AASECT discussion of agency and autonomy

[PorcelainLark]

I've been thinking lately that consent might be a red herring. I was talking on ATF today about why anti-contact MAPs still tend to judge AMSC as severely as non-MAPs. In other words, just because you think AMSC wrong, does that necessarily mean people are being proportional in their judgement of it?
I kind of feel like, even if you had solid evidence of minors capacity to consent, people would still justify their disgust of it. Maybe, like with homophobia, there could be a connection between the object of attraction and the object of repulsion: a masculine woman would be unattractive to a homophobic straight man. A teleiophile is potentially disgusted by MA because they are attracted to features of maturity. They can't disconnect their judgement of the attraction, from considering it from the first person themselves (e.g. I don't want to have sex with a man because it's disgusting, so no one else should want to either).

[PorcelainLark]

I think I mostly agree. (Though I would hesitate about the question of when minors start to be sexually interested; since people always have the unassailable claim that sexual interest is the result of early exposure to sex, i.e. something external*. Also, is it wrong to talk to asexuals about sex? If not, what difference does it make whether there is an internal interest in sex?)

I think maybe starting to use cognitive behavioral therapy on the disgust of antis against MA might help. Like questioning what makes sexual contact so terrible? This article talks about applying CBT to homophobia, perhaps we could adapt it for applying it to antis?
https://cbtgym.com/overcome-homophobia-with-cbt/

However, it's a bit of a digression from the topic at hand.

* You could flip the argument. Aren't we trained from an early age to avoid anything sexual: to be clothed at all times, not to spy on the naked bodies of others, not to touch our genitals? Is the innocence of sexuality really a natural state, or something conditioned?

[Lennon72]

What is AASECT?

[John_Doe]

I could point this out in a few different threads (I'm sure I have at one point at least, when demonizing the physical attraction to children, or adults who resemble children in certain ways, doesn't prevent actual child-adult sexual intimacy or even prevent children from being exposed to sexuality) but I don't think the stigma around pedophilia is rooted entirely in wanting to serve children's well-being. I think that's generally, or often, part of it (especially if 'well-being' is understood to mean something other than felt emotional distress, the hedonistic position ultimately de-values the things that cause happiness or pain; the exception being happiness or the absence of pain and suffering or the absence of happiness, e.g. if what's stressing me out is the prospect of future suffering, the suffering of others or the loss/absence of happiness, etc. my emotional response would be 'warranted.' People will often use suffering to validate other values, e.g. 'x is bad because it causes suffering,' 'but what about some hypothetical scenario when it doesn't cause suffering,' although it's worth noting that experienced desire frustration causes pain 'inherently' but it's not a specific thing, it's just the realization that a state of affairs that you prefer isn't a reality, so the question begs what does so and so want. The closest thing to a 'specific' thing that primes a negative emotional response in all minds, or at the very least rational agents who are capable of perceiving it, is ambiguity; the perception of multiple conflicting possibilities which is enabled by the lack of a non-arbitrary option, because it is inherently tied to experienced desire frustration) but the bulk of it is just sexual puritanism.

Child-adult sex is one of the few areas where we claim to seriously consider children's ability to consent to what we subject them to or their autonomy. I'm not prepared to say that because someone values x, as an end in itself, in one area but not another that they necessarily never really cared about x (although there are times when pinpointing what somethings consistently implies makes it clear to us that x is never what we ultimately cared about) but I do believe that every double standard can be matter-of-factly explained by some subjective reason; some circumstantial condition that hints at some other value at play. If the suffering of person a is ultimately bad but the suffering of person b is ultimately good or neutral there must be value-laden differences between them or the circumstances in which they suffer (person a is innocent, person a is human, person a is a member of our ethnic group, person a is a woman, person a's suffer is not enabled by an un-virtuous psychology or irrational belief or value or the object of person a's suffering is something that warrants a negative emotional response, etc.), we have to refer to something other than the nature of suffering in order to defend the double standard. We don't care whether or not children consent to being born (I think a consent-based argument for antinataism fails but I still think it's implied by the idea that sex with children is wrong because they can't consent to it. Both positions fail to differentiate between 'without consent' and 'against one's will'), we don't care if they consent to mandatory education or doctor visits or being made to eat their vegetables, we don't care if infants consent to wearing a diaper or the food we might force into their mouths, etc. etc. One could counter that children benefit from some of these things we subject them to without their consent (or even against their will) but you'd be switching the goalpost from 'x is bad because it's done without consent' to 'x is bad because it's harmful,' if consent matters then harm/benefit is irrelevant to that and if harm/benefit is what we should care about then consent is irrelevant to that. So why does consent matter when it comes to sex but not when it comes to making a child attend summer camp?

