Mu will vote on "The Simple List" in 2025

[GregoryBayclark]

My point is that popularity is irrelevant for whether or not something goes against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The supreme court isn't a popularity contest.

This is not merely a matter of popularity. It's far more nuanced than that. It's a matter of sensibilities, current rationale, likelihood of public pressure, popularity (to some extent), and many more elements. What I am saying is that the supreme court isn't going to have the mentality to give us several of the things on this list because they have the limits of foresight of our zeitgeist. Sure, there is legal precedent under US laws (including the constitution), but the supreme court consists of humans. They are prone to the same biases, misunderstandings, stereotypes, misconceptions, and blatant misinformation that the public is. These judges are not currently capable of seeing that there is a legal reason under the 14th amendment to give us protections.

Do you really believe those laws didn't make any difference to the lives of LGBT and African-American people?

I never said these laws didn't make any difference. I'm not sure how it came across that way. You can put a law on the books, and you will get some adherence. What's important is having the public, and justice system within that area care about that law, and a fair trial. Yes, ideally, the legal system would work as intended, and not have bias. That's not reality all of the time. Racists, homophobes, and tansphobes will find excuses to exercise discrimination, up to and including violence, to make themselves appear as if they were innocent. Case and point? The several police killings of black men. To summarize, you can put a law to protect a maligned group on the books, but if the public sentiment towards that group hasn't changed prior to putting the law in effect (including the sentiments from law enforcement), the law will do very little.

Sexual offenses aren't something people are making coolly detached decisions about. If someone punched you in your face, is your first instinct to think "violence begets violence, so it's irrational to fight back because I'm doing the very thing I'm angry about"? Similarly, people don't listen to evidence about vaccines, climate change, or January 6. What makes you think people will listen about MAPs?

I'm curious about your definition of 'people' here, because it seems oddly broad. Additionally, I'm not interested in convincing antis of anything. They are too far gone.

The issue is a matter of whether we have a choice of getting the public on our side, or not. There is likely no other way but to get the public to turn against antis, and towards us and minors. Otherwise, there will be no sway towards a different mindset, no challenge of legal bias handicapping protection, no incentive to reform, and so on.

Considering my points on why societal opinion must change to allow many points on this list to succeed, how could the list possibly succeed without such a shift in thought?

I am not saying I know how to get the public to listen to us. I am still figuring that out. However, simply not knowing how to influence the public neither means the public can't change its minds, or that we can succeed without a major shift in public opinion. For that very reason, I am not a defeatist. I keep looking for ways to shift public opinion to our favor.

This takes time. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the public isn't going to do a 180 on MAP-minor issues after being told a 'truth bomb.' It will take many painful decades, and it will need to be clever.

What's so very concerning to me, many MAPs act as if we've tried everything in changing public opinion, so we ought to give up. We haven't. We tried some very liberal, AoC-abolitionist points for several years with various pro-c activists. Next, we tried conservative talking points through VP. Now, we seem to have lost the desire to be clever and creative in message delivery. I'd like to see that come back. And honestly, as pro-c as I am, a more moderate, approach may be worth a shot. I do think speaking of my mentality here is beside the counterpoint I am making. That said, it's important that we don't give up on thinking about different means of influencing the public. Despite every attempt I have made to defeat that view I hold, I don't think we have a choice but to change hearts and minds.

[Fragment]

Considering my points on why societal opinion must change to allow many points on this list to succeed, how could the list possibly succeed without such a shift in thought?

Can we live fulfilling lives if everyone, include the court,s hates us and hopes that we rot in prison, or worse? Clearly, we can't. Social attitudes and laws both need to improve for our lives to get better. While the status quo continues we'll continue facing the same problems we face now. Just changing laws doesn't help us much. Just changing social attitudes doesn't help us much. They both need to change, but if one changes the other will also be easier to change.

If we can't change laws or social attitudes then we get nothing. But even if we get nothing was there any reason for a Jew to keep their eyes downcast and walk without complaint into the gas chamber? Even if we are destined to fail isn't it better to try and fail than to give up and fail? Futile resistance seems better than no resistance. We might get destroyed in the end anyway, it's more than likely.

With that out of the way, "legal change" or "social change" isn't really an "or" question. It's a matter of "which first"? Or is it? We don't really know which is more likely to succeed, we don't know which will be easier, we don't know which will influence the other more. So why not both?

[argosy]

Can we live fulfilling lives if everyone, include the courts, hates us and hopes that we rot in prison, or worse? Clearly, we can't.

I disagree.

Social attitudes and laws both need to improve for our lives to get better. While the status quo continues we'll continue facing the same problems we face now. Just changing laws doesn't help us much. Just changing social attitudes doesn't help us much. They both need to change, but if one changes the other will also be easier to change.

If we can't change laws or social attitudes then we get nothing. But even if we get nothing was there any reason for a Jew to keep their eyes downcast and walk without complaint into the gas chamber? Even if we are destined to fail isn't it better to try and fail than to give up and fail? Futile resistance seems better than no resistance. We might get destroyed in the end anyway, it's more than likely.

OMFG, do you ever sound like Frank McCoy. What is better is to survive, as opposed to throwing away everything in a battle you are almost guaranteed to lose. McCoy had this fantasy about overturning Miller v. California, the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case that defines obscenity law in the United States, to this day, since it was decided in 1973.

