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

[Anonymous_Lover]

.

[Officerkrupke]

In fact, they are actually aiding our marginalization rather than it being a net positive or totally unrelated/neutral thing.

You act like the Left is the main driving force behind MAP marginalization. It’s wishful thinking to root for democracy to fall and just hope Christian Nationalists will be our new allies.They are anti-anything sex outside of marriage, especially “sexual deviance” aka us.
Hint: It’s been the years long campaign of trying to associate the Left and LGBT with “child grooming” like by Matt Walsh that shows their desperation for the last 5+ years.(This is obviously Q-influenced)

Your next government is going to look a lot closer to Hungary or Russia, famously pro-MAP places, and nice places to live, especially for freedom of speech but at least the “Left” isn’t in control. X is famously less moderated, you’re just seeing the result. And speaking of LARPing…

And, you can't be a revolutionary if you're deathly afraid of the end of this present status quo. You have to be willing to break some eggs or to accept that broken eggs you care about are a possibility

[Learning to undeny]

I don't care too much about gay marriage itself (although I support it right now), but if we regress to a time without gay marriage (in those parts of the world where it's a thing) it will be because homophobia has increased, and people will be more vigilant about deviant sexualities in general. Also, you can make a straight male movement if you want, but over a half of people here seem to be bi or gay:
https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.p ... rls#p15297
(That poll didn't ask about your gender. I could be wrong. But at least 1/3 are bi.)

So all of us gay and bi MAPs here have to be happy with gay rollback? I do not feel identified with the LGBT movement, but bisexuality is also part of me. I'd feel attacked if people started complaining more about homosexuality.

Artaxerxes II and myself have already made the point, which I find compelling, that when the defense of gay marriage against bigots largely comes down to "who cares what consenting adults do in their privacy of their own home" then actually is it a zero sum struggle between us and them.

If gay marriage is part of the status quo and accepted by the majority, the arguments used the rare occasion where you have to defend it against bigots (probably without much public) have little repercussion. People accept what they are accustomed to without a deeper reason. On the other hand, if gay marriage becomes the subject of debate again, you will see all those anti-MAP arguments used more often by LGBT people. I think you address this in the following quote:

People talk about woke 2.0, i think thats mostly a fake meme, but if it does consolidate, as things stand now, it will be vociferously anti-MAP and that is desirable because...? Seems to me the more they are allowed to fail the more they will either not be able to control the conversation around our issue or will have to enter unconventional alliances such as begrudging acceptance of MAPs.

Who knows long-term if that will happen, but short-term if LGBT loses some power they would still be massively popular and position themselves more strongly against MAPs to try to save themselves. I don't think that's beneficial to us. Do we have to wait 20 years or something until they (if your will materializes) lose so much power that they ally with MAPs or become irrelevant?

Not a single group is criminalized or socially ostracized to a fraction of the extent that MAPs are and that's just a fact. I argue all the time that MAPs are the most criminalized and excluded sexual minority that history has ever known. In the grand scheme of things, this may be their just deserts, because freeing MAPs could be the key to freeing all excluded sexual minorities.

Probably...

I realize it can be a scary thing but you have to be willing to let enemies lose even if you fear rival enemies will do you real harm. If you want to be a revolutionary you have to accept this could all end badly and even the revolution we're fighting for might not only get obliterated but end up doing more harm than good. Yet can a soldier abandon his post on the fear that an enemy artillery strike on his position might mean he will die a senseless death or even that his sacrifice could somehow do more harm than good?

The middle class leadership/constituency of this movement who push reform and reconciliation with the system and the LGBT/feminist lobbies + the bloated corpse of the liberal establishment, who seem to be disproportionately made up of Gen Xers or late millennials fail to realize that we do need to be revolutionary to win our goals. Even reforms can't be won without revolutionary action.

And, you can't be a revolutionary if you're deathly afraid of the end of this present status quo. You have to be willing to break some eggs or to accept that broken eggs you care about are a possibility.