It would make more sense to just say, 'you shouldn't have sex with children because sex with children is bad, whether they consent to it or not is irrelevant.' That's my position with suffering, it's bad to cause suffering whether one consents to the thing that causes it or not, it's good to cause people happiness whether they wanted that pleasurable experience or not (we have to instinctively want to avoid pain/experience pleasure but I guess upon reflection). It's a similar thing with the infant circumcision debate. I am against circumcising infants (male and female) for non-medical reasons but consent has nothing to do with it, you can't make a libertarian argument against it because infants are not rational agents, so we literally can't violate their autonomy. That an adult might regret having been circumcised as an infant matters, from the hedonistic standpoint, but it's not relevant from a libertarian point of view.

You mentioned proportionality. I have always thought that even if I felt that 'statutory rape' was bad I would never want to lump it in with holding someone down and forcing them to have sex against their will. Even if the two are bad, I would think that people would want to differentiate the latter from an adult who has sex with a child who 'thinks' that they want to have that intimacy and doesn't suffer from it. I've heard people say that sexual contact with minors, even young teens, is worse than murder. That said, I think 'proportionality' is kind of vague unless you're just giving people 'treatment' that's identical to what they themselves doled out but even that wouldn't necessarily imply equality of harm (x might hurt you more than it hurts me, especially if I can rationalize that I had it coming or even if I don't deserve it that I could have avoided it so I'm not helpless in the situation). Without referencing how much pain a thing causes I think it boils down to how bothered you are by the idea of that thing and, again, it's not going to cause the same fixed amount of pain to all people in all scenarios, so there is no single 'the worst thing' that you can do to someone, in my mind. If I think x is morally worse than y it's because I assume that the person who did x intended to cause a greater amount of pain or could anticipate it causing a greater amount of people and was more sadistic or apathetic about causing a higher level of pain than the person who did y (a choice is bad because of the suffering it actually causes, and immoral insofar as it involves de-valuing or positively valuing suffering/de-valuing or negatively valuing happiness. I think of 'injustice' as an immoral choice that causes actual harm, so 'thought crimes' can be immoral but harmless and being struck by lightening can be harmful but there's no injustice without a moral agent/wrongdoer).

I don't find women with 'masculine' personalities unattractive. I also don't see a moral problem with straight men being personally disgusted by the prospect of their being sexually intimate with other men as long as they don't de-value the happiness of men who find happiness in intimate relationships with other men (I haven't checked your link but I say this, again, because I don't think that personally finding homosexuality to be 'disgusting' is a moral failing, in the same way that I can be disgusted by the idea of eating raw onions but if other people enjoy that I don't see anything wrong with it; I'm happy for them). I think other people being gay (or x) bothers some people because they need to justify their not being gay and that's where a lot of homophobia (and comparable prejudice) might come from.

