Gay Rollback Is Coming (And That's A Good Thing)

[reaver]

Not having the option to marry has a practical impact of people.

With the dismissal of marriage and a low AoC as beneficial to men loving girls, in favor of extreme anti-pedophilia driven by liberal identity politics, one might be forgiven for thinking otherwise. Show why men wanting to marry twinks, in contrast to young girls, are people!

That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative. You have to show it is a zero sum game.

If he's wrong, it sucks even more for us.


If you are so interested in proofs, why are they lacking for your own assertions?

[PorcelainLark]

With the dismissal of marriage and a low AoC as beneficial to men loving girls, in favor of extreme anti-pedophilia driven by liberal identity politics, one might be forgiven for thinking otherwise. Show why men wanting to marry twinks, in contrast to young girls, are people!

wut?

If you are so interested in proofs, why are they lacking for your own assertions?

Which ones specifically?

[Artaxerxes II]

Aside from heterosexual hebephiles, I don't see the regression as beneficial to heterosexual MAPs either. I agree with the last part though.

It's only positive insofar that it will level the playing field because, now that the populists in Europe and North America are gaining steam, it'll make it easier for us MAPs to rag on the left the same way the alt-right used to rag onto centre-right parties into adopting a more white nationalist platform. And they succeeded. I don't see why MAPs can't take lessons from other subcultures like the alt-right.

It should be pointed out if it makes any difference whether you see a regression in the alphabet group or not since MAPs are seeing their rights regressed anyway.

I guess you must be an exclusive MAP if you don't get that. Plenty of teleiophile men marry people from other countries. I don't get why my twink from south-east Asia is less legitimate than than a woman from the same place. Not having the option to marry has a practical impact of people.

Well, international marriage doesn't really change my point about marriage as an exclusive institution and the flawed talking points for so-called "anal marriage", besides the same can be said of youth-adult marriage, but y'know, beggars can't be choosers. And yh, the fight for so-called "anal marriage" was indeed a fight to ascend into normiehood considering how much of the propaganda behind relied on the notion that gay sex was ok as long as one of the partners wasn't below the magic age line. Also, considering the declining marriage rates, one wonders if the whole fight over it was worthless and thus nothing would have changed if faeries got the "right to marry" or not.

that doesn't mean I want LGBT lives to get harder.

.
Well, then you'll never be able to get them on your side as long as they can live cushy lives at the cost of us being oppressed. The only way you'll get them to listen to you and engage with your points is when they are forced to, and more often than not that means changing their material conditions to meet the requirements. It doesn't have other mean that you need to engage in gay bashing, but to get them to engage with your ideas, the lobby as a whole needs to be demolished such that they'll be force to compromise with us.

In fact, given how inconsequential MAPs are now, the regression would happen with or without you lifting a finger.

Why do female voters care about it so much then?

If they did then white women in America wouldn't overwhelmingly vote for Trump who did pledge to repeal Roe v Wade. Lo and behold, he did and now barely anyone talks about abortion law anymore despite the fact that some states have restrictions on abortion stricter than any abortion law in 19th century America.

That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative. You have to show it is a zero sum game.

It's just self-evident, considering how the liberalisation of adult sexuality has been concomitant with the increasing focus on protectionism for people below the magic age line. In fact, the mantra of "two consenting adults" is based on the exclusion of us MAPs. Same goes for feminism where any advance on women's careers be it in the form of gender quotas or DEI has led to the disempowerment of men, which is why the gender wars are a thing, at least in America where feminism is much less hegemonic than in northwest Europe, Northern Europe, Canada and Australia.

I'm not convinced the right to gay marriage is damaging my interests as a MAP.

Well, to me it does.

[Scorchingwilde]

that doesn't mean I want LGBT lives to get harder.

.
Well, then you'll never be able to get them on your side as long as they can live cushy lives at the cost of us being oppressed. The only way you'll get them to listen to you and engage with your points is when they are forced to, and more often than not that means changing their material conditions to meet the requirements. It doesn't have other mean that you need to engage in gay bashing, but to get them to engage with your ideas, the lobby as a whole needs to be demolished such that they'll be force to compromise with us.

In fact, given how inconsequential MAPs are now, the regression would happen with or without you lifting a finger.

That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative. You have to show it is a zero sum game.

It's just self-evident, considering how the liberalisation of adult sexuality has been concomitant with the increasing focus on protectionism for people below the magic age line. In fact, the mantra of "two consenting adults" is based on the exclusion of us MAPs. Same goes for feminism where any advance on women's careers be it in the form of gender quotas or DEI has led to the disempowerment of men, which is why the gender wars are a thing, at least in America where feminism is much less hegemonic than in northwest Europe, Northern Europe, Canada and Australia.

