In case anyone is wondering, it's rqd2.

The definition of paraphilia is "a condition characterized by abnormal sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities.", which can inclde pedophilia.

It has recieved 4 censures from fediseer due to the content contained on that instance

Not a good look for Lemmy to be promoting any instance like that.

You can see for yourself here

Update: A pull request was sent to remove the sus instance. It should no longer show up soon

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I think you may be using a different definition of terms. Pro-contact MAPs think that having sex with minors is fine, and that it isn't abuse. Here's a link to the MAP wiki on the subject: https://map-wiki.com/index.php/Pro-contact

If you go to the instance being discussed, you'll see people openly saying that sex with kids is okay and that they don't think there's a problem with it.

[–] 520@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Oh...oh...excuse me, I'm feeling sick 🤢 like, I knew these guys were crossing serious lines but to think it is 100% fully intentional with no ignorance to the dangers involved...fucking 🤮

[–] JoshuaACasey 1 points 2 years ago

Well that's disappointing. I was about to spring to their defense about how MAPs/Pedophiles having a sense of community is actually a good thing (see: https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/07/20/29453977/online-support-groups-can-keep-pedophiles-from-offending-but-they-keep-getting-shut-down), but I'm not going to spring to their defense if they allow pro-contact views. I only support anti-contact (ie knowing that adult-child sex is wrong). maps