OnionPetal wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:55 pm
Hard disagree. If 'normies' see you in a legal
romantic relationship with a child, the social ramifications could be devastating -- for the adult
and for the child. It is
not cowardice to avoid or conceal such relationships, to guard against such a high price.
I think one question I have here is "can you envision a path forward that is bloodless?" My answer is a definite "no". Already MAPs face assault and even murder. Civil rights movements past (black rights, gay rights) have involved violence. I don't see us as having any way of escaping that. At first there will be violence and death with no fanfare, but eventually those who die will become martyrs. If we imagine a successful future, reflecting back on it there will be our Stonewall moment, our Harvey Milk, our Matthew Shepard.
Right now we're still not seen as an organized threat. There is no real "fight against pedos". But if we are ever taken more seriously as a movement the pushback will only intensify. But simultaneously I don't think there is a lot that can be accomplished while remaining in the safety of the shadows.
But do I think present day, 2025 is the right time to come out and be a martyr? No. Especially not in the local way of "having a YF publicly". There might be some value in martyrdom alongside a public profile. Personally, I
am willing to risk that if it comes to it. I've got too little left to lose to care. That, and I've always been an agitator. In the early 2000s in my last year of high school I came out as publicly gay in a rural community where gay bashing was still a possibility. I don't suggest that
anyone else needs to take risks with their safety. But personally, that's where my head is at (when it's not giving up and being suicidal).
OnionPetal wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:55 pm
Fragment wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 12:45 pm
What even is a "reform" agenda that pushes for stuff that is already legal?
Yeah, what kind of activist would want to tackle insignificant things like prejudice, discrimination, and stigma, just for a silly little thing like social acceptance?
I guess I've always been of the mindset that activism is primarily about influencing laws. Perhaps because I've always been anti-social, in the sense that I don't care if I'm ostracized.
It's people with guns putting me in cages that I care about. Being called nasty names is something I've dealt with since my age was in the single digits. I guess I've also been lucky, though, that many people that do know about my preference have stuck by me. It's probably easier to say "I don't give a fuck what people think" when at least some of my closest people do, in fact, show empathy towards me.
I would've asked "what does changing society without changing laws even look like?" but you did go on to offer a possibility
OnionPetal wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:55 pm
For those who recognize the necessity of social reform in our activism, one way to inspire social change is via media representation. If millions of viewers could see
positive depictions of legal romantic relationships in mainstream media, that would probably have a much broader impact than some bloke committing social suicide by outing himself as a paedophile in some small town by openly having a 'legal' romantic relationship with a child.
Real meaningful change (for those who want to see it) is more likely to come from lobbying media producers, publishers, and writers to challenge the biases around adult-child romantic relationships.
I question if this is a chicken and egg scenario, though? Media depictions will often arise from artists and producers having experienced or witnessed MAP relationship dynamics. Just asking Hollywood to make a compassionate movie about us won't go far. I guess MAP producers working in the Indie scene would be a start, much as how gay film was only strongly present in indie media until the 80s-90s. But I still think key to this will be "I know a MAP, and he/ she's alright". I don't see much room for positive media portrayals until the battle is already halfway won.
It reminds me of "After the Ball", a book written about the direction gay activists should take. It was written in 1989. It definitely did plot a course for success, but it feels almost a little redundant as there was already a lot of forward momentum built up by that point.
We're more at the level of the
Society for Human Rights in 1924 (as a side note it's interesting that even as early as 1924 there were gay activists suggesting that boylove should be jettisoned as part of a "winning strategy").
OnionPetal wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:55 pm
I will never understand that vague, poorly-defined concept of 'grooming.' But if it means to turn legal activities in to 'forbidden' ones, then this is something else our activism should fight, too. With high priority.
Catching when these specific proposals are raised and voicing our opposition to them is something Mu has been active with (most recently with AI restrictions). Yet, we're still largely yelling into the void. How can we assign it a higher priority? How can we get people to listen to us? Right now it feels like a lot of our attempts at activism are just reinforcing our own sense of persecution. Internal unity and consistent messaging is important. But if only MAPs read Mu, I believe we're falling short.
I sent you a PM on VoA, though. I'm not sure if you'll get to read that before you read this.
