Post best arguments for MAP liberation using leftist logic

[zarkle]

ITT explore and explain how Civil Rights activism, social Justice and queer theory and LGBTQIA+MAP activism can liberate us. Give it your best shot.

as I can't help but notice not all but many people on this website spread ideas similar to Queer Theory, Civil Rights activism, Marxist/Leftist class analysis and LGBT's existing framework with the modifications for MAPs. For lack of a better word I am going to call all of this "left wing activism" as an approach to child love liberation.

I've seen people here and the NewGon Wiki talk about and cite

Harry Hay (Gay Marxist)
David Thorstad (Gay Marxist)
Jacques Derrida (Queer Theorist)
Michael Focault (Queer Theorist)
Judith Butler (Queer Theorist)
as well as similar others in this incomplete list

These are talking points adjacent to post structuralist and intersectionalist thought where the goal is to analysis culture and look for power structures to untangle and dismantle in order to bring sexual liberation for oppressed queer groups. They also focus on comparing each queer group (gays, trans, maps) and how they all have intersecting struggles and who the oppressors are, and who is oppressed more and how some sides can be both oppressed and oppressors like "LGB without the T" and mapphobic feminist.

My question is, can this work? Should we do this alone? What are the best arguments for doing this?

Show your best evidence that heteronormative western oppressive power structures standing in the way of youth liberation. Let me know the exact cultural institutions (church, school, family) that control human sexuality and how we can transform or dismantle them and build a new society. Let me know how modern day civil rights activism can help MAPs, possibly catch phrases the public can chant like "MAP RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS" and other things calling antis "Maphobes" and meme engagement (despite us being banned from activism on all social media) that can lead to higher acceptance.

Obviously everyone who reads my post rountinely knows about my brain child coined "Disgust Theory" that avoids cultural explanations all together where I heavily focus on naturalism, borrowing from the research of Robert Sapolsky, Paul Rozin, Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Pinker, and Richard Dawkins. I argue MAPs are hated due to natural selection favoring strong child protection instincts, animals split by 100s of millions of years (birds, crocodiles, mammals) all fighting to the death to defend their young, and my core claim that the neurocircuits that once helped parent animals detect predatory animals got repurposed in some cultures today to blanket oppose pedophilia, so the Jaguars that ate kids are long gone but the neurocircuits to detect them are still present firing at qanon news stories. I also heavily discuss the neuroscience of disgust, moral outrage, social pressure and repulsion, and my arguments that scientifically dissecting these emotions will aid MAP liberation.

So you at least you know my naturalistic approach rooted deeply in the evolutonary and biological sciences is VERY DIFFERENT from most leftist approaches. I talk about the same regions of the brain that detects spoiled rotten food also responding to norm violations and unwanted sexual advances. Hence the name "Disgust Theory" While many of you talk about Michael Foucault's analysis of culture and power or Harry Hay's NAMBLA leftist activism to liberate Queers, hence the name "Queer Theory" I talk about how conspiracy theories like satanic panic, pizzagate, qanon, and Epstein cannibalism lore tapping into tribal psychology of "us vs them" thinking and child protection instincts. We are both fighting for MAP rights but from a very different approach .

This thread is for the mainstream approach not mine. I want to learn what the mainstream MAP activist community believes and see if we can ultimately make a integration of both. I understand this is a good starting point. https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research

I just want to make sure I have the best understanding possible of RadQueer Thought not to make a strawman out of it. Show me my potential blind spots as obviously someone like me versed in the natural sciences isn't well educated on radqueer thought.

[Creature Bipedal]

As I said, your naturalistic explanation does not work. First, sexual prohibitions have nothing to do with protection. Second, even if it does, no child has ever died because of sex—500 children die because of motor transport every day (WHO & UNICEF statistics), and no driverophobia exists. Third, disgust, even if it exists, does not explain prohibitions: there is no prohibition against coprophagia and sex with the fat/old/disabled—but there was prohibition against non-disgusting adultery or inter-racial sex. So, neither protection nor disgust explain MAPophobia.

Leftist arguments are really enough to justify adult-child sex (if all people are equal in their dignity and rights then children must have the same right to sex as adults) but no argumentation can change the world.

• What does equality mean for church? It means that neither clergy nor God should exist, and no church is possible.
• What does equality mean for school? It means that children won’t be forced to study, and no school is possible.
• What does equality mean for family? It means that children are not obligated to live with their parents, and no family is possible.

[PorcelainLark]

ITT explore and explain how Civil Rights activism, social Justice and queer theory and LGBTQIA+MAP activism can liberate us.