OK, that's fine but I just don't want LGBT people to lose rights "just in case" it helps us some day... I just don't have hope that things will turn out as you say, to be honest.

[Anonymous_Lover]

.

[weird.organisms]

There are toxics in both groups. The more vulnerable/covert will take the far left because "at least we're not neo Nazis!" and those on the far right are overt and loud angry fascist assholes who want to cut healthcare. Yes, that includes children's healthcare. There are mean, intolerant people in every political spectrum which is why i personally think politics should be highly reworked as MAPs and AAMs gain traction.

Until we evolve as species or just get rid of these toxic people in political settings, political agendas will only continue to grow more and more radical with each generation.

However it doesn't make sense! According to Google: "Liberalism focuses on individual rights, constitutional governance, and free markets to protect personal liberties. Liberation is a collective framework aimed at dismantling systemic oppression, prioritizing transformative social change and solidarity for the most vulnerable." Also "Liberal describes a political or social philosophy focused on openness to new ideas, individual rights, and reforming established systems."

Thus clearly individual rights, social change and dismantlement of systematic oppression must not apply to children or MAPs. SO much calling themselves liberals who are open to new ideas...

They CLAIM they're all for equality and whatnot, but it's not at all what it is in practice. They oppress youth acting like they're "helping" them (control), they lawnmower parent (to make the children see them as the only safety network for better dominance), and helicopter parent (making them feel insecure with anything and everything, creating a trauma bond by dopaminergic isolation).

Politics is just a mask they wear to make themselves look like decent people. Liberal in relation to liberation should suggest they're open, but their behavior especially towards MAPs and children in general dictates anything BUT that.

My father describes himself as democratic/liberal, and he's nothing like these crazy "liberals".

[Anonymous_Lover]

.

[Anonymous_Lover]

.

[Learning to undeny]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not a data scientist or statistician but I wouldn't take any poll from within a MAP forum as representative of anything other than the composition within that organization given that the internet and organizations in general have filtering processes etc.

Yeah, that's just about people in this community. (Even then, there are biases, but anyway.)

All this is to say, whether GL was already more prevalent in cultural practice but not as represented in literature and art for whatever reason, or the slow creep in GL-oriented media and "sacred myth" (for lack of a better term here) from the 19th century onwards has helped produce it is an open-question. Already, by the mid-19th century, Marx is citing doctors reports arguing there are towns where female virgins above the age of 12 from working class backgrounds simply cannot be found. "CSA" statistics (1/4th girls vs 1/8th of boys) and the volume of prurient MAP-coded media and outright porn does tend to support the idea that GL is the most prominent form of MAP attraction.

Yeah I believe there are more GLs, especially including hebephilic ones. I just found it a bit odd that you would try to sell gay rollback to a community with so many LGBT individuals. Well, I guess it can make sense if you see it as a new stage from which to adapt and build the future, a stage with its own problems. But I wouldn't advocate for GLs against BLs, I don't care if they are more common.

It seems very interesting to me that in the 70s and 80s and into the early 90s that gay, lesbian, bi, trans and feminist advocates could engage with academic research or advocacy groups like NAMbLA without much shock or horror. Maybe its simply a testament to how reactionary the general political and cultural trend since at least 1980 has been and I think there's truth there but I'm not sure that that's it. When pedophilia was associated being gay, with gay male anal, a cause many on the left wanted to promote it was cool, hip and counter-culture when more, when it was considered a possible barrier to getting (adult) gay male anal then solidarity could be expressed there however weakly, but the more research that came out indicating it was also predominantly a straight male interest and girls were more often to be the so-called victims plus it was looking more and more like it wouldn't be necessary to convince the public to be cool with it due to the conflation of the topics it was suddenly dropped. The Left has gone to bat for exceedingly unpopular causes in many instances like open borders, school busing, and trans kids (particularly a non-medicalist stance here) and in these cases it often did hurt their ability to actually gain power or their credibility on other issues they were more popular on but they felt the need to go ahead anyways. You really have to ask yourself why, in spite of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, the Left did not feel the need to take a lonely and unpopular but necessary stance here that ran counter to the existing mainstream center/right-wing climate.

