MAP Forum

It's nice to be back writing after my break. I'm now living somewhere quite different, but still very much a teacher, pedophile, and MAP rights activist. I must admit that, during all the stress of a move, I haven't been thinking very much about MAP stuff; at least not beyond "this new student is so fucking cute!" (I have a feeling that this post too will be reported to Cybertip).

Today, I'm going to discuss my thoughts on the absurd expectations that MAPs have to deal with. And this is a bit of an angry one!

https://www.brianribbon.com/home/at-wha ... raw-a-line

Criminalizing porn that depicts people over 18 pretending to be under 18 is completely shocking to me. I don't see how anyone who supports this could seriously maintain that it's about preventing real-world harm to people (maybe in more traditional 'illiberal' societies it would just outright be defended as a 'morality law' but that's not something I would expect in the modern UK, I would expect some contrived argument about defending a more nuanced freedom that might appear to be authoritarian or public safety). I would never argue in favor of criminalizing certain acts that I might think are immoral but don't actually harm anyone. If I wanted to persuade people to adopt my position (and thus be less inclined toward expressing themselves in ways that I believe are immoral) I would attempt to reason with them since coercion won't prevent them from privately rejecting my values/ideals/principles.

Th truth is, you can't reason with at least some people who have the capacity to realize flaws in their position but are so emotionally invested in it that they will never, ever shake it (I had to stop and think and specify 'some' people which undermines some of this 'hopelessness' I'm trying to articulate but I don't know how many people will change their minds as a result of some kind of free and open public debate). Cultures obviously change and evolve so it can happen but, if this makes sense or is a meaningful distinction, I think when people change it's moreso for their own organic reasons than anything you'll have said ultimately (although maybe you've shown them what's possible). I think the people who make any kind of debate useful (if you want to influence the world and not just express your position because it's satisfying to do so and be heard) are the fence-sitters or people who have no strong leaning one way or the other but you're almost certainly never, ever going to convince many people no matter what you could possible say.


Feeling anger and frustration at times might be unavoidable, it's a consequence of our values and beliefs and sense of self-preservation, but I don't think people need to feel enraged or to be aggressive in order to rebel against an unjust culture. If a man wrongs me the first thing I want to do is to show him or 'the world' at large why this was unjust. Whether or not I forgive him is irrelevant to that. I've always thought that when people center their arguments around ad hominems and personal attacks or they'll substitute any kind of argument at all with some form of aggression (violence, doxxing, etc.) it's because they don't know how to articulate their position, they intuitively 'know' that it's reasonable but they can't really outline why (I also have a problem with articulating myself at times, it would be really bad if I was trying to speak on the spot/in person, but it's mostly that I'm worried about sounding childish, ineloquent or 'simplistic' because people are moved by esoteric language and brilliant sophism even in lieu of legitimate substantive arguments. When it comes to core principles, I clearly understand why I believe that I'm right and I'm not unsure about that, even if I might have difficulty with detailed applications of those principles here and there) so instead of focusing on debunking the opinions that bother them they settle for personal vengeance that shows no one why those opinions are actually wrong or unreasonable. I'm not even claiming that in the absence of any kind of self-doubt or not being able to reflectively defend their intuitions that they would feel no frustration, but I think their primary concern would be with debunking the opinions that they're frustrated with and personal vengeance, disrespect or lashing out in someway would take a backseat to that.

This is what everyone accuses their ideological opponent of trying to do, and for good reason because it can be an effective strategy, but it seems to me that the best hope for change on a widescale is by focusing on children and the young because as people get older, they seem less likely to change (although they can and do). Not brainwashing or 'indoctrination' or stamping out critical thought or serious scrutiny of the position you're trying to spread but making them aware of that option since young people, arguably, tend to be more open-minded. I'm not a history buff but it seems to me, or I would assume, that every widescale cultural change that has ever occurred was really pushed in large by younger people, (excepting maybe certain historical events that affected people's lives and forced some kind of change but you can see the generation divide I'm talking about if you look at polls from the 60s about how people felt about interracial marriage vs. how people tend to feel about it in 2026), tell me if I'm wrong.