cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/6400327

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

  • 520@kbin.social
    29·
    9 months ago

    Just because they aren’t directly hosting illegal content, doesn’t make it danger free. They freely encourage ‘pro contact’ as if it isn’t a very strong possibility that, when someone is in contact with a person they’re attracted to, they may well … take the next step.

    • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      12·
      9 months ago

      Well yeah, that’s what pro contact means. Pro sexual contact. They don’t think there’s any inherent problem with sexual relationships between adults and kids.

      “Pro contact” is just a polite way to say it, obfuscating what they’re really talking about.

      • 520@kbin.social
        7·
        9 months ago

        To them it seems that pro contact means contact with the person you’re attracted to, even if it’s not (edit: explicitly) sexual yet. Kinda like how you might talk with someone you’re crushing on but not yet banging.

        There already is a perfectly acceptable word for this though. It’s called ‘grooming’. It is called so because it is a precursor to what will inevitably become what they themselves call ‘abuse’.

        You know how when you’ve been talking to someone you really want for months and the sexual tension has been ratcheting up higher every minute, then something just makes that explode and suddenly you’re just not thinking, just doing? How the everloving fuck do they expect pro contact to end anything other than in an immeasurably fucked up and scarring version of what I just described?

        • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          5·
          9 months ago

          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·
            9 months 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 🤮