Reasons to have hope

[aeterna91]

I'm beginning to think that, as a whole, what I read about MAPs and intergenerational sex is so negative that it really affects me and makes me feel worse. Everywhere I look, I see a huge number of people wanting to imprison, torture or murder MAPs.And I'm afraid that, as wonderful as this forum is, often happens to me here as well, since many posts on this forum echo this and/or are very pessimistic.

My idea was to use this thread to state some reasons why we believe that a change for the better is possible. I believe it's necessary. I don't think any group of people can change the world for the better if they can't even sincerely believe in the possibility of a better world. If we cannot even imagine that possibility, I think we are totally defeated. Throughout History there have been enormous social changes, the world has changed radically in ways that seemed impossible, but it was precisely because there were people who did believe it was possible, and they were right.

Nor would it be a good idea to indulge in empty hopes, of course. Besides, it wouldn't work. I, for one, find no comfort in someone simply telling me “everything is going to be fine” if I don't think it's true.

So my idea here was to put together some credible arguments as to why there is a chance for the world to get better for us and for AAMs, to create a thread that can actually make people feel better and that change is possible. Hopefully even enough optimism can be generated to affect other threads on the forum, other corners of the internet, the lives of the people who read it, etc, and that we start to see more people believing that change for the better is possible.

I can think of several arguments to consider, but, for the moment, I will mention only one. I'm more interested in what the rest of the users of this forum can contribute, I am sure that many interesting ideas will come out.

So this is my first argument as to why I think things are likely to get better:

The current pedo-hysteria is so ridiculous and pernicious that it will end up producing a rebound effect.

The discourse is reaching a degree of ridiculousness unimaginable a few decades ago. They began to incorrectly use the term “pedophile” by calling people who were attracted to people who had already started puberty. Then, people who were attracted to people who were about to finish puberty. Then, for people who had finished it, but were still legally minors. Now they call people who are attracted to adults, even people in their 20s, pedophiles.

By the way, perhaps in the future it might be appropriate to replace the term “minor attracted people” with “youth attracted people”, given that people attracted to young adults could end up facing very similar consequences to MAPs, both socially and legally (it would not be surprising if in some countries the age of consent ends up being raised above adulthood). But that is a debate for another time.

The point is that this hysteria plays against us in the short-medium term (probably, in the next few years lynching and harassment will increase a lot, and many countries will tighten their laws even more), but it plays in our favor in the long term (I'm talking about few decades here). Every time someone calls someone attracted to adult people a “pedophile,” they are doing us a big favor. Every time they do this, they contribute to normalizing pedophilia, and get people to associate it with more socially accepted and less dangerous attitudes.

In turn, people labeled as pedophiles without being pedophiles might end up joining us, who would accept them while the rest of society rejects and harasses them. In addition, they will try to find arguments to defend that attraction and relationships with someone younger are not something intrinsically harmful... and, in doing so, they will see that those arguments also serve for larger age gaps than they expected when they started looking. I know this will happen, because it happened to me.

Young people will also become fed up with not having the right to bodily autonomy and not being able to choose a partner freely because they are considered incompetent. It's not unusual for children to rebel against their parents if the latter do not respect their rights. When the generation that intends to ban the most ridiculous age gaps has children, and they reach adolescence... wow, we are really going to see a lot of disobedient young people, because the repression of their freedom will be unbearable.

Empathy, which is a basic human quality, will also play in our favor, when the persecution of intergenerational relationships becomes so intense that it is already inevitable that many people will empathize with MAPs and begin to see that they are not as evil as the people who harass them, persecute them and want them to suffer.

If, at the moment, laws and social attitudes about intergenerational sex cause more harm than they prevent, in the near future, the difference will be so great that it will be inevitable that many more people will begin to notice. Then, at last, when it becomes absolutely obvious that it is better for everyone to be more permissive, change will be possible.

This is my most bittersweet argument, because it implies that, before things start to get better, will get even worse, and there is still a lot of suffering ahead. But it's also one of the most likely scenarios I can imagine.

[golderrr]

amazing post ♡

things probably looked just as hopeless for lgbt people half a century ago. even if it takes decades for us to even start being accepted, never give up ♡

[Fragment]

This is also a bittersweet, "it gets worse before it gets better" one, but:

The world is at increasing risk of another world war. Such a global conflict would provide the incentive for a cultural reset.

