MAP Forum

Over the years, and after consider research of evidence in favor of the position, I have come to the conclusion of three things:

1. Each major issue MAPs face is mirrored by a similar issue for minors
2. These issues faced by minors are a result of our current laws against MAPs, not in spite of those laws
3. Antis and other proponents could certainly be held accountable for perpetrating these issues by supporting bad laws that cause them

I'd like to break these three points down by giving three examples:

As an example of the first point, let's consider the prohibition on CP possession. Sure anyone caught (MAP or otherwise) with CP in their possession will face prison time. However, as I discussed in ALM #5 with my article Unequipped: Why Current Laws Fail Children, it has the mirror effect of decreasing the visibility of producers who are exploiting children (note that my definition of exploitation is bribery, coercion, manipulation, voyeurism, drugging, or force, and not the legal definition of any sexual contact at all). Producers get away with the stuff for quite a while before the law catches up with them, and not all of them get arrested in the end. This means the system isn't preventing real abuse, because it's too slow to do so. I shared plenty of evidence to that end in the aforementioned article.

Another example would the standard-and-logical reason MAPs often avoid sexual contact with minors; wishing to avoid society doing indirect harm to minors. The MAP goes to prison, but the mirror issue is the minor is often treated as if something horrific and traumatic has happened to them, usually starting with their parents, but continuing on through the legal system, and then, counseling. It's not right that minors get harassed and victim-labelled like this. While less evidence exists for the negative impacts toward minors be treated like someone broke them no matter the circumstances, Bruce Rind has shed some light on this, and we could pressure researchers for the right to know the effects. Not under the narrative of trying to prove ourselves right, but rather, out of concern for the minors that may be getting impacted, and our desire to get them justice.

Finally, I would like to talk about situational offenders committing crimes against minors. On the one hand, it gives MAPs a bad name, because the public doesn't acknowledge a difference between MAPs (those innately attracted to minors) and situational offenders (those who sexually target minors but aren't attracted to them). On the other, the system, by refusing to reform sex ed, and "Just say 'no'" education, minors, and especially young children aren't being told the whole picture. Telling a child to do (or not do) something doesn't won't always result in them following orders. Children are curious, and will question things. They are also taught from an early age that all adults are authority figures, not just a select few. Stranger danger ideas have also exacerbated this issue, creating another scenario that kids may question the validity of. By painting in such broad strokes and telling minors their bodies are completely off limits, antis and other proponents of the system have made detailed discussions off limits. They have stripped out any nuance, thus giving children no real guidance mechanism for sexual ideas of right and wrong. This has made minors (again, especially younger minors) far more prone to being manipulated. Those responsible for this issue could certainly be held accountable for doing so. As always, holding them accountable out of sympathy for their plight, not as a cheap 'gotcha.'

There is historical precedent for this line of thinking, as well. For years, conservatives dominated the narrative of school shootings being a product of teens training on violent video games. This poorly-argued conclusion always had weak evidence. However, we have seen a monumental shift in anti-shooting narrative now. Liberals are far more vocal about how the lax gun laws in America are to blame, and conservatives now carry far less clout in their arguments. It's far more in vogue to criticize the NRA now than it is the criticize Doom or Grand Theft Auto. There is ample means for us to flip the script and do the same on anti-pedos and hold them accountable for propping up a system that is failing the needs of minors. Not because we want to contrarian, or want to do a cheap 'gotcha' accusation, but rather, as those who care deeply about minors, and are disgusted that antis are getting away with their disservice and broken promises to the young.

Please let me know your thoughts on this approach. Hopefully, we can work toward justice for minors.

Wonderful post. I agree that by inculcating a sex-negative mindset into minors we set them up to be abused. We need to look at the statistics of under-reporting when it comes to sexual abuse. Some of that is because it wasn't actually abusive. But some of it is likely because sex itself is considered shameful and so actual victims of abuse feel guilty and don't want to come forward. A clearer line between abuse and non-abuse could help minors process their feelings better so that victims of abuse were able to come forward without fear. Rather than empowering minors (especially teens) the current system takes power away from minors and places it in the systems around them. Laws are about punishing the MAPs who transgress against social norms, rather than actually acting in the interests of minors. Much of the time statutory rape is prosecuted based on the parents' feeling of anger that their child has engaged in sexual activity, rather than actual harms incurred against the minor.

We, as a society, need to do better.

They are attacking the consumers at the top, not those who promote, groom and treat children as commodities. Consumers only use it to relieve their sexual tension, something that in no way indicates that it will cause any danger to any child, just as if they read fictional stories within their AoA, it would cause danger to any child, it's just a way of letting off steam, which I don't see a problem with.