I don't know if everyone would group these together. For me, I don't really see social justice and queer theory as particularly useful, but civil rights and LGBT rights do matter to me.

My question is, can this work? Should we do this alone? What are the best arguments for doing this?

I think it's mostly rhetoric. I think we don't really have much of a choice other than to work alone, though I've suggested we try to build connections with different types of sex offenders besides CSA offenders; no one else comes close to our position in society.

Show your best evidence that heteronormative western oppressive power structures standing in the way of youth liberation. Let me know the exact cultural institutions (church, school, family) that control human sexuality and how we can transform or dismantle them and build a new society.

I'd say patrilineal aspects of Western culture lead to an overvaluation of girl's virginity. If your main line of inheritance is father to son, rather than mother to daughter, then it makes sense why it's so important a girl is a virgin before marriage. In a society with matrilineal inheritance/genealogy, the virginity of girls becomes significantly less important.

Let me know how modern day civil rights activism can help MAPs, possibly catch phrases the public can chant like "MAP RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS" and other things calling antis "Maphobes" and meme engagement (despite us being banned from activism on all social media) that can lead to higher acceptance.

Mostly about working with organizations like the ACLU to try to preserve freedom of expression (though that organization has unfortunately fallen a long way since defending MAP related issues in the 90s and 80s). Protesting doesn't do much unless you're part of a mass movement, in my opinion.

Obviously everyone who reads my post rountinely knows about my brain child coined "Disgust Theory" that avoids cultural explanations all together where I heavily focus on naturalism, borrowing from the research of Robert Sapolsky, Paul Rozin, Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Pinker, and Richard Dawkins. I argue MAPs are hated due to natural selection favoring strong child protection instincts, animals split by 100s of millions of years (birds, crocodiles, mammals) all fighting to the death to defend their young, and my core claim that the neurocircuits that once helped parent animals detect predatory animals got repurposed in some cultures today to blanket oppose pedophilia, so the Jaguars that ate kids are long gone but the neurocircuits to detect them are still present firing at qanon news stories. I also heavily discuss the neuroscience of disgust, moral outrage, social pressure and repulsion, and my arguments that scientifically dissecting these emotions will aid MAP liberation.

I disagree. Filial cannibalism occurs in many species. If protection of children and disgust at harm to them was so universal, why would this be the case? (incidentally this was the basis of my theory of why pedophilia evolved - to reduce infant mortality before puberty by making children sexually attractive; if a child is sexually appealling they are less likely to be cannibalised, and as a result more likely to reach a reproductive age thereby increasing the total population of reproductive age members of the species)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_cannibalism
I think the level of protection children have today is abnormal, and there's a strong incentive to play up how you care about children's welfare. I think in reality people have always felt quite ambivalent about children - an extra mouth to feed whose not strong or knowledgeable enough to do the work of an adult. Before contraception was widely available and corporal punishment was banned, I don't think we could have held the child to be as sacred as we do now. This is to say nothing of child labor in coal mines and factories - if we were so instinctively protective of children how could those practices ever be tolerated?

This thread is for the mainstream approach not mine. I want to learn what the mainstream MAP activist community believes and see if we can ultimately make a integration of both.

Ultimately queer theory seems like the emperor's new clothes. In my opinion, a more useful, but tangentially related thinker, is Wilfrid Sellars. He talked about the difference between reasons and causes. The trouble is most postmodern stuff will criticize naturalistic approaches in this style of seperating reasons from causes, but then proceed to talk about social/historical causes. The popular historicism you see today is trying to have your cake and eat it; criticise "essentialist" views of humans as deterministic, but then precede to talk about historical context in an historically deterministic way.

But this is coming from someone whose a liberal not a radical, and someone who finds analytic philosophy appealing.

[zarkle]

I made a post about pedo rights 70s-90s leftist on another corner of the internet where girl lovers hang, let me most it here in quotes,

Leftist in the 70s to 90s that tried to normalize pedophilia

1) Harry Hay (NAMBLA activist) was outright using oppressed vs oppressors rhetoric when it came to boy lover rights. He declared himself a communist and is known for standing with NAMBLA despite it being unpopular

2) Michael Focault worked with French intellectuals to lower the age of consent down to infants, (and obviously failed) but mostly b his focus was on homosexual rights, challenging heteronormativitiy and focusing on how language tied to and cultural power structures. Thus making him a precursor to woke ideology of today. Also Focault was an ex communist who left because the communist party because they didn't support gay rights. And lastly Focault went to Tunisia to do questionable things with little boys.


