Mu will vote on "The Simple List" in 2025

[Jim Burton]

https://www.map-union.org/blog/simple-list

Should our committee vote to approve or ratify initiatives, manifestos, frameworks from other organizations?

[WandersGlade]

https://www.map-union.org/blog/simple-list

Should our committee vote to approve or ratify initiatives, manifestos, frameworks from other organizations?

The link requires a login. I assume you mean Katie's "Simple list":

Build the MAP community, including reaching MAPs who are unaware of the community.
Achieve protected class status.
Access to compassionate, empathetic mental healthcare.
Access to legal services.
Remove "pedophilic disorder" from the DSM and ICD.
Social justice - differentiating between rape/assault/coercion/violent crimes and statutory crimes.
Social justice for minor MAPs, and those close in age.
Ban conversion therapy.
Meet the physiological needs of MAPs facing injustice/discrimination.
High-quality factual MAP media for public consumption.
Continued honest research into the various aspects of minor-attraction.
Improved sex education that also talks about minor attractions.
Legalization of all fictional sexual outlets, including loli/shota and dolls.
Social Justice - reform the sex offender registry.
Combat false accusations, doxing, and myths of stranger danger.
Defeat the stigma
A credible organization to speak on and represent these goals to the public.

Although some of my positions have changed, I'll repeat much of what I said about it on VoA. Some ambiguities weren't answered in that thread.

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

I don't know how you'd implement this.

Achieve protected class status.

Agree. This should be high priority, it would make everything easier.

Access to legal services.

Does this mean creating an organization that could provide higher quality legal services to MAPs who couldn't otherwise afford it?

Remove "pedophilic disorder" from the DSM and ICD.

I agree.

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

Agree.

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

Most minors are already attracted to other minors, so this is vague. Unfortunately the way language is used prevents us from talking about underage pedophiles. I think this would depend on achieving some form of recognition of MAPs as a distinct group first.

(In the VoA thread, Katie elaborated on this point using the example of minors on the sex offender registry.)

I don't have the statistics right now, but there are many minors, even young children on the sex offender registry for things like playing doctor and exploring with their peers. There are teens who are on the registry for having consensual sex with other teens. There are minors who have gotten in trouble for taking nude selfies and thus producing child pornography. There are 18-year-olds who had a consensual relationship with their 16 or 17-year-old girlfriends, who end up on the registry. None of these people are violent, or pose a risk to others, and now their lives are ruined due to laws that harm the people they're meant to protect.

Ban conversion therapy.

Are there actually organizations that claim to provide conversion therapy to pedophiles? If so, maybe they could be sued for fraud.

Meet the physiological needs of MAPs facing injustice/discrimination.

Do you mean employment opportunities for those ostracized for coming out?

High-quality factual MAP media for public consumption.

Agree.

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

Agree.

Improved sex education that also talks about minor attractions.

This would have to be specifically that it's natural and that prejudice against people with it, is bigotry. Otherwise it would turn into more discussions of stranger danger (I'm thinking of that teacher from Texas who got fired for discussing MAPs).

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

I think you could do this without even having to deal with the stigma, on the basis of an analogy to BDSM erotica. If BDSM erotica is able to imitate sexual assault, then there's a precedent for simulated sex acts that would be illegal in reality.

Social Justice - reform the sex offender registry.

This may be divisive. Those who aren't offenders may not want to help those that are.

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

Hard to do.

Defeat the stigma

I think this is the most general goal that comes closest to consensus (though I'm sure there are a few people who disagree).

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

Agree.

Although I agree with the spirit of the list and think it's a laudable goal to try to have a standard framework across MAP organizations, I'd vote "no". I think the list isn't sufficiently specific in the meaning of some of it's goals (e.g. "Access to legal services") which could lead to disparate interpretations, and some of the goals are too open to have a clear way to be operationalized which could lead to goal neglect.

[KatieCruz]

Although some of my positions have changed, I'll repeat much of what I said about it on VoA. Some ambiguities weren't answered in that thread.

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

I don't know how you'd implement this.

Sorry I missed some of those ambiguities. We can build the MAP community through mainstream outreach efforts. One idea that is catching on is the posting of stickers in public locations.

Access to legal services.

Does this mean creating an organization that could provide higher quality legal services to MAPs who couldn't otherwise afford it?

