MAP Forum

https://www.map-union.org/blog/simple-list

Should our committee vote to approve or ratify initiatives, manifestos, frameworks from other organizations?

Jim Burton wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 10:46 pm https://www.map-union.org/blog/simple-list

Should our committee vote to approve or ratify initiatives, manifestos, frameworks from other organizations?

The link requires a login. I assume you mean Katie's "Simple list":

Build the MAP community, including reaching MAPs who are unaware of the community.
Achieve protected class status.
Access to compassionate, empathetic mental healthcare.
Access to legal services.
Remove "pedophilic disorder" from the DSM and ICD.
Social justice - differentiating between rape/assault/coercion/violent crimes and statutory crimes.
Social justice for minor MAPs, and those close in age.
Ban conversion therapy.
Meet the physiological needs of MAPs facing injustice/discrimination.
High-quality factual MAP media for public consumption.
Continued honest research into the various aspects of minor-attraction.
Improved sex education that also talks about minor attractions.
Legalization of all fictional sexual outlets, including loli/shota and dolls.
Social Justice - reform the sex offender registry.
Combat false accusations, doxing, and myths of stranger danger.
Defeat the stigma
A credible organization to speak on and represent these goals to the public.

Although some of my positions have changed, I'll repeat much of what I said about it on VoA. Some ambiguities weren't answered in that thread.

Build the MAP community, including reaching MAPs who are unaware of the community.

I don't know how you'd implement this.

Achieve protected class status.

Agree. This should be high priority, it would make everything easier.

Access to legal services.

Does this mean creating an organization that could provide higher quality legal services to MAPs who couldn't otherwise afford it?

Remove "pedophilic disorder" from the DSM and ICD.

I agree.

Social justice - differentiating between rape/assault/coercion/violent crimes and statutory crimes.

Agree.

Social justice for minor MAPs, and those close in age.

Most minors are already attracted to other minors, so this is vague. Unfortunately the way language is used prevents us from talking about underage pedophiles. I think this would depend on achieving some form of recognition of MAPs as a distinct group first.

(In the VoA thread, Katie elaborated on this point using the example of minors on the sex offender registry.)

I don't have the statistics right now, but there are many minors, even young children on the sex offender registry for things like playing doctor and exploring with their peers. There are teens who are on the registry for having consensual sex with other teens. There are minors who have gotten in trouble for taking nude selfies and thus producing child pornography. There are 18-year-olds who had a consensual relationship with their 16 or 17-year-old girlfriends, who end up on the registry. None of these people are violent, or pose a risk to others, and now their lives are ruined due to laws that harm the people they're meant to protect.

Ban conversion therapy.

Are there actually organizations that claim to provide conversion therapy to pedophiles? If so, maybe they could be sued for fraud.

Meet the physiological needs of MAPs facing injustice/discrimination.

Do you mean employment opportunities for those ostracized for coming out?

High-quality factual MAP media for public consumption.

Agree.

Continued honest research into the various aspects of minor-attraction.

Agree.

Improved sex education that also talks about minor attractions.

This would have to be specifically that it's natural and that prejudice against people with it, is bigotry. Otherwise it would turn into more discussions of stranger danger (I'm thinking of that teacher from Texas who got fired for discussing MAPs).

Legalization of all fictional sexual outlets, including loli/shota and dolls.

I think you could do this without even having to deal with the stigma, on the basis of an analogy to BDSM erotica. If BDSM erotica is able to imitate sexual assault, then there's a precedent for simulated sex acts that would be illegal in reality.

Social Justice - reform the sex offender registry.

This may be divisive. Those who aren't offenders may not want to help those that are.

Combat false accusations, doxing, and myths of stranger danger.

Hard to do.

Defeat the stigma

I think this is the most general goal that comes closest to consensus (though I'm sure there are a few people who disagree).

A credible organization to speak on and represent these goals to the public.

Agree.

Although I agree with the spirit of the list and think it's a laudable goal to try to have a standard framework across MAP organizations, I'd vote "no". I think the list isn't sufficiently specific in the meaning of some of it's goals (e.g. "Access to legal services") which could lead to disparate interpretations, and some of the goals are too open to have a clear way to be operationalized which could lead to goal neglect.

