Anti-c MAPs are part of the problem

[Cunny Defender]

I'm 100% pro contact, and if you're not, then you're part of the problem. If two people mutually want to engage with each other, then that's it; it's none of your business. Some would say, "Oh, but children can't consent." First, what do you mean by "child"? Is it someone who is prepubescent or simply just someone under the age of 18? Either way, you would be wrong because the "magic age," also known as the "age of consent," is different in every damn country, most being under 18 and in some you can even marry prepubescent girls

[Jim Burton]

"Children can't consent" means any person below the UN-authorized age of 18, with some concessions given in some states, because they are enlightened. Even recently, a Police Chief in the US bragged about saving a "17 year old child" (his words) the very moment they were about to get molested, in a military-type operation. I shared it in the News room.

The lack of informed consent is a relative thing, because sexual contact between two individuals (children) who can not give informed consent may not be harmful in fact, despite the problematic consent. When they say "children can't consent", what they really mean is "children can not consent to the enormity of sexual contact with an adult".

If two people mutually want to engage with each other, then that's it

What would be your view as to a 13-year old autistic girl, and a 28 year old man who wants to convince her to self-harm online and eventually sacrifice herself to the devil?

in some you can even marry prepubescent girls

Isn't this part of the problem re. children's inability to consent, though? E.g. the fact that in these few remaining countries, they are considered chattel, very much not able to consent until they are "married off" and become the property of their husband according to religious norms?

I'm 100% pro contact, and if you're not, then you're part of the problem

If you are calling publicly for sex with prepubescent children, then are you not part of the problem? After all, very few people would be able to reason with that kind of thing, without first considering you insane and in need of permanent incarceration.

[G@yWad69]

"Children can't consent" means any person below the UN-authorized age of 18, with some concessions given in some states, because they are enlightened. Even recently, a Police Chief in the US bragged about saving a "17 year old child" (his words) the very moment they were about to get molested, in a military-type operation. I shared it in the News room.

The lack of informed consent is a relative thing, because sexual contact between two individuals (children) who can not give informed consent may not be harmful in fact, despite the problematic consent. When they say "children can't consent", what they really mean is "children can not consent to the enormity of sexual contact with an adult".

Ok but what is this “enormity” that exist in sexual contact with an adult that doesnt exist when you do they do it with a child? How come getting your dick sucked by a 23 year old is “enormous” but getting your dick sucked by a 12 year old is perfectly tolerable? What is this “enormous” difference between the dick sucking mouth of someone over 18 vs under 18 that makes one fun but the other a fate worse than death? Can you tell me this “enormous” difference between a kid sticking their dick in 14 year old pussy vs sticking their dick in 25 year old pussy that the former will be fun and pleasurable but the latter will give you the trauma of a war vet that served in Vietnam? Is the pussy that scary? What is this dramatic and enormous change in sexuality that happens on midnight of your 18th birthday that turns an orgasm from fun to dangerous and a life threatening and complex and highly disturbing procedure?

If two people mutually want to engage with each other, then that's it

What would be your view as to a 13-year old autistic girl, and a 28 year old man who wants to convince her to self-harm online and eventually sacrifice herself to the devil?

Are you seriously comparing a handjob to sacrificing yourself to the devil? Thats what I cant fucking stand about anti C arguments. A pro C will say that a kid can agree to getting their balls played with by an adult, and an anti C will be like “well what if a kid agrees to getting their limbs chopped of and getting their organs ripped out by the adult” we are talking about sex, not devil sacrifices.

in some you can even marry prepubescent girls

Isn't this part of the problem re. children's inability to consent, though? E.g. the fact that in these few remaining countries, they are considered chattel, very much not able to consent until they are "married off" and become the property of their husband according to religious norms?

But children CAN consent. Just because the law refuses to recognize their consent doesnt mean they cant. The law doesnt dictate reality, reality does. And how so you know that every single country that allows child marrige views children as chattel? America allows child marriage, do we view children as chattel? And if you are upset about wives being viewed as property of their husbands, that is not a problem of her being under the magical special number, that is a problem of mysogny and objectification. If he is a dick to her when she was under the magical special number then he would've been a dick to her over the magical special number. The problem is that he is a dick and views her as property, not that she hasn't reached the magical special number.

I'm 100% pro contact, and if you're not, then you're part of the problem

If you are calling publicly for sex with prepubescent children, then are you not part of the problem? After all, very few people would be able to reason with that kind of thing, without first considering you insane and in need of permanent incarceration.