To me, that seems to be the best way to go about it. An interim option would be to create a donation fund for MAPs experiencing legal issues.

Meet the physiological needs of MAPs facing injustice/discrimination.

Do you mean employment opportunities for those ostracized for coming out?

That would be one thing, but also we should focus on the basic human needs... food, shelter, healthcare, etc.

Improved sex education that also talks about minor attractions.

This would have to be specifically that it's natural and that prejudice against people with it, is bigotry. Otherwise it would turn into more discussions of stranger danger (I'm thinking of that teacher from Texas who got fired for discussing MAPs).

Agreed

Although I agree with the spirit of the list and think it's a laudable goal to try to have a standard framework across MAP organizations, I'd vote "no". I think the list isn't sufficiently specific in the meaning of some of it's goals (e.g. "Access to legal services") which could lead to disparate interpretations, and some of the goals are too open to have a clear way to be operationalized which could lead to goal neglect.

It was intentionally written in a list format, rather than essay form, as a way to quickly convey basic ideas. I think there is room for interpretation on some of those goals like "Access to Legal Service." This is also not meant to be a roadmap of how to achieve said goals. The roadmap can be developed by other MAP activists and organizations.

The content of the Simple List is fine, as long as it's not to be treated as an exhaustive list that inhibits community discussion of controversial issues such as the reform of attitudes and laws connected to AMSC and PIM.

The Simple List is not intended to be exhaustive. Organizations and individuals who ratify this are free to work toward other goals, along with those spelled out in The Simple List.

That isn't to say I have no concerns with the wording or even some of the issues put forward.

The wording can always be improved upon. Feel free to post suggestions in the discussion thread on MAP Rights Forum, and they will be considered for the next iteration of The Simple List. https://maprightsforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=30

[GregoryBayclark]

I understand that my opinions (not the way I have expressed them) have ruffled some feathers in the past, as I have not agreed to much of these positions. It's important that all positions any major movement takes relies strongly on historical precedent (i.e. knowing something worked for other movements in the past). I will respectful break down my reasons for not agreeing with certain points below, point-by-point:

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

Fully agree. We don't just need a considerably larger community, we need better morale, and a common sense of urgency toward activism.

Achieve protected class status.

As much as we all desire this, with some even desiring this before any other activism, this is likely putting the cart before the horse. We won't have a say in what aspect of our platform succeeds first. Protected status (at least in the US) was one of the most-recent achievements of the LGBT+ community. This makes sense that this wouldn't have happened around 1969 when gay liberation started making gains, considering the mindset of the voting public hadn't turned in favor of gay men or lesbians (let alone transgender people). We're even less liked than the gay community was in '69. 2024's politicians, and the public who votes for them, are darn-near certainly not going to expand protected status to a group as hated as MAPs.

The gay community gained a protected status after years of activism against several aspects of their stigma, and a near-complete 180 in terms of the discourse around homosexuality. Let's not forget that back in the day, AIDS was dubiously called 'GRID' (or gay-related immune deficiency). They had to start by fighting against the belief that homosexuals were immoral and dangerous, then fought against the scientific stigma of it being considered a paraphilia, got the public majority to accept them, and then pushed for marriage equality. After decades of work, they gained a protected status. There was more-than-likely no way the order of those events would have ever been different, and especially in the sense of having their protected status assured before everything else.

As for having this as a more distant goal, for decades down the line, I believe that's more realistic.

Access to compassionate, empathetic mental healthcare.

My question would be, in what context? Is this James Cantor-style care, or B4U-Act-style care? I am in favor of the latter, not the former, as James Cantor is certainly not contact neutral, and his research still seems highly suspect to me. Furthermore, Cantor's focus seems very tilted toward using therapy to prevent sexual contact. While nobody should break MAP-related laws, this reinforces a lack of movement toward reforms of those laws. It treats us as monsters than can be contained by counseling, and doesn't teach the public about the dynamics between adults and minors. It also discourages the considerable level of research badly needed on the other side of inter-generational love; minors. It acts as if the minor question has been answered, and with how much backlash we've seen in researchers trying to find answers (Rind, for example), we need this going in the other direction. We shouldn't accept therapy or policy based on presumptions accepted as fact.