GregoryBayclark wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 4:43 am Another example would the standard-and-logical reason MAPs often avoid sexual contact with minors; wishing to avoid society doing indirect harm to minors. The MAP goes to prison, but the mirror issue is the minor is often treated as if something horrific and traumatic has happened to them, usually starting with their parents, but continuing on through the legal system, and then, counseling. It's not right that minors get harassed and victim-labelled like this. While less evidence exists for the negative impacts toward minors be treated like someone broke them no matter the circumstances, Bruce Rind has shed some light on this, and we could pressure researchers for the right to know the effects. Not under the narrative of trying to prove ourselves right, but rather, out of concern for the minors that may be getting impacted, and our desire to get them justice.

This is important. I will add it to the 12+ argument we're developing. Thank you.

I don't condone sex with minors or any other creepy behavior towards them but another good argument is that a hard consent line guarantees the minor's first sexual experience with an older person will be an awful one.

Sex by adults on children is already unethical but only the worst quality, most careless, hateful and bigoted pedophile is going any where near a child sexually if they know they will end up in jail or worse for it.

With better laws, the careless and violent pedos would be punished and the kind/caring ones rewarded.

anarkiddo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 4:53 pm I don't condone sex with minors or any other creepy behavior towards them but another good argument is that a hard consent line guarantees the minor's first sexual experience with an older person will be an awful one.

Sex by adults on children is already unethical but only the worst quality, most careless, hateful and bigoted pedophile is going any where near a child sexually if they know they will end up in jail or worse for it.

With better laws, the careless and violent pedos would be punished and the kind/caring ones rewarded.

How do you define a 'child'?

Taking a broader view than just antis, considering also what might have made them anti in the first place ... I would just add these to OP’s list:
• The role western governments, primarily the US government and its obsequious vassal states, have played in dismantling societal cohesion.
• The incestuous nature of the relationship between the Pharmaceutical industry and the American Psychological Association (APA), the exponential increase in mental disorder diagnoses, and concomitant disorder classifications applied to sexual minority groups.
• Accountability should be levelled at certain sexual minority groups who not so long ago faced equivalent discrimination, yet seem loathed to support us in any meaningful way lest they jeopardise hard-earned respectability.

The concept of stranger danger, coined by US campaigners during the 1960s, was one of the first nails in the coffin of ‘kind’ neighbourly interaction. Within two decades, fear of strangers became an epidemic, all the while egged on by media-driven hysteria, and this frenzy seems to have persisted to this very day. Single men are an easy target. By providing financial incentives to individuals claiming to have suffered historic sexual abuse, the floodgates opened. Mass incarcerations of men followed, and to keep society safe, a bonus of civil commitment post ‘release’ was recommended. Parents fearing the worst, keep children at home rather than allowing them onto streets filled with bogey men. By limiting social interaction and prohibiting risk-taking, children are prevented from finding out more about themselves and the world around them.

To accentuate fear of strangers hysteria, the American Psychological Association (APA) categorise paedophilia as a mental disorder. The implication here is that paedophiles exhibit harmful behaviour towards others. Indeed, much of western society has come to treat the terms paedophile and child molester as interchangeable. The APA previously categorised homosexuality as a mental disorder back in 1952. Two decades later, this disorder was declassified, four years after the Stonewall riots in fact. The APA comprises 38,000 members who are apparently in psychiatric practice, research and academia, across 100 different countries. Presumably many of these psychiatrists preach the DSM mantra about paedophiles wherever they go, so it is not difficult to fathom how the paedophile has come to be universally feared and vilified. It is ironic that homosexuals, who were once reviled and considered to be a threat to traditional family life, have in the interim been usurped by the now equally reviled paedosexuals. It is doubly ironic that boylovers who once-upon-a-time were joined at the hip to the homosexual fraternity, are now considered leprous by that fraternity.

June 2024 was apparently Pride Month. I looked up the Pride Rainbow Party details (22 June) in the country where I live, and note that the event does not admit anyone under the age of 18. Just that simple fact tells me all I need to know about Pride organisation exclusivity plus the implicit discrimination within its core. I mean, why would I want to attend an event allegedly celebrating the diversity of human sexuality, when my young friend, whom I love dearly and who loves me, is forbidden from celebrating it too? Why too would I want to attend an event that could potentially lead to confrontation, hostility and possible arrest?

anarkiddo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 4:53 pm I don't condone sex with minors or any other creepy behavior towards them but another good argument is that a hard consent line guarantees the minor's first sexual experience with an older person will be an awful one.

Sex by adults on children is already unethical but only the worst quality, most careless, hateful and bigoted pedophile is going any where near a child sexually if they know they will end up in jail or worse for it.

With better laws, the careless and violent pedos would be punished and the kind/caring ones rewarded.

Why is sex with people under 18 creepy, unethical, and something not to be "condoned?"