I don't think that disgust can explain the aversion toward pubescent and post pubescent preteens and adolescents. Children under 6 tend to be physically repelling to me personally but I wonder if the stigma has a lot to do with why I'd rather cats not be sexualized. We tend to have strong parental instincts toward simple-minded, asexual juveniles. When you sexualize people's children (and you communicate that) you might be damaging their image of them (being seen as asexual is part of being 'cute,' 'innocent,' and so on). There might be some people who can compartmentalize sexualizing someone from a parent-child or some non-sexual relationship type they have with them or want to have with them but others might have a hard time, I don't know (it might be some of the same attitude behind not wanting women to be sexualized. The idea is that you can't sexualize someone and take her seriously as a doctor or police officer or president, and they do seem to be different modes of viewing someone, different ways to relate to them even though treating women as 'mindless sex objects' is for the most part not really a common male mindset; even for some highly unusual person for whom sex had no psychological aspect at all how they felt about someone's body would have nothing to do with how they felt about their mind one way or the other, etc. although the 'incongruity' can make that interesting, so if you're 'over-sexualizing' a woman it might be assumed by people who aren't as inclined toward that 'compartmentalization' that you can't take them seriously as anything other than a sexual partner or sexual being). I don't really have parental instincts toward children, although I admire them and find them likeable, so I'm not really bothered by the sexualization of them. There was a time when it enraged me (I threw my copy of Fledgling in the trash when two of the characters; a 23-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl, hook up but eventually picked it up again and that was probably the start of my rejecting the anti-pedo stigma, the youtuber Dendrophilien from ages ago and maybe even Peter Singer might have played a role, I rejected the anti-pedo stigma even before I became a philosophical hedonist), in retrospect I'm not sure how much of it had to do with the fact that Butler was breaking social rules which I found shocking vs. feeling that the little vampire girl was 'hurt' by it.

[G@yWad69]

I could point this out in a few different threads (I'm sure I have at one point at least, when demonizing the physical attraction to children, or adults who resemble children in certain ways, doesn't prevent actual child-adult sexual intimacy or even prevent children from being exposed to sexuality) but I don't think the stigma around pedophilia is rooted entirely in wanting to serve children's well-being. I think that's generally, or often, part of it (especially if 'well-being' is understood to mean something other than felt emotional distress, the hedonistic position ultimately de-values the things that cause happiness or pain; the exception being happiness or the absence of pain and suffering or the absence of happiness, e.g. if what's stressing me out is the prospect of future suffering, the suffering of others or the loss/absence of happiness, etc. my emotional response would be 'warranted.' People will often use suffering to validate other values, e.g. 'x is bad because it causes suffering,' 'but what about some hypothetical scenario when it doesn't cause suffering,' although it's worth noting that experienced desire frustration causes pain 'inherently' but it's not a specific thing, it's just the realization that a state of affairs that you prefer isn't a reality, so the question begs what does so and so want. The closest thing to a 'specific' thing that primes a negative emotional response in all minds, or at the very least rational agents who are capable of perceiving it, is ambiguity; the perception of multiple conflicting possibilities which is enabled by the lack of a non-arbitrary option, because it is inherently tied to experienced desire frustration) but the bulk of it is just sexual puritanism.

Child-adult sex is one of the few areas where we claim to seriously consider children's ability to consent to what we subject them to or their autonomy. I'm not prepared to say that because someone values x, as an end in itself, in one area but not another that they necessarily never really cared about x (although there are times when pinpointing what somethings consistently implies makes it clear to us that x is never what we ultimately cared about) but I do believe that every double standard can be matter-of-factly explained by some subjective reason; some circumstantial condition that hints at some other value at play. If the suffering of person a is ultimately bad but the suffering of person b is ultimately good or neutral there must be value-laden differences between them or the circumstances in which they suffer (person a is innocent, person a is human, person a is a member of our ethnic group, person a is a woman, person a's suffer is not enabled by an un-virtuous psychology or irrational belief or value or the object of person a's suffering is something that warrants a negative emotional response, etc.), we have to refer to something other than the nature of suffering in order to defend the double standard. We don't care whether or not children consent to being born (I think a consent-based argument for antinataism fails but I still think it's implied by the idea that sex with children is wrong because they can't consent to it. Both positions fail to differentiate between 'without consent' and 'against one's will'), we don't care if they consent to mandatory education or doctor visits or being made to eat their vegetables, we don't care if infants consent to wearing a diaper or the food we might force into their mouths, etc. etc. One could counter that children benefit from some of these things we subject them to without their consent (or even against their will) but you'd be switching the goalpost from 'x is bad because it's done without consent' to 'x is bad because it's harmful,' if consent matters then harm/benefit is irrelevant to that and if harm/benefit is what we should care about then consent is irrelevant to that. So why does consent matter when it comes to sex but not when it comes to making a child attend summer camp?

