ACTUAL hypothetical from hell

[Fragment]

The last one ended up not being much of a hypothetical. I think this one might be a bit more challenging. Either choice you make- there may be consequences to you, so there is no clear self-interested answer.

You are a member of a private online community where you’ve grown close to another user, someone who has supported you emotionally through hard times. Over time, you learn that this friend — someone you trust and care for — has entered into a relationship with a minor that clearly crosses ethical boundaries. The minor is 14; the adult is 31. The minor appears emotionally attached but also overwhelmed. Your friend insists everything is consensual, and while you do believe they genuinely care, you think he may be deluding himself a little about the minor's feelings. You also know that if the police got involved, the punishment would be extreme — potentially decades in prison, public registration, homelessness, maybe suicide. You know that you, too, could face a disruptive investigation, even if you haven't done anything illegal.

One night, the minor messages you and says: “I don’t want to get them in trouble, but I want them to stop touching me.”

You’re now the only person with the full picture. The adult doesn’t know you’ve spoken to the minor. The minor doesn’t know how close you are to the adult. If you report, your friend will almost certainly be arrested — and the fallout might extend to you. If you say nothing, the relationship may continue, and so might the harm.

As an extra problem, you live in a state with mandatory reporting for all adults. If the situation is discovered and it's known that you didn't report it, you could face punishment.

The question:

Do you report to prevent harm — even knowing it could destroy your friend? Or do you stay silent, believing your presence may be a more ethical way to monitor the situation? Either way there are risks to yourself.

[BLueRibbon]

I would tell the friend what their YF had said and argue that they should stop.

But I couldn't report another MAP to the authorities unless they had seriously threatened my security.

We're in this together. It's a corner into which society has pushed us.

[Valerian]

Let me respond to your hypothetical with one of my own—offered with no offence intended.

Imagine you live in a country somewhere in the world where Black and White people coexist out of necessity yet under a strict racial segregation. The constitution of this country is founded on the principle of racial purity, under which any sexual relationship between Black and White individuals is strictly prohibited—especially relationships involving a Black man and a White woman. In such cases, the Black man faces severe punishment: long-term imprisonment under harsh conditions.

In contrast, the punishment for the White woman is far less severe. She may escape consequences altogether by confessing—either when caught or through voluntary admission. In some cases, no punishment is imposed on her at all.

Now, consider this: you are a Black person who, believe in the constitutional principle of racial purity also a kind-hearted individual who believes in some version of human rights. One day, you become aware of a sexual relationship that occurred between a Black man and a White woman.

To complicate matters, you live in a state where mandatory reporting laws require citizens to report any such illegal Black-White relationships. If the affair is discovered and it is found that you failed to report it, you too could face legal consequences.

Here is the Question:
Do you report the incident to uphold the constitutional principle of racial purity, knowing it could destroy the life of a fellow Black man?
Or do you stay silent, believing your presence may be a more ethical way to monitor the situation? Either way there are risks to yourself.

[PorcelainLark]

If it's either/or, I think the life of the friend is more important. If there was more nuance, I might either try to separate the two some other way that doesn't involve talking to the police; like telling the friend to stop, or threatening them if they continue; or else refuse to make a decision (distancing myself from both the friend and the minor), if either choice means doing something wrong.

[Fragment]

In a real world scenario, of course trying to find a solution through discussion, without police, is the best.

But just to really nail down on the "from hell" part of this dilemma. You contact your friend, you try to talk to him. But he's convinced that everything he's doing is love and that the boy is "just shy" and will "get used to it".

From your point of view consent is ambiguous at best- but there is no violence, threats or aggression. But he also will not stop without police involvement. Nor will the minor leave.

[PorcelainLark]

In a real world scenario, of course trying to find a solution through discussion, without police, is the best.

But just to really nail down on the "from hell" part of this dilemma. You contact your friend, you try to talk to him. But he's convinced that everything he's doing is love and that the boy is "just shy" and will "get used to it".

From your point of view consent is ambiguous at best- but there is no violence, threats or aggression. But he also will not stop without police involvement. Nor will the minor leave.

I think I'd still stick to view that the well-being of the MAP trumps the well-being of the minor in that situation. If you know you're likely to cause the MAP to commit suicide, but you don't know that you'll cause something equally bad to happen to the minor, then the MAP's well-being trumps the minor's.
If the minor won't try to leave, either, what's to say they won't get into the same situation again with someone else? If you don't try to leave after someone crosses sexual boundaries, that's a bigger problem than just one person. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink; everyone has to learn to enforce their own sexual boundaries, because there won't always be someone to do it for you.

[Fragment]

Let me respond to your hypothetical with one of my own—offered with no offence intended.

Imagine you live in a country somewhere in the world where Black and White people coexist out of necessity yet under a strict racial segregation. The constitution of this country is founded on the principle of racial purity, under which any sexual relationship between Black and White individuals is strictly prohibited—especially relationships involving a Black man and a White woman. In such cases, the Black man faces severe punishment: long-term imprisonment under harsh conditions.

In contrast, the punishment for the White woman is far less severe. She may escape consequences altogether by confessing—either when caught or through voluntary admission. In some cases, no punishment is imposed on her at all.

Now, consider this: you are a Black person who, believe in the constitutional principle of racial purity also a kind-hearted individual who believes in some version of human rights. One day, you become aware of a sexual relationship that occurred between a Black man and a White woman.

To complicate matters, you live in a state where mandatory reporting laws require citizens to report any such illegal Black-White relationships. If the affair is discovered and it is found that you failed to report it, you too could face legal consequences.

Here is the Question:
Do you report the incident to uphold the constitutional principle of racial purity, knowing it could destroy the life of a fellow Black man?
Or do you stay silent, believing your presence may be a more ethical way to monitor the situation? Either way there are risks to yourself.

Very nicely done

[Fragment]

My answer:

I wouldn't go to the cops. NEVER go to the pigs. Even if it's rape that deserves a sentence of 10 years, they'll give a sentence of 50.

I might sell out a pedo friend if they'd actually killed a child. But nothing else.

I'd help my friend keep it a secret, for the kid as much as for him. But if he kept going I wouldn't keep being his friend. And if it really needed to stop I'd rock up at his house with some pedo bros with baseball bats and teach him a thing or two about ethical child-love. It's not like he can call the cops over that.


But never cops. Never courts. Never prison.

MAP solidarity for life.

[Bookshelf]

I think hypotheticals like this help outline the issue with punishing consensual AMSC to begin with, even from a perspective where it's wrong. Even if the minor is uncomfortable and wants it to stop, often they still value the relationship with the older person and are destroyed when it's forcefully halted. In scenarios like this; they want to stop being touched, but they don't want to be ripped away from this person forever.

Decriminalization of consensual AMSC makes sense not just from a pro-contact perspective, but from an anti-contact perspective for this reason. If the damage done by the safeguarding process is worse than what it's safeguarding against, another route has to be looked at.