How many of you?

[TMKnight]

In our quest to get the public to accept us, I have been advocating for us to reach out to those who are publically known as pedophiles, MAPs, or someone who found a momentary comfort in a child. I am sure each of you could come up with a list. The two I advocate for is Mister Samuel Curtis "Curt" Johnson, and/or Mister Robert Richards. As they are both publically know, and they are billionaires.

But imagine the wealthier members of the MAP community pooling together resources (that are legal and do not trigger anyone.)
The two names above are investors and might help one of us (hint it is me), with a business startup concept any of us might have. In the future we would work on creating a data resource center, maybe work on licensing and allow us to run a formal and proper study. Because an advocacy group who does more than talk.

AND if the advocacy group is to crazy maybe they will help us build a new country. Which sadly I think is less crazy than trying to convince our respective governments to change their ways. California is the closest it we might ever come to. But that is 50 50.

I wrote those men once, AS you can see I am not the best writer. I do not know how to sell them on my ideas by letter. I could if I could talk to them directly. But alone I cannot do it. So the question is how many of you would help me write a letter to either or both of them? How many do you think can convince them? Is the public address for them correct?

Any thoughts?

What I wish was that we all could go an X space or Zoom like meeting somewhere online without all the risks. The real problem with either is all it takes is one person on here not to be a true MAP or person who believes in the idea of giving children liberty might report us even if we are not doing anything wrong. Zoom the risk is our faces become public and that is still another BS thing. Unless one of you have a suggestion. These forums are okay, but it can take days or weeks before one replies, if at all. But with a voice/video the exchange is a little more fluid.

If all that make sense. I will clear things up if I need to.

[PorcelainLark]

I could help, if you like. Though the only celebrity I think is an unambiguous MAP, Gary Glitter, has no money, no influence, and is in prison for possessing CSAM (as far as I'm aware, he wasn't a predator like Saville or a psychopath like Fritzl; in a pro-contact world, he would have just been a normal MAP). Others like Roman Polanski seem to only be opportunistic, rather than exhibiting a specific preference towards minors. Luc Besson (the director of Leon) might be the closest, i.e. seemingly having a preference for minors and no criminal record but I doubt he self-identifies as a MAP.
My gut feeling is that publicists would have told their clients to avoid this topic like the plague, so it would probably go nowhere, however there's no harm in trying if only as an exercise in problem-solving.

I'm best with writing or editing, so if you have a draft letter or statement, you could email it to me for suggestions. I'll add my email temporarily to this message if you're interested, but I'll wait for a reply first.

[Fragment]

Though the only celebrity I think is an unambiguous MAP, Gary Glitter, has no money, no influence, and is in prison for possessing CSAM (as far as I'm aware, he wasn't a predator like Saville or a psychopath like Fritzl; in a pro-contact world, he would have just been a normal MAP).

Gary Glitter does sound fairly normal, except that like most MAP ex-pats that find their way to South East Asia, I doubt his relationships in Vietnam were romantic in nature.

"Pro-c +child prostitution" takes it a step further into problematic territory. There are arguments to be had and justifications to be made, but it's definitely raises more questions about consent.

That said, I think that most opportunistic MAPs that go to SE Asia do so because of the cultures of their home countries. There are a small number of people that might go anyway, even if adult-minor relationships were possible at home. But punitive laws at home are definitely a big push factor that encourages child prostitution in poor countries.

[PorcelainLark]

Though the only celebrity I think is an unambiguous MAP, Gary Glitter, has no money, no influence, and is in prison for possessing CSAM (as far as I'm aware, he wasn't a predator like Saville or a psychopath like Fritzl; in a pro-contact world, he would have just been a normal MAP).

Gary Glitter does sound fairly normal, except that like most MAP ex-pats that find their way to South East Asia, I doubt his relationships in Vietnam were romantic in nature.

"Pro-c +child prostitution" takes it a step further into problematic territory. There are arguments to be had and justifications to be made, but it's definitely raises more questions about consent.