What problem? The problem of shaming children for their sexuality and keeping them ignorant over the natural human body? The problem of locking people up in decades over pixels on a screen? The problem of murdering people in violent mob attacks over mutually willing sex? The problem of forcing children into a state of unatural sexual ignorance and paranoia because you treat a kid getting their dick sucked as a fate worse than death? The problem of locking kids up on the SO regristry for “mutual stautory rape”? And I dont really care if they consider us insane or evil for being pro C, the very fact that we are MAPs is enough for them to consider us insane or evil. Besides, morality is subjective and changes constantly depending on the time period and culture, a few decades ago, those same antis ranting about how insane and evil kiddie orgasms are wouldve been ranting about how insane and evil gay butt sex is or how insane or evil race mixing is. No minority group has gotten anywhere without ruffling some feathers, even Martin Luther King was viewed as insane and evil and was the most hated man in America. Times can change, morality can change, people can change

[Jim Burton]

There is ruffling feathers, then there is attempting to justify sex between prepubertal children and adults - something that even non-pedophiles have thus-far been unable to do, in any way that is sane, safe, sustainable.

I'm suggesting that if MAPs are facing a "problem", openly pro-c pedophiles can only be a massive roadblock preventing that problem ever being addressed. Unless they are to assume on behalf of other pedophiles that having no sexual access to prepubertal children is the problem itself.

[PorcelainLark]

I'd saying I'm theoretically pro-c, but pragmatically anti-c. I don't think AMSC is necessarily immoral or dangerous, and I don't think people should be sent to prison for it. However, I think it's accurate to say that pro-c goals aren't going to be achieved in the short term. I think if you're pro-c you should support the anti-c side because it shifts the Overton window in a direction where we can begin talking about pro-c perspectives.

There is plenty of common ground to work towards: opposing bans on kodacon, dignity for sex offenders, getting attacks on MAPs categorized as hate crimes. If we could live more openly, then people could see we aren't monsters; and if people are no longer afraid of us, wouldn't it be likely that their view of AMSC would soften? I think even if you're pro-c, you're better off trying to improve the lives of MAPs by working with anti-cs, than infighting. I say this a person who has often had heated arguments with anti-cs and find them mostly insufferable on the topic of AMSC.

[Learning to undeny]

I'd saying I'm theoretically pro-c, but pragmatically anti-c. I don't think AMSC is necessarily immoral or dangerous, and I don't think people should be sent to prison for it. However, I think it's accurate to say that pro-c goals aren't going to be achieved in the short term. I think if you're pro-c you should support the anti-c side because it shifts the Overton window in a direction where we can begin talking about pro-c perspectives.

There is plenty of common ground to work towards: opposing bans on kodacon, dignity for sex offenders, getting attacks on MAPs categorized as hate crimes. If we could live more openly, then people could see we aren't monsters; and if people are no longer afraid of us, wouldn't it be likely that their view of AMSC would soften? I think even if you're pro-c, you're better off trying to improve the lives of MAPs by working with anti-cs, than infighting. I say this a person who has often had heated arguments with anti-cs and find them mostly insufferable on the topic of AMSC.

Completely agree with this. There are much more pressing issues than AMSC. And as long as only MAPs (plus a few allies) seriously ponder pro-c positions, then we have to admit we are biased.

[Not Forever]

As much as I consider myself pro-c (I have quite extreme ideas about freedom and self-determination), I don’t think anti-c people should be seen as "part of the problem". In fact, in a sense, I see them as an entry point into the discussion: I believe that any improvement compared to the current situation will necessarily have to come from an anti-c standpoint.

Seeing them as a problem is like trying to destroy the bridge that connects this island to the mainland. It will only become a problem once the bridge and the mainland are one and the same.

Also, let’s be honest: who, without being MAP, has ever been pro-c right from the start? I used to be anti-c, and I built on that anti-c position the idea that "why should anyone care about someone’s particular interests? What matters is that no real person is harmed". My mother had a similar view, and so on… In my opinion, only from a context like that can a pro-c position be born.

You first have to be in a place where you don’t feel disgust toward MAPs as such; only then can you understand that if there’s consent… well, it’s their business. At most, we should avoid promoting new kinds of rhetoric to support the anti-c position.

For example, I’m convinced that what worsens the situation for the pro-c side is the current fear of pornography — this idea that someone can be traumatized by watching a porn video, and so on. It’s a discussion that doesn’t directly concern MAPs but reinforces this notion of the child’s extreme purity — so pure that they can be "stained" by practically nothing.

...

I don’t know how to reply to messages, so I’m answering here — I’d like to join.

[John_Doe]

Porcelain Lark,


Even though I think we're somewhat similar (in terms of being ideally pro-contact but practically basically anti-contact) I don't really agree with the idea of supporting anti-contact views because it shifts the Overton window and leads to the kind of slippery slope that anti-MAP people fear will come with destigmatizing pedophilia itself or more compassion for MAPs. Maybe I've completely misunderstood you but I can't really agree with a 'political' approach to whether or not to stand up for core values (I can't see a practical scenario in which I think I should publicly deny core values and ideals, if someone threatens to torture someone if I don't that's something else but as a general rule you have to stand up for what you think is good or the ethical standard you want mainstream society to adopt). I cannot tell people that I think child-adult sex is inherently bad, even if it would make them more sympathetic to various arguments I might make. Again, it's possible I've completely misunderstood you.

If we could live more openly, then people could see we aren't monsters; and if people are no longer afraid of us, wouldn't it be likely that their view of AMSC would soften?

