MAP Forum

Hi Mu. I'm new to the online MAP community, having only become active about a month ago. So please understand my perspective is one of a newbie - contact discourse is something that I never allowed myself to consider until recently.

I do my best to recognize the limits of my knowledge. I do my best not to speak authoritatively on subjects that I don't have a decent understanding of. I try to be skeptical of everything, questioning things that are often considered fundamental truths. Despite this, I never questioned things like "AMSC is harmful" until recently.

So as of now I consider myself skeptical. I'm currently unwilling to plant myself in a position that resembles "pro contact" because I am uncertain about the risk of harm. I am open to the idea that some forms of AMSC that are not harmful, to me this seems like an obvious concession. But the issue gets uncertain once you try to nail down the specifics. It is not clear to me what kinds of AMSC are permissible, and more importantly it's not clear to me how we can recognize permissible AMSC and distinguish it from harmful AMSC. That's before you even touch on things like age of consent or other legal reform.

Harm that comes from AMSC could be primarily sociogenic. Even if we assume this is true, what sort of society would be needed to remove this sociogenic harm? Is this something that is achievable in reality, or is this utopian thinking? Is youth liberation enough, or are there more factors at play besides the autonomy of minors?

I'm not sure if the research in this field is developed enough for me to feel confident in any of this. I am aware of Rind's research. As a non-expert I don't claim to fully understand it, but even taking his findings at face value I don't think that his study alone is enough to make a broad statement on the permissibility of AMSC. I know there is more research out there, and there is work being done, but as of right now I believe that holding a position that advocates for AMSC is risky, not just for the minors involved but for our fight for MAP acceptance.

I invite everyone to share arguments and research on this. I'm willing to look at arguments from biased sources, as I understand that there are very few impartial voices in this discourse, but I won't be willing to consider biased sources that present faulty or otherwise unreliable data as fact, or that state collections of anecdotes are suitable replacements for research.

I likely won't be accepting a pro-c position unless there is an overwhelming amount of scientific data on this that clearly drives one towards a pro-c conclusion. I don't think this body of data currently exists, so I consider myself skeptical until the day comes when we know more. Is this overly cautious? Perhaps. I think it's warranted considering the position that MAPs are in. Society already despises us, and arguing for AMSC isn't going to help our case unless we know for an absolute fact that we are in the right.

Looking forward to hearing from the seasoned members of the community who know a lot more about this than I do.

I likely won't be accepting a pro-c position unless there is an overwhelming amount of scientific data on this that clearly drives one towards a pro-c conclusion.

What kind of society, driven by what kind of people would result in an increase in the objective study of AMSC? Anti-c positions more-or-less accept the status quo. There will be no demand to differentiate "forced" and "non-forced" encounters in CSA research by them. Rind is literally one of the very few scholars to do that. In 1998 his conclusion wasn't even "CSA isn't harmful, let's allow it" it was the more modest "not all AMSC results in expected harms. So let's distinguish those types of AMSC from CSA."

That's why one of Mu's principles is "Promote an accuracy and evidence-based approach to correcting misconceptions. Safe/value-neutral language used to distinguish non-forced contact offenses from violent offenses that would be abusive regardless of age."

But I think that basically only pro-c, or maybe "contact curious" people would even care about more/ improved research. To most people (antis, normies and anti-c MAPs) "the science is settled". They don't see the weaknesses in current research nor the need for further research. In fact further research is seen as "agenda driven". Rind's 1998 work was censured by Congress, after all. People, largely don't want to know the answer.

Step 1 in a pro-c position is treating AMSC as a valid area of scientific enquiry. But right now it's so moralized that it's kind of like trying to prove/ disprove the veracity of the Bible while living in a fundamentalist Christian country. Do anti-c have impetuous to increase and improve the research?

I was going to respond to a few of your other points, but I think this itself is a big enough deal that I'll leave those for a bit later.

Phossu wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 1:45 am It is not clear to me what kinds of AMSC are permissible, and more importantly it's not clear to me how we can recognize permissible AMSC and distinguish it from harmful AMSC.

Most interactions are neutral in nature. Negative consequences arise not from the interactions themselves, but from the driving aspect of those interactions. Rudeness, coercion, intimidation, beating, rape, these are the things that make the victim suffer. And this applies to any interaction, not just erotic ones. If you force someone to eat their lunch, yell at them and force them into their mouth, that will also be harmful. But because erotic interaction is so taboolated , a distortion arises that excludes public expression of positive experiences. The current system only encourages manipulation, hypocrisy, accusations and lies.

Social distortion based on taboos also creates secondary harm by causing people to perceive their neutral experiences as negative, which leads to mental health problems. As it happened with homosexuals, whose stigma provoked the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. The same thing happens not only with MAP, but also with young people who are forced to either hide their experiences or rethink them as negative and associate them with failures in life.

Phossu wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 1:45 am Harm that comes from AMSC could be primarily sociogenic. Even if we assume this is true, what sort of society would be needed to remove this sociogenic harm? Is this something that is achievable in reality, or is this utopian thinking? Is youth liberation enough, or are there more factors at play besides the autonomy of minors?

Yes, it is quite possible and not a utopia. For most of human history and until recently, the age of consent was low. Just 25 years ago there were many countries where it was 12-13 years. The main puritanical influence comes from the two countries where the rising AoC occurred first - the USA and the UK.

In addition to expanding youth autonomy, changes in sexual education and the creation of counselling and supervision services are needed.

Harlan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 12:34 pm Yes, it is quite possible and not a utopia. For most of human history and until recently, the age of consent was low. Just 25 years ago there were many countries where it was 12-13 years. The main puritanical influence comes from the two countries where the rising AoC occurred first - the USA and the UK.

