MAP Forum

MemeticTheory wrote: Tue Mar 25, 2025 12:14 am Youth-lead liberation(YLL) ???
also..I was thinking of the concept of Wilhelm Reich's 'SexPol" which I will copypaste the google AI basic info below...?

SexPol clinics and pamphlets...?

AI Overview
Learn more
Wilhelm Reich's "Sexpol" movement, which he developed from 1927-1933, focused on combining his sexological work with his communist political convictions, particularly among working-class youth, and involved activities like setting up clinics, teaching sex education, and publishing pamphlets, including "The Sexual Struggle of Youth".
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Sexpol Movement:
Reich's "Sexpol" movement emerged from his belief that sexuality and sexual repression played a crucial role in the production and reproduction of class structures and hierarchies.
Working-Class Focus:
Reich's work and political activity, including Sexpol, primarily targeted working-class communities, particularly youth.
Practical Activities:
Reich engaged in practical activities like setting up clinics in working-class areas, teaching sex education, and publishing pamphlets to promote his ideas.
"The Sexual Struggle of Youth":
He even established his own publishing house, Verlag für Sexualpolitik, to publish his pamphlet "Der sexuelle Kampf der Jugend" (later translated as "The Sexual Struggle of Youth") after the Communist Party of Germany delayed its publication.
Conflict with the Communist Party:
Reich's views on adolescent sexuality and his involvement in a conference promoting it led to the Communist Party announcing that it would no longer publish his material.
Freud's Response:
Sigmund Freud also distanced himself from Reich, canceling his contract with the International Psychoanalytic Publishers to publish Reich's "Character Analysis," likely due to Reich's stance on teenage sex.

Reich is pretty interesting. I recently wrote about him outside of Mu.

PorcelainLark wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:38 pm Among the more pro-contact orientated MAPs, many tend to side with the perspective known as youth liberation. It seems obvious to argue that statutory rape laws are limitations on the freedom of youth, so it's understandable why pro-contact MAPs tend to take this position. However, in my opinion, there are some underlying issues with the youth liberation approach.

A central figure in youth liberation, is the Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who argued that, because human beings are innately good and can only be corrupted by society, children's innocence is very important to preserve.

One: Did he use the word "innocence"?

Two: He, amongst how many more were "central figures", and by whose INTERPRETATION??

Three: If he did use the word "innocence", i wonder if the European was quite open-minded, but not enough to comprehend the world Indigenous awareness, such as like the value of young people going with their original spiritual intention/purpose for being born here at this time and place!! !! (In the case of Europeons, the time before Rome Took Our Independence).

Certainly a little "too deep" for many youth liberationists, i suppose. Not being able to "help" being settlers with all of their settler freedumb and all. Well, i figure they might be able to open up their minds more, now-a-daze, eh?

In order to do this, the guardian of a child would avoid the use of corporal punishment and force in the parenting and education of children. As far as possible, the child was meant to be free.

This view romanticizes innocence and mystifies childhood. Just as adults are fallible, so are children - the free, undirected action of a child is not necessarily, any morally better than the directed action.

For a minute there, i thought this was an "April Fools" joke! But you are serious! Wow! I am surprised!
Okay, so
The idea of letting the "child" (young person) be free is to let them follow their intuitive dream!! To NOT ONLY go with the dream of Strangers!! In fact, to NOT automatically subordinate their dreams to the Strangers!! To have INFORMED CHOICE!!

Then there's this imposition of the 'morality' hierarchy you seem to want to drag in. (Or am i "jumping the gun" and should read ALL THE WAY THRU YOUR POST before ASSUMING????)

Different in different epochs.
Such as when child marriage was possible with girls, age 7. Arguably a MUCH MORE PATRIARCHAL epoch than even today. ...Back when very young people were being HANGED IN PUBLIC in England for trying to survive in the only way they knew.

(Granted, today's version of FOSTER 'childhood' is probably worse, thanks to the documenation of Foster Kids (orphans), as young as babies, being "farmed out" to the Allopathic Medical Studies Industry. Don't take my word for it, look up "Anthony Fauci's First Fraud" on something like BrasscheckTV. I read it in RFK,Jr's THE REAL ANTHONY FAUCI.)

(OR, for the anti-politicians, or anti-rfkjr's, how about the book MEDICAL APARTHEID by Harriet Washington?!!?!)

{NOTE: The meta-Editor for this forum apparently just asked me to summarize this last title. But i think it would take too much away from my post right now; so i'll certainly do it another time, that good?}


i digress.

This is why I would prefer to say children can make mistakes that they can also learn to understand. The danger of youth liberation is that it unwittingly sustains the idealization of innocence, which impoverishes children's ability to learn and understand.

Wow again. But off-center! i think!

(i suspect you are talking past the other MAPS as they may be talking past you! ! (?) )

Youth liberation has been, at least in history (of the 20th century anyway), and from my albeit limited study, about LETTING KIDS WANDER FREE OF THE PRISON GARDEN OF CHILDHOOD!! AND RETURN WHEN THEY WISH!! !!! It has been about INFORMED CONSENT but without all the formality.

But to get to your POINT (and it does feel that way, oh my), LIBERATION MEANS to liberate, NOT constrict!! To provide a foundation to liberate oneself from the so-called "Realistic" and "Pragmatic" Frames of References (that you seem to have been Surrounded by..or..something). (Do you think i have a blindspot?)

