MAP Forum

A major purpose of the 'war on pedophiles' is supposedly the protection of children. Perhaps the most vociferous aggressors in this regard are the USA and the UK. It is therefore not surprising that, earlier this year, tarty Trump fangirl Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla) announced she was to re-introduce a set of bills which would, among other things, "mandate the death penalty or life imprisonment for anyone found guilty of 'producing, distributing, or possessing child pornography". In this article, we will take a depressing look at MAP oppression in America set against the backdrop of wanton disregard for the well-being of children on its own shores and in the countries whose merciless destruction it actively funds and foments.

https://www.map-union.org/perspectives/ ... al-monster

Hey all, I recently read a bold piece of writing that some of you might have seen:
Fuck the Kids in Every Way But That (or Why America is a Hypocritical Monster)

It's a long, sharp-edged critique of how the U.S. (and to a lesser extent the UK) weaponizes child protection rhetoric—especially around MAP-related issues—while blatantly harming children in other contexts (wars, poverty, immigration raids, school shootings, etc.).

My Take:

• What Works:
  The piece does a fantastic job exposing the double standard: how kids are supposedly "protected" from MAPs with draconian laws while the state happily destroys their lives in other arenas. It links modern moral panics back to the 19th-century "purity crusades," which gives useful historical context. I also appreciate how it connects domestic issues with global atrocities, showing how the U.S. imposes its distorted child-protection narrative worldwide.
• What Feels Risky:
  The aggressive tone is a double-edged sword. Insults like "MAGA whore" and "Trump twink" may resonate with a frustrated audience, but they risk undermining the deeper points for people who might otherwise engage seriously. There's also a risk of conflating state violence (like wars) with personal offenses (like image possession), which is a nuanced philosophical leap that might need more precise framing.
• Philosophical Challenge:
  The piece fully rejects the concept that possession of illegal images harms victims, which is a bold and controversial stance. While it’s valid to challenge overblown revictimization narratives, denying any potential harm—whether symbolic, psychological, or indirect—might alienate those on the fence or wanting a more evidence-based argument. It's a high-risk, high-reward approach.

Final Thoughts:

Overall, I think the core message is powerful: the U.S. (and others) use child protection as a political bludgeon while enabling or committing huge harms elsewhere. That hypocrisy needs to be called out.

BUT... I wonder whether the aggressive style limits the reach of the argument. For MAPs and allies already angry and radicalized, it's cathartic. For outsiders? Probably off-putting.

What do you all think? Did this article resonate with you? Did the tone work for its purpose, or do you think it risks alienating potential allies? Keen to hear your thoughts.

I think looking back, the realization of the hypocritical nature of the culture that western society has towards 'protecting' youth while simultaneously harming them is what initially cemented my position against an AoC — to realize that few people claiming that AMSC is ethically and morally wrong are doing it from a perspective of legitimate youth welfare, and that their true motivations are of some other nature. Politicians in the US regularly vote against free school meals; those same politicians then go and vote to raise their own lunch budget.

The same people telling me I can't touch someone below a certain age because it will cause irreparable damage, and they absolutely care about preventing damage, will then go on and look at a situation like Palestine and justify the countless deaths and mutilations of children as necessary and, in some more extreme views, a positive thing.

You can't look at the common western culture's view on children, sexuality and welfare and conclude that it's sane. Where I'm from, parents still often use violence as a form of discipline; because beating a child is okay, but making them feel good is horrific.

It should be clear to everyone that pays attention that anti-AMSC views don't come from any legitimate care around children as a collective. It's far more likely it comes from a place of control, purity culture, religion, or some other rationale behind making you (and youth) conform to other people's standards.

I wasn't a fan of that article.

This article contains highly distressing content and imagery.

"Imagery" can be written. You should say there's actual photographs of the aftermath of school shooting in the article.

But opening her legs to wannabe dictators isn't Luna's only hobby...

This comes across as misogynistic, in my opinion.

...but in part by deeply entrenched prejudices that ought to have been destroyed along with every copy of the bible they came from.

Not all Christianity is sex-negative (consider Lutheranism), and the Bible isn't just a source of religious beliefs (consider it's influence on Lincoln's speeches).

They were very successful, with their movement eventually leading to successes including women's suffrage, and arguably even 'positive discrimination' in favor of women in many western countries today.

This comes across as something a MRA would have said.

Iraqi children were murdered and left to rot in a vicious campaign perpetrated by a despicably racist insurgency in pursuit of a cynical geopolitical power grab coupled with bitter, insatiable greed. America’s disregard for the suffering of Iraq’s children is essentially the result of a racist and imperialist mindset, deeply entrenched in the belief that brown lives are worth less and are more expendable.

Are you also anti-Ukraine? That's how this reads to me.

One would expect the police of a country that crusaded for the safety of children to respond aggressively to such a horrendous attack, but the reality gives lie to America's grand distortion.

You write as though America is a monolith. It's a country of over 330 million people.

The Israeli genocide of Palestine, underpinned by the steadfast support of the United States, is a dreadful reality that has been covered up by politicians on both extremes of the traditional political spectrum.

Not that I agree with this characterization, but what far-leftist supports Israel?

I should say, I thoroughly disagree with you're views on Israel, though this isn't the place to argue about that.

The new Trump administration’s raids on schools to apprehend undocumented child migrants are another diabolical display of political posturing. These raids tear families apart with callous disregard for the lives of children, treating them as pathetic little bargaining chips in a typically toxic American game of grotesque political machismo.

Trump isn't America, he isn't even representative of American conservatives. Most of the Bush-era conservatives were pro-immigration.

The rise of the extreme right in recent years cannot be divorced from the left's extreme 'wokism', which has boosted the appeal of the right by alienating and demonizing straight, white men; particularly young men.

It feels a bit rich to say that after the article has blamed so many of the problems on racism.

It is very much a destroyer of children, not a protector, and it has no right to tell anyone else how to best keep young people safe.

Again, America is a country of 330 million people. Ascribing intentions to a country that size is absurd.

And its system is not broken, either internally or externally, as so many claim. The system is a sinister evil working exactly as it was intended, supported by morally bankrupt leaders and followers who are in the business of brutality for their own personal gain. Now that the second Trump administration has screamed the true horror of America and its leadership out loud, instead of simply hiding behind a pretty little facade like the leaders that came before them, it's about time the world tells America to fuck off and take its cynical cultural imperialism with it.

As much as I despise American prudery, as a European, it's not that simple. Being on the edge of a war with Russia means this Manichaean picture of America is hard to take seriously.