3) Judith Butler made a few comments like "A child's body should not be viewed as a passive surface" but overall they focused way more on gender ideology (trans rights) then pedophilia. I regret making an inaccurate comment about Butler in my previous post somewhere else on the Internet. Butler does leftist class analysis applied to gender indeed, but they have no ties to communism. Their main message is gender is performative. Also I'm using the term "they" to respect their neo-pronouns. Out of all the people listed Butler had the least to say about pedophilia.

4) Gayle Rubin did a intersectionality circle named a "charmed circle" that showed societal appropriate sexual behavior next to societal inappropriate sexual behavior to contrast them. one of the behaviors listed was underage intergenerational relationships. She made the case that her brand of sex positive feminism supports adult child love to challenge norms. She like Butler she did leftist class analysis repurposed for human sexuality, despite also having no ties to communism.The reason being is because the meme adapts, leftist class analysis got repurposed by culture without needing to even evoke communism.

5) David Thorstad. NAMBLA's founder, openly called for a socialist revolution and critiqued hetero normative society, had a strong communist political convictions, he was the far left stereotype I was critiquing in the past.

These people's work happened in the 60s-90s, and is the precursor ideology to modern LGBT. Their ideas on gender and homosexuality survived but their advocacy for pedophilia and teen love failed entirely. and most research on pedophilia they did was adult boy. Though its clear they wanted to lower AoC for both genders."

What can we learn from these people, How can their ideas help us now? Obviously I am on the opposite side of politics and think critical thinking and scientific targeting the emotion of Disgust, moral outrage and peer pressure will lead to a normalizing pedophilia in the future. I don't agree with their approach but I hope to represent their ideas fairly.


Also, I was using the term "queer theory" incorrectly in the past. I used it as a blanket term to describe any left wing political analysis of sexuality, now I realize that is just one specific school of many branches of intersectionalist/class analysis thought.

[zarkle]

As I said, your naturalistic explanation does not work. First, sexual prohibitions have nothing to do with protection. Second, even if it does, no child has ever died because of sex—500 children die because of motor transport every day (WHO & UNICEF statistics), and no driverophobia exists. Third, disgust, even if it exists, does not explain prohibitions: there is no prohibition against coprophagia and sex with the fat/old/disabled—but there was prohibition against non-disgusting adultery or inter-racial sex. So, neither protection nor disgust explain MAPophobia.

Leftist arguments are really enough to justify adult-child sex (if all people are equal in their dignity and rights then children must have the same right to sex as adults) but no argumentation can change the world.

• What does equality mean for church? It means that neither clergy nor God should exist, and no church is possible.
• What does equality mean for school? It means that children won’t be forced to study, and no school is possible.
• What does equality mean for family? It means that children are not obligated to live with their parents, and no family is possible.

I apologize for not getting to this thread, I've been so busy with other things.

sexual prohibitions have nothing to do with protection. n. Second, even if it does, no child has ever died because of sex—500 children die because of motor transport every day (WHO & UNICEF statistics), and no driverophobia exists. Third, disgust, even if it exists, does not explain prohibitions: there is no prohibition against coprophagia and sex with the fat/old/disabled

The parental protection instincts are not usually based on facts and data, and they will always filter day to day things we find normal. So to answer your question why disgusting sex things aren't banned its because they disgusting things like corprophagia aren't culturally associated with child harm where as CP is.

What does equality mean for church? It means that neither clergy nor God should exist, and no church is possible.
What does equality mean for school? It means that children won’t be forced to study, and no school is possible.
What does equality mean for family? It means that children are not obligated to live with their parents, and no family is possible.

These radical arguments are interesting though I only only subscribe to the first one that we should be able to reject religion.

if all people are equal in their dignity and rights then children must have the same right to sex as adults

Children are partially owned by their parents/guardian until they understand 101 life basics, contract and self reflection . Though even under parental control they should have positive liberty against cruelty, coercion, malicious parents and yes rape. Meaning children are not total property of their parents like a chair is. Its more like a responsibility. If anything children should be thought of as being with potential infinite personal freedom that hasn't reached a stage to exercise all of it.

But lets just get to the main point. Sexual disgust and food based disgust are both firewalls that the body uses to make sure behaviors are blocked and stopped. For example lets say you walk into a room with knick nacks, figurines and toys and someone you trusted walked into the room said hi and set fresh food snacks you liked down on the table telling you its yours. The only thing in that room that your brain considers edible is the fresh food, everything else is ignored as edible and presumed disgusting if it were to be in your mouth. The knicknacks and toys are not disgusting but putting them in your mouth is. That is the disgust firewall doing its pathogen/disease avoidance thing, its in place to make sure only food goes in your mouth.