That said, I think that most opportunistic MAPs that go to SE Asia do so because of the cultures of their home countries. There are a small number of people that might go anyway, even if adult-minor relationships were possible at home. But punitive laws at home are definitely a big push factor that encourages child prostitution in poor countries.

I agree, and I know this is a difficult point to argue for, but compare a teleiophile that visits prostitutes versus a teleiophile like Harvey Weinstein. I think, given a choice, most women would prefer to work with a teleiophile that visits prostitutes than with Weinstein.
For the same reason, even if prostitution is completely unethical, Glitter is in no way comparable to Fritzl or Saville in my mind.

[BLueRibbon]

We have recently been talking about this topic on the Mu Admin board. I want to contact Huw Edwards. We already have a great article about his case.

Though the only celebrity I think is an unambiguous MAP, Gary Glitter, has no money, no influence, and is in prison for possessing CSAM (as far as I'm aware, he wasn't a predator like Saville or a psychopath like Fritzl; in a pro-contact world, he would have just been a normal MAP).

Please consider using a value-neutral term like PIM instead of CSAM.

MAP
AMSC
PIM

The three terms for the 2020s.

[PorcelainLark]

Please consider using a value-neutral term like PIM instead of CSAM.

MAP
AMSC
PIM

The three terms for the 2020s.

I have considered it, but it doesn't seem right to me.

MAP makes sense as a term because even people that are attracted to 17 year olds are called pedophiles.
AMSC kind of makes sense because the term statutory rape isn't broad enough; other sexual acts with minors could be non-coercive without involving penetrative sex.
PIM seems unnecessary because we already have words to refer to what it is referring to. I initially didn't like the term CSAM either, the only reason I adopted it is because it's a technical/legal term. If academics or the law adopts it, so will I.

I try to avoid neologisms and jargon wherever possible because it makes writing less impactful and harder to follow in my opinion. A relevant quote from George Orwell's brilliant essay Politics and the English Language:

Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

Of course we can't be as direct as we ideally would be because we're talking about the law which is full of jargon.

[Fragment]

Getting off topic, but...

PIM seems unnecessary because we already have words to refer to what it is referring to. I initially didn't like the term CSAM either, the only reason I adopted it is because it's a technical/legal term. If academics or the law adopts it, so will I.

In that case I'd just stick to "CP". For some reason I struggle to be as enamored of PIM as I am of AMSC, either.

The reason for using AMSC is to question the notion that all adult-youth relationships are abusive, though.

If you use CSAM you are implicitly agreeing that the images produced are abusive. That seems an insane position to take. Especially given the prevalence of self-generated material. Or the fact that fictional material can be classed as CSAM. If there is no abuse, how can it be abuse material?

Note to media:
Use of term 'CHILD ABUSE' MATERIAL not ‘CHILD PORNOGRAPHY’
The correct legal term is Child Abuse Material – the move to this wording was among amendments to Commonwealth legislation in 2019 to more accurately reflect the gravity of the crimes and the harm inflicted on victims.

Use of the phrase ‘child pornography’ is inaccurate and benefits child sex abusers because it:
indicates legitimacy and compliance on the part of the victim and therefore legality on the part of the abuser; and
conjures images of children posing in 'provocative' positions, rather than suffering horrific abuse.
Every photograph or video captures an actual situation where a child has been abused.

The Australian Federal Police explain the reasoning behind CSAM on every page related to the topic on their website. It's language designed to perpetuate myths and it's just not true.

A percent of "PIM" is actually CSAM. What percentage, I don't know. But I'll only use "CSAM" in cases where I'm clearly and unambiguously referring to material capturing abuse.

[TMKnight]

The reason I figure we reach out to Mr. Johnson is that his case involved what we all might consider a relationship, despite her age. Whereas, Mr. Richards depending on the individual MAP and non-maps, they might he his choice of age of whom he had momentary comfort with to be of bad taste or wrong. Should we convince enough the public to accept MAPs and allow for relationships, my guess is that many could imagine and accept someone above 10 years old, but anything younger and for most it might be difficult to accept. Mr. Richards kid what I think 2 years old. Whereas Mr. Johnson if I remember she was like 12 or something like that.