Until we drop the fire wall the same login and password as the forums will grant you access to the articles on the main site.

WandersGlade wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 6:23 am Although some of my positions have changed, I'll repeat much of what I said about it on VoA. Some ambiguities weren't answered in that thread.

Build the MAP community, including reaching MAPs who are unaware of the community.

I don't know how you'd implement this.

Sorry I missed some of those ambiguities. We can build the MAP community through mainstream outreach efforts. One idea that is catching on is the posting of stickers in public locations.

WandersGlade wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 6:23 am

Access to legal services.

Does this mean creating an organization that could provide higher quality legal services to MAPs who couldn't otherwise afford it?

To me, that seems to be the best way to go about it. An interim option would be to create a donation fund for MAPs experiencing legal issues.

WandersGlade wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 6:23 am

Meet the physiological needs of MAPs facing injustice/discrimination.

Do you mean employment opportunities for those ostracized for coming out?

That would be one thing, but also we should focus on the basic human needs... food, shelter, healthcare, etc.

WandersGlade wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 6:23 am

Improved sex education that also talks about minor attractions.

This would have to be specifically that it's natural and that prejudice against people with it, is bigotry. Otherwise it would turn into more discussions of stranger danger (I'm thinking of that teacher from Texas who got fired for discussing MAPs).

Agreed

WandersGlade wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 6:23 amAlthough I agree with the spirit of the list and think it's a laudable goal to try to have a standard framework across MAP organizations, I'd vote "no". I think the list isn't sufficiently specific in the meaning of some of it's goals (e.g. "Access to legal services") which could lead to disparate interpretations, and some of the goals are too open to have a clear way to be operationalized which could lead to goal neglect.

It was intentionally written in a list format, rather than essay form, as a way to quickly convey basic ideas. I think there is room for interpretation on some of those goals like "Access to Legal Service." This is also not meant to be a roadmap of how to achieve said goals. The roadmap can be developed by other MAP activists and organizations.

Brian Ribbon wrote:The content of the Simple List is fine, as long as it's not to be treated as an exhaustive list that inhibits community discussion of controversial issues such as the reform of attitudes and laws connected to AMSC and PIM.

The Simple List is not intended to be exhaustive. Organizations and individuals who ratify this are free to work toward other goals, along with those spelled out in The Simple List.

Percy Shelley wrote:That isn't to say I have no concerns with the wording or even some of the issues put forward.

The wording can always be improved upon. Feel free to post suggestions in the discussion thread on MAP Rights Forum, and they will be considered for the next iteration of The Simple List. https://maprightsforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=30

I understand that my opinions (not the way I have expressed them) have ruffled some feathers in the past, as I have not agreed to much of these positions. It's important that all positions any major movement takes relies strongly on historical precedent (i.e. knowing something worked for other movements in the past). I will respectful break down my reasons for not agreeing with certain points below, point-by-point:

Build the MAP community, including reaching MAPs who are unaware of the community.

Fully agree. We don't just need a considerably larger community, we need better morale, and a common sense of urgency toward activism.

Achieve protected class status.

As much as we all desire this, with some even desiring this before any other activism, this is likely putting the cart before the horse. We won't have a say in what aspect of our platform succeeds first. Protected status (at least in the US) was one of the most-recent achievements of the LGBT+ community. This makes sense that this wouldn't have happened around 1969 when gay liberation started making gains, considering the mindset of the voting public hadn't turned in favor of gay men or lesbians (let alone transgender people). We're even less liked than the gay community was in '69. 2024's politicians, and the public who votes for them, are darn-near certainly not going to expand protected status to a group as hated as MAPs.

The gay community gained a protected status after years of activism against several aspects of their stigma, and a near-complete 180 in terms of the discourse around homosexuality. Let's not forget that back in the day, AIDS was dubiously called 'GRID' (or gay-related immune deficiency). They had to start by fighting against the belief that homosexuals were immoral and dangerous, then fought against the scientific stigma of it being considered a paraphilia, got the public majority to accept them, and then pushed for marriage equality. After decades of work, they gained a protected status. There was more-than-likely no way the order of those events would have ever been different, and especially in the sense of having their protected status assured before everything else.