That's an interesting theory. I'm not entirely sure, as they used to say paedophilia was gay regardless of the genders of the partners... But would it be so stigmatized if it was more common in women or gay men, for example? We may never know...

Personal subjective happiness is irrelevant imo because it is already occurring, and on the trans issue in particular there's been massive reversal that's possibly even completely undone more than a decade of trans activism where the cause seemed to be relentlessly knocking down everything in its path. One might say maybe it was better to let trans issues fly under the radar if one had known in advance it was going to provoke a right-wing/TERF backlash that would make things that used to be very uncontroversial bc people didn't know about them and they were niche like medicalist youth trans treatment, anti-trans legislation is being passed on topics that was never previously a subject of law leading to direct repression thats worse than what many trans people experienced prior to the 2010s breakout of the trans cause/identity.

If you had told people this would happen in say 2018, or even much later, in say 2022-2024, people wouldn't have believed it. Now, its become a normal fact of life, provoking 400,000 internal migrations in the US, and as one post correctly said if such migration was being observed of a minority in Russia and China, the Western media would immediately leap forward with accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Much like the overturn of Roe v. Wade made legal abortion access impossible in much of the United States, a previously unthinkable trans rollback has already occured and life has somehow moved on. It will likely move on if gays are forced into the closet and people here are underestimating the likelihood that not only will it occur but that it might be successful in the short to medium term.

And, to wit, I know from first hand experience on this subject in 2022-24 because I was warning MAPs not to get too excited about the whole trans kids thing because the medicalist paradigm creates an easy out so liberals don't have to consider pedophilia in the same vein and its not particularly persuasive to someone who doesn't accept a medicalist interpretation of gender dysphoria. I was also warning a trans backlash was likely. [I wrote on the topic of TERFism/feminism that I am going to make into a separate post since i want to address you directly]

OK, that makes sense and we should not see what we have as permanent, even if it's hard.

Defending gay marriage means that MAPs are engaged in free labor and propaganda work on behalf of people who consider us enemies. Politically, its a big loser to add our voice to the choir for no direct benefit, no promises or assurances.

I'm not saying MAPs literally doing propaganda in favor of gay marriage, my point was simply that if gay marriage stayed stable where it exists then that doesn't affect MAPs negatively. Only defending it where it is not stable could affect us.

And, idk if its worth going into the fact that many gay rights radicals that were part of the original 70s movement and survived the AIDs epidemic were openly opposed and hostile to gay marriage because it undermined the content and spirit of the Revolution they had been fighting for, there were a not small number of people from that 70s scene who didn't even say the movement as gay or LGBT prior to the invention of that acronym but as a universalist sex-positive sexual liberation movement. And this is a bit of an aside, but if members of the MAP movement want to keep anything from their "gay rights" forebears why don't they keep that? For someone like Tom O'Carroll or Harry Hay that had a close connection to their 1st wave MAP or gay aligned activism. I don't see any constituency or side of the political aisle where that fits in quite naturally tbh in 2026 due to the rise of purity culture, not merely religious but secular, and the puriteens.

Yeah. Again I don't care so much about gay marriage directly (I prefer the spirit of the sexual liberation movement, as unlikely as it seems nowadays) as about what gay marriage falling would likely entail. Best-case would be a new movement with that universalist flavour, but that's maybe unlikely...

