What are your opinions on the MAP community, MAP activism, MAP pride, etc.?
My opinions are that MAPs, as a group, are fine and valid, as well as MAP communities, MAP activism, and even MAP pride, so long as it’s anti-contact/non-offending. I have no tolerance for pro-contact or pro-contact activism since sex with minors is an inherent wrong due to the risk of harm it places on children.
We’ve had this song and dance on the site before, and as you’ve correctly observed, Prostasia takes a zero-tolerance stance with regard to pro-contact activism, as does its community.
What degree of censorship do you believe should be imposed on pro-contacts and pro-contact activism, in general?
A cool place full of cool people
On a more serious note the MAP community and MAP activism are important on their own merits, I think it’s a shame that so much activism now is linked to sexual abuse prevention, I don’t think any real progress can be made within that. MAP activism should be about MAPs.
Well… none, ideally.
I believe the arguments speak for themselves so long as the institutions that matter, ie academia, governments, NGOs, etc. take a hard-line stance on what’s right and what isn’t with adequate and satisfactory explanations.
I think if communities ejected pro-contacts and denounced their viewpoints, as is the case with VirPed, then I feel like, with time, people would begin to understand why such a hard line is drawn. Of course this increases the risk of them forming a vacuum, but when you have such polarized views on such an imperative subject, such a thing is inevitable.
I think being open to dialog and convincing them of why pro-c is wrong would be helpful. But don’t budge on it.
Some pro-contacts might not understand it. Some might understand, but reject it. People are entitled to their own views, but that doesn’t make them right or worth the time of day. The consequence of the harm of child sex abuse is the consequence that necessitates engagement with this view.
I liken pro-contacts to anti-vaxxers or flat earthers. They predicate their arguments on some seemingly plausible principle or ideal but offer nothing of substance to back it up other than “trust us” in the face of empirical evidence, whether that evidence is psychological, emotional, or physical damage to children as a direct, causal result to said interactions.
It’s that innate intellectual dishonesty that, in my opinion, says far more about them and their position than the position itself.
I could go on. But I’ve been exceptionally sleep-deprived these past couple nights.
Well… you have to be clear on your positions so the right narrative and message is conveyed. CSA prevention and MAP activism have to be related because of how things are.
I think a good example of MAP activitism would be things like lobbying against laws that threaten civil liberties, such as bans on harmless outlets and activities like child sex dolls, fictional/simulated pornography like drawings and anime, or ERP between adults in virtual environments since bans do nothing but place an unwarranted, unjustified, and cruel target on people for simply being themselves, rather than harming a child, since no real child is involved, nor is consumption of the material likely to incite real child abuse. Such bans are not about CSA prevention, but are akin to witch burning and cause unneeded suffering and are antithetical to the philosophy of a free and prosperous nation.
Bans on such things cause only further harm with no benefit for children or CSA prevention.
Another example would be campaigning for weakening discrimination practices on people where children are not involved, or putting forward proper evidence-based approaches to criminal justice reform, such as ensuring that chemical castration is never forced or coerced as a sentencing practice for offenders who are not high risk (or at all) and ensuring that physical castration is never an option, as well as rallying behind proper, unbiased and objective research into these things so that policymakers aren’t just following their emotions and harming people, but making decisions that matter and help people remain offense-free.
What exactly do you mean by this?
My message is very clear, I’m human. That’s the extent of MAP activism, anything else is tangential to it. I don’t need a contact stance to say that things which don’t cause harm should not be illegal. I don’t deserve my rights to be respected “to remain offence free”, I deserve them to be respected full stop.
MAP activism needs no contact stance, because MAP activism is about the rights and wellbeing of MAPs, something that is worth pursuing in it’s own right. No real progress will be made on MAP rights while it is tied to CSA prevention and only as a means to an end.
Because the majority of issues that require activism always seem to be under the guise of ‘protecting children’ so it requires a great deal of knowledge with regard to how minor attraction as a sexual interest/orientation relates to it so that link can be dispelled or argued against.
If people simply knew these things and respected the civil liberties of their fellow man, such activism would hardly be necessary.
Science has already shown that no causal relationship exists between pornography consumption and subsequent hands-on sexual offenses against children, but of course real CP is illegal because of how it is made, not because of the desires it caters to.
