Getting Candid On Pedophile Culture

Four years after Alicen Grey coined the term pedophile culture on Feminist Current, we need to have a serious talk about how pedophile culture has impacted our current society.

If you haven’t read her stance on pedophilia and society’s acceptance of pedophiles, I strongly suggest you give it a read.

One of Alicen Grey’s main arguments is that:

“pedophilia may seem taboo and despised by the masses, but an honest appraisal of our culture at large reveals otherwise. I propose that pedophilia is actually rewarded and celebrated, and that our entire culture and understanding of sexuality is constructed around what seem to be pedophilic desires. I call this ‘pedophile culture.'”

We’re currently in a stage where pedophiles are strongly seeking acceptance from the LGBTQ community as “pedosexuals.” And they are garnering a whole lot of support.

Last month, reddit user u/skullkid1 posted a thread warning “Just a gentle reminder that this is a thing now (MAP/NOMAP = Pedophile)” and featured an image of “My Little Pony” characters with, what is being called, the “NOMAP flag” in the background.

“NOMAP” stands for “non-offending minor attracted person, and “MAP” stands for “minor attracted person.” In other words, pedophiles.

“My Little Pony” is a show whose main target market is children. Adults liking the show is not the problem. Pedophiles liking the show is concerning but still not the problem. The problem here is pedophiles using characters created for an audience of children in a way that brings attention to pedophilia. This is harmful to children because it is deceptive. If you want to argue that it isn’t deceptive or you’re asking yourself ‘how is this deceptive?’ then you may want to reconsider what it means to be “non-offending.” Remember, pedophiles ARE ADULTS. Their self-proclaimed “NOMAP” status should immediately be questioned, especially if this is how they choose to assert themselves in our communities.

In the forum’s commentary, u/skillkid1 adds:

“Run down: NOMAP/MAPs are pedophiles trying to make a movement where it is socially acceptable to be a pedophile by trying to lump themselves in with the LGBT+ community. Instead of getting help, they now have a community where they basically fawn over lolicon anime girls or ponies together and talk about their attraction to children as if it’s normal.

We’re in the twilight zone.”

“Lolicon” are 2D animations of pre-pubescent girls.

If this isn’t disturbing enough as it is, let’s take a look at 2 articles posted on medium where we get the viewpoint of a pedophile and the viewpoint of a pedophile sympathizer. These articles were posted earlier this year.

Back in June, pedophile TNF 13 argued that pedophiles should be allowed to be a part of the LGBTQ community because, “this is Pride Month, and the LGBTQ+ community is celebrating, asking for your help in accepting them as human beings. Why? Because they never chose their attractions, and they deserve to be socially accepted without being hated, maligned, beaten, etc.” and pedophiles want “much the same thing, the right to be seen with just as much dignity and respect as anyone else, without being hated, feared, beaten, or stigmatized for an attraction we never chose.”

This poses a problem because if they are seeking “acceptance” then where exactly is the “NO” in “non-offending” when instead of acknowledging that they have a problem and working towards solving it, they are asking for societal support?

TNF 13 defines a pedophile as “someone with an attraction, full stop. I do not define it as someone who has harmed a child, only someone who has an attraction to children, specifically pre-pubescent children if you really want to get technical. So no, I am not talking about child molesters.”

But “attraction” is too vague a word. If we’re defining terms here, let’s define attraction. I’ll try to be fair and use the least controversial definition as provided by Google: attraction – a quality or feature of something or someone that evokes interest, liking, or desire.

But this leaves out an important factor so it can be considered a lie due to omitting essential information. A pedophile does not have a simple attraction to a child. Pedophiles actively objectify children. You don’t have to physically do anything to someone to objectify them. It’s just the same as a racist sitting at home hating POC. Sure, they’re not doing anything at that point but once they decide to engage in any type of discourse for the advancement of their “community” and its well-being, they are harming a group of people.

TNF 13 is adding to a discourse that is actively harming children.

They go on to say, “So, with that said, defined, and out of the way, pedophiles on the whole do not want child sexual abuse to be acceptable. We care about children, probably a bit more so than the average person.”
Now we need to get a clear definition of what this person believes to be “sexual abuse.” Any type of sexual advancement towards a child is sexual abuse.

I would like to know what their definition of “care” is because that is a very bold statement to make.

I’m not sure how the average person feels about children but my initial guess is that most of society would like to become parents and would like their children to be kept away from pedophiles. Am I wrong to believe this?

I’d also like to remind everyone that a child is a person. A person that is not yet fully developed. They are in the early stages of being on this planet, they are vulnerable and trying to navigate the world more-so than themselves.

To make such a bold statement as to say that pedophiles care about children a bit more so than the average person is downright delusional. Especially when it’s followed by this line:

“We want them to be happy, we want the best for them, and being sexual… is not fitting with what is best for them. Not only can children not consent, there are a myriad of instances where an adult being sexual with a child causes the child harm. I have covered this extensively, because it seems to be something that those unfamiliar with pedophiles or the MAP community do not seem to grasp, or are skeptical of.”

That “there are a myriad of instances where an adult being sexual with a child causes the child harm.” bit has undertones of not understanding that every single instance in which anyone is sexual with a child causes the child harm.

This person ends their article on the basis of being ultimately accepted by society.

