MAP Forum

Anti-c is "anti-contact", typically a MAP (or non-MAP like me), who is ethically against the idea of physical relations between older people and minors - those below the legal age wherever it is. Importantly, it means more than simply being against facilitating illegal acts (I'm to some extent pro-choice/pro-c, but would be decidedly anti-c if this were the case). In some instances the labels have been described as divisive, but since people use them, they are undeniably something that must be negotiated in some way. Contrary to popular belief, both labels existed and were used prior to social media.

I generally have quite a nuanced view of anti-c, and have always welcomed the idea of strategically collaborating with them. There are outstanding examples of pro-c/anti-c collaboration, some of which I was involved with, so there is no reason it can't be done again at some point in the future.

Yet my direct experiences of "anti-c" individuals since roughly the social media era are almost uniformly negative. Their behaviour has tended to be needlessly provocative, sometimes dumbfoundingly so, and sanctimonious, which suggests there is some kind of performance aspect to the label. Strangely, in individuals who do not explicitly use the "anti-c" or NOMAP label, but still profess what I would describe as "anti-c" beliefs, I do not witness this kind of pious behaviour. This again seems to be suggesting that the label's use is performative.

With this in mind:

1. What prospect is there of collaboration with anti-c's?
2. Is it even desirable, theoretically? Can anti-c ever have a positive impact? Is it a pipeline (e.g. for individuals, or society)?
3. What are the shared causes between anti and pro-c, going forward?

I might drop some of my essays covering this topic at a later point in the thread, but I made this thread after pointing out on fediverse, that a Kiwifams thread is not indicative of how wider society reacts to anti-c's. It's entirely possible that if hate-motivated individuals are reacting harder against anti-c's, the strategy is working by virtue of confounding stereotypes of MAPs.

https://fedi.yesmap.net/@Jim_Burton/114162799239232810

Jim Burton wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 1:49 pm Yet my direct experiences of "anti-c" individuals since roughly the social media era are almost uniformly negative. Their behaviour has tended to be needlessly provocative, sometimes dumbfoundingly so, and sanctimonious, which suggests there is some kind of performance aspect to the label. Strangely, in individuals who do not explicitly use the "anti-c" or NOMAP label, but still profess what I would describe as "anti-c" beliefs, I do not witness this kind of pious behaviour. This again seems to be suggesting that the label's use is performative.

I was "anti-contact" (I prefer the term "anti-legalization"), albeit not openly a MAP at all except to close friends and family, until a couple months ago. My thoughts on the issue have changed radically more quickly than perhaps any other beliefs I've ever held.

What I realized, in my own case at least, is that believing that such deeply felt desires were necessarily evil inherently implied a degree of self-loathing. As repressed as this hatred of my own emotional inner universe had eventually become, it was still the underlying cause of significant cognitive dissonance, ego-dystonia, and other sources of suffering.

Being anti-legalization was the reason I wasn't interested in any sort of MAP activism. Since I fully accepted the legitimacy and rationale for the existing laws, I had no desire to push for legal change. Since I hated myself, I thought it was understandable—if not acceptable— for others to hate me, too. If my paedohebephilic desires are such a large and inalienable part of who I am, and I think those desires are evil and loathsome, it's no wonder that I'm despised. It makes sense.

In that context, I'd say the performative aspect you describe is an attempt at displacing such feelings of self-hatred on a "twin other" who displays characteristics consistent with ego-syntonia and true self-acceptance. The more one tries to gain social acceptance as an "anti-contact" MAP, the more salient the conflict becomes between one's own lack of genuine acceptance of one's desires (as a harmless and potentially positive form of love), and the acceptance demanded of others (as a decent person capable of love and positively contributing to society).

Jim Burton wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 1:49 pm 1. What prospect is there of collaboration with anti-c's?
2. Is it even desirable, theoretically? Can anti-c ever have a positive impact? Is it a pipeline (e.g. for individuals, or society)?
3. What are the shared causes between anti and pro-c, going forward?

