Minor attractions and the decline of adult-minor contact

[Artaxerxes II]

One of the reasons it's so easy to hate on MAPs is primarily because normies can't imagine that an adult could ever love a minor, let alone a child, hence why they have to come up with strange talking points "a ppedophile only wants to be with a child because they love to exploit children", which rests on the false assumption that an adult could never ever love a child in a romantic or sexual way. And why is that? Why can't normies and antis ever imagine MAPs as having genuine affection for the subject of their desires? The reason, I think, lies with the way modern society is structured. You see, ever since the Industrial Revolution, the western model of education, top-down compulsory schooling that is, has emphasised age divisions which students later on inculcate in their consciousness such that they'll likely interact only with peers from here on out in terms of non-familial relationships. We thusly end up is adults who can't really relate to children, and thus could never conceptualise the idea of minor attraction.

I should also note that compulsory education is also one of the reasons that ageism exists: As younger people are segregated from adults on the basis of age, the intergenerational bonds within communities and the intergenerational transfer of knowledge at a collective level is heavily severed as the only transmitters of knowledge are effectively on the government's payroll rather than independent people. Thus, as children become more and more separated from those older or younger than them, they have less time to interact with adults outside of their families, and even then that's questionable as the modern system of exploitative capitalism is effectively causing parents to be less able to spend time with their children.

The result is constant intergenerational conflicts especially between boomers and millennials. Although things weren't as rosey in the past as many might assume, nonetheless such conflict didn't really exist at a cultural level in past cultures, especially pre-industrial ones. Sure, youngsters then and now argued with adults, but young people basing their entire identity on age is very recent, especially as back then your age didn't matter as much.

So want to find the reasons millennials and boomers hate each other so much? Look at modern schooling.

The rise of a youth is in itself a relatively recent phenomenon, This can also be attributed to capitalism: While Philippe Aries might have exaggerated in his thesis, he nonetheless noted that most kids wore "adult clothes" (i.e., there wasn't much difference between clothes adults wore, and the ones worn by children), suggesting that consumer culture as it existed then didn't differentiate itself based on age. Now, with the rise of "youth culture" which itself is market-driven, we clearly see a differentiation of market products based on age, which further exacerbates age segregation by influencing the notion of age as being intrinsic to one's capabilities. Child development mainstream orthodoxy is also to blame for often reifying a rigid notion of age as being deterministic, rather than being flexible. As new discoveries are made about human nature, we might see more addition of "developmental stages" in even more arbitrary age groupings.

And keep in mind that much of child development studies are often funded by big corps, and one thing scientists are hungry for, it's money, be it grants or funds, for even the experts themselves are human with human vices.

While theorists like Piaget and Erikson provided foundational insights into child development, their frameworks have often contributed to the institutionalization of age-based norms, fostering ageism and age segregation in our society. It is essential to move towards a model of human development that is dynamic and recognizes evolving capacities as cross-age phenomena, rather than viewing them through a deterministic lens. This shift would allow for a more inclusive understanding of individual differences, embracing the rich variability of human development.

So again, it seems that mainstream society, especially the upper echelon, is very keen on maintaining a status quo based on intergenerational conflict, possibly as a way to severe any attempt at fostering any community-driven effort at resisting state tyranny. And minor attraction is one of the ways to bridge that inter-generational camp. After all, adult-minor relationships of any kind are more likely to occur in situations where adults and minors have greater overall chances to interact, hence why the vast majority of statutory rape cases occur in such settings, whether it's student-teacher, priest-choirboy, parent-offspring, etc...

In conclusion, whether we like it or not, a major reason for the persistence of pedophobia lies in how society has stratified itself along age-based segregation, reducing any chance for non-blood-related adults and minors to from any meaningful bond (platonic or not), making the entire idea of minor attraction impossible to imagine for normies even when empirical evidence exists to support the normativity of at least hebephilia and ephebophilia among heterosexual men, and historical evidence pointing to minor attraction in general not being abnormal within the wider anthropological context. And both the ways consumer culture differentiates its marketing towards different age brackets, and the industrial-era western/Prussian system of compulsory schooling, don't help in alleviating age segregation.

What to do then? If you want adult-minor couples and minor attraction to be normalised, you'll have to accept the fact that adults and minors will need to be comfortable with being close to each other, enough that normies will be able to recognise minor attraction as not being inherently harmful.

[Artaxerxes II]

Further reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Childhood

http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/philosophy/education/bg/bg-ch-5.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/e ... aders.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/robert_reich_college_is_a_ludicrous_waste_of_money_partner/

http://educationnext.org/education-and-economic-growth/

https://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/ ... e-studies/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -wellbeing

P.S.: These are a collection of random thoughts that I had recently, which I tried to patch up into a coherent text, and this thread serves more as a text dump

[Outis]

Divide and conquer, it has always been a tool for the powerful.

It is true of course what you say, it's one of the last remaining divisions in society. It will fall, it's just the trajectory of the world. I believe it will fall in time such as gender, race, disability, gay, social class divides have fallen away.

[Bookshelf]

This, I feel, is the source of much of our strife. Society's beliefs towards AMSC and its perceived inherent negativity always derive from some uncanny imagination that minors are some odd, separate species - that childhood development is more akin to literal evolution than its descriptive reality, hence the justifications for treating minors so differently.

If we could somehow humanize minors and have people see them as actual people once again, it would be a major step towards acceptance of AMSC; but also a major step towards youth liberation, and allowing young people to live fuller lives. This is difficult, however, because there are so few places where adults and minors can interact in a platonic sense; and those few places are being more restricted by the day.