Who has a bigger microphone? The MAP movement or the gay lobby? If gays stop the rollback (somewhat unlikely) they won't credit it to us even if we help. Do you know what we do have? We are an avante-garde movement that is cool, hip, foward-looking and futurist. Kids are making idols out of Diddy, Epstein, and Peter Scully as a way to rebel against their parents, older generations and the stagnant order. We don't have billions in NGO and big political party money that can create an army of paid activists, that can turn on the (dying) traditional media and spin it in our favor. But what we are is a new movement, not even the 1st wave was primarily composed of GL pedophiles or even pedophiles in general, much of the motivation behind joining PIE and NAMbLA was striking down age-related laws that disproportionately affected gays. We can say much of the leadership had bigger goals and commitments tend to grow over time as people are involved in scenes and become exposed to a group's general world outlook.

What we have is we're a 21st century movement thats radically new in a world where most of the world is replaying 20th century politics and oppositions or even throwing back to 18th/19th century political faultlines and oppositions. I wouldn't downplay the potential impact that something underfunded, understaffed, undersupported but politically fresh and new can have in politics. One of the reasons that Mussolini succeeded when he really shouldn't have been able to is he was able to position fascism as something fresh and new, he positioned liberalism (aka capitalism) vs. communism as stagnant 19th century questions and problems that no longer fit the new conditions and century. [...]

With us, I believe we have a movement thats so desperate for success and action without focus that the movement sells short what is deeply appealing about it. The fact that its marginal, weird, and feels very new to people outside it, is in many ways its strength.

That's refreshing.

Do we have to wait 20 years or something until they (if your will materializes) lose so much power that they ally with MAPs or become irrelevant?

Does anyone have an actual timeline for victory? The fact that I never hear one underscores something I've come to believe, MAPs have no strategy, what MAPs believe is strategy is actually better classified as tactics and they are continually conflating the two. Funny how this arises in opposition to my stance but never seems to come up almost any other time. Under Biden some MAPs seemed to act as if they were going to abolish aoc tomorrow cuz trans kids and I say we should make the most of the present situation and suddenly its going to set things back by 20 years as if i personally determine the timeline.

What I will say is Strat thought that pro-C normalization work would truly begin in earnest in the 2030s I actually disagreed with this saying i thought its too conservative given how history is speeding up. If you don't want to be waiting forever for the anti-MAP system to end then you probably need to take a more radical approach that exploits the contradictions that presently exist, not the contradictions of 60-20 years ago or the contradictions you wish were the case.

Has any movement in the past ever had an accurate timeline for victory? The future is always surprising.

[Officerkrupke]

Im convinced we need a movement that is small l liberal(civil liberties, like freedom of speech and privacy) and taking no sides on the gender war. It was the liberal environment that nambla grew up in(but in the beginning of the backlash) that made it possible. We have a limited liberalism(LGBT, and non-reproductive sex) with increasing attacks on privacy(Age Verification, War on Terror). Better to fortify then attack.

We need all the allies we can get, and are NOT in the position to have designated enemies. Orgs like NAMBLA were controversial to liberals and LGBT even in the 80s, and they stayed a subculture because of it.

[Scorchingwilde]

In my heart of hearts, I can admit to having a certain attraction to say late 18th century to mid-19th century European liberalism or mid-20th century American liberalism, particularly, though I suspect its the opposite for many people, I often have a certain soft spot for the emotionality and sensitivity of liberals as individuals rather than I do for the ideology itself.

I do too in many ways, it's nice to see someone else express that here.

The problem is that you start criticizing liberalism and people in scenes like this (but its not exclusive to here) start acting like you kicked over their sand castle. People who are at least just a little bit off the beaten path have created sanctuaries, (some might even say fandoms) where they can interact with each other and then someone comes in with the temerity to say this isn't good enough and the God your worshiping kinda resembles a golden calf. Well, to say that some people get extraordinarily angry (not saying you) is an understatement.

What's telling is that much anti-liberal discourse on the radical Left is not necessarily anti-liberal but angry rhetoric criticizing the managers of the system for not living up to their own liberal ideals. One might for instance note the indignation that some have for the American founders for permitting slavery while declaring all men were created equal. Another example where historical on-the-ground reality fell short of ideals, especially interpreted from a present vantagepoint, is that the radical Jacobin republic of 1793 granted universal suffrage to men and not to women.

