Gay Rollback Is Coming (And That's A Good Thing)

[Nopi Balki]

Hmmm... Just at first sight I see some issues in the first post.

The main issue is that you are talking about Gays and LGBT+ people as if all of them were the ones who made that exclusion of MAPs 3 decades ago. Sure they did that but is wrong to generalize that action and trow into it people that just for their inborn sexuality get to be part of a group not for their ideals beyond their own sexuality. And even more when there are Gay and LGBT+ people here that are also MAPs and supports us while being against of what 3 decades old people did not against the rights of individuals regardless their sexuality.

I hope this is a mistake of generalization and not an purposely miss of that point to accuse people you are against to. Because is sounding really bad and anti-like .

[PorcelainLark]

Hmmm... Just at first sight I see some issues in the first post.

The main issue is that you are talking about Gays and LGBT+ people as if all of them were the ones who made that exclusion of MAPs 3 decades ago. Sure they did that but is wrong to generalize that action and trow into it people that just for their inborn sexuality get to be part of a group not for their ideals beyond their own sexuality. And even more when there are Gay and LGBT+ people here that are also MAPs and supports us while being against of what 3 decades old people did not against the rights of individuals regardless their sexuality.

I hope this is a mistake of generalization and not an purposely miss of that point to accuse people you are against to. Because is sounding really bad and anti-like .

I agree. The OP post implies that the main reason why LGBT acceptance occurred was because of throwing MAPs under the bus. If you think that's the only reason why LGBT rights were accepted then fair enough. However I don't think that's the case. I'm not convinced harsher conditions will make the broader LGBT community have solidarity with MAPs. Then there's also the question of non-exclusive MAPs who are LGBT, are we supposed to be grateful that another aspect of our identity is being repressed?

[Artaxerxes II]

Hmmm... Just at first sight I see some issues in the first post.

The main issue is that you are talking about Gays and LGBT+ people as if all of them were the ones who made that exclusion of MAPs 3 decades ago. Sure they did that but is wrong to generalize that action and trow into it people that just for their inborn sexuality get to be part of a group not for their ideals beyond their own sexuality. And even more when there are Gay and LGBT+ people here that are also MAPs and supports us while being against of what 3 decades old people did not against the rights of individuals regardless their sexuality.

I hope this is a mistake of generalization and not an purposely miss of that point to accuse people you are against to. Because is sounding really bad and anti-like .

This isn’t a question of feelings and whatnot, it’s a question of realpolitik. Sure, there are MAPs who are in the LGBTQ+ lobby, but I doubt any of them are in key leadership positions and, if they are, they sure are uncaring towards even their MAP allies. I’m not going to sugarcoat this, it’s just a fact that most MAPs are heterosexual and that it costs us nothing to not defend the gays from homophobia, especially if said homophobia is downstream from the pedophobia that the gay lobby loves to push together with most of the “LGBTQ+ community”. You want them to change? Then mincing words at them as it is won’t work as they are as much of a political lobby as a corporation, so you need leverage to be able to have dialogue with them. And that only comes by having their power reduced to the point that they can’t live in comfort in their gated communities anymore, and have to talk to the underprivileged for once, and that includes us.

No pain, no gain. That’s a rule of life.

[Anonymous_Lover]

I agree. The OP post implies that the main reason why LGBT acceptance occurred was because of throwing MAPs under the bus. If you think that's the only reason why LGBT rights were accepted then fair enough. However I don't think that's the case. I'm not convinced harsher conditions will make the broader LGBT community have solidarity with MAPs. Then there's also the question of non-exclusive MAPs who are LGBT, are we supposed to be grateful that another aspect of our identity is being repressed?

I agree. The OP post implies that the main reason why LGBT acceptance occurred was because of throwing MAPs under the bus

I mean one of the biggest arguments I heard for gay rights in the 2000s was precisely "if its two consenting adults in the privacy of their home what does it matter?" an okay pitch to a normie but what's the context of that saying? Basically, "oppressing those attracted to people beneath the magic age line is okay." Not only this but LGBT influencers and political figures and groups have been some of the most vicious anti-MAP advocates. Why? In part because its a tactic and talking point they can use to try to smear conservatives and religious groups who oppose their beliefs without having to explain why gay sex/relationships are good or asserting a moral/ethical position of their own. I think there are other reasons too but I won't go into that.