My problem with this is that part of what makes someone a monster, from a certain point of view, is that they see nothing wrong with the sexualization of children, so you can't diminish that by balancing out the scales in other ways. Someone politely telling you, in the friendliest tone, that they want to murder everyone you care about is advocating for something that you find inherently evil. I won't say that showing people how decent and compassionate MAPS can be has no value, for sure I think it does, I just don't think you can rely on that to tip the scale without some kind of logical argument or emotionally persuasive propaganda in favor of your position. I don't think people oppose AMSC because they view MAPS as monsters, I think they view MAPS as monsters because they see AMSC as inherently objectionable.

Working with people who have different ideas toward what you agree on would be a better world is undoubtedly a smart move.

[Learning to undeny]

My problem with this is that part of what makes someone a monster, from a certain point of view, is that they see nothing wrong with the sexualization of children, so you can't diminish that by balancing out the scales in other ways. Someone politely telling you, in the friendliest tone, that they want to murder everyone you care about is advocating for something that you find inherently evil. I won't say that showing people how decent and compassionate MAPS can be has no value, for sure I think it does, I just don't think you can rely on that to tip the scale without some kind of logical argument or emotionally persuasive propaganda in favor of your position. I don't think people oppose AMSC because they view MAPS as monsters, I think they view MAPS as monsters because they see AMSC as inherently objectionable.

This is one thing that keeps me awake at night. MAPs are going to be seen as a problem for as long as AMSC is regarded as inherently wrong. But it's not black and white, a lot of rights can be gained. Notice the variability in laws and public perception across countries even if AMSC is basically percieved as wrong in most of them.

On the debate about anti-c as a strategy, I have though that perhaps neutral-c could be a better, and more honest, strategy. Tell people that you have considered that society might be wrong. That you think discussion on AMSC could be part of a wider discussion (on children's rights, on sex-positivity...). But admit that being a MAP is what has led you to consider these questions and that your own interest could have blindfolded you. Maybe this would foster some dialogue with the outside world?

Also, let’s be honest: who, without being MAP, has ever been pro-c right from the start? I used to be anti-c, and I built on that anti-c position the idea that "why should anyone care about someone’s particular interests? What matters is that no real person is harmed". My mother had a similar view, and so on… In my opinion, only from a context like that can a pro-c position be born.

I think that's true even for most MAPs, but who knows.

You first have to be in a place where you don’t feel disgust toward MAPs as such; only then can you understand that if there’s consent… well, it’s their business. At most, we should avoid promoting new kinds of rhetoric to support the anti-c position.

For example, I’m convinced that what worsens the situation for the pro-c side is the current fear of pornography — this idea that someone can be traumatized by watching a porn video, and so on. It’s a discussion that doesn’t directly concern MAPs but reinforces this notion of the child’s extreme purity — so pure that they can be "stained" by practically nothing.

Yes, but won't MAPs arguing against this rhetoric might actually reinforce it?

[...]

I would also like to join!

[PorcelainLark]

Even though I think we're somewhat similar (in terms of being ideally pro-contact but practically basically anti-contact) I don't really agree with the idea of supporting anti-contact views because it shifts the Overton window and leads to the kind of slippery slope that anti-MAP people fear will come with destigmatizing pedophilia itself or more compassion for MAPs.

Well, I feel like destigmatizing the attraction is more achievable than changing the age of consent, and that a part of the resistence to changing the age of consent is fear of MAPs. It's not the only reason, but this is because I think it's an issue which is overdetermined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdetermination
I think there's multiple sufficient causes for how we are treated by society, rather than just one.

Maybe I've completely misunderstood you but I can't really agree with a 'political' approach to whether or not to stand up for core values (I can't see a practical scenario in which I think I should publicly deny core values and ideals, if someone threatens to torture someone if I don't that's something else but as a general rule you have to stand up for what you think is good or the ethical standard you want mainstream society to adopt). I cannot tell people that I think child-adult sex is inherently bad, even if it would make them more sympathetic to various arguments I might make. Again, it's possible I've completely misunderstood you.

I think you don't have to pretend to agree with everything anti-c's believe, just work with them when they do align with your beliefs.

My problem with this is that part of what makes someone a monster, from a certain point of view, is that they see nothing wrong with the sexualization of children, so you can't diminish that by balancing out the scales in other ways.

I don't know if it's that simple for anyone; I think much of the horror at MAPs accumulate from tabloids and sensationalist TV shows rather than some innate sense that sexualizing children is wrong. If your picture of MAPs came from regular people you meet everyday, it could help undermine the stereotypes.

Someone politely telling you, in the friendliest tone, that they want to murder everyone you care about is advocating for something that you find inherently evil. I don't think people oppose AMSC because they view MAPS as monsters, I think they view MAPS as monsters because they see AMSC as inherently objectionable.

I don't think so. At various times and in various cultures AMSC has been accepted, I don't think we have an innate sense that AMSC is bad, I think it's something culturally relative. If you view AMSC as inherently evil, it's the outcome of a process, so the process is responsible for the stigmatization of MAPs.