To take something a little more contemporary and which was a big focus on pedi we have disability advocacy. From a liberal point of view, every adult must have a free ability to compete in the market but if something immutable prevents this, such as disability, then there is a deep problem there. For anyone who isn't an open eugenicist willing to openly cosign murder by neglect the problem of disability and capitalism is a vexing one. At a certain point, something must be done to provide for the disabled or make accommodations for them, the capitalist class naturally wants the population with "legitimate disabilities" to be as small as possible and accommodations to be as few as possible to save themselves money and from potential lawsuits.

So radical disability advocacy often focuses on how capitalist society has created bigoted attitudes in many people and the actual reality of the support that people receive with disabilities falls way short. Yet even if it were possible to accommodate all disabled people to a sufficient degree what are we to say about a society that would give healthy non-disabled people the "reward" of sending most of their waking hours working with their boss dictating everything else about what they can and can't do at work that isn't related to the sphere of disability? The fact that the ideals that the system promotes doesn't live up to its stated values and promises often conceals the flaws in the ideal and deep dysfunction and exploitative nature of the system at a bone deep level.

This was very insightful, and I agree almost entirely. It took me a long while to process, and unfortunately for activist discussion my own thoughts on the matter are colored by my identity, though I hope they're worth reading to someone on here, now or in the future.

So, I often worry that in the end collectivist ideals will also end up propagating bigotry and eugenics. I once watched a video about why an insect 'king' wouldn't work biologically, and was deeply shocked and horrified to learn that bees that live in hives systemically murder intersex larvae. When I consider my own immutable identities, of which being a hebephile, being a MAP, and being transgender and having some flavor of an asocial personality (not aggressive, but also deeply uninvested in socializing outside of partners and kids) is one of them.

I'm skeptical of my ability to live authentically without enduring unbearable pain or death under any kind of collectivism system, despite being a socialist. I used to believe very strong in anarcho-communism, with flexibility for adjacent ideas. Even Anti-MAP anarcho-communists, who I still consider myself to be in some ways, when they describe a far off ideal future, continue to describe adult minor relationships as inherently violent. The hypocritical ones will fantasize about doing violence to us, but even the 'nice' ones describe ways to use social pressure and 'community support' to keep us celibate and alone. It often sounds like the anti-gay Christian vision of what heaven would be for people who are gay in this life, where we're never allowed to be with our partners and anyone who made it to heaven despite being in a committed queer relationship would be separated from them and 'cleansed of that forgivable sin' so they wouldn't care and magically be happy. Whether the collectivist framework that emerges in liberalism's collapse is merciful and good to others (socialism, communism) or hierarchical and deadly to others (fascism), my sex life is going to be hell.

Even if someone or thing created a magic button, the 'cure' for either being a MAP or queer, I'd still have to reckon with what it means for my life, happiness and existence being contingent upon undergoing conversion therapy for one abnormal orientation whilst the other sexual aspect of me is valid and the world needs to be changed to the point no one is in enough pain that they want or need a 'cure' for their inner identity. It's an absolute mental nightmare to be harassed into trying conversion therapy on yourself, and then the second you get over self-hate and find acceptance to get told by the people who helped you love yourself that now you need to do that same thing again for something else because your worth is unconditional on your sexuality but not this time, this time it's "totally different" and you're enacting violence by even expressing confusion or hurt.

I wouldn't wish this pain on anyone else.
That existential question of the source of my worth can eat me up on my worst days, and the only pain reliever that works at present is to work harder in ways the market or my anti-MAP family and friends value so I can make enough to both support others and have an excuse for whomever is upset by my being 'abnormal.' I'm lucky enough to have the position and ability to maybe be one of the 'labor aristocracy' one day and care for at least some of the people around me, or else at least be independent financially, and I've developed a decent ability to stay in the toybox about MAP stuff.

