Anti-c collaboration

[Liana Lial]

With this in mind:

1. What prospect is there of collaboration with anti-c's?
2. Is it even desirable, theoretically? Can anti-c ever have a positive impact? Is it a pipeline (e.g. for individuals, or society)?
3. What are the shared causes between anti and pro-c, going forward?

I would consider a layered model. At the core of any progressive social movement are those who want a more robust form of liberation (relative to others.) These people tend to set the stage, get the ball rolling, and act as significant pushers. Call it a 'radical flank,' if you must. Think of how Harry Hay, a communist, founded the Mattachine Society in spite of the organization consisting of a membership decidedly less radical than he was. Those who do not push the limits as far as they can go will never be capable of directing a movement to an amicable conclusion.

I don't think it's desirable to collaborate with those who are anti-c on an organizational level. I would not advise giving genuine credence to rhetoric which, in my view, confirms establishment beliefs about our sexuality, whether or not its espoused by other childlovers. Creating change isn't the same as organizing a picnic - it shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator. However, I want to emphasize that this doesn't necessitate refusing the assistance or collaboration of individuals who hold beliefs some may consider "anti-c."

I imagine it as the difference between changing an organizational principle (e.g., advocating child erotica decriminalization) and allowing someone who disagrees with that principle to write a column on, say, the topic of mandatory reporting in therapy. In my book, there's no inherent harm with acknowledging the existence of more assimilationist members of our community, but there's no reason to grant them a major role either. A political program shouldn't be altered on the basis of the most reserved participant.

[BLueRibbon]

All of the arguments against ours, including anti-c talking points, rely on the belief that AMSC is a horrific act of abuse against a child.

Anti-c: "MAPs are valid as long as they don't act on their feelings"
Society: "But you will; you're constantly thinking about committing this heinous crime."

Anti-c: "AI PIM should be decriminalized"
Society: "But it encourages MAPs to act on their feelings, helps them to groom, normalizes AMSC, and is often based on images that were acts of abuse."

We cannot move forward while arguing that AMSC is wrong when anti-MAP arguments are all predicated on that belief. Rather than pro-c MAPs supporting anti-c, the two 'sides' have to meet in the middle. The Pro-Reform framework is intended to offer such a compromise.

One could rightfully argue that many people hate us independent of any concern for children, much like the KKK hated black people without good reason. However, such arguments these days generally require an excuse of preventing harm, and would be less effective if we were able to chip away at the belief that AMSC is always wrong. Additionally, something is necessarily going to be considered 'gross' if it's condemned as the vile exploitation of a weaker person. To make MAP sexuality less 'disgusting', we have to work on persuading people that acting on it would not be what they believe it to be.

A softening of NAMBLA-style pro-c has long been needed, but there's no way forward with only anti-c.

[Jim Burton]

To some extent, the wave of pro-c community leaders starting around 2020 has been successful in getting spaces that were traditionally anti-c to include pro-c's. I also see historically-rooted arguments against purity culture and against bigoted queers a lot more, alongside an aversion to the "anti-c" label. This at least corresponds with the timeframe in which pro-c's I worked with started to push links to the wiki, and encouraged others to criticise the assimilationist tendencies/hypocritical behavior of some anti-c's in these spaces. A lot of the time, because the pull is too strong, pro-c (or anything but anti-c) is rationalised as "youth liberation", but in a way that lacks historical awareness and comes off as implausible given the relative lack of youth voice.

These are intra-community gains, but have not yet resulted in a visible push for awareness, perhaps because the evolution of the ideology (while necessary in the long-term) makes it even harder to defend the position.

[Fragment]

I had a friend describe the collaboration between so-called anti-contacts and pro-contacts perfectly with this analogy:

We’re all on the same train, but instead of getting off at the final destination (i.e. legalization of adult/minor sexual contact) anti-contacts will get off one stop before that and let pro-contacts fight the last fight.

Yeah, I wish that was the case.

I see more and more anti-c people being willing to throw people off the train for things like talking in a loud voice or eating hot food…

I do want us to ride the train together, though. I guess to those anti-cs that don’t want to work together they see the train ideology as a way to co-opt anti-c labor for pro-c causes.

To them “we both want to go to the coast, but you want to go to the east coast and we want to go to the west coast. Working together actually gets us further from our goals.”

[Harlan]

We cannot move forward while arguing that AMSC is wrong when anti-MAP arguments are all predicated on that belief. Rather than pro-c MAPs supporting anti-c, the two 'sides' have to meet in the middle. The Pro-Reform framework is intended to offer such a compromise.

