MAP Forum

First of all, sorry, I don't mean to talk too much about the political system... I wonder if supporting Liquid democracy is a good choice for MAP? Especially considering the way Liquid democracy works and its anonymity, for example, we can vote for neutral delegates, or MAPs that are willing to stand up. Then ask for an autonomous territory or make the government make concessions on AOC.
And this means that MAPs with different positions can also seek common ground while reserving differences. We can build communities with different positions in different places, and we can still serve a common goal.

PorcelainLark wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:03 pm

Outis wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:47 pm There are plenty of examples of new states being designed and even created that are for specific groups or ideologies. It is perfectly possible to create a new state, I could reference a number of projects that have done this or are looking at doing this, some with constitutions that are protective of minority rights including map rights in theory.

I'd love to hear about it. I hope you will be up for emailing. Since Peace left, I haven't had any MAPs I've regularly been talking to.

I will list a few that I know of.

Asgardia (asgardia.space) - A project that aims to seed the first new state in outer space. With over 1.1 million citizens, representatives in countries all around the world, its own passport which has been accepted in a list of countries and ceremonies attended by politicians from around the world, this new state in the making is a project many are watching closely. Read its constitution, its very inspirational for how it protects all citizens regardless of sexuality or peculiarity, it should on paper at least be map tolerant.

Praxis (praxisnation.com) - A new state that is being formed by members who are working out how the state should function while fund-raising to buy land for a new city-state. It's a very well funded project with various tech companies and investment funds having invested in the venture. A governance model that's more corporate, it's unclear how map friendly this state would be.

Equitoria (equitoria.org) - An early concept state with a detailed constitution, governance and financial system that is focused on direct government. The constitution protects all citizens regardless of sexuality and belief systems and that I'm told would include protecting maps as first class citizens equal to any other citizen.

These are some of the new digital first states that are being designed as states up front, but there are many states that have formed over recent decades as a result of conflict, shifting borders and political situations. States form for many reasons and so there's no reason why a map friendly state couldn't form and thrive.

This is really what I advocate for in many ways, actual establishment of a society where adults with no upper age limit can have intimate sexual relationships with children, as official state policy.

There is a clear cultural norm of anti-pedophile discrimination in modern Western culture (and throughout most of the world, I'm sure), you could *maybe* argue systemic discrimination in terms of laws forbidding simulated child porn or even having to register as a sex offender upon completing a prison sentence (I don't want to think about/get into this and sentencing- I don't mean statistical norms but the across the board baseline level of punishment for any sexual contact between an adult and child under any circumstances, the argument might be that it's to protect children but I can't see that applying to simulated child porn without some very pretentious gaslighting) and I do want there to be a movement to end both discrimination against pedophiles (and other sexually deviant people) and the stigmatization of pedophilia itself (and the idea that child-adult sex is inherently bad but you can have the first two without that and all three alongside discouraging child-adult sex out of risk aversion) but I am a little...'concerned' about applying leftist cultural Marxism in a way that makes pedophiles the next marginalized it group (categorical statements about universal group privilege, marginalization and contribution to marginalization and the idea of this being 'inherent' to 'society,' discrimination against pedophiles as pedophiles taking on a special value that is seen as incomparable to discrimination against anyone on the basis of any group membership, etc. even though, again, there's no doubt in my mind that they are generally the most discriminated against in terms of cultural norms and I don't want to undermine that. I doubt that anyone would even deny this, the debate is really around whether or not it's justified). I look forward to reading the other posts and I don't have time to really think this through but not all non-pedophiles discriminate against pedophiles or support the stigmatization of adult attraction to children or minors.