It would make more sense to just say, 'you shouldn't have sex with children because sex with children is bad, whether they consent to it or not is irrelevant.' That's my position with suffering, it's bad to cause suffering whether one consents to the thing that causes it or not, it's good to cause people happiness whether they wanted that pleasurable experience or not (we have to instinctively want to avoid pain/experience pleasure but I guess upon reflection). It's a similar thing with the infant circumcision debate. I am against circumcising infants (male and female) for non-medical reasons but consent has nothing to do with it, you can't make a libertarian argument against it because infants are not rational agents, so we literally can't violate their autonomy. That an adult might regret having been circumcised as an infant matters, from the hedonistic standpoint, but it's not relevant from a libertarian point of view.

You mentioned proportionality. I have always thought that even if I felt that 'statutory rape' was bad I would never want to lump it in with holding someone down and forcing them to have sex against their will. Even if the two are bad, I would think that people would want to differentiate the latter from an adult who has sex with a child who 'thinks' that they want to have that intimacy and doesn't suffer from it. I've heard people say that sexual contact with minors, even young teens, is worse than murder. That said, I think 'proportionality' is kind of vague unless you're just giving people 'treatment' that's identical to what they themselves doled out but even that wouldn't necessarily imply equality of harm (x might hurt you more than it hurts me, especially if I can rationalize that I had it coming or even if I don't deserve it that I could have avoided it so I'm not helpless in the situation). Without referencing how much pain a thing causes I think it boils down to how bothered you are by the idea of that thing and, again, it's not going to cause the same fixed amount of pain to all people in all scenarios, so there is no single 'the worst thing' that you can do to someone, in my mind. If I think x is morally worse than y it's because I assume that the person who did x intended to cause a greater amount of pain or could anticipate it causing a greater amount of people and was more sadistic or apathetic about causing a higher level of pain than the person who did y (a choice is bad because of the suffering it actually causes, and immoral insofar as it involves de-valuing or positively valuing suffering/de-valuing or negatively valuing happiness. I think of 'injustice' as an immoral choice that causes actual harm, so 'thought crimes' can be immoral but harmless and being struck by lightening can be harmful but there's no injustice without a moral agent/wrongdoer).

I don't find women with 'masculine' personalities unattractive. I also don't see a moral problem with straight men being personally disgusted by the prospect of their being sexually intimate with other men as long as they don't de-value the happiness of men who find happiness in intimate relationships with other men (I haven't checked your link but I say this, again, because I don't think that personally finding homosexuality to be 'disgusting' is a moral failing, in the same way that I can be disgusted by the idea of eating raw onions but if other people enjoy that I don't see anything wrong with it; I'm happy for them). I think other people being gay (or x) bothers some people because they need to justify their not being gay and that's where a lot of homophobia (and comparable prejudice) might come from.

I don't think that disgust can explain the aversion toward pubescent and post pubescent preteens and adolescents. Children under 6 tend to be physically repelling to me personally but I wonder if the stigma has a lot to do with why I'd rather cats not be sexualized. We tend to have strong parental instincts toward simple-minded, asexual juveniles. When you sexualize people's children (and you communicate that) you might be damaging their image of them (being seen as asexual is part of being 'cute,' 'innocent,' and so on).

But heres the thing though, children 6 and under arent asexual, they very much have a sex drive. Literal fetuses in the womb masturbate to orgasm. Children this age are naturally curious about sex and often particpate in sex play. With each other, with the family dog, with any adult who let them. It is only in a sex negative and hystericla society which refuses to educate children on their own bodies and actively stamps out and punishes kids for being sexual that children are “asexual”. And even then, all the minors on the sex offender regristry(and the more who dont get caught) should tell us something. Children, of any age, being asexual is an anti myth. The fact that they no longer value people or their view of them is tainted once they are “sexualized” is a reault of sex negativity and puritanism, not anything innate. Renember, sexuality is the norm, and sex negativity and puritanism is the abberation, not the other way around. Even with your example on cats, cats are highly sexual creatures, the survival of their species literally depends on it. You being disgusted by a normal and neccessary part of nature is socially constructed by the culture you live in. Theres no such thing as the “simple minded asexual juvinelle” and there never was, and there never will be, since humans of all ages are sexual creatures and you cant fully stamp it out just like you cant stamp out pissing or shitting or sleeping or eating. Being asexual=more cute/pure/valuable is an entirely western conception, rooted in the church, that has only recently begun to spread around the globe due to globalism/high levels of western influence. It is not natural, and is an insult to the human race. Sex is a part of life, one of the most important. Not only are children NOT asexual, but they wouldnt even be here in the first place if it wasnt for sloppy condom free fucking.