As for having this as a more distant goal, for decades down the line, I believe that's more realistic.

Access to compassionate, empathetic mental healthcare.

My question would be, in what context? Is this James Cantor-style care, or B4U-Act-style care? I am in favor of the latter, not the former, as James Cantor is certainly not contact neutral, and his research still seems highly suspect to me. Furthermore, Cantor's focus seems very tilted toward using therapy to prevent sexual contact. While nobody should break MAP-related laws, this reinforces a lack of movement toward reforms of those laws. It treats us as monsters than can be contained by counseling, and doesn't teach the public about the dynamics between adults and minors. It also discourages the considerable level of research badly needed on the other side of inter-generational love; minors. It acts as if the minor question has been answered, and with how much backlash we've seen in researchers trying to find answers (Rind, for example), we need this going in the other direction. We shouldn't accept therapy or policy based on presumptions accepted as fact.

My biggest issue overall is that the need for this mental healthcare is created by the social stigma we have. If MAP sexualities were accepted, this need would be no greater than the mental healthcare needs of the general population. In the short term, B4U-Act is valuable, and must be respected. In the long run, I'd advocate for activism that reduces our need for therapy.

Access to legal services.

I agree with this, but as I said about the first point, this is bound to succeed later on, when opinions have shifted in our favor.

Remove “pedophilic disorder” from the DSM and ICD.

Agreed, but this requires the same changes in public opinion that I discussed in the first point. However, to a lesser extent.

Social justice – differentiating between rape/assault/coercion/violent crimes and statutory crimes.

This is absolutely a step in the right direction, and I have no qualms with this point. I think what's critical is making this clear when talking to the media. Don't let them lump a sadistic, psychopathic toddler rapist/murderer with something who's been merely playing doctor with an 8-year old, or sexually active with a 12-year old. If they do, hold the reporter to task! They wouldn't bring up Brock Turner as an exemplar of adult-attraction.

Social justice for minor MAPs, and those close in age.

Not sure exactly what this means.

Ban conversion therapy.

Agreed wholeheartedly! It seems like good progress has been made on this front, too!

High-quality factual MAP media for public consumption.

Working on it with ALM and other projects (not mentioning them here).

Continued honest research into the various aspects of minor-attraction.

Agreed, but I would like to emphasize that we are merely one side of MAP relationships. The other side is minors. We need to push for research on minors, too. Unlike gay relationships, which only deal with one group (gay people), all MAP relationships contain two groups (a MAP and a minor). Reforms will fail unless the perspective of both in the context of MAP relationships is understood by researchers and the public.

Improved sex education that also talks about minor attractions.

I agree with this, but as with a lot here, it requires a hell of a lot of public support. Additionally, sex education should discuss much more about trust and consent, why people have sex, and should teach tolerance for people's sexual choices (so long as they don't hurt others). On that last point, this is a matter of teaching minors that bullying people and name-calling (like 'slut', 'whore', etc.) is discriminatory. In this, affirm with them that if a sexual choice someone makes does not pose a threat to that person or another, they have no right to judge.

Legalization of all fictional sexual outlets, including loli/shota and dolls.

While this is a start, I would say that the possession of CP should be decriminalized, while keeping organized distribution and production illegal until further understanding of its effects on minors involved. This may indeed qualify that distribution and production remain illegal, but I have not seen enough data to sway me in either direction.

Social Justice – reform the sex offender registry.

Evidence supports its abolishment, but this may be a case where we'll need to start of with reforms. Regardless, it needs to eventually be destroyed.

Combat false accusations, doxing, and myths of stranger danger.

Fully agree.

Defeat the stigma

Herein lies the backbone of the entire effort. Remove the stigma, and everything else falls into place.

A credible organization to speak on and represent these goals to the public.

Sound and respectful representation is necessary. That said, this may come from multiple sources. Movements are not ever that rigid. I respect the work and thought here at Mu. It's key to remember that we can't tolerate the masses of the MAP community sitting on their hands while a select few try change things. We have no choice in the manpower we'll need to reach our goals.

