The MAP community needs to chill

[MemeticTheory]

Minor attraction and other liberating sexualities based on occultism? (Posted above for the linkage of occultism to minor attraction and other criminalized forms of erotic and libidinal expressions...?)

I really have no idea where you're going with this. You're very confusing, as is often the case with your posts (although in some instances, you also post really interesting stuff).

There's a silly far-right conspiracy theory linking "satanists" and "occult practices" to systematic and widespread CSA. The most common form of this conspiracy alleges that "the elites" are Devil-worshipers who do wide-scale child trafficking to satisfy their diabolical desires, which can range from child rape to outright child sacrifice. Some versions claim those "elites" take the blood of babies and/or young children to extract adrenochrome, which supposedly can extend their lifespan and increase their vitality (it's actually a totally fictional claim that comes from the novel Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). Is that what you're referring to? Obviously, there isn't any such link.

also though the NYT had a fear article... here it is.... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/worl ... rance.html "A Pedophile Writer Is on Trial. So Are the French Elites. For decades, Gabriel Matzneff wrote openly of his pedophilia, protected by powerfu


"links elite and powerful and media and cultural industries ties and pedophilia concepts..."

[WavesInEternity]

also though the NYT had a fear article... here it is.... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/worl ... rance.html "A Pedophile Writer Is on Trial. So Are the French Elites. For decades, Gabriel Matzneff wrote openly of his pedophilia, protected by powerfu


"links elite and powerful and media and cultural industries ties and pedophilia concepts..."

I can't read that, I don't have a NYT subscription. But really, I still don't see what you mean... you seem to be talking about many different things at once.

What "the elite and powerful and media and cultural industries" are actually doing, by far, is to promote a certain hegemonic narrative regarding AMSC, which labels all such interactions "CSA". When some rare media and some rare elites go against that narrative, for instance by defending a certain artist that featured themes of minor-attraction or children's sexuality (or even totally "innocent" child nudity) in his or her art, they inevitably get vilified by the masses for "normalizing pedophilia" or worse. In actuality, however, the elites and media are just as overwhelmingly anti-MAP as everyone else.

[MemeticTheory]

also though the NYT had a fear article... here it is.... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/worl ... rance.html "A Pedophile Writer Is on Trial. So Are the French Elites. For decades, Gabriel Matzneff wrote openly of his pedophilia, protected by powerfu


"links elite and powerful and media and cultural industries ties and pedophilia concepts..."

I can't read that, I don't have a NYT subscription. But really, I still don't see what you mean... you seem to be talking about many different things at once.

What "the elite and powerful and media and cultural industries" are actually doing, by far, is to promote a certain hegemonic narrative regarding AMSC, which labels all such interactions "CSA". When some rare media and some rare elites go against that narrative, for instance by defending a certain artist that featured themes of minor-attraction or children's sexuality (or even totally "innocent" child nudity) in his or her art, they inevitably get vilified by the masses for "normalizing pedophilia" or worse. In actuality, however, the elites and media are just as overwhelmingly anti-MAP as everyone else.

I agree, and to extended that thought, elite rule is actually a theory... here ""The Italian social theorists Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto were among the first to stipulate that elite rule is inevitable and to explore the ramifications of that axiom, mainly by analyzing the reproduction and transformation of elite groups."" (Encyclopedia Brittanica)


""The basic characteristics of this theory are that power is concentrated, the elites are unified, the non-elites are diverse and powerless, elites' interests are unified due to common backgrounds and positions, and the defining characteristic of power is institutional position." (Wikipedia)

Elite theory envisions society as divided between the mass of people and a ruling minority, where the political power – the power to take and impose decisions valid to the whole society – always belongs to the latter. (Springer)

[PorcelainLark]

For instance, what are we to make of the sympathy of Mircea Eliade, the distinguished scholar of comparative religion, for the mystical-fascist-nationalist Legion of the Holy Archangel Michael during his young adulthood in Romania? Or Eliade's ongoing correspondence with Julius Evola, the brilliant Italian Traditionalist who synthesized a kind of esoteric fascism that inspired youthful extreme rightists to engage in a nihilistic terror spree during the 1970s in Italy? Do these instances of Eliade's hidden past totally undercut the value of his considerable later scholarship in shamanism, cross-cultural studies, and religious myth? Lachman considers such questions at some length and provides enough thoughtful analysis for the reader to grasp the difficulty of a single clear-cut answer.
https://www.theosophical.org/publicatio ... lly-unseen
Politics and the Occult: The Left, the Right, and the Radically Unseen

