior power. I think morals are a social construct, based in a specific culture and society and that changes over time, but that aren’t based in any objective source. The common things you can find in different societies are easily explained by some kind of “societies darwinism”. Mostly, the societies that follow a moral system where they take care of their own people and punish some stuff (as murdering of your own, for example) have more chances to survive that a society without morals where everything is fair game. That kind of society is self-destructive, so every human society groups towards some basics due to survival instintics, but not because those are the objective, good things. Some times a society morals can be, in fact, pretty harmful for some individuals even if they truly believe that is the right way to go, the logic and natural order.

So, going from this, I think a moral system is needed, of course. For the good of both, individuals and society survival and wellbeing. As I have said, an ‘everything is fair game’ society is a condemned society. But if we don’t have an objective moral, not a power superior to men to tell us what is wrong and what is right and traditional values are exposed as old constructs that can easily being wrong, what can we do? Well, my solution is created a moral of consense, a moral based in the best for everyone. And that is where my morals stands. My rules are easy. Every situation should be judged carefully and individually, they aren’t real moral statements or absolute truths aside a couple of things “every action should be consensual” and “something is wrong if it causes you or anyone else an involuntary harm”. And even these things have exceptions in some extreme or specific situations (I can provide you with examples if you want to, I love discussing morals!).

Now, making this clear (and if you have any question or don’t understand something ask me, no fear ^^) I’ll give you my thoughts around these two issues, that can be kinda out of the morals of our current society.

-Necrophilia: I don’t think this is inherently immoral in any way. I dont see corpses as people. They aren’t human beings, they are, in a strict sense, a piece of meat. Of course, there is a big taboo about this for different reasons. We have the obvious one, people who still see the bodies as their loved ones and feel it as an attack to them, a disrespectful action. We also have the fear of death and the general taboo that it has (people who don’t even want to talk about death, people who are scared to go for a walk into a cemetery, people who look at you as a weirdo for liking “dark” things and gothic literature… there are plenty of this). And adding to that, we have misconceptions about the problems it can give you (diseases. People associate corpses with disease and this is normal, since humanity has gone through a lot of epidemics and the cultural memory about it remains. But the reality is different. If someone wasn’t sick before death they aren’t dangerous as a corpse. People still don’t understand this).

So, summarizing, I don’t think there is something inherently immoral about necrophilia. I don’t think these actions are something wrong itself. However, we need to understand our context and the effect of our actions. I don’t have this taboo, I think it is absurd and just a norm that comes from a sex-negative, scared of the death society that I don’t agree with. But I understand that not everyone is like me. That for some people it would be harmful, that they wouldn’t want this for their loved ones, so, and since you live in a specific context and our actions have consequences in real people’s lifes, you can’t just have sex with random corpses. Not because it is immoral, but because it can harm someone else (not the corpse, the corpse is not a person anymore).

I think the best way to go over this is educating people about why it isn’t harmful or immoral, explain the taboo and maybe someday we get a society where this isn’t seem as terrible and awful and people can have sex with corpses (I have always thought in some kind of necrocard, you know, like for organ donations, consent to necrophilic sex before die so the problem of consent gets solved. I know from plenty of people who wouldn’t care to give their corpses for this. It isn’t such a crazy idea after all).

-Zoophilia: I can feel this one is going to bring even more controversy up. But well, here we go. I don’t think every action in every case of sexual interaction with an animal is wrong. Harming an animal for pleasure is wrong. I don’t support animal abuse and zoosadism in any way. I believe that animals are living beings with a sense of pain and they deserve to be respected and treated properly. You can kill animals for eating. That is understable and natural. Killing them for fun is something I don’t approve. Causing them pain for fun is something I don’t approve either.

But now, about sex. Sex with an animal is not always something violent or traumatic as we could think. Sex is not inherently harmful and wrong just because it is sex. Also, animals *can* consent in a way. Of course, they can’t tell you what they want, but you can understand their reactions. It is obvious when an animal is distressed or in pain, when an animal is scared or uncomfortable and then you know something is wrong. It is obvious too when an animal is happy and feeling good, when an animal is comfortable and wants something. This applies to sex too. If the sex is unwilling, painful, distressful or hurts the animal in any way I’m against it. But if the animal is comfortable, seeks it, it’s ok and doesn’t get hurt I don’t see the problem. For example (*cw: for explicit stuff*, maybe?), if a girl puts some jam on her genitals and let a dog licks it to get sexual pleasure, where is the harm? Or a dog topping a man, how does the dog suffer? (*end of cw*) Also, we have to remember that some animals are proved as being specially anthropophilics (dolphins and dogs are prominent examples), that means they are sexually aroused by humans. They want to have sex with humans. And interspecies sex is not that weird either (and we get hybrids from it).

So, the summary here, I think if the sex is not harmful for the animal (not physically, not emotionally, like causing pain, distress, angst, fear…) and the animal shows signs around it of being comfortable and fine then it isn’t wrong. Of course, the person would be the responsable and would need to pay attention to all the animal’s reactions and notify any problem and stop it that happens. But doing properly, I don’t think it is wrong. (Ah, and if someone’s argument is ‘but sex with humans/like that is inherently traumatic for the animal! They are rape victims in every case and they suffer trauma for it’ I have to say that no, animals don’t have that conception about sex that humans have. They are animals. They don’t have the psychological development to have beliefs about sex or cultural conceptions of it. That is purely a human thing).

Well, these are mostly my thoughts, if you want to ask something else or need I make something clear or any other thing, just go for it, I’m always happy to reply :)

Tags: #anon #asks #morals #zoophilia #necrophilia #opinions #answer #me #sex positivity

Aleskakolja, Tumblr 7 Comments [11/17/2017 2:58:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 24 | top