In addition to expanding youth autonomy, changes in sexual education and the creation of counselling and supervision services are needed.

Pointing to the fact that there were lower ages of consent in the past doesn't mean that all those relationships, or even a majority of them, were harmless, though. We'll never know for sure, but what percent of 1800s marital sex would count as rape by modern standards?

If lowering the age of consent results in "legalizing rape", that's not a good change. I basically agree with your position, but I think the "appeal to history" is not a very strong argument.


Anyway, this topic has prompted me to write an article on "Why I'm not anti-c". I might publish it as a blog on the website (not as an official Mu article) or maybe as a topic here. It's looking to be quite comprehensive, though, I've planned 15 subheadings so far. It might take a while.

Fragment wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 12:58 pm but I think the "appeal to history" is not a very strong argument.

Maybe not a strong argument, but I think it does hold some merit in that it shows that lower ages of consent were once socially acceptable, so not extraneous to human nature.

Fragment wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 12:58 pm Pointing to the fact that there were lower ages of consent in the past doesn't mean that all those relationships, or even a majority of them, were harmless, though. We'll never know for sure, but what percent of 1800s marital sex would count as rape by modern standards?

Of course, some relationships may not have been entirely healthy, but that always happens in any time, in any nation. Modern society has all the necessary knowledge and opportunities to minimize negative manifestations. There is no longer a cult of virginity, women are not forced into marriage, sex before marriage is not condemned, and modern contraception is available. Were people in the past more resistant to psycho trauma? Does this mean that modern society has degraded ? No. Puberty has actually accelerated. but instead of taking this into account, society, on the contrary, is trying to postpone and slow down sex education. As a result, young people grow up sexually retarded, which leads to insecurity, infantilism. It is not surprising that they begin to see "harassment" and "offending" in everything

Take a look at 16/12.

This idea would give courts the ability to prosecute an adult who exploited a minor, while still offering a degree of sexual freedom to adults and adolescents in non-exploitive relationships.

https://www.map-union.org/blog/perspect ... on-on-amsc

BLueRibbon wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:43 pm This idea would give courts the ability to prosecute an adult who exploited a minor, while still offering a degree of sexual freedom to adults and adolescents in non-exploitive relationships.

I love the idea of additional protections for younger people in age gap relationships - my gut feeling is that policy like this is critical for any sort of AoC reform. Being able to discriminate between exploitative and non-exploitative relationships is key in this domain. This article is my first exposure to this type of policy proposal, and it's very compelling.

I like that article, and agree with much of it, but I don't yet feel convinced by the "developmental realities" section. I think that the power imbalance argument still holds water even with adolescents as old as 16. I'm not sure teens being "rebellious" changes the way adults can hold power over them, in ways that are stronger than the way men hold power over women in our current society. However, I will admit that I am not very educated on this sort of thing. I don't understand brain development nor things like medical consent ethics. I am certain that you know a lot more about this than I do. I am also willing to acknowledge the significant difference between young adolescents and prepubescent children in this domain.

I don't have any strong arguments against this article. However I know that if I were to try and sell an AoC as low as 12 to people in the US I'd be ridiculed, regardless of the additional protections. I have a negative emotional response to a proposed AoC of 12, and I know these feelings are even stronger and more dogmatic in the general population.

Fragment wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 4:04 am They don't see the weaknesses in current research nor the need for further research. In fact further research is seen as "agenda driven". Rind's 1998 work was censured by Congress, after all. People, largely don't want to know the answer.

Step 1 in a pro-c position is treating AMSC as a valid area of scientific enquiry. But right now it's so moralized that it's kind of like trying to prove/ disprove the veracity of the Bible while living in a fundamentalist Christian country. Do anti-c have impetuous to increase and improve the research?

Incisive as always, Fragment. You make a very good point.

It's difficult to argue that advocating for research on this topic as a MAP is NOT "agenda driven". How could we ever hope to refute "you just want to have sex with children"? Even if we try to be as objective and impartial as humanly possible, it's hard to argue against the assumptions that people will make. Even non-MAP allies will face severe stigma and persecution.

I want scientific inquiry on this, even though I suspect that the findings won't be favorable for pedophiles like me. Hebephiles likely have a lot more to gain here. I'm sure some of the things I've said in this thread would lead some to classify me as pro-c, but I still think of myself as anti-c despite wanting research in this area.

I don't know how we could ever hope to move forward on this. It seems to me that scientific inquiry into distinguishing harmful AMSC from non-harmful AMSC may never be allowed until MAPs receive more acceptance and young people are more autonomous. The underlying contradictions in these laws and social norms may need to be strained before they can be changed.

Phossu wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 3:22 am I don't know how we could ever hope to move forward on this. It seems to me that scientific inquiry into distinguishing harmful AMSC from non-harmful AMSC may never be allowed until MAPs receive more acceptance and young people are more autonomous. The underlying contradictions in these laws and social norms may need to be strained before they can be changed.

I think the anti-c mentality creates no incentive for any of this because it fails to engage with the question. Like mainstream society, to many anti-cs "the science is settled".

I don't think you need to be a NAMBLA level "age of consent abolitionist" by any means. I'm not myself. NAMBLAs rhetoric is a legacy of its era, but we need a different approach.

However, pro-c challenges the mainstream narrative and in responding to that challenge we are pushed to find the truth. Maybe you don't need to go so far as "pro-c", but at the very least "not anti-c". At the most basal level anti-c says "society is right" and pro-c says "society is wrong". As long as the pro-c position isn't one of self-interested blind faith, then I think it's inherently a more constructive position for MAPs to take. Due to the existence of pro-c people who do hold a position purely by "self-interested blind faith", I would rather move away from contact labels and just say the truth finding position is "pro-MAP".

That language would isolate many people that think of themselves as anti-c, though.