If you're looking at polling and other types of social sentiment then I think a case can be made that ramping up anti-MAP oppression was absolutely a prerequisite for gay liberation to go beyond what it had acheived by the late in 70s in the reactionary 1980s, 90s and 2000s. Gay marriage failed in California in 2008 as a popular ballot proposal if you'll recall and Obama ran in 2009 by explicitly saying that he wasn't pro-gay marriage, he favored marriage as definitionally between a man and woman. The most successful anti-gay campaign was Anita Bryant's. What was the strategy? She positioned gays as pederasts and then denounced gay normalization as creeping pederasty. Both voters and other reactionaries responded and there was successful rollback in certain fields due to her campaigns in the 80s. The groomer panic of 2022 around trans kids that helped whip reactionary Gen Xers who were raised during the reactionary 80s into an army for the GOP and Trump did a similar thing, tran-knees on discord or whatever were grooming your kids to be gay, trans or all of the above, now let's go burn down civilization over it! A similar thing occurred in Nazi Germany progress on gay rights and understanding that occured during Weimar was attacked on the basis that gays were all pederasts by the NDSAP. I should note that not even the Nazis were mindlessly reactionary on sex in all cases but strategic, they didn't undo Weimar era laws legalizing prostitution and I did read a book excerpt showing that they were surprisingly lenient on transwomen, arguably more so then the US at the time. So if even the Nazis couldn't be reactionary across the board that does suggest that to "liberate" one group of sexual deviants, you actually do have to repress another group of deviants to make that space under sexphobic and sexceptionalist paradigms. Tim Walz was recently saying that "rights are like cake, just bc someone else gets piece doesn't mean you get less" while theoretically true, in practice this is how its actually turned out in many cases in the realm of sexual practice and identity in the societies we actually live under governed by the systems of law and social mores they actually have.

Then there's also the question of non-exclusive MAPs who are LGBT, are we supposed to be grateful that another aspect of our identity is being repressed?

Our? So I take it you are gay or bi? It does seem sometimes like inside every pederast there is a LGBT bandwagoner yearning to be free. Every time I hear about a LGBT alliance it seems to be from a gay or bi man. I don't even hear it from trans people so much who don't really tend to care as much about an alliance with the bourgeois gay lobby or the rainbow as much they are focused on transness as its own thing, eg /tttt/. What do you propose though? Get in the streets and fight for gay rights with people who will turn on you the second they win? Be their unpaid field negro laboring on the plantation to get the cotton in for harvest?

This focus on identify is itself problematic and Harry Hay said as much when he opposed gay marriage on substantial grounds and refused to come to pride as he argued that the movement had veered into the realm of identity and was no longer about sex. In the 70s, many gay activists conceptualized it as a universal sexual liberation movement and not a solely gay one.

I'm not even the biggest fan of the whole pan-paraphiliac thing going on on pedi but its 100 times more cutting edge than talking about le gay rights in 2026. What are they talking about really? Sexual liberation for those sexual interests and practices criminalized or socially prescribed by the psychiatric-industrial complex which has become without exaggeration or hyperbole, a secular replacement for the Church. The typical psychiatrist is a bourgeois morality preacher who operates under a medical cover and his/her role is no less one of social control and conformity then a priest's was in medieval times and probably even more so. The fact that being gay is not a paraphilia and even something as minor as say high heel fetishism is enough to make the list says a lot about where gayness is, it is extremely housebroken, safe, and tame. And I don't think it can't be reclaimed. You don't make gayness radical again by tweeting "be gay, do crimes." If you tried to it would quickly stray more into MAP stuff, pan-paraphilia, s&m, stuff like free use, orgies, public sex, and sex work. So its basically going outside of what gay is now, which is an identity box.

Essentially, Artaxerxes is right, we will have to destroy the old to build the new. Part of that is permitting one enemy to destroy another even if the short term consequences are rough and major. Where MAPs are now, they aren't even strong enough to save the gay lobby if they put all their strength into that struggle, and I'm arguing that they shouldn't waste their time and effort.

[zarkle]

Moving topics, I was thinking for several months that MAPs can take extreme risk and help gays in third world and Islamic countries where the punishment of being Gay is death penalty, such as Islamic countries that throw gays off buildings and or incarnate them. This is the ultimate "rollback" that we can capitalize on.