I think it makes much more sense to center a society or 'community' around shared values than a similar sexual orientation. I'm much more interested in what people's philosophical beliefs about sex are and what they think the value of sex is in any given scenario or under whatever conditions than their involuntary sexual preferences, which is an interesting conversation but you can't bond with people just because they have similar sexual/romantic preferences (that aren't tied to conscious values). What we need is a society that discourages discrimination against pedophiles, not one comprised of only pedophiles. I want a society where the only sexual taboos are rooted in the idea that everyone deserves happiness/all happiness is intrinsically good and only suffering is inherently bad, so if a preference doesn't involve de-valuing anyone's happiness then it isn't morally problematic (on top of not being harmful if it doesn't cause actual pain but you can have an immoral preference that doesn't actually harm anyone, even if harm reduction is ultimately why I would want to discourage it). The actual sexual orientation of the people in this society isn't important to me. The people in a pedophile society (I don't see how that would work generally either, who knows what your children's preferences are going to be) will just find ways to make each other's lives hard in other ways or for other reasons, even if being a pedophile is not longer an issue. I should have saved this for tomorrow.

SCM123ABC wrote: Fri Aug 22, 2025 1:58 am [removed]

Pedophilia isn't genetic.

PorcelainLark wrote: Fri Aug 22, 2025 3:22 am

SCM123ABC wrote: Fri Aug 22, 2025 1:58 am I don't think so I think better if we ethunized ourselves to get us out of gene pool because we're abominations.

Pedophilia isn't genetic.

It isn't? I thought it was? So why do I have despite not being molested as child? Why did I molest myself reading and watching child erotica and porn starting at age 8 because I took methylphenidate since 4 that makes your sex drive go crazy it was already innate in me if I took sex drive pills at age 8 and looked up child porn and erotica from 8-12 why? I have spanking fetish since age 6 I know exact age because I've lived in same house my whole life since I was 2 and I'm only 19 and I have an old children's book that my grandma would read to me when I was 6 that had spanking in it and I was very aroused by that and [removed] besides 16 and 17 when became religious and tried to stop but couldn't no matter how much I tried get it? How can not be genetic? See?

SCM123ABC wrote: Fri Aug 22, 2025 5:31 am It isn't? I thought it was? So why do I have despite not being molested as child? Why did I molest myself reading and watching child erotica and porn starting at age 8 because I took methylphenidate since 4 that makes your sex drive go crazy it was already innate in me if I took sex drive pills at age 8 and looked up child porn and erotica from 8-12 why? I have spanking fetish since age 6 I know exact age because I've lived in same house my whole life since I was 2 and I'm only 19 and I have an old children's book that my grandma would read to me when I was 6 that had spanking in it and I was very aroused by that and ... How can not be genetic? See?

Hardwired =/= genetic. Fetal alcohol syndrome is hardwired, that doesn't mean there's a gene for it.

PorcelainLark wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:35 am If a state fails to protect the rights of it's citizens, they aren't citizens in the true sense. Under such severe hatred, persecution, and indifference from society, it's completely understandable why MAPs might argue that we need our own state, our own "Israel". International law has been failing to protect us. If humans have the right to self-defense, surely we have a serious justification to seek self-governance in the face of such extreme hostility.

I have long since no longer considered myself a citizen of the country I live in due to the treatment we get by the government and society. If they want me gone, I'm not working for the betterment of society, just myself.

They only see our existence as a problem to get rid of and not someone to work with. Thus I only see them as a parasite.

Harlan wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:15 pm I think some concessions are possible if libertarianism will gain political weight. It is the only political ideology in this historical period that allows for a lowering of the age of consent based on its own philosophy.

I don't understand libertarians who don't realize, or pretend to not realize, what their philosophy implies when it comes to child-adult sex. You absolutely cannot defend age of consent laws from a consistent libertarian perspective (even if it were true that children could not meaningfully consent to sex, it wouldn't follow that having sex with one would be akin to having sex with him or her against their will. It is meaningless to talk about a right to autonomy if an entity cannot make 'rational' choices. If a child literally can't decide whether or not to have sex with someone then they're not capable of sexual autonomy that can be violated, you can argue that adults shouldn't have sex with children because it's the wrong choice to make 'on their behalf'; because if they're so underdeveloped that they can't make the choice then it has to be made on their behalf, but that's not the same thing that people do when they frame it as 'rape' or taking away their choice/violating their autonomy or tricking them into sex under false pretenses. I'm against circumcising infants for non-medical reasons, as a comparison, but not because it violates their autonomy or because it's done without their consent because literally everything that we do to them is done without their rational consent; we have to make these choices on their behalf because they can't make them themselves, no, I'm against circumcising infants because of the unbearable physical agony that it causes, the fact that it will reduce sexual pleasure when they're adults and even the possibility that they will regret the loss of their foreskin/clitoris and the irreversibility of the procedure. Tree can't consent to sex but it's obviously nonsensical to talk about the 'statutory rape' of a tree, without consent =/= against one's will. The distinction that I would make between rational will and instinctive animal desire isn't even important here, the lack of 'true' consent doesn't imply opposition to or frustration of either).