Also

“ It would make more sense to just say, 'you shouldn't have sex with children because sex with children is bad, whether they consent to it or not is irrelevant”.

But WHY is it bad though? Everything else thats labled as bad has a reason. You shouldnt beat kids because it causes pain, you shouldnt scream at kids because it causes pain, but you shouldnt suck a kids dick because they might enjoy it? It needs a justification. Antis saying “its bad because its wrong and its wrong because its bad.” Would be alot more honest than the “consent” red herring, since they claim that children possess the abillity to consent to literal life or death scenarios but sucking dick is too complicated and dangerous for them to understand. But its still bullshit either way. We desrve better than that.

“i could point this out in a few different threads (I'm sure I have at one point at least, when demonizing the physical attraction to children, or adults who resemble children in certain ways, doesn't prevent actual child-adult sexual intimacy or even prevent children from being exposed to sexuality) but I don't think the stigma around pedophilia is rooted entirely in wanting to serve children's well-being.”

Thats because its not, its rooted, first in foremost, in serving the CULTURES wellbeing, specifially the sex negative and ageist culture. It has jack shit to do with the children/“victims”. They are simply a tool to antis, an easy “gotcha” to make relatively decent people get so emotionally riled up that they no longer have to use thing's like common sense or logic or basic humanity. Thats why you see so many victims and “victims” of AMSC complain that no one cared about helping them recover, that everyone only cared about making the pedos suffer as much as possible, even despite their own wishes, and pretty much ignored them. Thats because its not about you sweet heart, it never was, you are just a political trojan horse used to control the population.

The csa industrial complex is GREAT if your an anti, not because it minimizes the suffering of children, because it doesnt, numerous books and research (like “the trauma myth”, it has a hypocritical conclusion but is still a great critique of pedohysteria and the csa industrial complex) proove that shocker, getting dragged through the court system, having your loving adult partner threatned, stolen from you, and locked away indefinently, sometimes even severely tortured or out right murdered, watching your parents hysterically break down, being forced through intense non stop medical examinations for “sexual abuse”, getting endlessly interrogated, getting branded as a “victim” who is “ruined for life” and “better of dead” just because you sucked a mans dick, getting your innate sexuality pathologized and demonized, being told that your opinions dont matter unless you fully subscribe to the “im a victim and he or shes a predator” narrative, and being forced through years of “therapy” against your will, causes more suffering and “trauma” than simply letting kids suck an older mans dick. Who wouldve thought that willingly sucking dick or getting your dick sucked wont cause “life long trauma”, but watching your partner get beaten to death in the streets by vigilantes as your parents cheer them on does?? Riveting and mindblowing information /j.

But seriously, pedohysteria is GREAT for antis, espcially cops, therapists, politicians, parents and wuite literally everyone on earth BUT pedophiles. Demonizing youth sexuality and pedophillia gives parents a GREAT excuse to control, restrict, and infantilize their children. Politicians can get endless waves of support and funding by getting to be “tough” on “pedophiles” and profit of the hysteria they themselves help manufacture.They can also pass new surviallence laws to monitor and control the population through the guise of wanting to “catch” “pedos”. They can get more people locked up in prison and get more funding from all the prisoners stuffed in their cells.