That's why I think it's necessary to change "C - Contact" to "C - Choice". How does "Pro Contact" sound to the average person? It sounds like "I'm adult and I accept contact, in other words, I allow myself contact". It looks selfish and doesn't emphasize the main thing - respect for youth autonomy. "Pro Choice" emphasizes that we respect the autonomy and choice of young people, because they are the ones who should decide first and foremost who they like and with whom they would like to have contact.

It's unlikely that the so-called NOMAP will say that they do not respect the autonomy and choice of minors. It's a compromise that could bring the two camps together.

[MemeticTheory]

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_ ... ationships

Most societies which have not been influenced by the West have less, different, or virtually no sexual taboos. It is worth mentioning that absent modern western influence, anthropologists and historians have found far more societies where homosexuality is prohibited, than societies in which pedosexuality suffers similar censure. Many encourage intergenerational sex for various reasons. Due to ongoing Westernisation and cultural imperialism, much of what is listed here may already be consigned to history (see, for example, Nieto (2004), for an anthropological review).

GUS, a world atlas: Growing Up Sexually
The range and detail of accounts involved in this page will only serve as a brief demonstration of non-western diversity in intergenerational relationships. Many examples from anthropology involve Sexual rites of passage. If readers are seeking a broader, more detailed and integrated study, they may find Diederik Janssen's Growing Up Sexually (entire Vol 1 in zipped PDF) more appropriate, or Greek Love: Pederasty throughout the ages, re. homosexuality.

[BLueRibbon]

We cannot move forward while arguing that AMSC is wrong when anti-MAP arguments are all predicated on that belief. Rather than pro-c MAPs supporting anti-c, the two 'sides' have to meet in the middle. The Pro-Reform framework is intended to offer such a compromise.

That's why I think it's necessary to change "C - Contact" to "C - Choice". How does "Pro Contact" sound to the average person? It sounds like "I'm adult and I accept contact, in other words, I allow myself contact". It looks selfish and doesn't emphasize the main thing - respect for youth autonomy. "Pro Choice" emphasizes that we respect the autonomy and choice of young people, because they are the ones who should decide first and foremost who they like and with whom they would like to have contact.

It's unlikely that the so-called NOMAP will say that they do not respect the autonomy and choice of minors. It's a compromise that could bring the two camps together.

I agree with you, and this is one of the reasons why Pro-Reform is named as it is.

[galileo2333]

Anti-c is "anti-contact", typically a MAP (or non-MAP like me), who is ethically against the idea of physical relations between older people and minors - those below the legal age wherever it is. Importantly, it means more than simply being against facilitating illegal acts (I'm to some extent pro-choice/pro-c, but would be decidedly anti-c if this were the case). In some instances the labels have been described as divisive, but since people use them, they are undeniably something that must be negotiated in some way. Contrary to popular belief, both labels existed and were used prior to social media.

I generally have quite a nuanced view of anti-c, and have always welcomed the idea of strategically collaborating with them. There are outstanding examples of pro-c/anti-c collaboration, some of which I was involved with, so there is no reason it can't be done again at some point in the future.

Yet my direct experiences of "anti-c" individuals since roughly the social media era are almost uniformly negative. Their behaviour has tended to be needlessly provocative, sometimes dumbfoundingly so, and sanctimonious, which suggests there is some kind of performance aspect to the label. Strangely, in individuals who do not explicitly use the "anti-c" or NOMAP label, but still profess what I would describe as "anti-c" beliefs, I do not witness this kind of pious behaviour. This again seems to be suggesting that the label's use is performative.

With this in mind:

1. What prospect is there of collaboration with anti-c's?
2. Is it even desirable, theoretically? Can anti-c ever have a positive impact? Is it a pipeline (e.g. for individuals, or society)?
3. What are the shared causes between anti and pro-c, going forward?

I might drop some of my essays covering this topic at a later point in the thread, but I made this thread after pointing out on fediverse, that a Kiwifams thread is not indicative of how wider society reacts to anti-c's. It's entirely possible that if hate-motivated individuals are reacting harder against anti-c's, the strategy is working by virtue of confounding stereotypes of MAPs.

https://fedi.yesmap.net/@Jim_Burton/114162799239232810

Any interaction with the anti-c needs to have the purpose of making them pro-c. Subtle infiltration into anti-c venues with the intent of shifting the discourse and narrative towards pro-c is a skill that we should master and utilize.

[Jim Burton]

Have you considered the POV that a community where pro-c's refuse to collaborate might lead to one of the following undesired consequences:

1. Pro-c's are simply not taken seriously, and liberal anti-c dogma among scholars/professionals is sanctified as the official norm.

2. Uncompromising radical pro-c's become the "official face" of the community after a series of highly publicised media investigations. This is used to support the contention that MAPs are deranged, dangerous Alice in Wonderland fantasists who need to be punished severely and locked up, lest they lash out and rape a child.