I don't agree that it's the only philosophy that can justify lowering or eliminating age of consent laws. You can use my basic pan-hedonistic worldview to justify using government coercion to discourage child-adult sex in practice (hedonists can disagree among themselves as to what will cause happiness or pain or what the overall most desirable options available to us are) but not to stigmatize either child-adult sex or pedophilia on principle. What it necessarily implies is that children are harmed only by felt emotional distress and whatever sexual pleasure they could experience if allowed to be sexually/erotically intimate with adults would be inherently good, even if it needs to be weighed against risks and costs. Discouraging child-adult sex because it might cause children pain or deprive them of happiness is fundamentally different than discouraging it on principle. As for pedophilia itself, although it would be a directly victimless act I think that there is something morally wrong with fantasizing about torturing a child to death because it implies de-valuing their happiness, you can't have a pleasurable emotional response to a child's death or suffering to the extent that you value their happiness. You can't say the same about a pedophile who fantasizes about children in scenarios where they are attracted to him or her and find the encounter just as pleasurable as s/he does, nothing about just being sexually attracted to children implies de-valuing their happiness. In some logically possible world we should probably discourage child-adult sex but if I'm starting with the assumption that hedonism always justifies promoting hedonism as public policy then there is no world in which we can justify stigmatizing pedophilia itself or promoting the idea that child-adult sex is inherently bad, sexual pleasure qua happiness is something to be celebrated.

You can also defend it from a preference utilitarian point of view. You have to consider a child's desire for sexual, 'romantic' or erotic intimacy with an adult and if you're going to double down and insist that they can't have such an informed desire you need to demonstrate that allowing a child to be sexually intimate with an adult that he wants to have sex with under supposedly false assumptions will frustrate a desire he has to avoid sex under those conditions that he's not aware of (I mentioned trans women tricking cisgendered men who prefer biological women in my thread on how child-adult sex can be justified- with the man who has sex with a trans woman under the false assumption that she's a biological woman you can say that, in some fuzzy metaphysical sense, his desire to sexually avoid biological men and to be sexually intimate only with biological women is 'frustrated' even if he doesn't experience the frustration of that desire, but you can't say that the child has a desire to avoid sex under the conditions that child-adult sex supposedly necessarily occurs under that is frustrated in any comparable way because if a child isn't cognitively developed enough to consent to sex s/he is logically not cognitively developed enough to have an informed desire to avoid it either).

One might not have a thought-out grand ultimate theory of morality or justice that allows them to connect seemingly unrelated issues or outlines some grand narrative in terms of the 'meaning' of life, the principles that we should build a society on, what is just or injustice; basically what is good/bad or moral/immoral and even how we can acquire knowledge of core moral truths but even if you just basically hold conventional positions on most social/ethical issues you might reject the idea that children aren't developed enough to consent to sex (because they're more cognitively developed than we give them credit for or you may or may not base this on a rejection of the 'meaning' of sex that adults project on to it. You could accept such inherent meaning and still reject the idea that they can't consent but to claim that they can't consent I think that you have to project such meaning on to sex, without that meaning sex is just physical contact- what is there to 'understand' about it? You find that contact appealing or you don't), you might just think that the supposed typical harm is exaggerated (without specific context, just by virtue of one person being an adult and the other a child or in terms of the idea that children being sexually active is necessarily high-risk just in terms of emotional trauma and not STDs or unwanted pregnancies; I won't get into the coherency of a 'child' getting pregnant), support for mutually desired child-adult sexual intimacy might be an extension of some kind of 'sex positivity' or a push to normalize recreational sex outside of 'marriage' a committed long-term monogamous relationship, etc.