Or are you talking about some Orwellian form as it has been Turned On Its Head, today???? Please then, quote your source material!!

(uncertain about likelihood of how insane Orwellianisms have gotten; perhaps i've been under my Rock too long!)

Wow, you sound like a REALLY GOOD teacher , able to ENFLAME participation, or, wow, a bit obtuse!! (been wanting to use that one, i guess!)


(Welcome to the club!)

(tho i recognize i'm a newbie for many o' ya!)(er?)

Source material for Harriet Washington's book:

Quote from Wikipedia:
Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present is a 2007 [? I thought it was 2006--ed] book by Harriet A. Washington. It is a history of medical experimentation on African Americans. From the era of slavery to the present day, this book presents the first detailed account of black Americans' abuse as unwitting subjects of medical experimentation.[1][2]

Medical Apartheid won the 2007 National Book Critics Circle Award for Non-fiction.[3] Washington's work helped lead to the American Medical Association's apology to the nation's black physicians in 2008 and the removal of the James Marion Sims statue from Central Park in 2018.[4][5][6]
[...]
Medical Apartheid traces the complex history of medical experimentation on Black Americans in the United States since the middle of the eighteenth century. Harriet Washington argues that "diverse forms of racial discrimination have shaped both the relationship between white physicians and black patients and the attitude of the latter towards modern medicine in general".[7]

Quote:
"Washington describes how Sims used black infants for tetany [not a typo--ed] experiments. Sims determined through his research that the cause of tetany in the babies was a result of the movement of skull bones during birth. To test his theory, he took a black baby and, using a shoemaker's tools, opened the baby's brain based on his belief that black babies' skulls grew faster than the skulls of white babies, preventing their brains from growing or developing. Most of the babies died and he blamed their deaths on their supposed lack of intelligence.[10][11]

Need i say more?

anarchist of love wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 10:12 am One: Did he use the word "innocence"?

Yes. Ctrl + F "innocence" for more context.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/54 ... mages.html

Two: He, amongst how many more were "central figures", and by whose INTERPRETATION??

He is the precursor to progressive education. The sentimental view of children you see in reformers like Charles Dickens is preceded by Rousseau.

(i suspect you are talking past the other MAPS as they may be talking past you! ! (?) )

I think it's more that we fundamentally disagree; I don't think people misunderstand me, or that I'm misunderstanding others.

Youth liberation has been, at least in history (of the 20th century anyway), and from my albeit limited study, about LETTING KIDS WANDER FREE OF THE PRISON GARDEN OF CHILDHOOD!! AND RETURN WHEN THEY WISH!! !!! It has been about INFORMED CONSENT but without all the formality.

But to get to your POINT (and it does feel that way, oh my), LIBERATION MEANS to liberate, NOT constrict!! To provide a foundation to liberate oneself from the so-called "Realistic" and "Pragmatic" Frames of References (that you seem to have been Surrounded by..or..something). (Do you think i have a blindspot?)

Yes, this is what I'm saying. I had a lot of freedom when I was growing up, I feel like I'd be a more functional person if I had had more structure.

Oh, i see better now. You're still thinking within the hierarchy of Received Constructs. The "structure" you long for...

You'd be more so-called "Normal" if you had JUST had more or some STRUCTURE in your kidhood...uh huh.

But in this desire to be "Normal", you are uncritically Buying Into 'The System'.

Like most people, of course.

Measuring yourself against the Imposed Norms, actually a quite insane (upside-down) value system. You WANT VERY BADLY to 'FIT IN'! (Question is, how far will you go to do so?)

Do you "beat yourself up" inside your head about this? Well, i know someone who used to SLAP HIMSELF over this crap! Only to eventually WAKE UP to the Big Picture!!

Perhaps you should deepen your independent research? Or?

What say you?

anarchist of love wrote: Sun Feb 22, 2026 12:07 pm Oh, i see better now. You're still thinking within the hierarchy of Received Constructs. The "structure" you long for...

You'd be more so-called "Normal" if you had JUST had more or some STRUCTURE in your kidhood...uh huh.

But in this desire to be "Normal", you are uncritically Buying Into 'The System'.

Like most people, of course.

Measuring yourself against the Imposed Norms, actually a quite insane (upside-down) value system. You WANT VERY BADLY to 'FIT IN'! (Question is, how far will you go to do so?)

Do you "beat yourself up" inside your head about this? Well, i know someone who used to SLAP HIMSELF over this crap! Only to eventually WAKE UP to the Big Picture!!

Perhaps you should deepen your independent research? Or?

What say you?

I'm not really concerned with fitting in, it's more that support systems helped me. For example, I wouldn't have been able to learn to read without external help. I had other learning and health issues which I didn't get help with until I was older. The problem for me was always lack of support not constraint. What was upsetting to me was that people expected me to be more capable than I actually was. Alternative forms of education can neglect children with learning difficulties in my experience (I've had experience being in both). Standard education is by no means perfect, however that doesn't necessarily mean the alternatives are better.

My feeling is that the emphasis on freedom presupposes a view that humans are all capable of being self-sufficient. I don't think that's the case. If dependence isn't something contingent or accidental, but central to how people exist, the question becomes about how people relate to one another.

A person with a fever wants a community to care for them while they are sick, that's not really about beating yourself up. Arguably, there are points when your self-interest is more important than your freedom.

If you can explain how liberation would help neglected children and children with special needs, I'd be interested. Though I have reservations based on my experience and what I've seen with other people.