My biggest issue overall is that the need for this mental healthcare is created by the social stigma we have. If MAP sexualities were accepted, this need would be no greater than the mental healthcare needs of the general population. In the short term, B4U-Act is valuable, and must be respected. In the long run, I'd advocate for activism that reduces our need for therapy.

Access to legal services.

I agree with this, but as I said about the first point, this is bound to succeed later on, when opinions have shifted in our favor.

Remove “pedophilic disorder” from the DSM and ICD.

Agreed, but this requires the same changes in public opinion that I discussed in the first point. However, to a lesser extent.

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

This is absolutely a step in the right direction, and I have no qualms with this point. I think what's critical is making this clear when talking to the media. Don't let them lump a sadistic, psychopathic toddler rapist/murderer with something who's been merely playing doctor with an 8-year old, or sexually active with a 12-year old. If they do, hold the reporter to task! They wouldn't bring up Brock Turner as an exemplar of adult-attraction.

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

Not sure exactly what this means.

Ban conversion therapy.

Agreed wholeheartedly! It seems like good progress has been made on this front, too!

High-quality factual MAP media for public consumption.

Working on it with ALM and other projects (not mentioning them here).

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

Agreed, but I would like to emphasize that we are merely one side of MAP relationships. The other side is minors. We need to push for research on minors, too. Unlike gay relationships, which only deal with one group (gay people), all MAP relationships contain two groups (a MAP and a minor). Reforms will fail unless the perspective of both in the context of MAP relationships is understood by researchers and the public.

Improved sex education that also talks about minor attractions.

I agree with this, but as with a lot here, it requires a hell of a lot of public support. Additionally, sex education should discuss much more about trust and consent, why people have sex, and should teach tolerance for people's sexual choices (so long as they don't hurt others). On that last point, this is a matter of teaching minors that bullying people and name-calling (like 'slut', 'whore', etc.) is discriminatory. In this, affirm with them that if a sexual choice someone makes does not pose a threat to that person or another, they have no right to judge.

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

While this is a start, I would say that the possession of CP should be decriminalized, while keeping organized distribution and production illegal until further understanding of its effects on minors involved. This may indeed qualify that distribution and production remain illegal, but I have not seen enough data to sway me in either direction.

Social Justice – reform the sex offender registry.

Evidence supports its abolishment, but this may be a case where we'll need to start of with reforms. Regardless, it needs to eventually be destroyed.

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

Fully agree.

Defeat the stigma

Herein lies the backbone of the entire effort. Remove the stigma, and everything else falls into place.

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

Sound and respectful representation is necessary. That said, this may come from multiple sources. Movements are not ever that rigid. I respect the work and thought here at Mu. It's key to remember that we can't tolerate the masses of the MAP community sitting on their hands while a select few try change things. We have no choice in the manpower we'll need to reach our goals.

[Pegasus]

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

I agree. Also including erotic stories within AoA, according to everyone's taste. We don't want to hurt any children, but we need ways to release our sexual tension. They're talking a lot about artificial intelligence, I don't know how it works yet because I haven't seen one, but from what they say it's something very close to the real thing, I don't see a problem because it's just fantasy. But there would have to be ways of differentiating the real from the fantasy. But given the rapid transition that's taking place, I think they'll find it soon.

[PorcelainLark]

It's important that all positions any major movement takes relies strongly on historical precedent (i.e. knowing something worked for other movements in the past).

Why? The goals we're trying to achieve haven't been achieved before, so doesn't that mean we'll have to try new approaches and methods?

As much as we all desire this, with some even desiring this before any other activism, this is likely putting the cart before the horse. We won't have a say in what aspect of our platform succeeds first. Protected status (at least in the US) was one of the most-recent achievements of the LGBT+ community. This makes sense that this wouldn't have happened around 1969 when gay liberation started making gains, considering the mindset of the voting public hadn't turned in favor of gay men or lesbians (let alone transgender people). We're even less liked than the gay community was in '69. 2024's politicians, and the public who votes for them, are darn-near certainly not going to expand protected status to a group as hated as MAPs.

Arguably transgender people are deeply unpopular as well, and nonetheless they have achieved protected status. I think we should focus on a "top-down" approach to the cause of MAPs, that is to say appealing to experts and the law because it's easier to identify what needs to change and how to change it than trying to change the public perception of MAPs (both a difficult problem, and hard to identify solutions).