I'd say it's a different situation. Eliade's academic work, even if inspired by Evola, can be evaluated on it's own. However, with MAPs, we're talking about activism rather than academic work, so the evaluation can't be separated from the political beliefs that motivate the activism. Certainly a Marxist or fascist can write something that can be adapted to a different context (Wilhelm Reich particularly comes to mind for me). However some aspects of beliefs and political strategies can't be adapted (for example, belief in the Quran as literally revealed by God) to other contexts, or are mutually exclusive (racial supremacists versus anti-racists).
The trouble is that, when dealing with prejudice, it isn't exactly an ideology; it isn't as straight forward as Marxism versus capitalism, there are multiple way of opposing the prejudice against MAPs as well as multiple ideologies opposed to MAPs. We mostly lack a consensus about a non-arbitrary basis for why one ideology is preferable than another for MAPs. I'd like to try to build a consensus based on opposition to populism and supporting civil rights.

[anarchist of love]

Thank you both for your replies.

Considering the present reality, what do you think MAPs can realistically do, and what do you think allies can realistically do?

I might try to filter out more radical ideologies (e.g. Marxists, fascists), because their solution to conflict is to use force. That means they are less likely to compromise with people they disagree with.

What of the radical's radical methodologies (not ideologies) that recognize the crucial value of creative surprise and depth demystification (non-force)? Or even the radicals who see this excellence? So WATCH OUT that you don't get too categorical ("radical" is not a bad word, tho you are programmed to believe it is; "radical" means to go "to the root").

However, I feel what's really needed is outwardly focused conflict. A common enemy we mostly agree on, to bring us together instead of in-fighting.

Well, i agree on the outwardly focused conflict. Lots of people holding up these seemingly authoritarian views, in my experience, simply don't know that they don't know and will admit it if you dare to challenge them. And unless there's an authoritarian zealot activist around, will often express open-ness to nuance, especially when they know someone personally. But the clincher is, they will retreat (at least in the "First World" cultures) upon the entrance of the hyped-up 'anti' believer.

If anything, this "common enemy" is the massified tendency to dovetail with whichever propaganda program comes across their lap, so to speak. This is the world we live in, people ADAPTING themselves to rigidity out of a desire to not get scapegoated and/or sacrificed themselves (in the context of having been rendered psychologically genocided by and large). This is where people have that "cartesian common sense" that Chomsky pushes. Even tho it seems many of you here think that the masses are too stupid (i say, strategicly stupid-ized; and very smart in other ways, of course!).

The mass public may "put on a face" of Conformity, but most are not systematically committed to such a position, i feel and have experience with. They do so only under the duress of having witnessed overwhelming "examples made" of others, particularly when growing up. And then finding themselves faced with another such authoritarian (an adult "playground bully"), they fall back on what they know.

This is probably why so many people were more open to MAP friendships with their kids in the 1960s and 70s, as we learn from reading about the hippie movement back then. People felt free to explore and had been dipped so deeply in how "Authorities" misled them, that they were willing to explore beyond the usual bounds.

And this is a notable pattern as well, the opening up of things, and then the Backlash. Over and over again we see the pattern. Different groups get scapegoated, but the pattern continues. Why? Likely due to the ideological "Need" for war ("war is the health of the State" after all). Such is the problem of never truly getting to the HEART of the difficulty.

Maybe we need a listing, similar to the SPLC's listing of hate groups, for organizations/groups that fail to follow the best evidence on how MAPs should be treated. For example those who argue for harsh punishments for/restrictions on the use and possession of lolicon/shotacon, could have blurb on their Wikipedia article saying, "This organization has been criticized for their failure to follow the best available evidence". But I digress.

Well, this sounds like what Amnesty International does already. Does it make much of a difference? Maybe with so many other groups covering different "bases", but i'm skeptical. Whom are they able to affect?

I say the better course is to just systematically demystify the entire game. If we're doing this on a regular basis, including when openly challenged, we can design it all much more open-endedly. Drawing on our deep diving knowledge of history, we can respond to them in ways that out-flank the intention of their thrusts. (Usually to try to send us running so that they can have their petty "hunts" for the terrified "rabbits" that they get social "brownie points" for neutralizing.)

If we're doing it on forums like this, with lots of them watching, we can posit this depth in ways that might LIBERATE THEM AS WELL!! (And THAT'S ONE thing that their vanguard DOES NOT WANT!!

