Hello

[WandersGlade]

I'm WandersGlade/PorcelainLark

My first involvement with the MAP community was this year because before that I experienced severe anxiety about it.

Roughly speaking, I take a contact complex position, i.e. consequentialist anti-contact + reform pro-contact (though I have caveats: not all contact currently puts a child at risk of trauma, though you should act like it does; and legal reform wouldn't be sufficient to change this because it's as much a cultural and psychological problem as a legal one).

An opinions I hold which I expect some people will find off-putting:
My alternative to child liberationist approaches of MAPs' interests, which I call "sex-positive paternalism"; basically I emphasis the fear of sex as having more importance than the underestimation of the agency of children in why there is a stigma against intergenerational relationships. In my view teleiophiles own uneasiness with sex, is a big part of the reason why they feel the need to hide it from children. If they could learn to overcome their own guilt and shame about sex, they wouldn't mourn the loss of sexual innocence.

I tried to do a survey of coming out experiences, with the long term view of creating a risk assessment guide for coming out. It wasn't entirely successful.

Generally speaking my view is to get to origins of the stigma and try to challenge it directly. Towards this end, my current historical interpretation is that the stigma against MAPs is derived from the fear of child prostitution.

At times I've gotten into heated arguments before (with people on AtF, for example) however I'm trying not to do that anymore because getting angry doesn't actually make me feel good.

I hope we'll be able to push things forward, since I feel like even another millisecond is already too much time for our lives to be disrupted by prejudice.

[BLueRibbon]

Great introduction.

I appreciate the subtleties of your argument, and I agree that secondary harm caused by stigmatization of AMSC is a very real issue.

You may find my proposed moderate position to be of interest:

The Rational Middle Ground

[WandersGlade]

Great introduction.

I appreciate the subtleties of your argument, and I agree that secondary harm caused by stigmatization of AMSC is a very real issue.

You may find my proposed moderate position to be of interest:

The Rational Middle Ground

Thank you for your kind words.

Overall, I think I agree with the moderate position you've outlined. However, there is a point I have a question about.

It is a rejection of the emotionally charged and nonsensical argument that 'a child is harmed every time their image is viewed'; nobody has ever been able to explain a mechanism for this.

This seems like it might be at odds with the modern views of revenge porn. Would you also challenge the view that there is something wrong with consuming revenge porn, or have I misunderstood you?

[Fragment]

This seems like it might be at odds with the modern views of revenge porn. Would you also challenge the view that there is something wrong with consuming revenge porn, or have I misunderstood you?

For me, the distributor of revenge porn is in the wrong. The consumer, not especially. I don't believe that each additional person that looks an at image creates and additive harm.

I personally feel that PIM is potentially more upsetting to the minor than actual contact. It would be to me. But how we treat people that are mere consumers of that material is the question? I think anything more than a fine is probably excessive for possession.

[BLueRibbon]

This seems like it might be at odds with the modern views of revenge porn. Would you also challenge the view that there is something wrong with consuming revenge porn, or have I misunderstood you?

For me, the distributor of revenge porn is in the wrong. The consumer, not especially. I don't believe that each additional person that looks an at image creates and additive harm.

I personally feel that PIM is potentially more upsetting to the minor than actual contact. It would be to me. But how we treat people that are mere consumers of that material is the question? I think anything more than a fine is probably excessive for possession.

I agree with this.

[OnionPetal]

Hi WandersGlade, nice seeing you here.

Roughly speaking, I take a contact complex position, i.e. consequentialist anti-contact + reform pro-contact (though I have caveats: not all contact currently puts a child at risk of trauma, though you should act like it does; and legal reform wouldn't be sufficient to change this because it's as much a cultural and psychological problem as a legal one).

That all makes sense, you explained that well. I agree that legal reform alone is not enough. Social reform is likely needed before legal reform can take place. Social reform usually leads to legal reform, rather than the other way around.

[...] In my view teleiophiles own uneasiness with sex, is a big part of the reason why they feel the need to hide it from children. If they could learn to overcome their own guilt and shame about sex, they wouldn't mourn the loss of sexual innocence. [...]

