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.