Same old imperialism, only in a new bottle! If we favor this, what prevents e.g. liberal NGOs from promoting anti-pedophilia in nations more friendly nations?

Rescuing people in life or death need is not the same as setting up military bases to capture a foreign nation's oil resources or control its politics.

I see the case being made Islamic countries tend to ignore gays in private and only ISIS is hyper aggressive which is extreme for the Islamic world.

Also after talking to AIs they seem to imply Iran and Saudi Arabia are extremey hostile to homosexuals. I'll post what it wrote

Q: Is homosexuality severely punished in the Islamic world in almost all cases or is it just select few to make examples? Or only public cases


It is severely punished by law in the large majority of Muslim-majority countries, with significant enforcement in the strictest ones, though it is not applied in "almost all" individual cases due to practical hurdles. Punishment is not limited to purely public cases; private acts can and do lead to arrests, especially via raids, tips, entrapment, or confessions.
Legal Situation
Homosexuality (typically defined as same-sex acts) remains criminalized in most Muslim-majority countries—around 35 out of roughly 50, according to compilations from ILGA and other trackers. This includes nearly all in the Middle East/North Africa, plus many in Asia and Africa.

Death penalty possible in about 10–12 jurisdictions (all or mostly Muslim-majority): Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, parts of Nigeria (northern states under Sharia), Mauritania, Brunei (moratorium but possible), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, UAE, Somalia, etc. These draw from Sharia interpretations equating certain acts (especially male sodomy) to zina (unlawful sex), with penalties like stoning, hanging, or other executions.
Lesser penalties elsewhere: Prison (years to life), flogging (e.g., 100 lashes), fines, or exile. Some countries use colonial-era laws (e.g., Section 377-style codes in Pakistan). Indonesia is mostly legal nationally but has local Sharia rules (e.g., Aceh) with caning.

A few Muslim-majority countries are exceptions (e.g., Turkey, Albania, Jordan, Bahrain in some contexts), where it's legal or decriminalized.
Enforcement: Not Universal, But Routine Risk

"It is not "just select few to make examples" in the harshest regimes, nor limited to public acts:

Iran: Actively enforced. Executions for sodomy occur (often hangings), sometimes combined with other charges like rape. Reports of dozens over years; the government acknowledges the death penalty for male same-sex acts.
Saudi Arabia: Sharia-based, no codified penal code. Arrests are common; executions (beheading, stoning) documented, including in mass executions where homosexuality charges were added. Enforcement via religious police and courts.
Other strict areas (Yemen, Taliban-era Afghanistan, ISIS-held territories, northern Nigeria): Public executions, stonings, or killings by militias/courts have occurred, often in chaotic settings. Houthis in Yemen have issued death sentences recently.
Broader pattern: In many countries (Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc.), police conduct raids on private gatherings, use apps/social media for entrapment, or respond to family complaints. Flogging, imprisonment, and torture in custody are reported. Societal violence, "honor" killings, and forced marriages add layers beyond the state.

Why not "almost all cases"? Traditional Sharia hadd punishments for such acts often require strict proof (e.g., four adult Muslim witnesses to the act), which is hard to meet—leading to discretionary ta'zir punishments (lesser penalties) or cases being dropped. Many people live discreetly. However, the risk is pervasive: discovery via rumors, phones, or denunciations can destroy lives. Transparency is low in authoritarian states, so exact numbers are unreliable.
Enforcement is harsher for men (especially anal acts) than women in many places, and public/flamboyant behavior or activism increases danger. Private, consensual acts still violate the law where criminalized.
Context and Variation
These laws stem from certain classical Islamic jurisprudence on liwat (sodomy), though historical Muslim societies sometimes showed more tolerance in practice (e.g., poetry, private spheres). Modern strictness often mixes with colonial legacies and 20th-century Islamist revivals.
In short: Severe legal punishments are the norm across much of the Islamic world (especially death-eligible in several core countries), with real enforcement in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia—not rare examples only. Private life offers some protection through discretion, but it is far from safe or tolerated. Data comes primarily from ILGA World reports, Human Rights Watch, and country profiles. Conditions can shift with politics or regime changes."