You may, by now, be familiar with the increasingly mainstreamed LGBTQ+++™ sexual identity called MAPS, an acronym that stands for “minor-attracted persons” and serves as a euphemism for pedophiles.
The gist of the pro-MAPS argument, as illuminated below by MAPS apologist and transgender professors Allyn Walker, is that the term “pedophile” is unnecessarily stigmatizing and that MAPS are not necessarily sex offenders because they don’t always act out on their urges.
Differentiating between MAPS and active, offending pedophiles might be legitimate, but the question is: why expend all the effort trying to legitimize a sexual identity that is inherently immoral?
The MAPS even have their very own inclusive LGBTQ+++™ flag!
The official MAPs pedophile flag
Very dark stuff, by most normal people’s estimation.
But the rabbit hole into the LGBTQ+++™ abyss only leads to darker darkness – like some other weird euphemism called “childism.”
Via the Childism Institute, self-tasked with “empowering children by critiquing norms and structures” (emphasis added):
Childism is like feminism but for children. It has emerged in the academic literature as a term to describe efforts to empower the lived experiences of the third of humanity who are children through the radical systemic critique of scholarly, social, and political norms.
Beyond including children and young people as active social participants, childism challenges and transforms the historically ingrained adult-centered assumptions that underlie children’s systemic marginalization in the first place. It functions analogously to terms like feminism, antiracism, womanism, postgenderism, postcolonialism, decolonialism, environmentalism, and transhumanism. As such, it provides a needed critical lens for deconstructing adultism and patriarchy and reconstructing age-inclusive research and societies.
The thrust of childism is that children, no matter their age or maturity level, should be granted full decision-making autonomy of the same kind granted to adults – presumably, of course, including consenting to sexual encounters with adults.
I reported about a year ago on a sister child-sex-promoting “nonprofit” called Prostasia Foundation. This one is primarily concerned with legitimizing a sexual kink called “ageplay,” which it defines as “a form of role-play in which at least one of the participants adopts the role or mindset of someone younger—a teenager, child, or even a baby.”
The foundation is active on social media lobbying to keep depictions of child sex available on these platforms under the auspices of “free speech” – an odd position indeed for the side of the ideological spectrum constantly clamoring for censorship of “transphobic hatespeech” or whatever.
A lot of art that's weird, gross, or unsettling gets posted to social media. If it you don't want to see it, the correct response is to block the hashtag it was posted with, or the person who posted it. Don't report it as abuse material, and don't harass or abuse people over it. pic.twitter.com/FXCi0a4I21
— Prostasia Foundation (@ProstasiaInc) January 13, 2020
These sorts of NGOs – which are all tax-exempt, by the way — proliferate yet often fly under the radar. However, they matter because they do a lot of the hands-on dirty work promulgating the idea that children are fair game for sexual predators.
This is largely a long game of incremental gains. They don’t believe that they’ll transform overnight the entire Western ethos around protecting children who can’t consent to sex because they haven’t yet developed the requisite mental faculties.
Rather, they understand that social transformation takes time. It happens slowly but steadily over time. They understand that culture never stays static, despite the best efforts of social conservatives to keep everything the same.
Change necessarily occurs over time. It can’t be stopped. The question is: what will the nature of the change be? Will the zeitgeist shift to further protect children from the predators at the Childism Institute or will it open up, slowly, to embrace the ugly, dystopian concepts of “ageplay,” “minor-attracted persons,” etc.?