Some people may argue otherwise, that the use of an actual child to produce CSAM is not as big a deal as the fact that pedophiles may consume it, as to make it easier to snuff out speech and cultures they don’t like, effectively using the child abuse issue as a talking point, and to argue against it effectively requires some involvement in CSA prevention to show that such links are incredulous.
The reason why this is important is to ensure that sexual abuse remains the key issue, and not some unfounded/unproven assumptions backed up by moral panic. It’s that moral panic that, again, leads to the censorship and criminalization of fiction.
In other words, if their concerns are child sex abuse, then you have to know more about it than they do to show how it’s not an issue.
I respectfully disagree. Part of the reason why a contact stance is necessary is because of how many pro-contact groups have existed, namely NAMBLA and PIE, which existed under the guise of enabling/legalizing sexual contact between children and adults. Such activism was, as a matter of both intent and consequence, a movement to legalize and sanction child sex abuse, much like the activism by religious groups to keep the police from investigating or issuing subpoenas on church clergyman being ‘freedom of religion’ was done for the sole purpose of protecting priests who molested/abused children, as well as ensuring that some could even continue to do so without legal consequence.
I do agree, however, that the rights of MAPs are important and come before the contact stance, in much the same way all civil liberties and rights exist and function retroactively. But as for activism? I think it’d be best if it was done under the ‘no contact’ persuasion, just like LGBT activism in the 80s and 90s was heavily linked to HIV/AIDS prevention.
And why does that mean MAP activism must be related to CSA prevention and take a stance?
Heads up I fully appreciate we will never agree on this, you are a very extremely anti-c non-MAP (although not nearly to the radical levels I have seen before), while I am a MAP who chooses not to identify with a stance.
Because it ensures that the movements won’t be hijacked or misused as vehicles to legalize or influence policy that puts children at risk, like what NAMBLA/PIE tried to do, and that hard-line stance tells both MAPs and non-MAPs alike that real-world adult-child sexual activity is never okay.
Activism is never something that exists or occurs in a vacuum, and the good or effective activist groups have always been conscious of secondary effects or related issues.
There will always be people doing that, and people countering it. If my activism has to be qualified with “no I’m not going to f**k your kids” then I don’t think we’ve really progressed that far.
Well then I don’t know what else to say, but it does matter. People have gone out of their way to tell me that my posts on things like MAP rights, which had the support of MAP users on this very forum and why they matter have convinced them, who were anti-MAP or were under the persuasion that MAP rights was just a flag to ‘normalize and legalize child rape’, which they are fully against.
It convinces people that your movement isn’t for some nefarious or harmful purposes and helps rally support from those who would share a common goal with you or be allies.
Activism, at least the good kind, doesn’t function in a vacuum.
And that’s great, but as I said, if I have to qualify my identity and sexual orientation with “I’m not going to fuck your kids” then we haven’t truly progressed.
As I said, we’ll never agree on this, just giving my input as a MAP who is not anti-c.
I can see why being viewpoint-exclusive with regard to activism can be problematic, as a free speech advocate I’m no fan of it either, but this is one of those situations where it is necessary. You just have to accept that sexual activity between adults and minors is innately abusive, harmful, and should never be allowed. Many facts go into this, it’s not just a morality thing, but rather based on child psychology and how the mere act of sex with adults and children is, or can be extremely damaging to the children involved due to how they subconsciously interact with adults and how volatile sexual development can be.
Your neutrality on the issue makes me wary. I would be more than happy to attempt to convince you to see our side, otherwise I have nothing more to say on this topic, but you would need to be open to being convinced, to take a side.
I can agree that MAP activism doesn’t always have to be about CSA prevention, especially in issues where CSA isn’t even a reasonable concern.
Part of what makes arguing with pro-contacts is that the very concept of CSA can be problematic, in that certain acts of sexual abuse (grooming, molestation, “children can consent with adults”) are not considered abuse, so it can make activism extremely problematic. Ensuring that everyone is on the same page is extremely beneficial, if not imperative for such a volatile and sensitive issue.
Things like power dynamics, child psychology, etc. are not factored in or considered, which is very telling.
unlabeled-c =/= neutral-c
An important benchmark for acceptance, and goal for MAP activism, is being able to openly identify as a paedophile without fear of negative repercussions like violence or losing my job or home. If I have to qualify that with “but I’m not going to fuck your kids though” then I’m not accepted, I’m tolerated on the condition that I always state that, I am still viewed as a time bomb, abuser, or criminal by my innate nature and have to always clarify I am not those things. I will not accept that, because that is not progress, that is not acceptance or understanding.
I have my stance, one that, like most people’s in the real world, cannot be neatly categorised into pro or anti. I make a conscious choice not to use the traditional contact labels for a number of reasons including that I feel they are irrelevant in the context of MAP activism. Some call me anti-c, others pro-c and others still pro-reform. My stance will become clear when it is relevant to discussion, it is not relevant in the context of MAP activism.
There are no convenient sides, there is a broad spectrum ranging from “children should never be sexual until they’re 25” to “children should be raped” (both of those are genuine anti-c and pro-c stances). I know of people who’d call you pro-c. Such a complex topic cannot be simplified to two labels. Your stance is dramatically different from some who call themselves anti-c, likewise “with sufficient societal reform sexual contact with children may be harmless, but we should use science to ensure it’s safe before any legalisation” and “it’s okay to rape children” are dramatically different stances.
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.
Taking a strict no-contact stance is just common sense. Nobody in their right mind would agree that sex between adults and minors is appropriate, nor would they argue that it’s not mutually exclusive to MAP rights, nor does it have anything to do with progress.
You mischaracterize playing into the non-offending angle as a sort of arbitrary condition for society to understand, almost as though we’re justifying their prejudice by playing into it and not making progress, but that’s not true. The mere fact that pro-contact advocates exist is a reason for society to be skeptical, that’s a simple truth.
Acknowledging that and denying it is simply a facet of what needs to happen in order to ensure that the rights of MAPs are maintained. Society isn’t going to give the time of day to a group of pedophilic individuals who want it to be legal for them to molest, groom, or engage in sexual conduct with their children and they are right for being skeptical and wary of this. This is why it’s so important for that understanding to be made clear, both for society to know that NOMAPs rights are in the right place and won’t put the rights of their children at risk, as well as making a righteous and blatant statement that sex between children and adults is always wrong, always harmful, and never acceptable. Period.
What do you mean by “minor”? What do you mean by “adult”?
Because the AoC is not as low as you think it is in practice. Germany’s AoC has provisions which limit it to the age of majority, that being 18, as the real age of consent. A 15 or 16 year old in those countries cannot consent to sex with a 30 year old the same way an 18 year old can. There are clauses and bylaws within their statutes which preclude that. It’s important to understand how the age of consent is understood, both as a matter of law under their legal institutions and traditions, before adopting some warped view from the perspective of an outsider which may not be properly representative.
Yes, minors shouldn’t be going into clubs or putting themselves into situations that put them at risk because that’s precisely what happens, and just because you may not know very many people who tell you negative stories or you yourself may not have had any positive experiences doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to happen. This requires a consideration for balancing the interests of preventing harm which requires a determination of the risk of harm, and whether those risks are justified in being stifled. You could argue that not everyone who doesn’t wear a seatbelt is likely to suffer injury for every traffic accident, but the risk, as well as the harm intrinsic for not doing so is what justifies mandating them. The same goes for the age of consent.
People below the age of majority are called minors, usually that is adulthood (18).
Going into the semantics of “what’s the difference between a 17-year-old who is only a month away from being 18 and an 18-year-old?” is not a valid argument.
But in the context of CSA prevention, I guess my focus is mostly on children and young teenagers, with some also focused on those below the age of adulthood (18).
Oh. Well then… that’s highly unfortunate.
It is my belief that Germany ought to revisit this part of their legislation and disallow it by raising their AoC to 18. If child developmental psychology means anything, it signifies that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult the same way they can with another person within the same age group. The mere act of sexual activity at that young of an age, with an adult, that early in development, is extremely risky and can be extremely dangerous to their burgeoning mental development. This is a fact.
No? Because a 12-year-old isn’t an adult. It’s a pre-to-young adolescent teenager. Such a law wouldn’t be in line with human development.
The reason why the age of majority is 18 is because that’s a standard for when teenagers typically exhibit qualities and mental maturity necessary to live and function on their own, independent of what their parents may say. Sure, you could argue that this isn’t wholly true with respect to drug consumption, but with regard to sexual and social maturity? I’d say I’m inclined to agree.