I'm not convinced the right to gay marriage is damaging my interests as a MAP.

Well, to me it does.

I am slightly confused about your point, Artaxerxes. If social power in society (respect of identity, culture, nonmaterial rights, etc.) is a zero sum game, then how will the rollback of queer rights and the subsequent reckoning and alliance between telio LGBT people and cishet MAPs do anything to help both communities in the long term? Wouldn't there being a zero sum game imply that it's in the best interests of cishet MAPs to avoid allying with willing LGBT groups so that they have someone beneath them to gain their power from oppressing and/or scapegoating? This framework also suggests queer MAPs are also just shit out of luck no matter what, which could be true, sure, but that's seems to be point against your argument that it's in queer MAPs' best interests for telio-queer rights to fall away.

[Artaxerxes II]

I am slightly confused about your point, Artaxerxes. If social power in society (respect of identity, culture, nonmaterial rights, etc.) is a zero sum game, then how will the rollback of queer rights and the subsequent reckoning and alliance between telio LGBT people and cishet MAPs do anything to help both communities in the long term? Wouldn't there being a zero sum game imply that it's in the best interests of cishet MAPs to avoid allying with willing LGBT groups so that they have someone beneath them to gain their power from oppressing and/or scapegoating? This framework also suggests queer MAPs are also just shit out of luck no matter what, which could be true, sure, but that's seems to be point against your argument that it's in queer MAPs' best interests for telio-queer rights to fall away.

Having tactical alliances doesn't invalidate my point that power in society is a zero-sum game since one can form strategic partnerships even in a context where power can't be equally divided among the members of said alliance (e.g., back when pederasts were still part of the gay rights struggle), but you're right in that ultimately one or the other has to fall. As for queer MAPs, I only disagree insofar that we currently live in the apogee of gay rights and yet has there been any improvement for queer MAPs at all that was solely exclusive to them?

[PorcelainLark]

Well, international marriage doesn't really change my point about marriage as an exclusive institution and the flawed talking points for so-called "anal marriage", besides the same can be said of youth-adult marriage, but y'know, beggars can't be choosers. And yh, the fight for so-called "anal marriage" was indeed a fight to ascend into normiehood considering how much of the propaganda behind relied on the notion that gay sex was ok as long as one of the partners wasn't below the magic age line. Also, considering the declining marriage rates, one wonders if the whole fight over it was worthless and thus nothing would have changed if faeries got the "right to marry" or not.

I agree with the "magic age line", but I'm not convinced it's in my best interests as a non-exclusive bisexual MAP to make life harder regarding gay rights. It's not about the length of marriage for me, it's about whether you can bring a partner from another country depends on whether it's a heterosexual or straight relationship. This is why I wonder if you're exclusive, because to non-exclusives it seems like it's an obvious issue, not that I have a problem with exclusives, I can understand that perspective too (even if I disagree with it.

Well, then you'll never be able to get them on your side as long as they can live cushy lives at the cost of us being oppressed. The only way you'll get them to listen to you and engage with your points is when they are forced to, and more often than not that means changing their material conditions to meet the requirements. It doesn't have other mean that you need to engage in gay bashing, but to get them to engage with your ideas, the lobby as a whole needs to be demolished such that they'll be force to compromise with us.

Well, I'm part of both groups, so it's not an us versus them thing for me. If MAP rights come at the expense of LGBT rights, it isn't in my interest. I'm not convinced making life harder for LGBT will make them more sympathetic to MAP rights. In my experience it's the opposite, people say stuff like "the right is right we haven't gotten enough distance from pederasts, we need to show we're better than that". The problem is catering to the right, not LGBT rights themselves. We need less people like Blair White, not more.

If they did then white women in America wouldn't overwhelmingly vote for Trump who did pledge to repeal Roe v Wade. Lo and behold, he did and now barely anyone talks about abortion law anymore despite the fact that some states have restrictions on abortion stricter than any abortion law in 19th century America.

White women are part of the total population of women, but not all women.

It's just self-evident, considering how the liberalisation of adult sexuality has been concomitant with the increasing focus on protectionism for people below the magic age line. In fact, the mantra of "two consenting adults" is based on the exclusion of us MAPs. Same goes for feminism where any advance on women's careers be it in the form of gender quotas or DEI has led to the disempowerment of men, which is why the gender wars are a thing, at least in America where feminism is much less hegemonic than in northwest Europe, Northern Europe, Canada and Australia.

I mean, I'd I agree it's rhetorically convenient. I'm not sure that it's necessary. I'd agree sex-negative feminism is a problem, but I'd say it's more central of a problem than LGBT rights. There are more women in the world than LGBT people, so if LGBT people cater to sex-negative feminism it seems down stream from there.