MAP Forum

Let's compile some common terms and phrases used by the enemy.

Here's one I thought of:
Mental Gymnastics - Any logical explanation the enemy doesn't like. If we explain logical reasons for legalizing adult with child sex, the enemy will use the term "mental gymnastics" to refer to such logic

Can anyone think of other common buzz phrases the enemy uses?

I haven't come across this. In fact, I might argue that many of the arguments in favor of stigmatizing AMSC on principle involve mental gymnastics.

What immediately comes to mind is 'exploitation' because it almost never outlines a clear concept of harm or justifies the sex exceptionalism that it takes for granted. If 'exploitation' isn't harmful, what makes it unjust? What is harmful? If you're just claiming that the physical contact itself is intrinsically harmful regardless of how it affects children psychologically (or even in terms of their health) then what about it becomes harmful prior to a certain age (or when one's partner is significantly older)? If it's inherently harmful it's harmful for everyone. If you're claiming that it necessarily leads to emotional distress, we can clearly imagine logically coherent scenarios where children (especially 'children' or minors with sexual desires) did not suffer as a result so you can't categorically affirm that it is necessarily harmful under a hedonistic conception of harm even if you think that there is enough of a risk to justify opposing it in practice and, I've said this often, opposing AMSC because it might cause suffering is not one and the same with opposing it on principle.

There's nothing inherently wrong with blasting loud noise. Under normal common sense criteria, if we bother to consider how our behavior affects other people, we can and would reasonably assume that if we're blasting loud noise in our apartment or outside people's homes that it will be disruptive and intrusive to people, it will prevent them from sleeping or focusing on whatever they're trying to focus on, etc. but in some scenarios (say, if you live in a house alone or if the people who can hear you have informed you that it's welcome on their part, they like the music and want to hear it, etc.) it's perfectly harmless so there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the desire to blast loud music per se even though it can be circumstantially harmful. Even consensual AMSC can be circumstantially bad but there's nothing about the desire for significantly younger partners that necessarily implies de-valuing their happiness so it's not inherently immoral. Most people aren't philosophical hedonists but I've noticed that they rarely ever just outright admit that they think AMSC is inherently bad for reasons that have nothing to do with suffering (I think I've heard a couple say that they wouldn't care if it was pleasurable for the child, it's wrong on principle). For as long as I've been blithering on about this on the internet, even when my posts on youtube aren't deleted, I don't think anyone has ever engaged with my points.

It's also not clear to me why sexual relationships that involve a power imbalance are, on principle, problematic. Again, if the problem is with the use of power to harm the weaker party then that's about risk aversion, it doesn't justify the idea that AMSC is wrong on principle. There is also no necessary power imbalance that stems from an age gap per se, the child-parent and student-teacher relationships are built on a power imbalance (this applies less to some random adult interacting with any given child. It's funny to me, older adults are vulnerable to teenagers and people in their early twenties in a way that they are to similarly aged peers. Teenagers can harshly reject or critique them, in really bad neighborhoods teachers have to worry about violence and verbal/psychological abuse from their students, in some ways I've thought that it could actually be easier to be attracted to the younger prepubescent children considering that they tend to be less judgmental and socially threatening although the practical cons probably outweigh that) and almost no one has a problem with that just as they don't care about all recreational bonding (e.g. playing video games or talking with someone) between people who are more or less powerful than each other. No one cares about a bodybuilder being best friends with a scrawny man.

The holy grail of the anti-AMSC on principle position seems to be the informed consent argument (that when it comes to prepubescent children, power dynamics when it comes to people who are 'technically' adults under the law or when they commit some heinous crime or who are legally allowed to consent to sex) but this is so easily debunked you can't convince me that proponents are making a serious effort to be objective and think through their emotional biases 'logically.' First of all, it's rooted in the meaning that we project on to sex (that, not the physical contact itself, is what would supposedly require a lot of brain power to comprehend). Even if it's 'autistic' to deny the emotional consequences we can expect sex to have, the harm that sex can cause has nothing to do with the value of sex itself. Secondly, if they can't consent then they can't make an informed choice one way or the other so their autonomy on the matter can't be violated. It's still something to consider in terms of regret (like a man wishing he hadn't been circumcised as an infant) but we're circling back to hedonism which allows for child-adult intimacy in some hypothetical scenarios (not in the sense that it could be a bad thing we can justify reluctantly causing or allowing for a greater good, in the sense that it wouldn't be bad to begin with) and it certainly does not justify stigmatizing the desire for AMSC itself.