Jim Burton

Last week, I found and shared an article by Scott Yenor for First Things, a long-running Christian-Conservative journal out of America. Yenor is a Lutheran; he is also a member of a “secretive, men-only Christian Nationalist organization”, yet much of his retelling of gay history and respectability politics was surprisingly agreeable and uncannily accurate. It was almost as if the married father of five had been a fly on the wall, during this entire episode of militant faggotry. Go figure.

There was something, however, that Yenor clearly got wrong, or perhaps even intentionally misled his readers about. And that was the supposed “radicalism” of what he describes as a unique “third wave” of woke queer activists.

As with modern “anarchists”, there is nothing “radical” about today’s queers, other than the costumes they choose to don for live-action-roleplay. Most trans-aligned online media, for example, is breathtakingly dull and pedestrian; populated by secular evangelists who have more in common with the parochial essentialism of the woke-right, than the thinking of Butler or Foucault. More than they would ever be willing to admit.

Yasmin Nair has explained brilliantly, in far more words, how the kink-washing of modern Queer life has more in common with an entrenched orthodoxy, than any palpably radical analysis, or re-reckoning of the normal. The “Queer” in “Queer Theory”, according to David Halperin, is by definition, whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. Not the attempts of Queers to pander to those norms and sanctify their identity within a secular pantheon.

Thus, a queer movement for radical reform of sex laws and attitudes, does not presently exist. If it is to exist, it will most likely establish itself outside of the present, highly corporatized “LGBTQ+ community”, not only as a result of the former’s fragmentation, but the explicit and non-negotiable inclusion of groups presently excluded by modern queers. The red-lines of today will become the acid-tests of tomorrow.

I have previously mentioned Zoophiles as an example of one such group. Thanks to the work of pan-paraphile activists, Zoos’ acceptance of MAPs is almost a foregone conclusion in 2026, with only the realpolitik of pre-emptive self-censorship preventing their alliance being expressed more openly online. Almost three years ago, I warned against the excesses of paraphile activism, while leaving the door open for future collaborations. The groups have since, it appears, moved closer through their own online communities.

Exclusionary Tendencies

But unfortunately, whenever I mention paraphiles or other marginalized groups such as Sex Workers, directly in MAP-only spaces (even tangentially, as with my analysis of Yenor’s article), voices in favour of exclusion and isolation are never far away. And isolationism has been pitched to me under varying rationales.

To some, MAPs excluding Zoophiles is entirely optical – a strategic consideration. Yet, pedophiles are even more widely and wildly hated than active horse and dog-fuckers. Romanticization of pedophilia is a pipe dream that died two decades ago.

To some, Sex Workers are just not it. They are either pigeonholed as bourgeois capitalists, or to be pitied as victims of exploitation under a sympathetic intersectional socialist reading of the plight of sexual minorities. But no moderate or sympathetic reading of sex work, or sex workers’ lived experience is permitted, when anti-sex ideology rules the roost.

And to some others, any kind of “perversion” is “categorically” incompatible with mens’ pederastic interest in boys, which is an unique “innate capacity” for “mentoring relationships”. It is with this third group – the pederastic traditionalists, that Yenor shares the most DNA, in my experience – not only ideologically, but in terms of his misdiagnosis of a “radical” queer present.

Not only do Boy Lovers who describe themselves as pederasts generally show a disdain for the supposed “radicalism” of modern queer activism. But said traditionalists have also told me on multiple occasions that “MAPs” either have widespread acceptance within this radical queer movement, or are foolishly attempting to tag along within it by imitating “identity politics”.

The (rarer) claim of full queer acceptance (shared with Yenor) is itself patently false, and has more in common with the equally false claim that various fashionable big-beast sexologists (think Seto, Bailey, Blanchard, Cantor) employ the term “MAP”.

Yet, the somewhat more complex idea that “MAP” groups or sympathetic academics are angling for inclusion in the LGBTQ+ community deserves a little more attention, because it is in essence the underpinning right-wing narrative for the above lie.

Conspicuous in the many controversies over the term “MAP” (that included actual MAP groups or sympathetic academics) has been an absence of evidence for these "entryist" attempts. Indeed, the only such (almost unserious) attempt came from one of the above-mentioned academics who was most scathingly negative towards the idea of a Minor-Attracted identity. That was, of course James Cantor and his now-infamous “include the P” tweets re. Virtuous Pedophiles.

On the other hand, notable in the smaller number of controversies initiated by right-wing hoax artists such as 4chan, were highly visible appeals to LGBTQ+ entryism. So, from this we see a clear pattern. LGBTQ+ entryism and identarian mimicry (by MAPs) is right-wing narrative, but not reality. Modern fediverse MAP groups (queer MAPs in particular) have almost invariably evinced a disgust towards mainstream LGBTQ+ groups and their exclusionary practices. The field once again confounds theoretical and ideological narrative rumblings.

Some pederasts describe the inclusion of perverts and paraphiles in an “alliance of the invalidated” as necessarily “excluding” themselves

Not only do the claims of traditionalists concerning MAP-LGBTQ+ entryism fail the field test, but so too does their time-worn special pleading for pederasty as an "innate capacity".

Innate or “natural” capacity describes a potential for being. Men do indeed have the capacity for both sexual desire and mentoring impulses towards adolescent boys, or both in combination. But in drawing the line behind their own heels; in deciding that pederasty will be the last seat on an “innate capacity” bus, pederasts lay bare the foolishness of their true intentions.

On the “downside” we have groups such as paraphiles – Zoos, Necros, Sadists, Objectophiles, Pedophiles. If these are not “innate capacities” in a world where a highly specific and formalized kind of relationship between men and boys is, what exactly are we even discussing?

On the “upside” we have mainstream heteros, bisexuals and fags. While I’m sure the pederasts not-so-secretly think they are above most of these, all have considerably greater demographic strength and their own claims to “innate capacity”. Pederasts, who claim they are being “excluded” by having to share a movement with groups they in turn exclude, are not exactly in the position of strength.

And what are we of course talking about, now we entertain the plans of traditionalist pederasts? Hierarchies! Truth-games! War games!

If the pederasts are to court hierarchies; to play these truth-games in today’s increasingly fragmented, unpredictable and autocratic societies, one has to ask: How many rungs down that ladder will they fall, and who will be getting kicked off the end, back to whence they came?

Please feel free to discuss this article on our forum thread.