I tend to agree with this as well. Society has a peculiar perspective on sex at the moment. Despite decades of 'sexual liberation,' sex is often negatively viewed as something 'selfish,' or as a tool to gain 'power' over others. Of course it can be those things, but it doesn't have to be, nor should it.

[...] my current historical interpretation is that the stigma against MAPs is derived from the fear of child prostitution. [...]

That's an interesting point. I do feel that the concerns of 'normies' should be addressed. And as activists who want to see change, I believe we should take a leading role in proposing policy that would protect minors from exploitation as they gain more freedoms.

[...] At times I've gotten into heated arguments before (with people on AtF, for example) however I'm trying not to do that anymore because getting angry doesn't actually make me feel good. [...]

Yeah, anger can be a very destructive emotion, which is not very useful when trying to build something positive, as we're trying to do here. Fortunately, I think most people here share a lot of common goals. Glad you're here!

[WandersGlade]

Hi WandersGlade, nice seeing you here.

Welcome.

That all makes sense, you explained that well. I agree that legal reform alone is not enough. Social reform is likely needed before legal reform can take place. Social reform usually leads to legal reform, rather than the other way around.

My thought is that legal changes might have to happen first because the prejudice against MAPs is so deeply entrenched. At least with legal protections, it makes things easier to change things; though changes in the law won't solve every problem. I have in mind the comparison to racial desegregation in America.

I tend to agree with this as well. Society has a peculiar perspective on sex at the moment. Despite decades of 'sexual liberation,' sex is often negatively viewed as something 'selfish,' or as a tool to gain 'power' over others. Of course it can be those things, but it doesn't have to be, nor should it.

I want to delve into the psychological basis of the uneasiness with sex. As much as some people dislike the term "emotional intelligence", I think that's what's seriously lacking towards sex.

That's an interesting point. I do feel that the concerns of 'normies' should be addressed. And as activists who want to see change, I believe we should take a leading role in proposing policy that would protect minors from exploitation as they gain more freedoms.

It's more to do with uncovering the basis of the psychological resistence to pedophilia, than an attempt to solve the problems teleiophiles are concerned by. The evidence I found was in "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon", a series of news stories in a Victorian-era newspaper. I think I probably posted it before on VoA so you may have read it before, otherwise warning: it may be disturbing to read.

"But," I continued, "are these maids willing or unwilling parties to the transaction–that is, are they really maiden, not merely in being each a virgo intacta in the physical sense, but as being chaste girls who are not consenting parties to their seduction?" He looked surprised at my question, and then replied emphatically: "Of course they are rarely willing, and as a rule they do not know what they are coming for." "But," I said in amazement, "then do you mean to tell me that in very truth actual rapes, in the legal sense of the word, are constantly being perpetrated in London on unwilling virgins, purveyed and procured to rich men at so much a head by keepers of brothels?" "Certainly," said he, "there is not a doubt of it." "Why," I exclaimed, "the very thought is enough to raise hell." "It is true," he said; "and although it ought to raise hell, it does not even raise the neighbours."
"But do the girls cry out?" "Of course they do. But what avails screaming in a quiet bedroom? Remember, the utmost limit of howling or excessively violent screaming, such as a man or woman would make if actual murder was being attempted, is only two minutes, and the limit of screaming of any kind is only five... But suppose the screams continue and you get uneasy, you begin to think whether you should not do something? Before you have made up your mind and got dressed the screams cease, and you think you were a fool for your pains... Once a girl gets into such a house she is almost helpless, and may be ravished with comparative safety".