1) I think anti-legalization MAPs, like pro-legalization ones, are an extremely diverse group with a wide range of views and attitudes. Those among them who aren't dismissive, contemptuous, or outright hateful with respect to the pro-legalization perspective can very well have some common ground with us.

2) I'm torn on this point. Due to my personal experience, I think that ultimately, the anti-legalization perspective is intrinsically bad for the well-being of MAPs and our ultimate integration within society. However, I also believe that the MAPs who hold such beliefs are also deserving of respect and compassion, and those that don't reject us in the pro-legalization camp should be accepted by us.

3) I'd say the main one is that all MAPs deserve to be seen as human beings and given dignity and equal rights as such, including freedom of expression and freedom of association. Most anti-legalization MAPs I know of are also in favour of permitting all erotic fiction involving minors.

My suspicion is that there exist many such silent anti-c's who don't wear the label, but just don't do anything out of disinterest and self loathing. And that when anti-c's become syntonic and realise something needs to be done, that something ends up being nothing, because the end game is completely unappetising.

Still, if there is some way of motivating that population to participate in a community, or show their numbers politically...

Perhaps the closest to this is Virped with over 9,000.

Legalization of fiction is it, really.

I would like to see a campaign based solely around global legalization of fiction, and MAPs be driving it forward. What it would need is spokes, and that is something we have so far lacked.

Wasn't the admin of MAPSupport doing something independently like this?

Jim Burton wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 6:19 pm Legalization of fiction is it, really.

I would like to see a campaign based solely around global legalization of fiction, and MAPs be driving it forward. What it would need is spokes, and that is something we have so far lacked.

I fully agree. Back when I was a teenager (starting at age 13), that was my cause. My passion. I was co-founder and leader of an activist group.

What do you mean by "spokes" exactly?

As in, a spokesperson to speak publicly on behalf of the group. Rather problematic is the fact no one will come out as MAP.

Jim Burton wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 10:49 pm As in, a spokesperson to speak publicly on behalf of the group. Rather problematic is the fact no one will come out as MAP.

Ah. Of course. The personal consequences of associating one's legal name to the MAP cause could be severe, especially for those like myself who are in fact MAPs. Even back when I defended "obscene" prurient fiction under the guise of freedom of speech in general, I used a pseudonym, although my legal name was easy to find for anyone who bothered to look. I've been toying with the idea of "coming out" as a MAP ever since I discovered Tom O'Carroll, but I'm not there yet, even though I'm very uncomfortable with such dissimulation. For starters, I'd need to have a sure source of income, which isn't the case at the moment.

My small group of activists had gotten in touch with Neil Gaiman back then, because of his famous (and excellent) essay "Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech", mentioned on this forum. We asked him to be further involved in the cause, mentioning lolicon/shotacon specifically. While he responded rather sympathetically, he was too busy to take such a role upon himself.

If you look at Mu's link list of individuals who have spoken up for MAPs, and add that to Craig Harper, Gillian Tenbergen and others, you have a list of MAP Ally's who might support a shared objective such as this. What you would probably need is a few MAPs who were bold enough to speak up if say 5 of these ally's supported them in an organisation.

One obvious problem is that where we need advocacy (where loli is illegal), no one really wants to out themselves as a "CSAM" user and self-report, which is rather necessary for advocacy. And where we have actual loli users, it's legal and their efforts are surplus to requirements.

I had a friend describe the collaboration between so-called anti-contacts and pro-contacts perfectly with this analogy:

We’re all on the same train, but instead of getting off at the final destination (i.e. legalization of adult/minor sexual contact) anti-contacts will get off one stop before that and let pro-contacts fight the last fight.

terminally_unique wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2025 7:19 pm I had a friend describe the collaboration between so-called anti-contacts and pro-contacts perfectly with this analogy:

We’re all on the same train, but instead of getting off at the final destination (i.e. legalization of adult/minor sexual contact) anti-contacts will get off one stop before that and let pro-contacts fight the last fight.

This is a nice analogy. But I feel some of the anti-cs would be tempted to cut the electric line after getting off the train.