Page 2 of 3
Re: The notion of MAPs as sadists
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 6:59 pm
by FairBlueLove
You are right Outis. But how can, for example, Fragment push back when even the judge has a biased view?
And BlueRibbon, you are being quite successful in increasing the (at least mine) amount of rage.
But is that good?, how can we channel this rage in a non-destructive way?
Re: The notion of MAPs as sadists
Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2025 4:09 am
by BLueRibbon
FairBlueLove wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2025 6:59 pm
And BlueRibbon, you are being quite successful in increasing the (at least mine) amount of rage.
But is that good?, how can we channel this rage in a non-destructive way?
It's difficult because we are censored everywhere and have to take serious precautions to protect our identity.
I posted some ideas in my most recent Newgon essay:
https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Essay:A_Ca ... u_Can_Help
Re: The notion of MAPs as sadists
Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2025 10:27 pm
by PorcelainLark
The answer is first to identify potential allies and then build a movement that can push back against these views. We can't do it by ourselves.
Re: The notion of MAPs as sadists
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2025 4:28 am
by Julia
PorcelainLark wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2025 10:27 pm
The answer is first to identify potential allies and then build a movement that can push back against these views. We can't do it by ourselves.
I second this. Collaboration with allies can also provide additional resources and support, making it easier to advocate for change and promote a more accurate understanding of our experiences and needs.
Re: The notion of MAPs as sadists
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2025 12:57 pm
by Jim Burton
One of the contradictions here is that some of the allies are sadistic, or can not obtain strong enough or even verbal consent from their potential partners. In some of these cases (nonconsent, harm), unequal treatment of allies is very necessary, and acceptance of said unequal treatment is the only way forward.
This underscores the need to forge alliances where some of the participants support initiatives that will not benefit themselves personally. Examples are pro-c hebephiles and anti-c pedophiles supporting anti- and pro- initiatives for the other group. The failure to reach these agreements on the grounds of age difference, let alone sadism or paraphilias such as zoophilia, is a failure of our alliance. So is the egalitarian delusion associated with MAP Tumblr and some paraphile communities on Twitter, i.e. that human-directed Hebephilia and e.g. Zoosadism are two equivalent paraphilias, and both can just go forward under a shared anti-c philosophy as the basis of forming an alliance.
Re: The notion of MAPs as sadists
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2025 2:41 pm
by Lightie Twinkle
Jim Burton wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 12:57 pm
One of the contradictions here is that some of the allies are sadistic, or can not obtain strong enough or even verbal consent from their potential partners. In some of these cases (nonconsent, harm), unequal treatment of allies is very necessary, and acceptance of said unequal treatment is the only way forward.
You refer as sadist to the ones who forces minor into things or just to the ones who can't get verbal consent?
Treating the ones who can't get verbal consent as unequal is the same as Teleiophiles treating Pedos and Hebes as unequal since they think minor can't consent as they are not "Fully Mentally Developed".
There is definitely an issue of lack of understanding towards the ones that have different attractions than us.
Re: The notion of MAPs as sadists
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2025 4:29 pm
by Jim Burton
Sadists derive pleasure (may or may not be eroticised) from the idea of hurting another being regardless of whether they act or refrain.
By definition, an alliance between sadists and pro-c's would have to treat the two groups "the same but different" since the notion of consent discriminates against sadists, and makes it harder for them to act - since they need a willing partner. You can say the same about an alliance between nepis and hebephiles. There are things they can cooperate on, but it would be a tall order to argue the two groups have equal prospects of ever realizing the same goals.
Re: The notion of MAPs as sadists
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2025 6:51 pm
by Lightie Twinkle
Jim Burton wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 4:29 pm
Sadists derive pleasure (may or may not be eroticised) from the idea of hurting another being regardless of whether they act or refrain.
By definition, an alliance between sadists and pro-c's would have to treat the two groups "the same but different" since the notion of consent discriminates against sadists, and makes it harder for them to act - since they need a willing partner. You can say the same about an alliance between nepis and hebephiles. There are things they can cooperate on, but it would be a tall order to argue the two groups have equal prospects of ever realizing the same goals.
Based in that I believe I don't fall as sadist since if someone is clearly trying to avoid me I would let them be. No need to get verbal to express that.
And about the "willing partner", can't it be seen? Is like a chain.. Teleiophiles do think that too, that minors can't be willing to consent since their mental abilities are not ready to understand it and can be easily manipulated.
Re: The notion of MAPs as sadists
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:03 pm
by Jim Burton
I meant regardless of whether they (the sadist) acts or just has the impulse or fantasy based on hurting someone. There is no behavioural test for being a sadist, outside of criminological categories, e.g. the idea that zoosadistic behaviour is a precursor to sadistic offending.
Re: The notion of MAPs as sadists
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 5:36 am
by Julia
Jim Burton wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 12:57 pm
One of the contradictions here is that some of the allies are sadistic, or can not obtain strong enough or even verbal consent from their potential partners. In some of these cases (nonconsent, harm), unequal treatment of allies is very necessary, and acceptance of said unequal treatment is the only way forward.
This underscores the need to forge alliances where some of the participants support initiatives that will
not benefit themselves personally. Examples are pro-c hebephiles and anti-c pedophiles supporting anti- and pro- initiatives for the other group. The failure to reach these agreements on the grounds of age difference, let alone sadism or paraphilias such as zoophilia, is a failure of our alliance. So is the egalitarian delusion associated with MAP Tumblr and some paraphile communities on Twitter, i.e. that human-directed Hebephilia and e.g. Zoosadism are two equivalent
paraphilias, and both can just go forward under a shared anti-c philosophy as the basis of forming an alliance.
I completely agree. The people you describe are not suitable allies, as we do not share the same goals and values. I wasn't considering them as potential allies; rather, I was thinking about non-MAPs who, if approached correctly, could be persuaded to support our cause.