After Pro-Reform/12+

[BLueRibbon]

On Visions of Alice, OnionPetal asked Fragment and I to reassure pedophilic MAPs that we are not abandoning them with the 12+ (AKA 16/12) stance.

I replied:

I would like to re-iterate that, as the main author of the Pro-Reform framework, I am pedohebephilic with an AoA of 8-14. My favorite age is 11-12, and I currently have a crush on a super cute 10 year old.

Pro-Reform is not an exhaustive list of what I would like to see from society; it doesn't go as far as I want, and it is not the end goal over a period of 100 years or so.

The long-defunct ANU/ATC blog that I started with people including Mu treasurer Jim Burton was more or less the forerunner to the NOMAP movement. It introduced softer talking points that were not being addressed by an activist community that simply demanded abolition of the AoC. As the leader, I prohibited writers from making pro-c arguments because I felt that was unhelpful.

With Mu and my Pro-Reform framework, I hope to move the argument along from the NOMAP ideology to a soft reform ideology, pulling in people who are veering toward more extreme positions that I deem unhelpful.

I do not think that AMSC with under-12s is necessarily harmful, and I think if the 16/12 argument is ever accepted, we should start to push for a softening of attitudes and eventually laws related to non-penetrative consensual AMSC with those under 12.

What would pedophilic MAPs like to see after Pro-Reform/12+?

[Artaxerxes II]

I am a non-exclusive hebephilic GL, so I would technically be ok with an AoC sitting at 12 as proposed in your writings.

But I would like to see a gradual decrease for the age of consent via consecutive reforms such as that it's either completely abolished, or rendered ineffectual. This is so that we can deny antis the possibility of raising the AoC by taking away the legal basis to do so.

Quite radical, I know. But I do think it matters if only because, without an AoC, it would be harder for antis to argue to raise that age in the first place.

While this is outside MU's scope, and would likely be seen as redundant if most of the things listed in that 'simple list' are achieved, ideally the abolition of the AoC would be the next fight, but o course it would have to be gradual. People don't like rapid societal changes, after all.

[Fragment]

As you're well aware I'm close to exclusively hebephilic. I think the question "what's next after an AoC of 12" isn't quite right. We need to broaden the discussion.

For me, while pushing for adolescent sexual agency and autonomy we should simultaneously be pushing for pre-adolescent non-sexual agency and autonomy. I think that pre-adolescents right now face many kinds of disenfranchisement where the ability to make informed decisions is impaired- not inherently- but as a kind of "self fulfilling prophecy". Given how pre-adolescent kids are now, I don't believe many are ready to make informed decisions about many things (sex among them). Let's start by trying to empower younger kids more, see how they deal with more freedoms and responsibilities, and then we can start to think about whether it might be appropriate to let them engage in sexual play with older companions.

I think talking about pre-adolescent sex is putting the cart before the horse. And not just strategically. Ethically. Younger kids need a lot more from society before they need sex. Wanting to prioritise pre-adolescent sex above other kinds of pre-adolescent empowerment would be an extremely self-centered position and one I'm sure most people with exclusive pedophilic orientation agree would be wrong.

Good thing about this idea though is that non-sexual radical reforms of pre-teen youth rights can be pushed alongside the more moderate adolescent sexuality reforms. At least, that's how I see it.

[BLueRibbon]

What non-sexual rights do you think should be advocated for teens?

How about pre-teens?

[Jim Burton]

Yes, compared to pedophiles, it's probably relatively more important to outline you aren't leaving young people behind or misappropriating their rights.

Sexual rights without well-considered, broad-based civil rights for young people matching or exceeding those, is pretty much a debate-ending mistake. It creates the environment for abuse to happen, fails to address the complicity and overreach of parents in creating the pedophile demon/anti-demon laws, and confirms the accompanying stereotype of MAPs being "self-interested".

[Harlan]

What would pedophilic MAPs like to see after Pro-Reform/12+?

I think it is necessary to first achieve acceptance of youth sexuality and MAPs, open and free discussion and a reform project, part of which would be the formation of a sex-positive culture, proper sex education and the reduction of the AoC to 12 years. There is a possibility that after this, the moral panic will cease and society will become tolerant of youth sexuality in general. It is enough to simply restrict anal and vaginal sex. Of course, no one is going to repeal the law on rape. Further reduction is unlikely , I think in the very long term the only possible option is to replace the concept of Age of consent with something else.

[Fragment]

What non-sexual rights do you think should be advocated for teens?

How about pre-teens?

Here's a list from fedi:

Youth should be able to vote.
Youth should be able to drive.
Youth should be able to work any job.
Youth should be able to earn revenue.
Youth should be able to emancipate.
Youth should be able to accept/decline medical care.
Youth should be able to file lawsuits.
Youth should be able to own property.
Youth should be able to receive education the way they want.
Youth should be able to consent.

I'm not sure if the original author had a particular age in mind. But the list basically makes sense to me.

[PorcelainLark]

I think maybe the focus should be less on making ACSC legal, so much as reducing the severity with which it is treated/reacted to. So ending the fearmongering and paranoia about early childhood sexual trauma. Like you aren't irredeemably broken, if you've had a sexual experience as a child; and you aren't necessarily a monster if you engage in ACSC as an adult. It should be more like how we feel about a person who gives a beer to a teenager, than how we feel about serial killers.
I remember a story some years ago, about 2 girls (a daughter and her friend) playing this game where they kept trying to pull down the pants of the father of the first girl. Eventually, he flashed them in an attempt to make them stop and they ran off giggling. Later, they got a phone call from the other girl's mother. Here we have a perfect example of normal human instincts being treated as something sinister. Sexual play isn't the same as sexual abuse and people need to recognize that.

However if I was to try to think about ACSC in legal terms, I think I'd probably have 4 years old as the absolute lowest possible age, because every psychological development after that point is gradual, but there is a neurological developmental process starting from birth that finishes at 4. Piaget pointed to 7 years old as the start of concrete operational stage, and historically during the Middle ages (according to Neil Postman) children in Europe were legally responsible at the age of 7.
So, if I was to have a legal framework, 7 would be the new 18 and 4 would be the new 16. However, I think it would be better to reduce the severity of the laws than to try to get rid of laws relating to ACSC entirely.
Feel free to critique me if you disagree. I'm a girl lover that prefer 8-10 year olds, so that's where my bias lies.

[Fragment]

I agree that a proportionate response (and actually having to prove harms in court) would be a wonderful reform, even without legalization. I just wonder what kind of argument would allow for lighter sentencing but not legalization. I guess the overall approach is probably the same "it's not that harmful" is basically just a weaker form of "it's not harmful". And the key to "not harmful" as usually is a greater recognition of minor sexuality and simultaneous overcoming of the disgust instinct that we were talking about in another post.

[BLueRibbon]

I'll be honest. I find youth rights advocacy challenging.

In my offline life, I'm responsible for managing young people. I originally attempted to give them a lot of freedom, as a MAP who loved children.

A stricter approach works much better. Firm rules, consistently enforced, are the only way to keep things in order.

Of course, I'm talking about managing young people in a professional setting. It's different to talking about sexual rights. The two cannot be equated. And that's partly why I don't think broad youth rights advocacy is a necessary part of 12+.