The Next Step

[hershey]

A few days ago, I read the most recent article on Tom O'Carroll's blog, heretictoc.com, about the life and work of sociologist Floyd M. Martinson. As I read about Martinson's studies on children's sexuality, I began to wonder why even today such studies remain so controversial. Although the actions of organizations like B4U-ACT have led to numerous studies on maps, researchers are still reluctant to conduct similar studies on our young counterparts; and they would never even consider a study on relationships between maps and children. Seeing that a scientific consensus on the benign nature of intergen relationships will be indispensable when negotiating for the legalization of our unique form of love, I asked myself why mainstream researchers are so afraid of studying intergen relationships, despite their willingness to study similarly controversial topics surrounding maps; and what can we do to help them take that next step. Unfortunately, the answer I found is not quite as straightforward as I had hoped.

I think we all have observed that it is easier to advance the opinion of academics than the views of the public. For example, thanks to the work of B4U-ACT, psychiatric researchers have come to accept that maps are simply normal people who have a sexual and romantic attraction to children; whereas the public still conflates us with abusers. However, I have also observed that the academic opinion can only stray so far ahead of the public, as though academia is bound by a short leash. The evidence for this is as previously discussed: despite they're willingness to study various controversial topics surrounding maps, researchers remain unwilling to acknowledge intergen relationships. It is as though intergen relationships are too controversial; they lie just out of reach, given the length of academia's leash. It appears, then, that the only way to get researchers to take that next step is to first get the public up to speed. This poses a significant problem for us. Our community has never really engaged with the public successfully, not in any meaningful way. Frankly, I don't think we're ready for it. There is, however, one thing I can think of that could change that.

I have designed a rough framework for public outreach that I think might be useful, but I'd like to detail that in a post of its own. Instead, I want to explain just a couple of the pillars of this framework before introducing my proposal to help you better understand. Firstly, in-person action is necessary for map activism. For decades, our activism has been confined to the internet. Although that isn't entirely a bad thing — online activism has been instrumental in rallying and unifying the map community — if we want to go beyond that and build trust and understanding with the public, then we have to meet them face-to-face. B4U-ACT has been bringing researchers face-to-face with maps for years. That's how they've been able to affect real change, albeit small. Secondly, map activism must be local or focused on small communities, at least for now. There has been some talk about political parties. Parties are great for bringing national attention to your cause. Our voice, however, is small. How can we manage to have a meaningful conversation with an entire country without our message drowning in deafening noise? Instead, having a conversation with a city, town, or small community? I think that's doable. Notice that B4U-ACT set up their operations in the small city of Baltimore and started a conversation with the niche community of psychiatric researchers interested in "paraphilias" and sexuality. My proposal involves copying this model.

As you may have noticed, I'm a big fan of B4U-ACT. It seems to be one of the most successful map-rights organizations to form since the turn of the century. I think it would be wise of us to replicate their model as we move forward. In particular, we might want to use this model to advocate for some protections before we engage with the public. After all, how can one take action in public when one can be fired just for being a map? How can we organize publicly when law enforcement is constantly at our throats? Well, the answer is to get the legal community on our side. I propose that we use the B4U-ACT model to carve out a space in a small city like Baltimore. There, we would form a nonprofit that brings legal experts and criminology researchers face-to-face with maps for the purpose of reforming the justice system to treat maps fairly and to fight genuine child abuse. This is not a pipe-dream. Organizations like this already exist. Take the Vera Institute, for example. Vera is a nonprofit that connects legal and public policy experts with victims of mass incarceration for the purpose of reforming America's punitive system. In their own words, these experts are determined to restore justice and dignity to people who are unfairly punished by a broken system: people like many in our own community. In fact, we could potentially recruit some of these experts into our own organization, for there are many legal scholars who are disillusioned with this system that, for example, routinely increases punishments and sentencing for maps; despite evidence that this cruel method is ineffective at reducing child abuse. I imagine that these experts would be delighted to have access to a community of maps with and without criminal records on which they could conduct numerous studies to develop a new legal framework that effectively fights child abuse while also treating maps fairly. For us, we get access to a community of experts with the ability to affect public policy. By meeting them face-to-face, we get to build trust and understanding. We could show them data that differentiates us from abusers; we could share with them studies proving that minor-attraction is a sexual orientation that should be protected by law; we could even get them on board with removing "p*dophilic disorder" from the DSM, as the most common argument against its removal is a legal one - "if its removed, then p*dophiles could get rights, oh no!" Indeed, having the support of the legal community would be a boon to our in-person activism and might give us the confidence we need to start a meaningful conversation with the public.

In summary, researchers are afraid to study such controversial topics as intergen love because they are bound by public opinion, like a dog on a short leash. Thus, the only way to get researchers to take that next step is to first pull the public forward. This would create a positive feedback loop where moving the public forward helps us move researchers forward which, again, helps us move the public forward, and so on; just like walking a dog on a leash. However, before we engage with the public, it would be wise of us to build connections with legal experts and advocate for basic legal protections. This proposal is an actionable next step that would materially improve our standing as maps. Let us put our boots on and take it.



