To LGBTQs: I have no desire to link "P" with your cause, and understand why you don't the idea -- it doesn't help you with your legitimate goals. But there are key parallels in the science, and there's no way to avoid them if you want to explain pedophilia. -Ethan
-
-
Speaking as a Gay Man I am beyond disgusted and sickened that you could or would ever include P in any way connected to pedofiles. A person's sexual deviance that distroys the quality of life for children has No Place amongst the
#LGBTQ2019 What sort of human being are you ffs -
3/3 Your opinion is indistinguishable from conservative christians, except you want hypocritically for your (our) own folks to be in group 1. I want EVERYONE to be held to the same standard: that we’re free to do what doesn’t harm others.
-
"Free to do what doesn't harm others" EXACTLY! Pedophilia HARMS the child forever!
-
No molestation is what harms children. Pedophilia is not a synonym for child molestation.
-
Big whoops for a missing comma. That should have been "No, molestation is what harms children." Or, with a full stop: "No. Molestation is what harms children."
-
Wow, that's a major typo. Glad you caught it.

-
Worst missing comma in a long time.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Pedophiles have never been part of the LGBT community. As humans, we should support anti-contact pedophiles, but this is a separate activism, with a different history.
-
Agree with supporting anti-contact pedophiles, but ALL groups in this umbrella have different histories.
-
James you should listen to feminists about child sexual abuse - the men that rape children make a choice - it is neither an illness nor a condition, and it most certainly is not a sexual orientation or preference
-
The so-called "non-contact" paedophiles are very happy for others to abuse children on film for their sexual gratification. Men who view images of child abuse are child abusers by proxy. Sexual orientation is about which sex a person is attracted to, not paraphilias.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Rights are not given. Either rights are inherent to those who understand and respect them, or they do not exist. A person who takes advantage of a child, who cannot consent, due to lack of complete info and understanding, does not respect or retain rights.https://twitter.com/InsanityIsFree/status/1078869401397587968 …
-
But whatevs. Tagging people.
@GrumpyAku@NTechlibre@cislowski@Vodkthulhu@DifficultNerd@ironystock@Graybush777@ChadTwoCrows@tj4truth@PhantomLion@mfow020@kym_rdschick@TheGreatRoh@CptnCrackBaby@DanTheBoomer@Drew53543@Solidus316YT@shoe0nhead https://twitter.com/InsanityIsFree/status/1081208671512772609 …This Tweet is unavailable. -
An individual’s rights end where another’s begins. P absolutely should not ever be legitimatised because in order to act upon those urges, one must take advantage of someone who hasn’t developed agency and can’t understand consent. P is as legitimate as using date-rape drugs.
-
You are confusing pedophilia (the unchosen sexuality pattern) with child molestation (the crime). No one contests the latter. I'm pointing out only that by treating the form like human beings, we will prevent more of the latter.
-
I have no issue with prophylactic treatment - that is frankly preferable. My concern is the miss-use of biological arguments. People confuse “natural” for “safe” - arsenic is natural. Our biology is setup to make us eat and gain weight: but being morbidly obese isn’t good.
-
The other point I’d make is that we haven’t proved that sexuality is biologically determined. The twin studies show that while a gay twin is correlated with the other twin being gay, it’s a weak correlation - so there is complexity beyond biological determinism.
-
In that sentence you are disregarding several lines of biological evidence. You are also misunderstanding how nature and nurture are unwound in research. Nurture does not automatically get credit for everything not yet demonstrably nature.
-
Sure, but you’re claiming that biological determinism without presenting evidence. I’m not making a case to change anything, you are, therefore it’s up to you to present a robust argument - right now all you’ve given us is an appeal to nature based on very evidence of Naturalness
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Pedophiles do not need rights that they do not already have. Are you trying to be inflammatory?
-
Yeah, we do. We need the right to be protected from being fired from our jobs just for being MAPs. We need the right to sex dolls (if we want them). There are others. I can't believe you are this limited in your perspective that you can't think of ANY rights we don't already have
-
I agree it's about the right to live without fear of violence, penury or ostracism just for acknowledging an unchosen biological trait. That's a right we seem to lack.
-
That is not what most people understand when they hear pedophiles talking about rights. And you both know it.
-
I agree we are not seeking equivalent rights to LGBTQ folk, i.e. we are not seeking the right to love or sex with the people we are attracted to. But freedom from stigma is hopefully a right we can all acknowledge is yet to come.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
"Anyone afraid of free speech has something to hide."
- 17 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.