Let’s take a short look at pedophile sympathizer, Marlen Lecter. This is where we’ll draw points that lead back to Alicen Grey’s article on pedophile culture.

Marlen Lecter’s entire article is basically about how he “trolled” his way into accepting “non-offending” pedophiles.

Let’s start with the editor’s note: “the author of this story is not a pedophile or a Minor Attracted Person in any way. He’s just a rationally thinking person that has been able to research the topic to realize that the way pedophilia and pedophiles are currently treated in society is not conducive to an environment that reduces the harm to children.“

Right here we can draw the conclusion that Marlen Lecter believes that his point of view is what makes him a “rational” thinker so it is safe to say that a person who opposes his view would be discredited as being “irrational.”

Now I get back to the discourse on pedophilia and “caring” about children.

Why would someone who claims to be “non-offending” in any which way decide to start off their argument by being offensive?
If this person’s main objective is to create an environment conducive to one that reduced the harm to children, then why start off a discourse throwing jabs at the opposing side?

The editor’s note sets the tone for the rest of the article.

Let’s continue:

“It started a couple of years ago, with a quite irrelevant argument on deviantArt. I always enjoyed poking at anti-SJWs, because I instinctively knew they have no ground to stand on in most cases, even before I gained a habit of researching every field I speak about and gathering actual evidence to back myself up.”

Marlen here is setting the scene again for a dichotomy that’s much to prevalent on the internet. Once his point makes sense to him, everyone else’s point is mute because he researched and that’s all that matters.

Reading through his article you notice the common theme of “baiting” people to stir up controversy. He even admits to it himself in the very beginning:

And then he continues “baiting”:

“One of the people who came to argue with me on that said something like “I knew an otherkin who thought it’s ok to be a pedophile as long as you don’t have sex with children, so they all are crazy”. Before that I haven’t actually thought about such things. But what is really so wrong about pedophilia if it isn’t acted upon? I asked that question, and I didn’t receive any answer, only hate.

Note that I am a combat ready person. If I people are trying to bend me, I only push harder. So, one of my next stamps looked like this:

Let’s stop right here to talk about this excerpt of the article. After bringing up a serious topic such as pedophilia, why would he take it to “baiting” people to stir up controversy?

This is the point where anyone who actually cares about the well-being of children would stop and recognize that they are treading into extremely harmful territory. He self-proclaims being “combat ready” and it is evident that the war he is fighting is not for the well-being of children, nor is it for the well-being of the pedophiles he also claims to have sympathy for, he is doing it for his own public amusement.

“I asked that question, and I didn’t receive any answer, only hate.” For a topic as sensitive as this one, he should have sought answers outside of his comfort zone. For instance, asking this question on a psychology forum as opposed to tumblr may have helped Marlen receive the appropriate answers he claimed to have been looking for.

Going back to Alicen Grey’s article on pedophile culture, I wonder what answer Marlen would give to the question she presents:

“Let’s start with this missing piece: the vast majority of pedophiles are men. And the majority of children victimized by those pedophiles who do choose to act on their sexual desires are girls. This is a rather major detail to withhold from your audience, wouldn’t you say? Unfortunately, as pervasive and overt as patriarchy is, it is usually the last detail mentioned in conversations of this nature — if it is mentioned at all.”

As mentioned earlier, Marlen claims to have wanted an appropriate answer that he couldn’t find because he was met with hate. This article, though, was written in January of this year. Alicen’s article was written on four years ago. Her stance on pedophile culture and pedophilia goes so much more in depth to territories people claim they aren’t able to find.

For a such a “combat ready” person, Marlen seems to have failed at making proper use of the free resources at his very fingertips.

Ah! Let’s get back to the war zone where Marlen completely loses sight of what he claims to have been fighting for and instead goes down the deep hole of “trolling” and “baiting” opposing views:

“Many people would like to see me wriggling and and denying my own words, but I doubled up the stakes and radicalized every time. One of my last pre-Tumblr stamps on pedophilia looks like this:

It reads “sorry, but I do have sympathy for the hated and unlucky” We go back to the tone he set for us in the editor’s note. The sarcasm and mocking-like tone of someone who seems to be making a game over a serious matter. And then we go back to Alicen Grey’s article and I again ask myself….how would he answer her question? If he claims to feel so deeply for the hated and unlucky, where is his support for the little girls being raped by pedophiles?

Alicen also asserts:

“I need you, and your sympathetic readers, to understand this grave truth: pedophilia is not nearly as taboo, or shameful, or repulsive to society, as you claim it is. I wish it was. Much to the detriment of females the world over, your desires are reflected back to you infinitely, mass-produced on a global scale to meet an ever-growing demand. This male-supremacist world welcomes you with open arms, and your every wish is its command. I dare say you are safer to be yourself, than girls are.”

Even the way Marlen ends his article is solipsistic in and of itself:

“At least you people never made me feel uncomfortable for not being a MAP. MAP community is so much healthier than LGBT”

And then he adds this picture:

While Grey’s article delved into the ways in which women in are society are kept looking and acting infantile. I can’t help but remember Alicen Grey’s line where she states:

“you are not asking for our support — you are asking for our submission. And just as you say ‘there is no ethical way we can fully actualize our sexual longings,’ there is no ethical way to request cooperation from those of us actively trying to dismantle the patriarchal system that your ‘orientation’ represents.”