The gay community gained a protected status after years of activism against several aspects of their stigma, and a near-complete 180 in terms of the discourse around homosexuality. Let's not forget that back in the day, AIDS was dubiously called 'GRID' (or gay-related immune deficiency). They had to start by fighting against the belief that homosexuals were immoral and dangerous, then fought against the scientific stigma of it being considered a paraphilia, got the public majority to accept them, and then pushed for marriage equality. After decades of work, they gained a protected status. There was more-than-likely no way the order of those events would have ever been different, and especially in the sense of having their protected status assured before everything else.

A counter point, the cause of civil rights still achieved many of it's goals despite widespread hostility in the southern United States. Let's say you can't change the way people feel about MAPs, because it isn't obvious that you can, wouldn't it be better to try to build strong legal cases instead?

We shouldn't accept therapy or policy based on presumptions accepted as fact.

Good point.

I agree with this, but as I said about the first point, this is bound to succeed later on, when opinions have shifted in our favor.
Agreed, but this requires the same changes in public opinion that I discussed in the first point. However, to a lesser extent.

How are you expecting to change public opinion? My view is that if you can get some legal protections, MAPs can live more openly and it would humanize us in public perception (i.e. they can't just let their imaginations run wild if they actually know people who are MAPs). I don't see how else to do it.

On that last point, this is a matter of teaching minors that bullying people and name-calling (like 'slut', 'whore', etc.) is discriminatory. In this, affirm with them that if a sexual choice someone makes does not pose a threat to that person or another, they have no right to judge.

Maybe. I think it might be projection in this context. Not to say everyone who uses homophobic slurs is a closet homosexual, but everyone who shames others about sex is highly likely to be ashamed of sex. I think discrimination is downstream of attitudes, and this is one of those places where changing public opinion is preferable to changing the law.

There's a quote I recall from Machiavelli that I think is relevant to MAP causes:

Therefore, a prince who is not well-liked must be very careful to have a strong military, for he cannot rely on the goodwill of his subjects.

So if we cannot rely on the goodwill of others in society, we have to find other ways to advance our interests. For Machiavelli that meant having a strong military, for us I think it means advancing our cause via judicial activism.
I'm not saying society will never have goodwill towards MAPs, but I do think at first we may need to carve out space for ourselves without being dependent on goodwill. I'd like to be wrong though.

[GregoryBayclark]

Why? The goals we're trying to achieve haven't been achieved before, so doesn't that mean we'll have to try new approaches and methods?

This is not a completely unique movement, nor is it a cookie cutter duplicate of another movement. Several factors of this movement have parallels to other movements, especially that of gay lib/lgbt+ movements.

I could have been more clear when advocating for relying on historic precedent. We must be careful deciding what about our movement is similar to another.

This is a similar concept to that of legal precedent in courts. Lawyers use the results of cases, and the written law, to figure out the standing of laws.

It's also similar to relying on scientific research. Scientists rely on the work of past scientists to advance science farther. This is, by far, not an exhaustive explanation of the practice of referring to what worked for activists of past movements, and why it might work. This approach requires studying the past, and introspection. That said, if done intelligently, it inevitably results a more-informed approach.

I think it's dangerous to write this approach off, entirely. That said, it's also dangerous to rely on this approach alone.

Arguably transgender people are deeply unpopular as well, and nonetheless they have achieved protected status. I think we should focus on a "top-down" approach to the cause of MAPs, that is to say appealing to experts and the law because it's easier to identify what needs to change and how to change it than trying to change the public perception of MAPs (both a difficult problem, and hard to identify solutions).

The unpopularity of MAPs so massively overshadows that of trans people, that I can't understand the comparison. Far more effort has been accepted under the transgender banner than the MAP one. Gender-neutral bathrooms, medical acceptance of HRT, being included in the LGBT+ community, considerable research, and the list goes on. Us MAPs...more research and some therapists being better to us. That's about it. No matter what two or three I missed for us, transgender people have an undeniably greater level of support than we do. Sure, more conservative regions of the US are far less supportive, but regional differences don't decide how well a group can sway national legislation.

With how much more support trans folks have, and the backing from the gay and lesbian communities, their success in gaining protected status was better assured that ours currently is. If we could gain that level of acceptance, we may gain protected status, but we are not representing the same things. The factors that make us different must be taken into account.

