MAP Forum

On Visions of Alice, OnionPetal asked Fragment and I to reassure pedophilic MAPs that we are not abandoning them with the 12+ (AKA 16/12) stance.

I replied:

I would like to re-iterate that, as the main author of the Pro-Reform framework, I am pedohebephilic with an AoA of 8-14. My favorite age is 11-12, and I currently have a crush on a super cute 10 year old.

Pro-Reform is not an exhaustive list of what I would like to see from society; it doesn't go as far as I want, and it is not the end goal over a period of 100 years or so.

The long-defunct ANU/ATC blog that I started with people including Mu treasurer Jim Burton was more or less the forerunner to the NOMAP movement. It introduced softer talking points that were not being addressed by an activist community that simply demanded abolition of the AoC. As the leader, I prohibited writers from making pro-c arguments because I felt that was unhelpful.

With Mu and my Pro-Reform framework, I hope to move the argument along from the NOMAP ideology to a soft reform ideology, pulling in people who are veering toward more extreme positions that I deem unhelpful.

I do not think that AMSC with under-12s is necessarily harmful, and I think if the 16/12 argument is ever accepted, we should start to push for a softening of attitudes and eventually laws related to non-penetrative consensual AMSC with those under 12.

What would pedophilic MAPs like to see after Pro-Reform/12+?

I am a non-exclusive hebephilic GL, so I would technically be ok with an AoC sitting at 12 as proposed in your writings.

But I would like to see a gradual decrease for the age of consent via consecutive reforms such as that it's either completely abolished, or rendered ineffectual. This is so that we can deny antis the possibility of raising the AoC by taking away the legal basis to do so.

Quite radical, I know. But I do think it matters if only because, without an AoC, it would be harder for antis to argue to raise that age in the first place.

While this is outside MU's scope, and would likely be seen as redundant if most of the things listed in that 'simple list' are achieved, ideally the abolition of the AoC would be the next fight, but o course it would have to be gradual. People don't like rapid societal changes, after all.

What non-sexual rights do you think should be advocated for teens?

How about pre-teens?

Yes, compared to pedophiles, it's probably relatively more important to outline you aren't leaving young people behind or misappropriating their rights.

Sexual rights without well-considered, broad-based civil rights for young people matching or exceeding those, is pretty much a debate-ending mistake. It creates the environment for abuse to happen, fails to address the complicity and overreach of parents in creating the pedophile demon/anti-demon laws, and confirms the accompanying stereotype of MAPs being "self-interested".

BLueRibbon wrote: Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:48 am What would pedophilic MAPs like to see after Pro-Reform/12+?

I think it is necessary to first achieve acceptance of youth sexuality and MAPs, open and free discussion and a reform project, part of which would be the formation of a sex-positive culture, proper sex education and the reduction of the AoC to 12 years. There is a possibility that after this, the moral panic will cease and society will become tolerant of youth sexuality in general. It is enough to simply restrict anal and vaginal sex. Of course, no one is going to repeal the law on rape. Further reduction is unlikely , I think in the very long term the only possible option is to replace the concept of Age of consent with something else.

I think maybe the focus should be less on making ACSC legal, so much as reducing the severity with which it is treated/reacted to. So ending the fearmongering and paranoia about early childhood sexual trauma. Like you aren't irredeemably broken, if you've had a sexual experience as a child; and you aren't necessarily a monster if you engage in ACSC as an adult. It should be more like how we feel about a person who gives a beer to a teenager, than how we feel about serial killers.
I remember a story some years ago, about 2 girls (a daughter and her friend) playing this game where they kept trying to pull down the pants of the father of the first girl. Eventually, he flashed them in an attempt to make them stop and they ran off giggling. Later, they got a phone call from the other girl's mother. Here we have a perfect example of normal human instincts being treated as something sinister. Sexual play isn't the same as sexual abuse and people need to recognize that.

However if I was to try to think about ACSC in legal terms, I think I'd probably have 4 years old as the absolute lowest possible age, because every psychological development after that point is gradual, but there is a neurological developmental process starting from birth that finishes at 4. Piaget pointed to 7 years old as the start of concrete operational stage, and historically during the Middle ages (according to Neil Postman) children in Europe were legally responsible at the age of 7.
So, if I was to have a legal framework, 7 would be the new 18 and 4 would be the new 16. However, I think it would be better to reduce the severity of the laws than to try to get rid of laws relating to ACSC entirely.
Feel free to critique me if you disagree. I'm a girl lover that prefer 8-10 year olds, so that's where my bias lies.

I'll be honest. I find youth rights advocacy challenging.

In my offline life, I'm responsible for managing young people. I originally attempted to give them a lot of freedom, as a MAP who loved children.

A stricter approach works much better. Firm rules, consistently enforced, are the only way to keep things in order.

Of course, I'm talking about managing young people in a professional setting. It's different to talking about sexual rights. The two cannot be equated. And that's partly why I don't think broad youth rights advocacy is a necessary part of 12+.

A stricter approach works much better. Firm rules, consistently enforced, are the only way to keep things in order.

Is this not true with all aspects of human society? If the existing class structure allows you to get away with it (e.g. colonialism), strict enforcement obviously gives you more control and a more ordered workforce. Doesn't mean class systems and authoritarianism should always be pursued toward the end-goal of a peaceful society.

Fragment wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2024 5:49 am In my experience, and based on the research, I'm inclined to think that authoritarian approaches in even governance or in adult-child interaction leads to short term compliance but long term problems.

"Obey because I have the bigger stick" is very easy to understand, but it doesn't impart very good values. It is harder to lead children in the right direction without threatening them, but the result is empowered individuals capable of making their own decisions to satisfy their own ends (which may sometimes be at odds with what adults want!)

Obviously there is a balance. In a world with more empowered youth, I still believe adults have a duty of care. It shouldn't be a free-for-all where minors do whatever without supervision. Nor does it mean that all minors would be treated equally. But it does mean a focus on enhancing the decision making power of youth, while still treating them appropriately in line with their emergent capacities.

This is reasonable

Kids aren't so dumb that we need to take a heavy handed approach to every aspect of their lives. Even as a child, there were certain foods I never liked and never grew up to like. For education, I would have loved more choices in my subjects akin to how uni does it now instead of being forced to take a rigid set of classes

Moderation is key here. Kids wanting to deny vaccines or deciding to quit school to work at Tim Horton's would be obviously bunk. Adults are stewards of kids and good states have a vested interest in ensuring the youth turn out alright. Going too far in either direction would be damaging

There needs to be an emphasis on ensuring there's no upper age limit for the older party in a sexual interaction.