Pedophilia as a (not) politically affiliated movement

Something that has caught full attention over these couple months (but that has well over been going on for years however) is the continuous affiliation of the Pedophile movement with specific sides of the political spectrum, as if in some way justifying, in a logically flawed manner, moral superiority over given opposing resistance between themselves, using our movement as a means of incrimination, mixing such name with other unrelated subjects all together.  This habit cannot only be seen in disputes amongst different political ideologies, it can be identified in different sources of news.  When mentioned in news, it is common trait to label such movement together with terrorism or “hacktivism”, such as groups as notorious like Anonymous in order to propagate fear and privacy-invading propaganda slowly, but steadily.

Allow me to clear something up, in the name of my fellow partners, both anti-contacts as of pro-contact pedophiles.  The pedophile movement as a whole is not inherent to any political identity, given that there are so many different pedophiles located throughout the entirety of what it has been known as the political compass.  Left-wing, right-wing, centrist, top and bottom, pedophiles are located everywhere in those 4 quadrants, a lot of us even disagreeing with each other over the approaches the movement in general should take.  For example, as briefly mentioned earlier, there are anti-contact pedophiles and there are pro-contact pedophiles, and both are indeed of the same nature, but one chooses the advocation of keeping to themselves to not potentially hurt children; while the other advocates for law changes in order to institute and normalize healthy adult-child relationships.

Many vividly remember when Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-wing speaker, advocated for hebephilia, for example (Video shared ahead of CPAC shows Milo Yiannopoulos  appearing to speak fondly of relationships between men and ‘young boys’), though many of those in the right immediately went against him just for stating that controversial opinion.  It is worth mentioning, however, that in conservative nature, the age of consent laws were relatively very low in the past where more traditional values were being held and practiced.  (See here for brief information on pedophilia culture history)  Now on the other hand, we have, in the relative modern time line, the liberal left approaching this topic ( ‘I’m a pedophile, but not a monster’: Man writes confronting essay asking Americans to ‘please understand’ the difference between pedophiles and child molesters), among with other groups who are operating independently and/or trying to merge with the existing LGBT (which is worth mentioning that they have officially denied having affiliations with pedophilia movement).

Pedophilia is not limited nor will always be identified with just one political spectrum.  This sexual orientation has existed since many times before in history, it’s roots are not located in political but in cultures themselves, such as it was with homosexuality, among others.  This is important to understand because everything, especially this movement (for this article’s relevance) is not originated from just mere political organizations, but from human interaction themselves, before there was even such things as politics.  For this reason, it is a mistake to either identify pedophilia as either a left-wing or a right-wing movement, it’s just another sexuality struggling in these current times and with many divisions in itself and each respective individuals pursuing the way of life they think it is correct, with independent opinions on politics, rather than a common one as a marginalized group.





6 Replies to “Pedophilia as a (not) politically affiliated movement”

  1. I pretty much agree. Conservatives had their lower ages of consent overall and liberals had their sexual revolution family swinging parties… and when I say family I mean the entire family lol

    It is funny, in an effort to attack Milo for his comments, Slate removed their articles about pedophilia by Markaba (a virtuous pedophile… aka anti-contact) since they did not out right denounce pedophilia.

    It’s all a game for most of these major players. Their opinions will change if it benefits them or makes their opposition look worse. Very few people maintain logical consistency in their core beliefs. I pride myself on doing my best to maintain a logical consistency.

    1. ” Their opinions will change if it benefits them or makes their opposition look worse.”

      This is basically it for many, they care about what benefits them, not children, not adults… Not anyone. If it ever became profitable for them to slave children, they would do it, because they don’t care, as long as they sell.

    1. To be fair, there is VirPed, which is currently the most with public attention, but, nevertheless, still receiving quite harsh treatment thanks to the existence of the stigma that it is attributed to us. And there is also the thing of patience. Nothing will happen by just making a huge commotion in order to call attention. Movements are often born in the shadow at first, and even more so in our case, given our unfortunate circumstances. I am not disagreeing with you on this, but neither am I agreeing to it.

  2. >To be fair, there is VirPed,

    No one knows about them. I have literally asked people about a pedophile movement. No one seems to know or even believe me.

    >Nothing will happen by just making a huge commotion in order to call attention.

    How wrong you are. Nothing happens being in the shadows.

    1. >Nothing happens being in the shadows.

      Literally all the movements that have existed ever disagrees with you. Activism is not everything to a movement, even if it is indeed important.

      >No one…

      Well, not everyone will know about it as much when you have the media representing us negatively no matter what you do. To be honest with you, to do the kind of activism you propose, it would firstly require, in this time period, for us to own our influential news media outlets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *