MAP Forum

I'm working on a pro-c MAP manifesto to be posted to NewgonWiki.

What would you like to see included?

Are you retiring the pro-reform label?

I think you would probably need to address the claim that a right to sexuality for minors is solved by allowing sexual relations between minors of the same age. Minors aren't meant to access pornography and aren't meant to send nude photographs of themselves to each other even though it's such a big part of modern relationships. So saying sexuality is fine as long as it is only between minors in practice means not pushing back against discriminatory laws. Feeling uncomfortable with and afraid of the sexuality of minors means we are paralysed when addressing more repressive laws such as needing identification for access to porn sites. As long as we tacitly accept that minors need to be protected from sex, sexual conservatism will become increasingly dominant.

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Sep 30, 2025 5:03 pm Are you retiring the pro-reform label?

Absolutely not. I have been open about the fact that pro-r is intended to be a middle ground, and that my personal views are more pro-c. The existence of a pro-c manifesto written by myself shouldn't detract from the pro-r framework.

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Sep 30, 2025 5:03 pmI think you would probably need to address the claim that a right to sexuality for minors is solved by allowing sexual relations between minors of the same age.

Many young adolescents are more interested in young adults. These are generally super attractive young adults in entertainment, but not always.

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Sep 30, 2025 5:03 pmMinors aren't meant to access pornography and aren't meant to send nude photographs of themselves to each other even though it's such a big part of modern relationships. So saying sexuality is fine as long as it is only between minors in practice means not pushing back against discriminatory laws.

I support adult and youth sexual rights equally, and this includes the hypothetical right for adults and youth to interact sexually.

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Sep 30, 2025 5:03 pmFeeling uncomfortable with and afraid of the sexuality of minors means we are paralysed when addressing more repressive laws such as needing identification for access to porn sites. As long as we tacitly accept that minors need to be protected from sex, sexual conservatism will become increasingly dominant.

Don't worry; there's not even the slightest hint of acceptance for youth repression or sexual conservatism in the planned manifesto. It is very 'fuck the world they've built'.

BLueRibbon wrote: Tue Sep 30, 2025 10:59 pm Absolutely not. I have been open about the fact that pro-r is intended to be a middle ground, and that my personal views are more pro-c. The existence of a pro-c manifesto written by myself shouldn't detract from the pro-r framework.

That's a relief, I would have felt bad.

Many young adolescents are more interested in young adults. These are generally super attractive young adults in entertainment, but not always.

Certainly, however I was thinking arguments I've seen with antis who claim to be sex-positive: they'll accept youth have a right to sexuality, but they deny that you should change the age of consent, since the right can be fulfilled with other minors. I feel like if the argument was on the basis that youth have a right to sexuality, it would have to overcome that hurdle.

I support adult and youth sexual rights equally, and this includes the hypothetical right for adults and youth to interact sexually.

I think it's worth pointing out, if a central part of the argument is the right to sexuality, that child pornography laws prevent minors from engaging in typical contemporary relationships. Say we were to look at how the laws originated without disputing their intention and compare them to how they are now applied. The original idea (discounting obscenity), if I understand correctly, is that you ban child pornography to prevent commercially incentivizing "child sexual abuse", however sharing a nude today is nothing like the publication of pornography - it's often private and non-commercial. Sending and receiving nudes are a typical characteristic of contemporary sexual relationships, to have obstacles to that is to have obstacles to a right to sexuality; similar to whether we treat the internet as something necessary or as a luxury, the internet is so ubiquitous it becomes a necessity.

Don't worry; there's not even the slightest hint of acceptance for youth repression or sexual conservatism in the planned manifesto. It is very 'fuck the world they've built'.

I was going to say that sexual repression of youth is used as a wedge to push sexual conservatism; whether it's fear of trans people, gay people, sex outside of marriage, BDSM, sex workers rights, contraception, or sexual education, at every turn protecting minors from sexuality is now the central justification. It isn't just for the sake of minors or just for the sake of MAPs that this issue is important, everyone who isn't a fascist religious nutjob should be concerned with it because it's the weak point they're exploiting to push things that barely anyone else in society wants.

PorcelainLark wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:59 am I think it's worth pointing out, if a central part of the argument is the right to sexuality, that child pornography laws prevent minors from engaging in typical contemporary relationships. Say we were to look at how the laws originated without disputing their intention and compare them to how they are now applied. The original idea (discounting obscenity), if I understand correctly, is that you ban child pornography to prevent commercially incentivizing "child sexual abuse", however sharing a nude today is nothing like the publication of pornography - it's often private and non-commercial. Sending and receiving nudes are a typical characteristic of contemporary sexual relationships, to have obstacles to that is to have obstacles to a right to sexuality; similar to whether we treat the internet as something necessary or as a luxury, the internet is so ubiquitous it becomes a necessity.

I agree with you, but I'm not sure that's an argument for a MAP manifesto. I guess I could add a Youth Rights section.

PorcelainLark wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:59 am I was going to say that sexual repression of youth is used as a wedge to push sexual conservatism; whether it's fear of trans people, gay people, sex outside of marriage, BDSM, sex workers rights, contraception, or sexual education, at every turn protecting minors from sexuality is now the central justification. It isn't just for the sake of minors or just for the sake of MAPs that this issue is important, everyone who isn't a fascist religious nutjob should be concerned with it because it's the weak point they're exploiting to push things that barely anyone else in society wants.