My point is, that I do not care who it is. Any celeberty, any politician, any teacher, any doctor, any person who had been publically known already if they are willing and able to come out publically and be an advocate.

See I would, but I need millions on millions in assets and money. So that when I cannot get a job (traditionally), I could live off that means. Why I ask if any of you are willing to help write Mr. Johnson. Maybe just maybe he will invest in someone similar enough to him that we could build up each other and one day us that to change the world or build a community in a place were we can allow for some MAP acceptable behaviors for all person.

The other question to HOW MANY OF YOU, are willing to contribute to a startup concept to be start by a person who find comfort in a child should be legalized? Nothing we are doing or want to do is illegal but it is risky because it takes one person to publicize any of us and we will likely lose jobs or worse.

We work together we can make it happen.
Give me a week or two to create an eMail that I am willing to share on here.
As long as it is for business talk, networking, and finding away for each of us to meet in a ZOOM like or SPACE like meeting thing online. OR if we are all wealthy enough someday to meet in person.

What are you all willing to do?

[PorcelainLark]

Going off of the track record or organizations that have been MAP friendly at time, like the ACLU (given it's role in New York v. Ferber) and the Kinsey Institute, there is only one foundation I could find that has funded both at some points: the Tawani Foundation. Unfortunately they aren't accepting grant applications at the moment. A few other possible funding sources I found using an AI chat:

The Ford Foundation: They have supported the ACLU and have also funded various projects and initiatives related to the work of Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin, and Kate Millett.
The Rockefeller Foundation: They have supported the ACLU and have also funded various projects and initiatives related to the work of Michel Foucault and Wilhelm Reich.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA): They have supported the work of artists like Balthus and Louis Malle, and have also funded various projects and initiatives related to the work of Camille Paglia and Margaret Cho.
The MacArthur Foundation: They have supported the work of scholars like Gayle Rubin and have also funded various projects and initiatives related to the work of Michel Foucault and Kate Millett.

Maybe just maybe he will invest in someone similar enough to him that we could build up each other and one day us that to change the world or build a community in a place were we can allow for some MAP acceptable behaviors for all person.

Founding a new country isn't a realistic strategy in my opinion. You would be replacing a very difficult problem with an even more difficult problem.

The other question to HOW MANY OF YOU, are willing to contribute to a startup concept to be start by a person who find comfort in a child should be legalized? Nothing we are doing or want to do is illegal but it is risky because it takes one person to publicize any of us and we will likely lose jobs or worse.

Might be better working with people that are already out, like Mythebe and Katie Cruz.

Give me a week or two to create an eMail that I am willing to share on here.

Personally, I use Proton mail.

As long as it is for business talk, networking, and finding away for each of us to meet in a ZOOM like or SPACE like meeting thing online. OR if we are all wealthy enough someday to meet in person.

What's the point in that? You can organize without putting your anonymity at risk.

[TMKnight]

Founding a new country isn't a realistic strategy in my opinion. You would be replacing a very difficult problem with an even more difficult problem.

Maybe, might be easier to convert the communities. If I ever get my business off the ground, I am going to try and build that country. OR a space station if someone can come up with artificial gravity.

Might be better working with people that are already out, like Mythebe and Katie Cruz.

This is great names to try. I am going to reach out to the artist, maybe he would help me with my book.

Proton mail.

I will have to find time and resources to sign up for that. I struggle so much financially.

anonymity at risk.

I guess only brave souls know there is nothing fundamentally illegal about talking business and organizing. This platform is find its own way, but I think it slow. Responds could take days. I would love to see a monthly, weekly, few times a year.



In the overall, we won't get the platforms we need until we all stand together more often.
But thanks for the insight, I will look into those people.
Should anyone have any more suggestions, I would appreciate it.


Lets try to write via eMail this weekend.