One Thing

[Swoll]

Consensual relationships with minors not punished with prison. If it's one change, it has to be that. So much else would flow on from that.

I leave a little leeway in my answer for how exactly society would deal with such relationships. But it can't be prison.

[Joanne7315]

It would have to be societal acceptance that sex and a relationship between an adult an minor is 'normal'.

[Joanne7315]

Not sure why you would settle for "wrong but not unacceptable". Why not just "Acceptable"???

[Bo_map]

I would do no age of consent and legalize incest.

[Fragment]

Not sure why you would settle for "wrong but not unacceptable". Why not just "Acceptable"???

Because I don't want to hope for too much. Even after sodomy was legalized most Americans still thought it was immoral.
In a 1977 Gallup poll:
Only 56% of Americans thought gay people should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities. (93% in 2019)
Only 43% thought that gay or lesbian relationships between consenting adults should be legal. (83% in 2019)
Only 14% thought that gays and lesbians should be allowed to adopt children. (75% in 2019)
Only 13% thought that being gay or lesbian is something a person is born with. (49% in 2019)

22 states had legalized sodomy by 1977 and homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disorder by the APA. Even so many people thought it was "wrong".

On similar questions MAPs are likely starting in the single digits. Socially attitudes are very unlikely to change much during my lifetime, so I at least hope for some legal reform.

[Strato]

If there is one change you would like to see in the world for MAPs, what would it be?

A universal declaration of human rights that guarantees: equal social inclusion, equal opportunities, equal protection under the law, and the right to freedom of expression, for minor-attracted adults and adult-attracted minors.

The declaration would, for example, outlaw the following:
• Diagnosis of paedosexuality as a mental illness.
• Discrimination or persecution of individuals on the basis of their paedosexuality.
• Vigilantism directed towards paedosexuals.
• Prosecution of online or public contact between a child and an adult.
• Prosecution of a consensual act between a child and any other person.
• Prosecution of any person found to have “created” or “distributed” child erotica.
• Prosecution of a public display of affection between an adult and child couple.
• Prosecution of a public display of nudity regarding an adult and child couple.
• Age of consent laws.

The declaration would, for example, promote the following:
• Inclusion and equality for paedosexuals within the diverse rainbow of human sexuality.
• Legal protection for paedosexuals against any form of discrimination or persecution.
• The right of paedosexuals to openly meet and discuss their sexuality without fear of retribution.
• The right of assembly for both child and adult.
• The enrichment of the child's knowledge and life experience courtesy of the adult.
• The right for a child to engage in a consensual act with any other individual.
• The right of any individual to create, possess, or transmit, child erotica.
• The right of an adult-child couple to engage in a public display of affection.
• The right of an adult-child couple to engage in a public display of nudity.

[Joanne7315]

I would do no age of consent and legalize incest.

The ultimate optimist LOL

[Red Rodent]

What would you propose as alternatives to incarceration?

I think that's part of a wider question. In my view, the use of incarceration is only justified (in a civilised, free society) where a person presents an unmanageable risk to others or themselves.

Aside from the civil rights and liberty issues, prison is at best ineffective (look up the recidivism rates for ex-prisoners versus those who receive community sentences for yourself) and arguably counter productive (jail is the finishing school for delinquents). It is also expensive. Prisons have to be built, administered, maintained and staffed. It varies from country to country but anywhere that aims to treat its offenders humanely will see costs per capita of the of the prison population manyfold higher that that for offenders given community sentences like probation, unpaid community work and other forms of supervision within the community (curfews, electronic tagging etc.)

Of course someone who forces or coerces a minor into sexual activity could be seen as a danger to others and a custodial sentence may well be justified. But if someone commits an offence by virtue only of their partner's age, then that, to me, can not justify incarceration. And, of course, if it is not a hands-on offence (viewing prohibited material, for example) then imprisonment is a gross over-reaction that serves only to express society's disgust at his (or her) fantasies.

[Fragment]

I think that's part of a wider question. In my view, the use of incarceration is only justified (in a civilised, free society) where a person presents an unmanageable risk to others or themselves.

Aside from the civil rights and liberty issues, prison is at best ineffective (look up the recidivism rates for ex-prisoners versus those who receive community sentences for yourself) and arguably counter productive (jail is the finishing school for delinquents). It is also expensive. Prisons have to be built, administered, maintained and staffed. It varies from country to country but anywhere that aims to treat its offenders humanely will see costs per capita of the of the prison population manyfold higher that that for offenders given community sentences like probation, unpaid community work and other forms of supervision within the community (curfews, electronic tagging etc.)

Of course someone who forces or coerces a minor into sexual activity could be seen as a danger to others and a custodial sentence may well be justified. But if someone commits an offence by virtue only of their partner's age, then that, to me, can not justify incarceration. And, of course, if it is not a hands-on offence (viewing prohibited material, for example) then imprisonment is a gross over-reaction that serves only to express society's disgust at his (or her) fantasies.

We don't have any kind of "thumbs up" system on the forum, but I basically don't have much to say other than that I agree wholeheartedly.

Locking people in cages as if they are animals should be limited to when they present a clear and present danger to the community. I would even say that many kinds of violent offenders are at low risk of causing harm even if they are allowed to participate in the community.

At the time of Lawrence vs Texas in 2003 homosexuality sodomy was still illegal. But it carried a fine of $125 (and even then it was raised from the original $100 so that it would be high enough to qualify for an appeal). Sex with agreement (I'll avoid the "c" word for now) should never result in someone being excluded from society for decades (even longer if you include registration)- even where you think it's developmentally detrimental to the minor involved.