A counter point, the cause of civil rights still achieved many of it's goals despite widespread hostility in the southern United States. Let's say you can't change the way people feel about MAPs, because it isn't obvious that you can, wouldn't it be better to try to build strong legal cases instead?

A single region, even if it comprises many states, was never going to decide the outcome of the civil rights movement. Furthermore, the civil rights act is a good example of how putting a law into effect does not assure it will be followed. To this day, many people of color in the south are taken advantage of by many parties, and have less opportunities than whites. With the scale in which this happens, there's mere anecdotal cases of punishment. Most of these racists do this with impunity.

Even if we gained legal protects or access to legal services, if this is without a change in popular opinion around us, we may not retain it. Those lawyers could be threatened by antis to stop helping us. This is similar to the book stores prior to gay liberation selling pro-gay books. They got their windows smashed, and we raided by violent homophobes. They stopped selling those books soon after.

How are you expecting to change public opinion? My view is that if you can get some legal protections, MAPs can live more openly and it would humanize us in public perception (i.e. they can't just let their imaginations run wild if they actually know people who are MAPs). I don't see how else to do it.

Public opinion will change when people are no longer afraid that we are a threat to minors. The 'how' is something that I have been looking at for many years. What I have decided upon is that we need people to fear that these current laws are doing more harm to minors than good. Show them how inefficient these laws are in protecting minors, especially from situational offenders. The CDC reports that only 50% of all cases of "child sexual abuse" is detected by law enforcement. Show them how bad sex ed is causing kids to be unprepared to deal with the risks of sex. Case and point, teen pregnancy rates. Show evidence of how minors are much more likely to be targeted by family than they are strangers.

Finally, no one knows how long this will take. We are going to need to hammer this message for a while. In trying to change public opinion, there are no shortcuts.



What makes me fear for our movement these days is us not being grounded in what we can currently do, and when we can do more. I often see very optimistic plans, or very pessimistic plans. Both leave me concerned for our future.

[PorcelainLark]

The unpopularity of MAPs so massively overshadows that of trans people, that I can't understand the comparison. Far more effort has been accepted under the transgender banner than the MAP one. Gender-neutral bathrooms, medical acceptance of HRT, being included in the LGBT+ community, considerable research, and the list goes on. Us MAPs...more research and some therapists being better to us. That's about it. No matter what two or three I missed for us, transgender people have an undeniably greater level of support than we do. Sure, more conservative regions of the US are far less supportive, but regional differences don't decide how well a group can sway national legislation.

With how much more support trans folks have, and the backing from the gay and lesbian communities, their success in gaining protected status was better assured that ours currently is. If we could gain that level of acceptance, we may gain protected status, but we are not representing the same things. The factors that make us different must be taken into account.

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.

A single region, even if it comprises many states, was never going to decide the outcome of the civil rights movement. Furthermore, the civil rights act is a good example of how putting a law into effect does not assure it will be followed. To this day, many people of color in the south are taken advantage of by many parties, and have less opportunities than whites. With the scale in which this happens, there's mere anecdotal cases of punishment. Most of these racists do this with impunity.

Even if we gained legal protects or access to legal services, if this is without a change in popular opinion around us, we may not retain it. Those lawyers could be threatened by antis to stop helping us. This is similar to the book stores prior to gay liberation selling pro-gay books. They got their windows smashed, and we raided by violent homophobes. They stopped selling those books soon after.

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

Public opinion will change when people are no longer afraid that we are a threat to minors. The 'how' is something that I have been looking at for many years. What I have decided upon is that we need people to fear that these current laws are doing more harm to minors than good. Show them how inefficient these laws are in protecting minors, especially from situational offenders. The CDC reports that only 50% of all cases of "child sexual abuse" is detected by law enforcement. Show them how bad sex ed is causing kids to be unprepared to deal with the risks of sex. Case and point, teen pregnancy rates. Show evidence of how minors are much more likely to be targeted by family than they are strangers.

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?

What makes me fear for our movement these days is us not being grounded in what we can currently do, and when we can do more. I often see very optimistic plans, or very pessimistic plans. Both leave me concerned for our future.

I think PR has done what it can. All those who would have been willing to listen, have listened. Now is the time to try to do more.

[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.

[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.