🐱 Pedophiles rebranding themselves as 'Minor-Attracted Persons’, seek same protection as LGBT community

CatParty


An investigation for The Mail on Sunday has found that several notorious child-sex offenders of Britain are using online platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter to rebrand themselves as ‘Minor-Attracted Persons’. Through these social media sites, they are also trying to re-categorize pedophilia as a harmless sexual preference.

As per the findings of the investigation, every day hundreds of social accounts are being set referring to both potential and prolific abusers as “MAPs” - Minor-Attracted Persons. The rebranding is reportedly an attempt by them to detach themselves from the “stigma” attached to the word pedophile. The report has claimed that anonymous users have also come up with their own rainbow “MAP Pride” flag, with some even arguing that they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community.

Not just that, the anonymous users have also created their slogan just like the LGBT community. Some of those slogans are, “#MAPPride” and “#Mappositivity”, reportedly seen as an aim to present pedophilia as part of society’s wider move towards sexual freedom. The unidentified users have posted memes online proclaiming “Gay MAPs are amazing” and cartoon characters saying, “Repost if you think maps should be able to date minors.” One such account was @SandMapMinorva, which has now been suspended. The message posted on that account read: “Minor-attraction is natural.”

Besides, the investigation by The Mail on Sunday has discovered that for the profile image of these anonymous accounts, the users are using cartoon avatars rather than photographs. Most of them have mentioned the ages of children they are attracted to and it goes to as low as “two to seven”. “They are a fiendish group of sub-humans and they will find no haven in the LGBTQ community. We utterly rebuke their delusional and evil claims,” Otep Shamaya, a gay rights campaigner, said.

However, this is not the first time such type of campaign has started online. According to reports, in the 1970s and 80s, the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) campaign was there that took advantage of the gay liberation movement at the time to push for pro-child abuse policies, such as lowering the age of consent to just four. It has also been said that the current propaganda has chilling echoes of the PIE that happened decades ago.






Though the PIE campaign was dissolved in 1984, the investigation by the newspaper has found out that its former chairman, Tom O’Carroll, is still active and is using social sites to argue for the legalization of pedophilia. In one “interview”, which is still on YouTube, Britain’s most notorious pedophile campaigner - O’Carroll - has claimed that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is similar to a relationship between a child and the mother. Along with YouTube, O’Carroll also uses his Wordpress blog to work towards the legalization of sex with children. However, the report said that Wordpress had suspended his blogs.

The report stated that some academics are also supporting these kinds of campaigns as they believe pedophiles’ voices should be heard. One such academic is Dr Craig Harper, senior lecturer in psychology at Nottingham Trent University, who signed a 2018 letter written to Twitter demanding retrieval of pedophile accounts that were taken down. Harper stated that “pedophilia and child abuse are not the same things” and “pedophilia is a sexual attraction pattern that shares common features with other sexual orientations”.

Meanwhile, child sex abuse survivor Jacqui Dillon, who runs the Beck Road Alliance online support network, said: “This is absurd and dangerous. Twitter and other corporations are now providing pedophiles with access to children online.”






While Twitter responded that it had “zero tolerance for any material that features or promotes child sexual exploitation”.
 
Yes it is though. Women in college can fuck a guy, regret it an (x) amount of years later, and call it rape.
Jennifer Lawrence had no choice but to willingly fuck Harvey Weinstein for a role in Hunger Games.
That seems like a pretty specific garment to claim that it fits every woman. Also, way less prevalent than your statement implies.

Whilst I wouldn't defend or endorse Lawrence's choice, a lot of the women in the film industry remember what happened to Tippi Hedren when she fell foul of Hitchcock. Salma Hayek, Robert Lindsay, Molly Ringwald could all tell you how much pull Weinstein had.

When the power dynamic is as badly skewed as it is in that particular industry, I'm not surprised that some women (and men, just much fewer) compromise their principles. Not to get ahead but to avoid being stymied entirely.
 
That seems like a pretty specific garment to claim that it fits every woman. Also, way less prevalent than your statement implies.

Whilst I wouldn't defend or endorse Lawrence's choice, a lot of the women in the film industry remember what happened to Tippi Hedren when she fell foul of Hitchcock. Salma Hayek, Robert Lindsay, Molly Ringwald could all tell you how much pull Weinstein had.