"Legalization of all fictional sexual outlets, including loli/shota and dolls."

I agree. Also including erotic stories within AoA, according to everyone's taste. We don't want to hurt any children, but we need ways to release our sexual tension. They're talking a lot about artificial intelligence, I don't know how it works yet because I haven't seen one, but from what they say it's something very close to the real thing, I don't see a problem because it's just fantasy. But there would have to be ways of differentiating the real from the fantasy. But given the rapid transition that's taking place, I think they'll find it soon.

GregoryBayclark wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 2:30 am It's important that all positions any major movement takes relies strongly on historical precedent (i.e. knowing something worked for other movements in the past).

Why? The goals we're trying to achieve haven't been achieved before, so doesn't that mean we'll have to try new approaches and methods?

As much as we all desire this, with some even desiring this before any other activism, this is likely putting the cart before the horse. We won't have a say in what aspect of our platform succeeds first. Protected status (at least in the US) was one of the most-recent achievements of the LGBT+ community. This makes sense that this wouldn't have happened around 1969 when gay liberation started making gains, considering the mindset of the voting public hadn't turned in favor of gay men or lesbians (let alone transgender people). We're even less liked than the gay community was in '69. 2024's politicians, and the public who votes for them, are darn-near certainly not going to expand protected status to a group as hated as MAPs.

Arguably transgender people are deeply unpopular as well, and nonetheless they have achieved protected status. I think we should focus on a "top-down" approach to the cause of MAPs, that is to say appealing to experts and the law because it's easier to identify what needs to change and how to change it than trying to change the public perception of MAPs (both a difficult problem, and hard to identify solutions).

The gay community gained a protected status after years of activism against several aspects of their stigma, and a near-complete 180 in terms of the discourse around homosexuality. Let's not forget that back in the day, AIDS was dubiously called 'GRID' (or gay-related immune deficiency). They had to start by fighting against the belief that homosexuals were immoral and dangerous, then fought against the scientific stigma of it being considered a paraphilia, got the public majority to accept them, and then pushed for marriage equality. After decades of work, they gained a protected status. There was more-than-likely no way the order of those events would have ever been different, and especially in the sense of having their protected status assured before everything else.

A counter point, the cause of civil rights still achieved many of it's goals despite widespread hostility in the southern United States. Let's say you can't change the way people feel about MAPs, because it isn't obvious that you can, wouldn't it be better to try to build strong legal cases instead?

We shouldn't accept therapy or policy based on presumptions accepted as fact.

Good point.

I agree with this, but as I said about the first point, this is bound to succeed later on, when opinions have shifted in our favor.
Agreed, but this requires the same changes in public opinion that I discussed in the first point. However, to a lesser extent.

How are you expecting to change public opinion? My view is that if you can get some legal protections, MAPs can live more openly and it would humanize us in public perception (i.e. they can't just let their imaginations run wild if they actually know people who are MAPs). I don't see how else to do it.

On that last point, this is a matter of teaching minors that bullying people and name-calling (like 'slut', 'whore', etc.) is discriminatory. In this, affirm with them that if a sexual choice someone makes does not pose a threat to that person or another, they have no right to judge.

Maybe. I think it might be projection in this context. Not to say everyone who uses homophobic slurs is a closet homosexual, but everyone who shames others about sex is highly likely to be ashamed of sex. I think discrimination is downstream of attitudes, and this is one of those places where changing public opinion is preferable to changing the law.

There's a quote I recall from Machiavelli that I think is relevant to MAP causes:

Therefore, a prince who is not well-liked must be very careful to have a strong military, for he cannot rely on the goodwill of his subjects.

So if we cannot rely on the goodwill of others in society, we have to find other ways to advance our interests. For Machiavelli that meant having a strong military, for us I think it means advancing our cause via judicial activism.
I'm not saying society will never have goodwill towards MAPs, but I do think at first we may need to carve out space for ourselves without being dependent on goodwill. I'd like to be wrong though.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 3:48 pm Why? The goals we're trying to achieve haven't been achieved before, so doesn't that mean we'll have to try new approaches and methods?