So, when liberal capitalist society declares that all people are equal and then gives parents the ability to treat children as practical chattel slaves and ruthlessly criminalizes any romantic or sexual relationship that a freedperson (adult) might have with said slave it seems like hypocrisy. But, this might be a contradiction that goes deep down into the bone marrow of liberalism. An adult is someone who can make a contract.

This hit hard. That is how they view consent, and, ironically, despite right wing protests to the contrary, is one reason why they don't think transgender kids have any rights that contradict their parents' over them. Social democracies seemed to be even worse in this regard than neoliberal governments until recently, where both have become terrible. And also, personally I wouldn't have wanted to have any sexual contact with others pre-transition despite being 'ready' in terms of attraction and libido back when I was a legal minor. For me personally, genital surgery would have probably been what I would need to be willing back then. Basically every liberal and even leftist is against genital surgery for minors. Puberty blocking and hormone therapy are treated differently, and while in the case of the former it can be argued it's because it's reversible, I think both are considered viable to liberals in a way genital surgery isn't because people the only function there is sexual pleasure and/or reproduction. Sexual wellbeing and comfort for trans minors isn't something I have ever seen anyone else ever care about, on any political side. I often got the sense this issue colors how trans people who aren't MAPs see adult-minor sex when I was in more queer spaces.

But I'm not actually sure tthat liberalism at the structural ideological level is well-intentioned when it comes to kids and MAPs. Most liberal media that isn't children's media is deeply ageist and thats often true even when you go back before recent times.

I think you're right. It probably also explains why almost all the fiction I can tolerate (and what I find most comfortable) is liberal children or teen's media. It's not about emotional difficulty in understanding other things, I read copious amounts of nonfiction, and it doesn't seem to be related to subject matter covered or how dark or sad a story/history is or isn't.

But yeah I mean what you can say there's no shortage of people who are liberal or left who might also not be good or consistent people. By the same token, many kind empathetic people fail to see liberalism's flaws bc they see say the right wing alternative and conclude its worse, and because liberals do produce more empathetic messaging and propaganda that appeals to them. But, in reality, I'm not so sure they see the connection between liberalism and the anti-social mindsets they dislike, or extreme excesses like centi-billionaires and even trillionaires, and just the economic system in general that kinda has liberalism running as its bare metal OS.

I guess that provokes a question for me: can good, kind, and empathetic people be liberals if they truly reckon with its core problems and contradictions in a thorough and systemic way?

Honestly, if I can't be assured of sexual liberation and bodily autonomy in other political ideologies, I might end up there one day myself. I'm trying my best to resist it and find alternatives, but on some level the vision of the delusional 'abundance' movement comforts me. It will largely depend on which of the current socioeconomic threats facing mine (and to be fair, many others') lives persist and which are ameliorated or eliminated.

I'll posit two strucutral reasons why liberals in high positions are suddenly seeming to become fascists or become accommodating towards fascists

1. Their real loyalty is to the system and the system is under deep threat and its percieved by them that the normal methods that are compatible with democracy for managing state and social contradictions no longer work
2. Liberalism was born in barely post-feudal societies, and as such, production was carried out on a very individual/household basis and so individualism was the most natural way to approach market relations, as production, finance, and commerce has centralized into gigantic corporate entities with thousands and thousands of workers, the economic basis of liberalism that helps create the shared sense of lived social reality, no longer correlates with the political basis of liberalism, which might be feeding not only the political decay towards fascism but also the decreasing latitude that individuals are given in day to day life and culture.

On an anecdotal note, maybe they are fine with an individual dying their hair green bc its a compensation for the lack of meaningful individual choice in day to day life but also I do feel even little extravagances like this are going away.

A likely hypothesis and an accurate observation, I'd say. I wish I could offer more in the way of expanding on this analysis.