The world is moving toward a period of deep, systemic crisis. The liberal international order that dominated the post-WWII era is visibly fraying. Major powers—China, the US, and Russia—are locked in intensifying economic, ideological, and proxy conflicts. The war in Ukraine has already upended assumptions about peace in Europe. Tensions around Taiwan, Gaza, and Iran threaten to escalate into broader regional or even global wars. Meanwhile, domestic unrest is rising in many countries, from polarization in the U.S. to growing authoritarianism and cultural crackdowns in places like India, Turkey, and Hungary.

This level of global tension hasn’t been seen since the 1930s. And just like then, it’s not all doom. Crisis—while dangerous—also breaks rigid systems. The collapse of one worldview can make space for another.

After both world wars, societies had to rebuild not just economies, but moral frameworks. Sexual norms, race relations, gender roles—many things changed rapidly in the wake of upheaval. The post-WWII period, for instance, gave us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the sexual revolution, the youth rights movement, and new understandings of trauma and psychology. These things didn't come despite catastrophe, but because of it.

If global crisis accelerates, today’s rigid sex panics—including the all-consuming demonization of MAPs—could fracture. Not because people suddenly become more “tolerant,” but because other priorities take over, new generations emerge, and society becomes desperate for scapegoats other than the old ones. In that environment, ideas long dismissed as “unthinkable” can re-enter public discourse.

That’s not a guarantee. It’s a possibility. But it’s a credible one—and it’s one reason I believe the future isn't set in stone.

[Outis]

I agree with the arguments above and I see the road ahead as positive. The narrative against maps has reached a point of absurdity that the illusion is starting to fracture. Non-maps treated as maps, parents unable to take photos at their own kids school plays or parties in public settings, fear and paranoia have real visible effects on society and economies.

There's an economic argument since trying to criminalize maps for every minor infringement bloats prisons and costs real money. In todays world of shrinking economies that has a real impact. Build 10 hospitals to save lives, provide food and heating for a million pensioners or lock up 10,000 people who looked at cp but never harmed anyone. When faced with a choice such as this, protect the elderly or the sick or punish people, what choice does a person make? People are being forced to make real economic decisions such as this and will increasingly have to over the next decade. Pumping fear of maps only makes it harder for leaders and society to make acceptable decisions such as this. Economically it's better to reverse the fear and panic so people are less inclined to care for the third option which reduces the economic decision to just two, build hospitals or protect the elderly, a much easier political position to be in. So I think economics and changing society is just making fear and paranoia less attractive. In the UK for instance they are letting prisoners free early and recently the government said only 1/3 of prisons should be in prison. It's economics driving this line of reasoning. The steel industry is collapsing, the threat of war means much more money is needed for defence, the health service and education service is collapsing. Heck they're even inching back towards free movement in Europe to try to get more money from trade, economically it doesn't make sense to live in fear of foreigners.

Academics are not anti-map and do recognise that the subject is complicated and maps poorly treated. There's a campain running in the UK to remove parental responsibility from people convicted of abusing kids. The government has upset people by revealing its plan that includes wording that parental responsibility would be removed from adults who abuse their own kids, not others. It's a subtle change of wording but it has annoyed people. The people pushing for the law consider that any adult who "abuses" any child should lose parental responsibility even if there's no reason to assume they would ever abuse their own kids. The government recongises the subtle nature of this and so worded it to say you can't asume a future victim where one doesn't exist, just because it derisks a situation. What will the final wording be? I don't know but it means there are people in power who understand that the subject is nuanced and are not blindly out to punish maps.

Finally, I've found through experience that many people are not anti-map. There's a vocal minority who are but in any area there's a vocal minority claiming to represent the world. They're just the few people hooked on social media who love to hear their own voice because it makes them feel important, usually because they've achieved nothing in life of meaning so it's just a way to try to feel less worthless as a person by shouting and screaming about something they might get a few likes for. But the majority of people are not like that, they're leading normal lives with normal balanced views and they have no agenda against maps. They're largely indifferent. Sure they might not knowingly let a map babysit for them but that's the same as I wouldn't lend my car to a young hot headed racer. It isn't that I don't like him, I just wouldn't trust him with my car. That's what it is for most people in my experience, they don't really care that much, they just have some trust issues. But that was the same with people towards gays at one time and people learned to deal with their own fear and paranoia, I think that will happen for people towards maps to.