This is not a completely unique movement, nor is it a cookie cutter duplicate of another movement. Several factors of this movement have parallels to other movements, especially that of gay lib/lgbt+ movements.

I could have been more clear when advocating for relying on historic precedent. We must be careful deciding what about our movement is similar to another.

This is a similar concept to that of legal precedent in courts. Lawyers use the results of cases, and the written law, to figure out the standing of laws.

It's also similar to relying on scientific research. Scientists rely on the work of past scientists to advance science farther. This is, by far, not an exhaustive explanation of the practice of referring to what worked for activists of past movements, and why it might work. This approach requires studying the past, and introspection. That said, if done intelligently, it inevitably results a more-informed approach.

I think it's dangerous to write this approach off, entirely. That said, it's also dangerous to rely on this approach alone.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 3:48 pm Arguably transgender people are deeply unpopular as well, and nonetheless they have achieved protected status. I think we should focus on a "top-down" approach to the cause of MAPs, that is to say appealing to experts and the law because it's easier to identify what needs to change and how to change it than trying to change the public perception of MAPs (both a difficult problem, and hard to identify solutions).

The unpopularity of MAPs so massively overshadows that of trans people, that I can't understand the comparison. Far more effort has been accepted under the transgender banner than the MAP one. Gender-neutral bathrooms, medical acceptance of HRT, being included in the LGBT+ community, considerable research, and the list goes on. Us MAPs...more research and some therapists being better to us. That's about it. No matter what two or three I missed for us, transgender people have an undeniably greater level of support than we do. Sure, more conservative regions of the US are far less supportive, but regional differences don't decide how well a group can sway national legislation.

With how much more support trans folks have, and the backing from the gay and lesbian communities, their success in gaining protected status was better assured that ours currently is. If we could gain that level of acceptance, we may gain protected status, but we are not representing the same things. The factors that make us different must be taken into account.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 3:48 pm A counter point, the cause of civil rights still achieved many of it's goals despite widespread hostility in the southern United States. Let's say you can't change the way people feel about MAPs, because it isn't obvious that you can, wouldn't it be better to try to build strong legal cases instead?

A single region, even if it comprises many states, was never going to decide the outcome of the civil rights movement. Furthermore, the civil rights act is a good example of how putting a law into effect does not assure it will be followed. To this day, many people of color in the south are taken advantage of by many parties, and have less opportunities than whites. With the scale in which this happens, there's mere anecdotal cases of punishment. Most of these racists do this with impunity.

Even if we gained legal protects or access to legal services, if this is without a change in popular opinion around us, we may not retain it. Those lawyers could be threatened by antis to stop helping us. This is similar to the book stores prior to gay liberation selling pro-gay books. They got their windows smashed, and we raided by violent homophobes. They stopped selling those books soon after.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 3:48 pm How are you expecting to change public opinion? My view is that if you can get some legal protections, MAPs can live more openly and it would humanize us in public perception (i.e. they can't just let their imaginations run wild if they actually know people who are MAPs). I don't see how else to do it.

Public opinion will change when people are no longer afraid that we are a threat to minors. The 'how' is something that I have been looking at for many years. What I have decided upon is that we need people to fear that these current laws are doing more harm to minors than good. Show them how inefficient these laws are in protecting minors, especially from situational offenders. The CDC reports that only 50% of all cases of "child sexual abuse" is detected by law enforcement. Show them how bad sex ed is causing kids to be unprepared to deal with the risks of sex. Case and point, teen pregnancy rates. Show evidence of how minors are much more likely to be targeted by family than they are strangers.

Finally, no one knows how long this will take. We are going to need to hammer this message for a while. In trying to change public opinion, there are no shortcuts.



What makes me fear for our movement these days is us not being grounded in what we can currently do, and when we can do more. I often see very optimistic plans, or very pessimistic plans. Both leave me concerned for our future.