For some reason, that I will never understand, he had a compelling, even primal, need to fight this battle, and in the end, Frank sacrificed everything -- his home, his marriage, his reputation, and finally his life -- in an utterly futile quest to change the law. If anything, his efforts backfired spectacularly -- for three and a half decades, subsequent to Miller, many prosecutors, prior to Frank's case, wouldn't even entertain potential criminal charges on text-only materials, out of First Amendment concerns.

When Frank was convicted, his case set precedent, which was used, in turn, to convict Thomas Alan Arthur (Mr. Double), and most recently of all, Ron Kuhlmeyer. Each new case only further cements the precedent in place.

Most recently, there are a number of clearnet story sites, which no longer accept contributions where the characters are portrayed as underage. Even the operator of the Alt Sex Stories Text Repository (ASSTR) has apparently thrown-in the towel, as has the operator of a replacement site. I believe the latter party walked-away because he was afraid of potentially being prosecuted.

[Fragment]

Can we live fulfilling lives if everyone, include the courts, hates us and hopes that we rot in prison, or worse? Clearly, we can't.

I disagree.

Break the law and eventually end up on a sex offender registry? Or follow the law and be oh so excited that one time you walked in a park and a minor made eye-contact so you run home to post about it on your favorite MAP site?

What is better is to survive, as opposed to throwing away everything in a battle you are almost guaranteed to lose.

So instead just watch and wait as castration laws are passed in more and more states? Watch and wait while residency restrictions increase to 5000 ft from anywhere a child lives?

Unlike your example I'm not fixated on a specific law or specific case. Some battles are stupid and not worth fighting. But Nelson Mandela did 27 years in prison. Was he stupid?

[PorcelainLark]

I'm curious about your definition of 'people' here, because it seems oddly broad. Additionally, I'm not interested in convincing antis of anything. They are too far gone.

The issue is a matter of whether we have a choice of getting the public on our side, or not. There is likely no other way but to get the public to turn against antis, and towards us and minors.

This is where the root of the disagreement is. There isn't a meaningful distinction between the general public and antis. The general public are antis, so from my point of view you're trying to get the general public to turn against itself.

Considering my points on why societal opinion must change to allow many points on this list to succeed, how could the list possibly succeed without such a shift in thought?

Again, it has to be imposed against the will of the general public/antis.

That said, it's important that we don't give up on thinking about different means of influencing the public. Despite every attempt I have made to defeat that view I hold, I don't think we have a choice but to change hearts and minds.

I haven't given up on changing the hearts and minds of the public/antis, I just don't see that happening until the laws change. Choosing to try to change antis minds the way you are trying is fine, but I see it as talking to a brick wall.

tl;dr Trying to make a distinction between the general public and antis is wishful thinking in my opinion. They have to be forced not to be allowed to express hatred or aggression towards us by law. Over time, as MAPs can live more openly the prejudice would reduce as people get more used to us. Even laws that are low in effectiveness would move us in that direction.

[Lennon72]

Let me take these proposals one by one and respond accordingly

Build the MAP community, including reaching MAPs who are unaware of the community.

I do like this idea as there are many out there who do not know of our on line existence as a community. But then the question becomes " How do we find these people ?".

Achieve protected class status.

I couldn't agree more.

Access to legal services

Do we not have that already? Perhaps what we need are legal services specifically for MAPS.

Remove "pedophilic disorder" from the DSM and ICD.

Absolutely. Any disorder that we have has some from society, not the so called "disorder" itself.

Social justice - differentiating between rape/assault/coercion/violent crimes and statutory crimes.

Yes, we definitely need to look more into this. We too often fail to do that.

Social justice for minor MAPs, and those close in age.

Yes.

Ban conversion therapy

Conversion therapy is a disgrace and I am very surprised that there are still those out there who think it's a good idea. I say ban it entirely and let those who administer it be held accountable.

Meet the physiological needs of MAPs facing injustice/discrimination

Yes, absolutely. I think that the legal and mental health professionals should work together on that.

High-quality factual MAP media for public consumption.

Yes, we do need this. And we need to find ways to make it more accessible to the public. The internet alone is not enough.

Continued honest research into the various aspects of minor-attraction.

Absolutely. Just as there are different variants of gender identity and sexual/romantic orientations, there are different variants of MAPness.

Improved sex education that also talks about minor attractions.

Agreed. However, most of the information that people presently have about us is incorrect. So whatever we include in sex ed textbooks should be factual and not based on myth.

Legalization of all fictional sexual outlets, including loli/shota and dolls.

Absolutely. They hurt nobody and can very well be a way for some MAPS to avoid offending or re offending.

Social Justice - reform the sex offender registry.

Yes. We should very well work towards this goal. There are groups out there like NARSOL and WAR that are already working towards this goal. And as a registrant myself, I would like to eventually see the registry abolished altogether.

Combat false accusations, doxing, and myths of stranger danger.

Absolutely. MEDAL is already starting an action to combat doxing and false accusations. I am hoping to be of assistance with that .

Defeat the stigma

I believe that this can be done through proper education.

A credible organization to speak on and represent these goals to the public.

You get no argument from me here. What do people think about an umbrella organization?