So i've found that if you can stand up in their face, not cowering, and hold your ground "even keeled", then a lot of them make space for you. They come to respect you for being willing to STAND UP and RISK YOUR LIFE for your convictions! (wow, i'm really finding my 'cursor' jumping around a lot rite now!) Some will even come up and shake your hand. I got this when some network was tipped off that i was in a certain small town for awhile, where they were Told that i was a "leader" seeking to organize. They tailed me and tried and tried to use Fear to SCARE me into running and such, but it didn't work!

And again, more recently, after a guy i didn't know sat down in front of me (a few feet away) on public transit and proceeded to first tell me that it was now "legal" to threaten people's lives, and second, went into details about how he wanted to kill me. I don't know if he read my dossier or just simply saw me as a nonconformist he felt he could get away with leveling such at. But when i didn't react the way he (and i soon learned, his partner, seated a little further away) thought i would, the subject was changed, on a lighter note, with the same threatener telling me happy things about the sports they were into.

(in retrospect, i WISH i had asked him for his badge number, just to see if he was the off-duty cop he looked like)

In another case, i was actually 'falling for' one likely undercover agent, a young man! WANTING to be busted by him, even! But he couldn't trick me into the baitings he had been instructed to carry out! I now know that he was a very special agent for them because of what happened when i said something vague but pointed his way, and how that echoed for months afterward, even in different states! Believe it or not.

Yeah, so i've had pretty extensive experiences with the vigilantes in the u.s.a. And yet i KEEP ON saying that this kind of confrontation (in my case entirely solo!) has its crucial place! And so does bad-ass HUMOR and CREATIVITY!!!!

[bnkywuv]

The conclusion that the true way forward is one in which we have a better understanding of how kids respond to sex. We cannot move forward without changing the way society thinks of minors and sex. Scientists may not be able to research this even close to directly right now, but I believe their is a number of frontiers we push for. It all comes down to our curiosity and imagination in spite of these restrictions of what can currently pass ethics boards.

We could look at bonobos whom with which we are closely related to. Minors of their species are not forced into sex, and sex is a social bonding mechanism, much as it is with humans.

We also could be more vocal, and have more minors talking about their sex encounters with adults, and how it's not all "he held me down and..."

There's also evidence that "repressed memories" theory is flawed and fabricated by narcissistic antis who only wish to cling to their ideas about minors and sex. What we see is something happens to minor that is sexual. It's pleasant so the minor forgets about it. Then later in life they're depressed, anxiety ridden whatever it may be from things UNRELATED to the sex act. The common idea is "you must have been molested as a kid".

That kid grew up believing that sex with minors is INHERENTLY bad, then they remember the event, but now so much time has passed that the details become fuzzy and soon they're falling for paramnesia. Then under hypnosis they're more suggestible and will create false memories of force or pain where in reality there was none.

Thus, society is creating the idea that sexual experiences as minors are inherently harmful especially if an adult is involved.

Another scenario is plain and simple conditioning due to society in general. Plus since consensual sex and minors isn't POPULAR! Again I refer to chimps and bonobos. We all know about how chimps are used to purport the origins of human violence, but bonobos are the kind and caring uncle who does charity work and helps kids and the elderly who never gets talked about. We live in a society that prioritizes and popularizes harm, not pleasure.

That puritan mentality is still deeply rooted in our belief system, and the glorification of children as pure, innocent things that don't know anything until they're 18 is held upon a pedestal. Knocking this down could prove beneficial. Pointing to children who were/are sexual in their "pure and naive" years and how it did NOT mess them up could be a road to go down in further studies.

Another thing we can do is point to societies where AoC is much lower, or previous times in our history where AoC was much lower. Look at the rate of sexual abuse and harm compared to that if a sexually negative society. Rape in Native American societies was NOT tolerated even though AoC was much lower. The people were HAPPY despite AoC being lower, now compare that against sex negative societies where drug use, violence, shootings, and rape are common.

Plus with the rise of AAMs, we can perhaps have a look into the fact that minors are now actively wanting sexual contact with adults, whether online or even in person. Recognizing that teleiophilia in minors exists and has been common throughout most of human history with AoC only being raised in RECENT times.

I know people will point to the harm of minor pregnancies, but sex is not primarily about reproduction, and does not even have to involve pregnancy. We are one of the few animals that has sex that CANNOT result in pregnancy yet can still be highly pleasurable, which is further evidence to me that sex isn't about making babes in the human species.