---- Post Script ----

Thank you for reading to the end of my post! If you have any thoughts - agreements, disagreements, recommendations - then I'd love to hear them. Let's workshop this idea and see if we can take action!

[Fragment]

I agree that we need to make more friends in the legal community. I recommend that people who can, join NARSOL or their local state branch. NARSOL itself isn't able to take a strong stand on MAP issues. Their branding is about "we made a mistake but we'll never do it again". Admitting to an inborn attraction that can't be controlled weakens that message of rehabilitation. However, we CAN use NARSOL for personal networking. Reform of the sex offender registry is something that directly helps offending MAPs, but also helps shift the public narrative regarding adult-minor sexual contact in general.

Mu is definitely trying to push things in the direction you're talking about. But there is a lot of inertia. A lot of MAPs are used to their communities existing solely online. A lot of MAPs are used to discussing MAP issues amongst themselves but never trying to engage with the public. Given the massive blows the community faced in the 00s when Unveiled Evil was at its most active I can understand why the community withdrew back into itself to a degree. BoyChat lost multiple admins. Sure Quality Radio went down due to arrests. The Pedologues stopped when Rookiee was doxxed.

We still face the threat of doxxing. People recklessly breaking the law still face the threat of arrest. But it doesn't seem quite as bad as it was. It will always be risky to be public facing. But until we face the public, we'll never make major progress.

[hershey]

Thank you for your reply ^^

I recommend that people who can, join NARSOL or their local state branch. NARSOL itself isn't able to take a strong stand on MAP issues. Their branding is about "we made a mistake but we'll never do it again". Admitting to an inborn attraction that can't be controlled weakens that message of rehabilitation. However, we CAN use NARSOL for personal networking.

Joining the local NARSOL branch to meet local maps sounds like a great idea. Thanks for that recommendation. I can't be sure that I'd meet the kind of maps that I'm looking for at a place with that sort of branding, but I suppose it's worth a try.

We still face the threat of doxxing. People recklessly breaking the law still face the threat of arrest. But it doesn't seem quite as bad as it was. It will always be risky to be public facing. But until we face the public, we'll never make major progress.

That is certainly a major threat that I forgot to consider. However, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe anyone has been doxxed as a result of their association with B4U-ACT. The only person I can think of is Alan Walker, but the hate campaign against them was caused by their interview with Prostasia, iirc (I guess it was a little irresponsible of them to post that on youtube). It's possible that nonprofits that have some air of professionalism, like B4U-ACT - and NARSOL, to a lesser extent - are safe places for maps to come out, network, and take action. This might make them the ideal vehicles for offline map activism moving forward.

[PorcelainLark]

I think a big part of the problem has been the spread of anti-intellectualism originating from tabloid journalism combined with the idealization of vigilantes in media during the 80s. Since academics have to fight to be listened to on everything, their hands are tied concerning unpopular areas of research and supporting unpopular policies. If society can start to go back to respecting experts, there's a chance things could change.

Also:

So, let me tell you about the guy. Martinson was a professor of sociology for an astonishing 55 years, from 1945 until his death in 2000, at just one institution, Gustavus Adolphus College, Minnesota, a liberal arts college in his native state, associated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. After his first couple of decades in the job he must have been seen as an institution in himself, part of the fabric of the place. Having also grown up and been educated entirely within the state, his local roots ran very deep. Like the college itself, he was a pillar of the Lutheran Church, with a stable family life from 1946 onwards when he married his wife Beatrice, a match that gave them five children. Such stability would have made him a man trusted enough to handle such a controversial research subject as child sexuality.

Lutherans being based about sexuality again?

[TMKnight]

What we need is someone like Samuel Curtis "Curt" Johnson, or Robert Richards who are both billionaires, publically known, and arguably are MAPs. I know this because of the arrest record. Even if they do not believe in us, Mr. Johnson will likely have more to gain. Because assuming, he could argue something along the line of mutual interests from both him and his 'victim'. Mr. Richards that one will be a harder sell because even some MAPs would find his actions with a toddler to be whatever they might think. But even in his case, trying to make the world understand MAPs differently might help him in whatever way that might.

But for us, whether they do it directly or subvert with surrogates of other MAPs might work. We need to find us a Ben Shapiro-level debator. One who can counter any argument. I might be able to help with an earpiece. Because I am not quick, it usually takes me time. But I have a counter to any augment someone brings up. I might be able to articulate that clearly either.

My plan is this, build my business. Build a team, hope someone like Mr. Johnson will sponsor us and go from there.
If anyone think they could convince Mr. Richard, or Mr. Johnson to work with us. Ask him/them to work with me on my business startup.

Anyway, the other choice is to raise one of us up to billionaire status. Which three of my ideas can do. The question is are there any MAPs here who has their own well enough resources they would chance in a startup?