No, we don't want to join LGBT+, but some of us are lesbian, gay, trans and/or one of the other letters.

Bly Rede is a co-director of Virtuous Pedophiles. Blog posts reflect his personal views, and are not statements from the organisation.

Reasons I, homosexual non-offending non-exclusive MAP, don't belong in LGBTQ+

(1) I watch Eurovision every year

(2) All my sexual partners have been adult males

(3) I know a lot about musicals

(4) I got homophobically bullied in school

(5) I get bitchy when I feel oppressed.

I personally don't think MAPs are part of the same struggle as LGBTQIA folk.

However, the rules for inclusion in LGBTQ+ have become less clear over time.

Initially, LGB was about the right of people to love and have sex with (and marry) whomever they chose, regardless of sex. >

> The principle of this was that consenting adults could not be viewed to be doing harm by dating/having sex with people of the same sex.

This is different to Anti-contact, non-offending MAPs because we are not seeking changes in the law nor to have sex with the people to whom >

> we are attracted.

We recognise that there can't be informed consent and believe sex between minors and adults is invariably harmful.

Our struggle is to have it recognised that we are not molestors just because we have an unchosen attraction. For us pedophilia is >

> a condition, an identity that should not be the target of prejudice or deny us fair and equal treatment at work or in access to mental health support, for instance, just for having this unchosen attraction.

The picture is complicated by the addition of the T to LGB, as this >

> is also about an unchosen identity and its acceptance by socierty at large. However, there is also a real-world action - transition - that trans people need to be protected in law and from prejudice.

The I and A widen the parameters further still, such that the 'mission' >

> of LGBT becomes intersectional support for all kinds of gender and sexual minorities.

At this point, the position of minor attraction in the LGBT community (which is already fracturing over trans issues) becomes dependent on whether most LGBT people *and organisations* want >

> us involved.

History matters here because one of the first missions of the early gay movement was to deny and counter the homophobic slur that gay men were child molestors.

When PIE and NAMBLA sprang up in the 80s, campaining for legalisation of 'intergenerational' sex, >

there was a quick and concerted effort to bounce them out of the gay movement for fear of the transfer of stigma.

It seemed that acceptance and legal change for gays could not be won under the shadow of gays making common cause with pedophiles who wanted legalisation >

> of something indefensible, and which made the gays look bad.

I guess similar but less extreme things happlened to kinksters and trans folk in those days too as vanilla cisgays carved out a space amid the oppression (from which others have since benefitted).

It seems to me >

> that while trans folk are now included and other minorities, such as intersex people, asexual people and others are too, various groups remain on the edge (such as kinksters) and MAPs remain outside, even though anti-contact MAPs accept the principle of informed adult consent >

> and the principle of doing no harm.

Could there be scope in the future for things to change? Maybe. But it seems to me that while the battle for gay equality is mostly won in some parts of the world, there are many more where the association with pedophilia would be toxic >

> so rather than demanding the participation of people in embattled minorities in our struggle, it's best if ACMAPs pursue our own campaign to get people to realise 'pedophile' is not the same as 'molestor', and to try and tackle the fact that still too many >

> MAPs become pro-contact, a stance which is wholly at odds with the principles of consent and no-harm that started the whole LGB thing in the first place.

I feel that most anti-contact MAPs (maybe most MAPs) agree with my conclusion, here, if not necessarily my rationale. ::

(That's my view. I'd be interested to know if @stonewalluk or @glaad have formulated any position yet on anti-contact MAPs either within or without LGBTQ+.

It strikes me as a gay man that I have met quite a lot of closeted MAPs within the gay community.)

This content was removed from Twitter in 2020 because the author's account was suspended.

the p word is a collection of 289 articles, blogs, podcasts and threads in the voices of pedophiles and others who oppose adult child sexual contact and sexual exploitation of children. Despite our mainstream views, this content is frequently removed from mainstream social media or blog sites because openly discussing pedophile attractions or avowing them are not tolerated. Our side of the conversation continues here.

editor at the p word net | All images are AI and do not depict real people.

thread: what help?

should pedophiles talk online?

fantasies of adult-child sex disgust even the sex-positive public

bly rede

In response to the many accounts that simply tweeted, Get Help!

ethan edwards

This post was inspired by a quote in the Virtuous Pedophiles support group:

ethan edwards

What are the limits pedophiles should self-impose on their sexual fantasies?

In response to the many accounts that simply tweeted, Get Help!

This post was inspired by a quote in the Virtuous Pedophiles support group:

What are the limits pedophiles should self-impose on their sexual fantasies?