Leaving aside whether things would have been different with sex education, if the action had only been non-coercive, and/or if that suggestion someone wrote in AliceLovers that the hymen should be surgically removed at birth was a reality, the issue was also that prostitutes were viewed as "fallen women". To be a prostitute at the time, meant a woman wouldn't achieve all the things she was expected to aspire to at the time.
However, today we have a less strict attitudes toward sex work and women having multiple partners. They are not viewed as "fallen women" as in the 19th century, but there is still something left of that horror of losing social status I think. Intuitively, it feels wrong that an 8 year old girl might want to be a stripper when she grows up; does that mean there's actually something wrong with stripping? Do we still feel anything related to sex is shameful and degrading? I know I still do at times.
As an aside, it's interesting that the meaning of consent it those articles was to with "willingness", when today, even if a girl was willing some would say she can't consent because she can't understand what she's consenting to (e.g. someone on AtF compared statutory rape to fraud). The concept of "grooming" seems like moving the goalposts for what should be considered consent, at in some cases.

Yeah, anger can be a very destructive emotion, which is not very useful when trying to build something positive, as we're trying to do here. Fortunately, I think most people here share a lot of common goals. Glad you're here!

Thank you. I'm hoping to get involved in collaborative projects and further some of the studies I've been working on. If you (or anyone else who happens to be reading this for that matter) would like a second pair of eyes, I wouldn't mind reading what you're working on.

[Fragment]

That all makes sense, you explained that well. I agree that legal reform alone is not enough. Social reform is likely needed before legal reform can take place. Social reform usually leads to legal reform, rather than the other way around.

My thought is that legal changes might have to happen first because the prejudice against MAPs is so deeply entrenched. At least with legal protections, it makes things easier to change things; though changes in the law won't solve every problem. I have in mind the comparison to racial desegregation in America.

Systemic changes like the legalization of sodomy and the removal of homosexuality from the DSM happened mostly in the early 1970s, but the late 70s is when some of the biggest social battles were happening over gay rights. It's when Anita Bryant rose to prominence. And Harvey Milk, the first gay politician.

It feels like social change should happen first. After all, why would politicians change the law unless a majority of people support the change? Yet historically legal changes have tended to happen first.

Of course, those legal changes won't come with zero social support. But we don't need a majority. Far from it.

[OnionPetal]

Systemic changes like the legalization of sodomy and the removal of homosexuality from the DSM happened mostly in the early 1970s, but the late 70s is when some of the biggest social battles were happening over gay rights. It's when Anita Bryant rose to prominence. And Harvey Milk, the first gay politician.

It feels like social change should happen first. After all, why would politicians change the law unless a majority of people support the change? Yet historically legal changes have tended to happen first.

Of course, those legal changes won't come with zero social support. But we don't need a majority. Far from it.

For clarity, I don't contend that all of society has to change first... Not even a majority. But I do feel, in order for a politician or legislator to successfully push through some legal reform, some amount of social change must occur, however small. I would say there were a lot of social changes leading up to the legal reforms you mentioned in the 70s (taking the form of counter-cultural movements and new youth subcultures). That's the kind of stuff I meant. So I am not suggesting that we must wait until society is completely reformed before striving for legal reform.

But you're right, legal reform definitely can be the catalyst for further social changes, as we've seen historically. There is actually a lot of interplay between legal and social reform, where one can lead to the other, back and forth, like a chain reaction. Ideally, there should probably be concurrent strategies for both legal and social reform. I did not mean to suggest that it should take place in a perfectly linear way.

[Fragment]

For clarity, I don't contend that all of society has to change first... Not even a majority. But I do feel, in order for a politician or legislator to successfully push through some legal reform, some amount of social change must occur, however small. I would say there were a lot of social changes leading up to the legal reforms you mentioned in the 70s (taking the form of counter-cultural movements and new youth subcultures). That's the kind of stuff I meant. So I am not suggesting that we must wait until society is completely reformed before striving for legal reform.

But you're right, legal reform definitely can be the catalyst for further social changes, as we've seen historically. There is actually a lot of interplay between legal and social reform, where one can lead to the other, back and forth, like a chain reaction. Ideally, there should probably be concurrent strategies for both legal and social reform. I did not mean to suggest that it should take place in a perfectly linear way.

I totally agree. Obviously if 99.9% of society is against us there will be no impetuous for legal reform. But that legal reform can occur without anywhere near a majority of people supporting us. I say that because it's a message of hope. If we feel we need 50% of popular support before we can get anything done, then we'll give up out of despair. We don't need that much to see positive change.