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."

[Oliver23]

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. This is a huge risk aiding an armed gay resistance in those countries but the pay off might be huge if successful and of course unlike mainstream LGBT we will tell them we are MAPs and that will give them a strong reason to support us as they don't have the cultural baggage. And of course educate them on the science of disgust and how it affects all of us.

Simple videos like this will do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0_2LtC3YSM

That way if we take enormous life of death risk - we could get solid homosexual/queer allies in Africa in the Middle east who will defend MAP rights. But once again that would imply 1) going to the middle east and Africa in dangerous zones, 2) finding gay/queer people in desperate scenarios and 3) setting up a civilian defensive militia org to protect them. Gay's in the West who have the luxury of safety won't touch MAPs with a ten foot pole, but gays in Africa and the Middle east who are desperate and have their life at risk will side with anyone kind enough to defend them.

Pedophiles have too low IQ to ever achieve anything. How low IQ do you need to be to be willing to sacrifice your life for gays who have never done anything for you and will never do anything for you, is truly next level.

[PorcelainLark]

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?

How is it bandwagoning? I have interests in being a MAP and interests in being bi. I'm not saying exclusive MAPs have to fight for LGBT people, but I don't see the point in undermining progress in one area for the possibility of progress in another.

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.

That's all very theoretical, in practical terms the issue hinges on whether marriage can give access to Visas. I don't see why straight people should be able to marry a person from another country and their partners get citizenships but gay and bisexuals can't do the same.

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?

Just because it's boring doesn't mean it does have practical implications. You could say the same thing about abortion, we might all be tired of it, but that doesn't change the impact it has on society.

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.

Destroying the old and not doing anything to save it are different in my view. I think it's fine if you don't care what happens to LGBT people, but I don't see the point in looking forward to the regression of LGBT rights. I'm not convinced it will make the lives of MAPs easier. It seems more like a crab mentality to me.

[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. This is a huge risk aiding an armed gay resistance in those countries but the pay off might be huge if successful and of course unlike mainstream LGBT we will tell them we are MAPs and that will give them a strong reason to support us as they don't have the cultural baggage. And of course educate them on the science of disgust and how it affects all of us.

Simple videos like this will do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0_2LtC3YSM

That way if we take enormous life of death risk - we could get solid homosexual/queer allies in Africa in the Middle east who will defend MAP rights. But once again that would imply 1) going to the middle east and Africa in dangerous zones, 2) finding gay/queer people in desperate scenarios and 3) setting up a civilian defensive militia org to protect them. Gay's in the West who have the luxury of safety won't touch MAPs with a ten foot pole, but gays in Africa and the Middle east who are desperate and have their life at risk will side with anyone kind enough to defend them.

Pedophiles have too low IQ to ever achieve anything. How low IQ do you need to be to be willing to sacrifice your life for gays who have never done anything for you and will never do anything for you, is truly next level.

IQ varies by individual and I admit I don't know how to end up in those scenarios in the first place to rescue anyone.

But what I said does hold. Rescuing humans in danger is not imperialism. It is the same as Lysander Spooner's suggestions to rescue slaves in need. The problem really is gays in the West that have fixed doctrines. Gays and trans people in the west fuse their sexuality and gender identity with political doctrines.

Modern LGBTQIA doctrines are inspired by Marxism, Critical Theory, Queer Theory, Feminist theory along with humanist and existentialism philosophy. These are the backbones of modern LGBTQIA. It isn't just one doctrine its many ideas that hybridized and mutated. Though it is obvious Focault and Butler's ideas are much more common. But so is feminism. Feminism is what made LGBTQIA haunt over the number 18. If it wasn't for feminism gay men would still advocate for lowering the AoC 1-2 years like they did in the 90s.

The goal is to support homosexual and trans rights while disregarding some of the cultural baggage that goes with it. and focus on the basic neuroscience of disgust, peer pressure and conformity, that way we get a different back bone for LGBT which should lead to different results. queers in the west will be NPCs in echo chambers saying "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS" over and over on Mastodon. Where as Queers that we hypothetically rescue will be able to understand the science on disgust, and will know all unwanted sexual behaviors trigger it. Their academic sophistication on understanding why trans people are disgusting will out weight the simpleminded queer in America.



Leftist of the past were taught to NEVER BLAME BIOLOGY OR EVOLUTION on why humans behave different, because nazis happened to do that. That's why Focault spends so much time focuses on cultural power structures, that's all leftist are allowed to do. They ignore the natural world (disgust reflexes, peer pressure, child protection) and just focuses on institutions.

[Artaxerxes II]

How is it bandwagoning? I have interests in being a MAP and interests in being bi. I'm not saying exclusive MAPs have to fight for LGBT people, but I don't see the point in undermining progress in one area for the possibility of progress in another.

It’s fine that you have an interest in maintaining the status quo as a bisexual, but don’t presume that it’s the same interest for the majority of MAPs that, statistically speaking, are often heterosexual. And I think you’re missing his point since his point was that MAPs have nothing to gain from defending the LGBTQ+ lobby that you’re particularly fond of. No offence, but there’s no point in heterosexual MAPs defending a group that has no interest in them.

That's all very theoretical, in practical terms the issue hinges on whether marriage can give access to Visas. I don't see why straight people should be able to marry a person from another country and their partners get citizenships but gay and bisexuals can't do the same.

Because marriage was and has always been intended as a state institution with the single purpose of sexual reproduction in mind? No offence, but you have to be really obtuse to think that gay marriage wasn’t just the fags chasing after their ascendancy to normalhood which, while understandable, doesn’t really favor your point regarding MAPs needing to support the so-called LGBTQ+ “community”. And yes, the early gay rights movement was much more liberationist by virtue of being an off-shoot of the heterosexual free sex movement, so it’s not really theoretical.

Just because it's boring doesn't mean it does have practical implications. You could say the same thing about abortion, we might all be tired of it, but that doesn't change the impact it has on society.

The whole point is that any and all revolutionary or innovative energy found in the gay and trans lobbies has already been exhausted to no end to reify the status quo down to pedophobia, meaning that it’s unlikely for them to accept any new ideas, let alone from pro-C MAPs, as they become far more mediocre than the average paraphiliac pedi space which is situated on the Dee web, the space where most intellectual discourse at the cutting edge of society occurs anyway.

Going back to the example of abortion, I would say it’s pretty much inconsequential for anybody other than those without access to other contraceptive means. So yh, you should pick a better example mate.

Destroying the old and not doing anything to save it are different in my view. I think it's fine if you don't care what happens to LGBT people, but I don't see the point in looking forward to the regression of LGBT rights. I'm not convinced it will make the lives of MAPs easier. It seems more like a crab mentality to me.

I mean, are MAPs’ lives any easier now than in the 1950s, when only a few places had legal gay anal? I doubt it. In fact, the success of the gays and transes that you’re so fond of is heavily dependent upon the current pedophobic status quo. Unless you show actual results in convincing the nearest gay org to let you attend in the next pride parade as an openly bisexual MAP in a livestream, there’s no point in pretending that power in society isn’t a zero sum game.

Since MAPs don’t have any actual bargaining power, your chances of convincing anyone that MAPs should have rights beyond that of any typically closeted individual are close to null. Better to actively partake in efforts to drag down your opponents until they are actually willing to take your demands at face value due to their downward mobility, as opposed to hopelessly wordcel-ling your way into Soros’ OSF, von der Leyen and the Bilderberg group into making MAPs a protected class.