Researchers and healthcare professionals get an endless stream of clients, and an endless stream of money and funding and donations, when they brand AMSC as not only abuse, but “abuse of the worst kind” and get hundreds of thousands of “victims” feeling like they need to be fixed. Same with labeling pedos as mentally ill, the more pedos who think they are ill or broken, the more clients to make money off of in your office, and the more money that gets donated to you for “saving the kids”.

Cops dont have to be bothered focusing on actually violent crimes, too difficult, too dangerous, when they can instead focus on low hanging, juicy fruit like “little suzie got her tits fondeled by that businessman ” or “carl has a nude selfie of a 17 year old” and not only meet their quotas, but explode them and get even more funding and support.

The “victims” get endless sympathy and support, and in alot of cases, MONEY!!! Anything they do in life has a simple excuse they can blame it on “I beat my kids because one time in grade school a teacher groped my tits”. “I drunk drove because one time in grade school my tits were fondeled by some man” “I embezzle money because of the tit fondeling 20 years ago.” As a “victim”, you get to belong to a group, a worshiped grouped treated as more sacred than jesus himself, you will never be questioned, and people will literally DIE and KILL just to defend your “honor”.

Vigallentes benefit because they get a free excuse to be violent pieces of shit and not only will no one question it, but they will get encouraged and supported and praised as heros! If you want to rape someone, why not rape a pedophile, then you arent a rapist, you are a hero! And you just saved the lives of so many innocent children by raping someone! If you want to beat someone, why not beat a pedophile? So many suffering children just got saved by you pulverising a man! If you want to torture and murder someone, why not torture and murder a pedophile? The massess will praise you for being such a good person, torturing and murdering people, you are such a good person! What a hero! You want to kidnap someone, why not kidnap a pedophile! What a good person you are! Oh you beat the shit of your kid and raped your wife? Well none of that matters now! At least your not a pedophile! Your a hero! Your such a good person!!! You killed all the bad guys and will now receive your trophy and nobel prize!! Yay!! What a good boy!!

The csa panic benefits literally EVERYONE, except for us of course. It is not to “save children” and it has NEVER been about “saving children”, it is simply a red herring for more money and control and having a human scapegoat to blame any and all your problems on.

“Child-adult sex is one of the few areas where we claim to seriously consider children's ability to consent to what we subject them to or their autonomy.”

Yes, BINGO. Childrens consent either straight up doesnt matter, or they can magically consent to something, in any case EXCEPT for sexual pleasure. Children can consent to potentially deadly medical procedures, children can consent to ski diving or driving or contact sports or swimming or complex math or other dangerous and or complicated activities. But when it comes to getting their dick sucked, suddenly duck sucking is just “too complicated” and “too dangerous” compared to literal LIFE OR DEATH expierences for a kid to ever POSSIBLY consent to. And when it comes to all these other, far more deadly and possibly painful expierences, if the kid isnt deemed capable of consent, the parents can consent on thier behalf or consent just isnt seen as necessary in the first place. But a HANDJOB!!!??? FAAAAARRRR TOOO COMPLICATED. FAAAAR TOOO DANGEROUS. How will children ever even BEGIN to comprehend the complex, high iq,life or death,intelligent, mature, and extemely dangerous mechanisms of getting their balls played with?? OH THE HUMANITY!!!! WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!! Im convinced we have never left puritan 18th century Victorian society. People act like they are so high and mighty compared to the puritans that would freak out at the mere sight of shoulders on women back in the day, but now people freak out at the sight of shoulders on children, because instead of women being too “pure” and “naturally asexual” and “innocent” for such gross deviency, now children are too “pure” and “naturally asexual” and “innocent” for such gross deviency. I was joking earlier when I said antis would start making minors wear burkas to prevent from “visual contact based child sexual abuse” but seeing how things are going, I wouldnt be surprised in the slightest if they did.

“You mentioned proportionality. I have always thought that even if I felt that 'statutory rape' was bad I would never want to lump it in with holding someone down and forcing them to have sex against their will.”

But to antis, stautory “rape” is worse than real rape because the “victim” not only enjoys it, but is an active willing participant who often seeks it out. Whats worse than sexual pain? Sexual pleasure, at least according to the modern day puritans that we call antis.