GregoryBayclark wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 5:38 am The unpopularity of MAPs so massively overshadows that of trans people, that I can't understand the comparison. Far more effort has been accepted under the transgender banner than the MAP one. Gender-neutral bathrooms, medical acceptance of HRT, being included in the LGBT+ community, considerable research, and the list goes on. Us MAPs...more research and some therapists being better to us. That's about it. No matter what two or three I missed for us, transgender people have an undeniably greater level of support than we do. Sure, more conservative regions of the US are far less supportive, but regional differences don't decide how well a group can sway national legislation.

With how much more support trans folks have, and the backing from the gay and lesbian communities, their success in gaining protected status was better assured that ours currently is. If we could gain that level of acceptance, we may gain protected status, but we are not representing the same things. The factors that make us different must be taken into account.

My point is that popularity is irrelevant for whether or not something goes against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The supreme court isn't a popularity contest.

A single region, even if it comprises many states, was never going to decide the outcome of the civil rights movement. Furthermore, the civil rights act is a good example of how putting a law into effect does not assure it will be followed. To this day, many people of color in the south are taken advantage of by many parties, and have less opportunities than whites. With the scale in which this happens, there's mere anecdotal cases of punishment. Most of these racists do this with impunity.

Even if we gained legal protects or access to legal services, if this is without a change in popular opinion around us, we may not retain it. Those lawyers could be threatened by antis to stop helping us. This is similar to the book stores prior to gay liberation selling pro-gay books. They got their windows smashed, and we raided by violent homophobes. They stopped selling those books soon after.

Do you really believe those laws didn't make any difference to the lives of LGBT and African-American people?

Public opinion will change when people are no longer afraid that we are a threat to minors. The 'how' is something that I have been looking at for many years. What I have decided upon is that we need people to fear that these current laws are doing more harm to minors than good. Show them how inefficient these laws are in protecting minors, especially from situational offenders. The CDC reports that only 50% of all cases of "child sexual abuse" is detected by law enforcement. Show them how bad sex ed is causing kids to be unprepared to deal with the risks of sex. Case and point, teen pregnancy rates. Show evidence of how minors are much more likely to be targeted by family than they are strangers.

Sexual offenses aren't something people are making coolly detached decisions about. If someone punched you in your face, is your first instinct to think "violence begets violence, so it's irrational to fight back because I'm doing the very thing I'm angry about"? Similarly, people don't listen to evidence about vaccines, climate change, or January 6. What makes you think people will listen about MAPs?

What makes me fear for our movement these days is us not being grounded in what we can currently do, and when we can do more. I often see very optimistic plans, or very pessimistic plans. Both leave me concerned for our future.

I think PR has done what it can. All those who would have been willing to listen, have listened. Now is the time to try to do more.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 8:18 pm My point is that popularity is irrelevant for whether or not something goes against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The supreme court isn't a popularity contest.

This is true, but I don't think we can say that public opinion holds no sway over the court. The members of the court are also members of the public, after all. Lawrence vs Texas was decided based on legal, not political reasons. Yet I think it'd be a little naive to say that the political climate didn't impact the decision at all. Courts do often refer to "social standards" when making decisions. Without social support an appeal to the Supreme Court is likely to fall flat.

Sexual offenses aren't something people are making coolly detached decisions about. If someone punched you in your face, is your first instinct to think "violence begets violence, so it's irrational to fight back because I'm doing the very thing I'm angry about"? Similarly, people don't listen to evidence about vaccines, climate change, or January 6. What makes you think people will listen about MAPs?

I think PR has done what it can. All those who would have been willing to listen, have listened. Now is the time to try to do more.

I think that certain kinds of PR have run their course, but what Mu is doing- the kinds of articles we're putting out- has never really been done. Most MAP organizations have either been dry academia or internally focused (talking about how hot boys/ girls are). There's been very little on offer in terms of easily digestible news and opinions.

That said, I also agree that if people can mount legal challenges, they should. But that would require support from lawyers, or groups like the ACLU. Getting them on side is surely a kind of "PR"? Otherwise who is going to be going to the Supreme Court? And over what issues?

I agree that protected class status in the US is a big step forward (other countries don't have the same Bills of Rights, so it may be harder), but the question is even if we can see that as the goal, what is the path to it?