MAP Forum

A long time before I joined any MAP community, I was interested in trying to work out how you could negotiate with a hostile public to our advantage.

An idea I had was something like a quid pro quo along these lines:

Hate crimes against MAPs get recognized but only against MAPs that voluntarily go on a list that prohibits them from taking jobs in childcare professions. That way the general public gets to feel like they are protecting children, while we can realize some of our interests.
I'm not sure I'd agree with this position today, because the goal of achieving the status of a protected class would be undermined by this. However I think this approach could lead to some other interesting ideas.

What would you be willing to concede to the hostile public and what would be worthwhile in exchange?

Fragment wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 6:19 am I don't think I'd agree with profession restriction. I'm especially not sure that it'd really serve much purpose. MAPs that wanted to work with children would just do it covertly, some of them would end up offending with children, just as they do now.

I don't know if I explained it well. The idea was that violence, stalking, or harassment would be treated as hate crimes, so that a MAP that opted into the list would have a kind of government protection. I had in mind the public hostility to recognizing hate crime against MAPs. So there would be a mutual incentive - MAPs could live more publicly with these protections, because the law would pursue discrimination and hate; in exchange, the public gets to stop MAPs from secretly being teachers (a thing they want). It wouldn't apply to all MAPs, just those that opted in to being on the list. I still think it could motivate the general public to give concessions, even though I'm not as enthusiastic about the idea as when I was younger.

Could do a similar thing with sex dolls - a voluntary registry/housing restriction in exchange for legally being allowed to possess sex dolls.

I think the problem with any kind of "negotiation", though, is that even if all people that identify as MAPs agree to some kind of trade off, sex offenses against children will continue and the public's safety fears will not really diminish. The public, by and large, still sees all offenders as "pedophiles", but most offenders don't identify as MAPs. So we'd be giving away our basic liberties in exchange for "look! nothing has changed. The sneaky pedophiles are still raping children".

I'm not sure that you need to to completely assuage the public's fears in order to make progress. I think the fear of MAPs can be used to motivate the public to listen to our wishes.