Project CHRYSALIS

[ReArm!]

Sorry dude, I had expectations for this, but I can't support any anti-c stuff. We don't need therapy, we need freedom

[ScuretCutie d(^v^)b]

Sorry dude, I had expectations for this, but I can't support any anti-c stuff. We don't need therapy, we need freedom

(to be honesti m not anti-c either but there are anti-c maps and i wanna appeal to everyone even when i dont agree with them either.. I don't plan on keeping this the same though! Your comments, everyone's beautiful suggestions, should shape it. If the majority believe it to be ideal, we can shift it to focus on pro-c.

[ScuretCutie d(^v^)b]

Sorry dude, I had expectations for this, but I can't support any anti-c stuff. We don't need therapy, we need freedom

(to be honesti m not anti-c either but there are anti-c maps and i wanna appeal to everyone even when i dont agree with them either.. I don't plan on keeping this the same though! Your comments, everyone's beautiful suggestions, should shape it. If the majority believe it to be ideal, we can shift it to focus on pro-c.

And plus, as stated on the bottom, this project isnt static. It's dynamic, meant to change based on what you all want.. so, uh, yeah.

[ReArm!]

(to be honesti m not anti-c either but there are anti-c maps and i wanna appeal to everyone even when i dont agree with them either.. I don't plan on keeping this the same though! Your comments, everyone's beautiful suggestions, should shape it. If the majority believe it to be ideal, we can shift it to focus on pro-c.

Tbh I'm biased towards anti-cs, but because I consider them the same as antis. Even if they wanna stop bigottry and whatever, the major issue is not biggotry but the thousands of people arround the world that face prison sentences for loving other people. If you wanna focus on mental health (which I don't think should be the main focus of the community, but it's nice to have it for sure), focus on redirecting that shame and fear of most MAPs towards social change.

Most people with mental health issues what they actually need are better material conditions, and it's the same for MAPs and AAMs, we need to be able to live our sexuality instead of being forced to repress it or face consequences. Focus on making people understand that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with sexuality and if someone thinks there is it's just because of our omnipresent sex-negative and puritan culture.

[ScuretCutie d(^v^)b]

(to be honesti m not anti-c either but there are anti-c maps and i wanna appeal to everyone even when i dont agree with them either.. I don't plan on keeping this the same though! Your comments, everyone's beautiful suggestions, should shape it. If the majority believe it to be ideal, we can shift it to focus on pro-c.

Tbh I'm biased towards anti-cs, but because I consider them the same as antis. Even if they wanna stop bigottry and whatever, the major issue is not biggotry but the thousands of people arround the world that face prison sentences for loving other people. If you wanna focus on mental health (which I don't think should be the main focus of the community, but it's nice to have it for sure), focus on redirecting that shame and fear of most MAPs towards social change.

Most people with mental health issues what they actually need are better material conditions, and it's the same for MAPs and AAMs, we need to be able to live our sexuality instead of being forced to repress it or face consequences. Focus on making people understand that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with sexuality and if someone thinks there is it's just because of our omnipresent sex-negative and puritan culture.

Thank you so much for understanding. I'll do my best to keep thinking about how to change it, since that seems a good idea.

[ReArm!]

Thank you so much for understanding. I'll do my best to keep thinking about how to change it, since that seems a good idea.

Thanks to you for being open to the idea!

[ScuretCutie d(^v^)b]

Thank you so much for understanding. I'll do my best to keep thinking about how to change it, since that seems a good idea.

Thanks to you for being open to the idea!

Of course! As stated, this project is meant to be community-led. I'm horrible at decision making and ideas in the first place, I would really rather not work on it on my own. After all, as you saw, it was... Disappointing, because I was working on it on my own. Everyone's suggestions and edits are key to making this work, I can't do it on my own ;-; but... At the very least, I can advocate for pro-contact. As an AAM who has a long record with acting on it, well. My history is proof that it's not inherently harmful, I think.

[Learning to undeny]

The idea of the three-tier sanctuary is quite interesting. Even framing it as a preventionist project can make it more digestible to the public.

However, all the talk about "harmful ideologies" feels too preachy. What would a pro-c MAP going to the sanctuary be "educated" about? Reducing their ideology to "rationalizations" will make them less likely to enter it or remain there.

Whether that is good or bad depends on the objectives of the project. Presenting the reciprocal attractions "AAM/MAP" and the possibility of a healthy relationship between them is already revolutionary enough. It might make sense to take a "maximum safety" approach. But I would suggest you to use a language closer to that of B4UAct rather than one purely anti-contact. After all, their "child protection" language has not made Prostasia or VirPed any less of a target for anti-MAPs; furthermore, if your organization was to be successful and your message spread, you want it to be a message which is aligned with your values (whatever they are), otherwise you are strengthening a different narrative.

Of course, this movement is purely theoretical and would be impossible without any aid from the law to ensure these ideas can exist in reality.

It would take a lot of work, but what would the legal issues be? It does seem like associating minors with adults and subjecting them to "scrutiny" (however that is realised) could break some law, but as someone with no legal background, I'm not aware of which.

Of course, the third tier MAP-AAM interactions will be harshly criticised and any legal problems which occurred will be amplified, but that could be a good thing because the debate would start from a position that is more advantageous for MAPs and AAMs than usual.

Perhaps a strongly anti-c stance would make the project shut down at the first legal inconvenience. One way or the other, the media will depict the sanctuary as a pedo ring if sexual contact between an AAM and a MAP is ever found out, so it's crucial to think what would be done then.

I appreciate your novel ideas, so please don't take my criticism as diterrence. I am eager to see where the project leads.

[ScuretCutie d(^v^)b]

The idea of the three-tier sanctuary is quite interesting. Even framing it as a preventionist project can make it more digestible to the public.

However, all the talk about "harmful ideologies" feels too preachy. What would a pro-c MAP going to the sanctuary be "educated" about? Reducing their ideology to "rationalizations" will make them less likely to enter it or remain there.

Whether that is good or bad depends on the objectives of the project. Presenting the reciprocal attractions "AAM/MAP" and the possibility of a healthy relationship between them is already revolutionary enough. It might make sense to take a "maximum safety" approach. But I would suggest you to use a language closer to that of B4UAct rather than one purely anti-contact. After all, their "child protection" language has not made Prostasia or VirPed any less of a target for anti-MAPs; furthermore, if your organization was to be successful and your message spread, you want it to be a message which is aligned with your values (whatever they are), otherwise you are strengthening a different narrative.

Of course, this movement is purely theoretical and would be impossible without any aid from the law to ensure these ideas can exist in reality.

It would take a lot of work, but what would the legal issues be? It does seem like associating minors with adults and subjecting them to "scrutiny" (however that is realised) could break some law, but as someone with no legal background, I'm not aware of which.

Of course, the third tier MAP-AAM interactions will be harshly criticised and any legal problems which occurred will be amplified, but that could be a good thing because the debate would start from a position that is more advantageous for MAPs and AAMs than usual.

Perhaps a strongly anti-c stance would make the project shut down at the first legal inconvenience. One way or the other, the media will depict the sanctuary as a pedo ring if sexual contact between an AAM and a MAP is ever found out, so it's crucial to think what would be done then.

I appreciate your novel ideas, so please don't take my criticism as diterrence. I am eager to see where the project leads.

Alters have been made, everyone. Take a look! I did my best to change it based on y'alls suggestions.