[PorcelainLark]

Just for context, I think this thread was originally Fragment's, but when he deleted a bunch of his posts, my response remained. I don't quite remember the original details.

What is AASECT?

The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists.

I do believe that every double standard can be matter-of-factly explained by some subjective reason; some circumstantial condition that hints at some other value at play.

True, though double standards often imply dishonesty about what a person claims to value.

(I think a consent-based argument for antinataism fails but I still think it's implied by the idea that sex with children is wrong because they can't consent to it. Both positions fail to differentiate between 'without consent' and 'against one's will')

Interesting idea.

It would make more sense to just say, 'you shouldn't have sex with children because sex with children is bad, whether they consent to it or not is irrelevant.'

That's a good point.

Without referencing how much pain a thing causes I think it boils down to how bothered you are by the idea of that thing and, again, it's not going to cause the same fixed amount of pain to all people in all scenarios, so there is no single 'the worst thing' that you can do to someone, in my mind.

I think this is where issues arise; people act like things are more important to them than they are. For example, "Karens" who want to talk to a manager aren't necessarily expressing a genuine grievance, they may just be enjoying having power over other people. I think people routinely lie about their own experience for various reasons such as sympathy, authority, and drama. In the case of antis, I think most of them don't actually care, they mostly just enjoy having power over someone lesser than them; in a way, the issue of power dynamic imbalance they claim to have with AMSC, may reveal something about their own desire for unequal relationships and their own guilty pleasures.

When you sexualize people's children (and you communicate that) you might be damaging their image of them (being seen as asexual is part of being 'cute,' 'innocent,' and so on). ... I'm not sure how much of it had to do with the fact that Butler was breaking social rules which I found shocking vs. feeling that the little vampire girl was 'hurt' by it.

I'd say that's a kind of disgust. Looking back, my points about disgust versus sadism as the psychological motive of antis wasn't entirely clear; I think disgust is probably the main motive, and opportunistic sadism gets it's social acceptance because of that disgust.

But WHY is it bad though? Everything else thats labled as bad has a reason.

I think that's the point he's trying to make, adding the question of consent isn't sufficient to justify AMSC being bad.

[Curson]

I've been thinking lately that consent might be a red herring. I was talking on ATF today about why anti-contact MAPs still tend to judge AMSC as severely as non-MAPs. In other words, just because you think AMSC wrong, does that necessarily mean people are being proportional in their judgement of it?
I kind of feel like, even if you had solid evidence of minors capacity to consent, people would still justify their disgust of it. Maybe, like with homophobia, there could be a connection between the object of attraction and the object of repulsion: a masculine woman would be unattractive to a homophobic straight man. A teleiophile is potentially disgusted by MA because they are attracted to features of maturity. They can't disconnect their judgement of the attraction, from considering it from the first person themselves (e.g. I don't want to have sex with a man because it's disgusting, so no one else should want to either).

You'll find the Western world is quite entrenched in hypocrisy. No one can seem to make heads or tails of what constitutes an adult. 18 isn't even the defining factor anymore, the arbitrary age of which one reaches adulthood.

Suddenly, someone with an age gap of 3 years or more will be preying on this poor individual, this baby!

Never mind teenagers are allowed to date each other and make mistakes, have sex, and do things that would make adults blush if they found out. But no, an adult with a teenager? Such childhood innocence is tainted!! Child abuse! Poor children will be scarred for life.

[G@yWad69]

I've been thinking lately that consent might be a red herring. I was talking on ATF today about why anti-contact MAPs still tend to judge AMSC as severely as non-MAPs. In other words, just because you think AMSC wrong, does that necessarily mean people are being proportional in their judgement of it?
I kind of feel like, even if you had solid evidence of minors capacity to consent, people would still justify their disgust of it. Maybe, like with homophobia, there could be a connection between the object of attraction and the object of repulsion: a masculine woman would be unattractive to a homophobic straight man. A teleiophile is potentially disgusted by MA because they are attracted to features of maturity. They can't disconnect their judgement of the attraction, from considering it from the first person themselves (e.g. I don't want to have sex with a man because it's disgusting, so no one else should want to either).

