"Society’s most oppressed minority group"? There's good reason for that

 

I'm disgusted and angry by complaints that the cancellation of a camp for "minor-attracted persons" (in other words, those of pedophile inclination) is somehow "oppression" or "discrimination".  On the contrary - I'm sure almost all parents reading this (and many others too) will regard it as sound common sense.  Why put our kids in proximity to a real and present danger to their well-being?

After local outcry canceled a camp for “minor-attracted persons” set for last weekend in Vermont, several organizations are publicly defending those who declare a sexual attraction to children.

MAP Union, or MU, which represents itself as “an international organization representing the interests of minor-attracted people and their allies,” sent a statement to local reporter Guy Page protesting the camp cancelation as “bullying” and violence against “society’s most oppressed minority group.”

. . .

The person calling himself “Percy” also told Bean, “We hope to provide a more balanced approach to MAP advocacy than groups like NAMBLA have been able to in the past.” NAMBLA is the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which effectively disintegrated after a series of FBI stings jailed members for abusing children and trafficking in illegal abuse images.

People sexually attracted to children are typically pornography addicts who often get sent to jail for trafficking in illegal abuse images. Porn businesses are complicit ... as they “deliberately insert transgender partners, children, and opposite-sex partners into pornography aimed at children and heterosexuals, in order to ‘see if you can convert somebody, right?'” a senior script writer for a Pornhub company disclosed in 2023.

. . .

“We do understand the alarm among local parents, but we are extremely unhappy about non-violent MAP community members being labeled as dangerous to children,” Brian Ribbon, a cofounder of MAP Union, said in a statement to The National Desk. “The idea that these people would for some reason try to attack children at the local school is outrageous and deeply offensive.”

There's more at the link, including some very unsavory ideals indeed (vulva-shaped chocolates?  Really?).

Here's a rule of thumb.  Any person or organization seeking to defend pedophiles - whether active, or only with that orientation - is defined by that action as being an immediate, clear and present danger to the safety of our children and the health of our communities.  That's the bottom line.  There is absolutely no excuse for such orientation.  Forget the complaint that "we were born that way - it's not our fault!"  What they're saying is that their tendency to exploit, manipulate, entice and coerce children into relationships they can't understand and to which they're not old enough to give consent, is "not their fault", but somehow OK.  

I also flatly don't believe those who claim that their sexual orientation towards "minors" is an attitude only, and not one that leads to actual physical relationships with them.  Are you trying to tell me that such persons never look at a kid walking down the sidewalk and fantasize about doing sexual things with/to them?  Is that OK with you?  If it is, I suggest you have a problem almost as large as the "minor-attracted person" themselves - particularly if you have kids of your own, and want to protect them from as they grow up.

Just "No!"  There is no place for pedophiles or "minor-attracted persons" in any normal, healthy society.  End of discussion.  (And well done to the people who canceled that camp!)

Peter