When the power dynamic is as badly skewed as it is in that particular industry, I'm not surprised that some women (and men, just much fewer) compromise their principles. Not to get ahead but to avoid being stymied entirely.

And what did they do? They allowed other women to be victimized by them and decided to only speak out when they thought it was safe (mainly when men started calling it out). But, you know, woman hear me roar, right?
 
Yes it is though. Women in college can fuck a guy, regret it an (x) amount of years later, and call it rape.
Jennifer Lawrence had no choice but to willingly fuck Harvey Weinstein for a role in Hunger Games.
Weinstein is still morally wrong though. Leveraging careers for sex is a scumbag thing to do even if it isn't illegal.

The real horseshit is people like Mattress Girl who are quite frankly nuts. This is something that was enabled by the Title IX kangaroo courts which is something that is changing... :optimistic:
 
Weinstein is still morally wrong though. Leveraging careers for sex is a scumbag thing to do even if it isn't illegal.

It was consensual, like how a hooker fucks a guy for an 8-ball. Just because you've changed years later and realize it was a mistake and not worth it doesn't mean you're a victim. Especially since are laws that have been in place for decades that make such transactions illegal since before Jennifer Lawrence were born.
 
And what did they do? They allowed other women to be victimized by them and decided to only speak out when they thought it was safe (mainly when men started calling it out). But, you know, woman hear me roar, right?
I'm unclear why you're this mad at women, but okay, cool. Was it wrong of them to not stand up and call that sort of behaviour out for what it is? Absolutely. 100%. Shitty behaviour, definitely. It doesn't make the acts that spawned it itself any less fucking degenerate. It also doesn't validate the case for BoxO'Shit's AoC reforms, either. "Some women are disingenuous about sex and consent" is not a reason to start thinking they shouldn't have any agency or should start getting legally plowed while still at school.
 
It was consensual, like how a hooker fucks a guy for an 8-ball. Just because you've changed years later and realize it was a mistake and not worth it doesn't mean you're a victim. Especially since are laws that have been in place for decades that make such transactions illegal since before Jennifer Lawrence were born.
It's still morally wrong. For the same reason an officer fucking enlisted in the military is wrong. Or professors fucking students. Or bosses fucking employees. That the parties are down with it doesn't change the power imbalance here nor the negative effects this has on wider society.
 
It was consensual, like how a hooker fucks a guy for an 8-ball. Just because you've changed years later and realize it was a mistake and not worth it doesn't mean you're a victim. Especially since are laws that have been in place for decades that make such transactions illegal since before Jennifer Lawrence were born.
Before the eighteenth century, and the so called 'Enlightenment,' actors lacked full civil rights. They were usually taken as existing in the same twilight as prostitutes. 'Me too' just reminded us that a very big portion of them are just whores. Unlike the standard whore a man hires, these keep talking about Pres Trump and other matters they don't understand.

And on the topic....

Just music to ice nonces to:

 
I'm unclear why you're this mad at women, but okay, cool. Was it wrong of them to not stand up and call that sort of behaviour out for what it is? Absolutely. 100%. Shitty behaviour, definitely. It doesn't make the acts that spawned it itself any less fucking degenerate. It also doesn't validate the case for BoxO'Shit's AoC reforms, either. "Some women are disingenuous about sex and consent" is not a reason to start thinking they shouldn't have any agency or should start getting legally plowed while still at school.
No, you misunderstand. I believe women should and do have agency. They don't believe they do, because feminists that are leading the zeitgeist tell the so. The powers that be have raised generations of women they can (excuse me if i get this proverb wrong) get the scars but don't have to fight the war.
 
No, you misunderstand. I believe women should and do have agency. They don't believe they do, because feminists that are leading the zeitgeist tell the so. The powers that be have raised generations of women they can (excuse me if i get this proverb wrong) get the scars but don't have to fight the war.
If I've mistaken your intent, you have my apology. No beef here. I see the point you're making with this post and to be fair, I agree; feminism has been poisoned from within by women so angry that they'll lash out at any target that presents itself (or is presented to them) and that poison has to a large degree seeped out in to the wider population of women. The "Stolen Valor" idea is sound, too; appropriating medals for campaigns they never fought in.
 
Weinstein is still morally wrong though. Leveraging careers for sex is a scumbag thing to do even if it isn't illegal.
Why though? If a woman chooses to use her sexuality to get what she wants and a man is willing to give it to her why is that wrong?(Assuming consent)

Allegedly Michelle Phieffer used to be a call girl and she fucked around till she found a producer who could get her a part. She fucked him then married him, allegedly, and became one of the sexiest women ever on film. Why can't she do that? Why is that 'immoral'? Allegedly.
 
Why though? If a woman chooses to use her sexuality to get what she wants and a man is willing to give it to her why is that wrong?(Assuming consent)

Allegedly Michelle Phieffer used to be a call girl and she fucked around till she found a producer who could get her a part. She fucked him then married him, allegedly, and became one of the sexiest women ever on film. Why can't she do that? Why is that 'immoral'? Allegedly.
Seriously, though, how many women would you guess instigated proceedings with Weinstein? I'm willing to be the number that did (and there will be some) is small enough to be considered margin of error, statistically.
 
Why though? If a woman chooses to use her sexuality to get what she wants and a man is willing to give it to her why is that wrong?(Assuming consent)
For the same reason a student fucking a professor for an "A" is wrong. If a woman can just fuck her way into any achievement it devalues it's worth. This hurts society. Would you like to cross a bridge if you knew that the only reason the person who designed it got the job is because they fucked someone in power?

Taking bribes is just as unethical as giving them. Whether they agreed to the bribe is irrelevant.
 
Like most people, no, I haven't spent a huge amount of time in the company of actresses. I'll bow to your clearly superior experience on this, then. Who's the most famous one you've met, then?
You wouldnt believe who if I told you, it doesnt matter either way. To answer your question honestly if I had to guess conservatively I would say 60/40 knew what they were getting into before Wienstein even propositioned them.

You're asking me to believe attractive women who know they're attractive are stupid enough to acceot a man's invitation to his hotel room at night and not have an inkling of what may be going on? I have more respect for women's agency and intelligence than that. If a women or a man does the math and says sleep with this slob x amount of times to be a movie star, make a lot of money, be famous, maybe win an Oscar? Who are you to stop them. If you did we dont get John Travolta in Grease. Allegedly. And I like Grease.

Remember, actor used to be synonymous with whore for a reason.

Edit: Ian McKellen did an interview a few years ago and he talked about how in his theater years actresses would submit their headshots and resumes with DRR on them. DRR meant 'Director's Rights Respected' meaning they were letting the director know they were willing to sleep with him to get the part. That was unprompted mind you. It's more prevalent in the acting world, with both genders, than the non acting world is aware of.
 
Last edited:
For all people who naively believe that the LGBT movement allegedly distance themselves from pedophiles, I will briefly recall that 7 years ago the same movement got outraged with the new law in Russia on the prohibition of homosexual promotion among children and they even organized a propaganda campaign against us because of this. Call my nation homophobic, call my nation bigoted, but we did the right thing, I'm openly disgusted with anyone who supports child molestation.
 
Seriously, though, how many women would you guess instigated proceedings with Weinstein? I'm willing to be the number that did (and there will be some) is small enough to be considered margin of error, statistically.
Who knows? A very decent amount of aspiring actresses went and fucked the creepy fuck willingly. All of them BTW over the age of consent and completely sober. But we still treat them like they're victims.
 
We should raise the age of consent to 25 in every state. After all, that's the lower bound of the estimate experts give for the completion of the pubertal development of the frontal lobe.

That, and it's not like much of our youth is actually taking the whole gamut of adult responsibility at that age, these days.
 
OP Article said:
Besides, the investigation by The Mail on Sunday has discovered that for the profile image of these anonymous accounts, the users are using cartoon avatars rather than photographs. Most of them have mentioned the ages of children they are attracted to and it goes to as low as “two to seven”. “They are a fiendish group of sub-humans and they will find no haven in the LGBTQ community. We utterly rebuke their delusional and evil claims,” Otep Shamaya, a gay rights campaigner, said.

I went through all nine pages to see if anybody brought this up.

This is gay rights campaigner Otep Shamaya:

Keep in mind, if you might think she's a maybe cute blonde metalhead, this was some 20 years ago. Here she is two years ago:

Vocal, bordering 40 butch lesbian and her quiet, muscle bound gay lead guitarist.

I'd still watch them live. Maybe I'll wear my own version of MAGA. Making Anuses Gape Always.
 
Back