[Harlan]

We cannot know how and when the MAPs will be accepted, but I am confident that it is inevitable.
...
a) LGBT will become boring commonplace.
b) MAP community will continue to expand.
c) Increase in scandals involving minors will have the opposite effect
d) Post-tolerance young people will become more demanding of the free expression of their sexuality
...
and many other factors and events

[aeterna91]

Thank you all!

This is also a bittersweet, "it gets worse before it gets better" one, but:

The world is at increasing risk of another world war. Such a global conflict would provide the incentive for a cultural reset.

I totally agree. I especially like the examples you give of positive things indirectly caused by the World Wars...I hadn't stopped to think of them all together in this way.

There's an economic argument since trying to criminalize maps for every minor infringement bloats prisons and costs real money. In todays world of shrinking economies that has a real impact. Build 10 hospitals to save lives, provide food and heating for a million pensioners or lock up 10,000 people who looked at cp but never harmed anyone. When faced with a choice such as this, protect the elderly or the sick or punish people, what choice does a person make? People are being forced to make real economic decisions such as this and will increasingly have to over the next decade. Pumping fear of maps only makes it harder for leaders and society to make acceptable decisions such as this. Economically it's better to reverse the fear and panic so people are less inclined to care for the third option which reduces the economic decision to just two, build hospitals or protect the elderly, a much easier political position to be in. So I think economics and changing society is just making fear and paranoia less attractive. In the UK for instance they are letting prisoners free early and recently the government said only 1/3 of prisons should be in prison. It's economics driving this line of reasoning. The steel industry is collapsing, the threat of war means much more money is needed for defence, the health service and education service is collapsing. Heck they're even inching back towards free movement in Europe to try to get more money from trade, economically it doesn't make sense to live in fear of foreigners.

I agree with this as well and found it very interesting (I especially loved the bit about the silent majority not having an agenda against MAPs!). Although I'm less optimistic about this particular argument, perhaps it could even be dangerous.

The fact that in some countries it's not profitable to keep so many people in prison may lead, as you propose, to not wanting to put so many people in prison... but it could also lead, in the worst case, to the reinstatement of forced labor inside prisons. Thus, it could be profitable to have a relatively large percentage of inmate population. That could mean an even harsher future, although I don't see it likely that the situation could get much worse either. I mean, it's normal for family members and loved ones of people in prison to defend them... certainly, it doesn't seem smart for a government to imprison too many people, but I guess the danger is there.

[HumanBeing]

This is also a bittersweet, "it gets worse before it gets better" one, but:

The world is at increasing risk of another world war. Such a global conflict would provide the incentive for a cultural reset.

The world is moving toward a period of deep, systemic crisis. The liberal international order that dominated the post-WWII era is visibly fraying. Major powers—China, the US, and Russia—are locked in intensifying economic, ideological, and proxy conflicts. The war in Ukraine has already upended assumptions about peace in Europe. Tensions around Taiwan, Gaza, and Iran threaten to escalate into broader regional or even global wars. Meanwhile, domestic unrest is rising in many countries, from polarization in the U.S. to growing authoritarianism and cultural crackdowns in places like India, Turkey, and Hungary.

This level of global tension hasn’t been seen since the 1930s. And just like then, it’s not all doom. Crisis—while dangerous—also breaks rigid systems. The collapse of one worldview can make space for another.

After both world wars, societies had to rebuild not just economies, but moral frameworks. Sexual norms, race relations, gender roles—many things changed rapidly in the wake of upheaval. The post-WWII period, for instance, gave us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the sexual revolution, the youth rights movement, and new understandings of trauma and psychology. These things didn't come despite catastrophe, but because of it.

If global crisis accelerates, today’s rigid sex panics—including the all-consuming demonization of MAPs—could fracture. Not because people suddenly become more “tolerant,” but because other priorities take over, new generations emerge, and society becomes desperate for scapegoats other than the old ones. In that environment, ideas long dismissed as “unthinkable” can re-enter public discourse.

That’s not a guarantee. It’s a possibility. But it’s a credible one—and it’s one reason I believe the future isn't set in stone.

It is definitely a possibility, and we should be prepared in case it happens (because currently the community is too divided and weak to achieve any change even in a hypothetical post-war scenario).

Also, perhaps accelerationism is a good strategy to consider for us.