Yes. 'Child Protection' is an Industry and 'Child Protection' is an Excuse will be two of my subheadings.

BLueRibbon wrote: Tue Sep 30, 2025 10:59 pm

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Sep 30, 2025 5:03 pm Are you retiring the pro-reform label?

Absolutely not. I have been open about the fact that pro-r is intended to be a middle ground, and that my personal views are more pro-c. The existence of a pro-c manifesto written by myself shouldn't detract from the pro-r framework.

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Sep 30, 2025 5:03 pmI think you would probably need to address the claim that a right to sexuality for minors is solved by allowing sexual relations between minors of the same age.

Many young adolescents are more interested in young adults. These are generally super attractive young adults in entertainment, but not always.

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Sep 30, 2025 5:03 pmMinors aren't meant to access pornography and aren't meant to send nude photographs of themselves to each other even though it's such a big part of modern relationships. So saying sexuality is fine as long as it is only between minors in practice means not pushing back against discriminatory laws.

I support adult and youth sexual rights equally, and this includes the hypothetical right for adults and youth to interact sexually.

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Sep 30, 2025 5:03 pmFeeling uncomfortable with and afraid of the sexuality of minors means we are paralysed when addressing more repressive laws such as needing identification for access to porn sites. As long as we tacitly accept that minors need to be protected from sex, sexual conservatism will become increasingly dominant.

Don't worry; there's not even the slightest hint of acceptance for youth repression or sexual conservatism in the planned manifesto. It is very 'fuck the world they've built'.

What age are we talking about here when it comes to permission to have sex?

This is the problem with "manifestos" and why they failed before with members of our community.

A manifesto is too detailed to be agreeable.

I'd assume the idea of uniting preventionists or Virpeds probably has more merit, just because of the nature and circumstances in their case. You know anything like a "pro-c manifesto" is just going to be a focal point for spin agents looking for something to confirm their beliefs and foist false representation upon an entire community.

The pro-c bit immediately becomes problematic when considering potential for false representation, and exposes the author to considerable negative outcomes ranging from loss of credibility and harassment to more severe outcomes if the manifesto gains any traction or public visibility. Certainly expect to be hated by other MAPs if such a thing as a "pro-c manifesto" gets broader viral coverage in the media. Look to use it to engineer public perceptions of pro-c MAPs more than motivate them, and adjust propaganda accordingly. Accept the name or pseudonym you are using to publish it may need to be sacrificed.

Organic growth (which we actually need) is driven by inclusivity and validation, not attempts to motivate or agitate.

Pegasus wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 11:44 am What age are we talking about here when it comes to permission to have sex?

I won't suggest an age of consent.

Jim Burton wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 12:38 pm A manifesto is too detailed to be agreeable.

It will be fairly succinct with bullet points and brief explanations, not like my typical heavy prose.

Jim Burton wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 12:38 pm I'd assume the idea of uniting preventionists or Virpeds probably has more merit, just because of the nature and circumstances in their case.

That's for people from those communities to write.

Jim Burton wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 12:38 pm The pro-c bit immediately becomes problematic when considering potential for false representation, and exposes the author to considerable negative outcomes ranging from loss of credibility and harassment to more severe outcomes if the manifesto gains any traction or public visibility. Certainly expect to be hated by other MAPs if such a thing as a "pro-c manifesto" gets broader viral coverage in the media. Look to use it to engineer public perceptions of pro-c MAPs more than motivate them, and adjust propaganda accordingly. Accept the name or pseudonym you are using to publish it may need to be sacrificed.

Organic growth (which we actually need) is driven by inclusivity and validation, not attempts to motivate or agitate.

Dealing with various communities exhausts me. I prefer writing. I'm trying to form a base of work for more sociable people to use.

Posting under a different pen name is an option.

As for "more severe outcomes", I'm writing carefully to ensure legal compliance. It's not one of those 'go out and murder people' manifestos, nor does it encourage people to engage in criminalized sexual conduct, if that's what you're concerned about.

BLueRibbon wrote: Wed Oct 01, 2025 10:55 am I agree with you, but I'm not sure that's an argument for a MAP manifesto. I guess I could add a Youth Rights section.

Fair enough, it is a bit tangential tbh.

Yes. 'Child Protection' is an Industry and 'Child Protection' is an Excuse will be two of my subheadings.

Good to hear.

I don't have any concerns with it, whatever form it takes, being an archived document on NewgonWiki, I'm just saying any pro-c manifesto that uses the terminology "MAP" is likely to become associated with the wider community almost automatically if it gains the necessary publicity to have any traction. This would certainly lead to a large part of the community taking a dim view of the person who wrote it and claiming they should have known what they were inviting unto themselves and others.

This is why I say look at it more as a way of representing pro-c MAPs in a favourable way (e.g. self-aware, concerned about being perceived as greedy or self-interested, aware of those risks), even if it is written as a manifesto. It's almost like we now have to sell the pro-c/anti-c divide to the public, so they actually get interested in our topic, and feel like they should be taking sides in some way.