I agree. Antis will try to use the “blowjobs cause lifelong trauma and suffering” argument at first when it comes to AMSC, but outside of those arguments, alot of their arguments focus on disgust.

Not sadness, not fear, disgust. “Pedophillia is gross because children are gross” “I could never be a pedo because children are disgusting”. “How could you be attracted to children, children are filthy, snotty, annoying whiny brats”. “How can pedos stand to be around children, I just want to hit children whenever im around them.” “What could you possibly have in common with a child? They are so annoying and stupid what would you even talk to them about” “how could anyone possibly enjoy being around children unless they are a pedo? Children are the worst” “Ewww pedophillia?!? Thats so gross kids are nasty” or “I literally hate kids being a pedo is weird how could you like kids?”

Which is a suspicous amount of hatred and disgust towards the very group you claim to care about and want to protect. Normally people, yk, love the people they claim to want to protect, but with kids its different, the ones who claim to be the “heros of children” yap endlessly about how disgusting and inferior children are and how they want nothing to do with them or even outright hate them, but then turn around and shame the pedo(child)philes(lovers) for liking and loving kids?? Isnt liking and loving kids supposed to be a GOOD attribute to have if you claim that your group is about “helping kids”? Yet the most “morally wholesome” stance to take as an anti is that the very group you claim to care about are disgusting and nasty “crotch goblins” that you dont like or even straight up hate?? And the people who love kids are ridiculed and shamed for…loving and caring about children?? The jokes write themselves

[Curson]

I agree. Antis will try to use the “blowjobs cause lifelong trauma and suffering” argument at first when it comes to AMSC, but outside of those arguments, alot of their arguments focus on disgust.

Not sadness, not fear, disgust. “Pedophillia is gross because children are gross” “I could never be a pedo because children are disgusting”. “How could you be attracted to children, children are filthy, snotty, annoying whiny brats”. “How can pedos stand to be around children, I just want to hit children whenever im around them.” “What could you possibly have in common with a child? They are so annoying and stupid what would you even talk to them about” “how could anyone possibly enjoy being around children unless they are a pedo? Children are the worst” “Ewww pedophillia?!? Thats so gross kids are nasty” or “I literally hate kids being a pedo is weird how could you like kids?”

Which is a suspicous amount of hatred and disgust towards the very group you claim to care about and want to protect. Normally people, yk, love the people they claim to want to protect, but with kids its different, the ones who claim to be the “heros of children” yap endlessly about how disgusting and inferior children are and how they want nothing to do with them or even outright hate them, but then turn around and shame the pedo(child)philes(lovers) for liking and loving kids?? Isnt liking and loving kids supposed to be a GOOD attribute to have if you claim that your group is about “helping kids”? Yet the most “morally wholesome” stance to take as an anti is that the very group you claim to care about are disgusting and nasty “crotch goblins” that you dont like or even straight up hate?? And the people who love kids are ridiculed and shamed for…loving and caring about children?? The jokes write themselves

These people are seemingly the worst humanity has to offer. Virtue signalling, always making it about themselves, shaming others for their attractions.

[PorcelainLark]

Not sadness, not fear, disgust. “Pedophillia is gross because children are gross” “I could never be a pedo because children are disgusting”. “How could you be attracted to children, children are filthy, snotty, annoying whiny brats”. “How can pedos stand to be around children, I just want to hit children whenever im around them.” “What could you possibly have in common with a child? They are so annoying and stupid what would you even talk to them about” “how could anyone possibly enjoy being around children unless they are a pedo? Children are the worst” “Ewww pedophillia?!? Thats so gross kids are nasty” or “I literally hate kids being a pedo is weird how could you like kids?”

Which is a suspicous amount of hatred and disgust towards the very group you claim to care about and want to protect.

The anti doth protest too much, methinks. I wonder where true disgust ends and performative disgust begins. I doubt people are as disgusted by kids as they pretend to be. So maybe in addition to disgust and cruelty, there's also motive of fear but not fear for the well being of children, fear of being labelled a pedophile or pedophile sympathizer.