The same applies to sexual things and sexual norms. That explains why many cultures have norms about why sex should only be in marriage or once in marriage sex outside of it is forbidden. Any unwanted sexual solicitation triggers disgust, the default state of the sexual brain is a disgust firewall, arousal is the exception when the barriers come down. When child protection instincts mix with disgust that is where the problem gets worse

So even if it is entirely cultural and independent of biology. The child protection instincts and disgust factors are huge contributors making it worse, but I do not think it entirely cultural. Wild Animals are too stupid to know not to inbreed or put an adult penis in a small juvenine animal's vagina and indanger it. So natural selection favored sexual disgust to prevent inbreeding depression and vaginal tissue damage in juveniles.

What we see is clearly a mix of biology, evolution and culture interacting that contribute to why MAPs are hated.

Biology is the raw distaste mechanism that rejects pathogen infested food
Evolution is how in humans disgust evolved to behave like a firewall and moral guide system, and child protection instincts
Culture is the expression of child protection instincts that lead to the western concept of "childhood innocence" and disgust justifying punitive attitudes.

It isn't just one thing, its many contributing factors interacting in a complex way. Leftist thought fails because it is saying that a youth liberation and equal rights movement in culture alone can shift the tide. I am going below the culture and focusing on evolved tendencies and how our brains work. Leftist and I both agree evolution is real and humans are biological organisms. Once you accept this and go down Robert Sapolsky's educational videos on human behavior its hard not to say humans are just expressing animal like behaviors in the modern world.

Plus, how can anyone explain qanon using leftist logic? We see leftist and non leftist democrats on X say republicans are just are just projecting their dark desires, but this doesn't explain it.

The tribal psychology hypothesis perfectly explains why right wingers believe "they are saving the world from the democrats who are elite satanic pedophiles with the support of tribe leader Donald Trump marching into battle with them" Sapolsky's talks on us vs them thinking and other neuroscience on main character syndrome explains this so much better. Our brains reward pathways light up like a christmas tree with save the world fantasies, that's why video games are so addicting, saving the world rather it be qanon lore or a video game hijacks those ancient neurocircuits.


I'm not saying Leftist Logic and Youth Liberation is useless. I do expect in the future something like Youth Liberation to happen for teenagers who will celebrate their newly found sexual freedom with teenage boys having sex with adult women and a new liberal society celebrating what was once highly criminalized and mocking the old world for ever criminalizing it in the first place, I'm just saying if we want to get to Youth Liberation we need to realize we are animals with evolved tendencies.

[zarkle]

If protection of children and disgust at harm to them was so universal, why would this be the case? (incidentally this was the basis of my theory of why pedophilia evolved - to reduce infant mortality before puberty by making children sexually attractive; if a child is sexually appealling they are less likely to be cannibalised, and as a result more likely to reach a reproductive age thereby increasing the total population of reproductive age members of the species)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_cannibalism
I think the level of protection children have today is abnormal, and there's a strong incentive to play up how you care about children's welfare. I think in reality people have always felt quite ambivalent about children - an extra mouth to feed whose not strong or knowledgeable enough to do the work of an adult. Before contraception was widely available and corporal punishment was banned, I don't think we could have held the child to be as sacred as we do now. This is to say nothing of child labor in coal mines and factories - if we were so instinctively protective of children how could those practices ever be tolerated?

On Wikipedia it says something useful regarding wild animals and their practice partial cannibalism

"Parental manipulation of brood size may allow the parent the maximize lifetime reproductive output by adjusting current reproductive costs" Its probably natural selection favoring future pay offs.

>if a child is sexually appealling they are

I paused your sentence and I'd argue here they are more likely to be cared for because of baby schema, that is why baby schema evolved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EJ2TKi0Kcw

> This is to say nothing of child labor in coal mines and factories - if we were so instinctively protective of children how could those practices ever be tolerated?

They didn't last long and drew enormous outrage. Even people then knew it was backwards.

The main point is child protection instincts exist even though they are porus, and it seems due to the fact the emotion of disgust governs "food appetite" and "sexual desire" we are in a trouble with the public. The emotion of disgust governing sexuality like a firewall isn't just responsible for anti MAP, it is also responsible for homophobia and transphobia.
https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?p=22178