Except that legal does indeed equal right, if rule of law means anything at all. Otherwise we would live in a society of chaos.
If only things were so simple. You need to take a step back and look at what you’re saying.
Legal ≠ Right
Cut the fascism and stop telling others what the “need to” do, hmmm? No, I’m not giving up my right to possibly have a loving, fulfilling, caring, mutually-respectful romantic relationship with a beautiful and intelligent young lady just because it offends your inability to work out problems in your own personal life.
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” - H. L. Mencken
Says Mr. “rule of law”
If you paid attention you’ll note I didn’t take a stance on those relationships (I did take a stance on marriage to minors which reflects my stance on marriage as a whole), that’s not an issue I’m interested in discussing, certainly not here, I just pointed out your flawed thinking.
Things are not so simple, much that is illegal is not wrong, much that is legal is not right. Law is often not dictated by what is right or wrong but by the interests of those in power.
“Rule of law” is not fascism. Fascism is an individual (or select group of them) forcing their personal, political, or religious beliefs upon others. It thrives via chaos and conflict, not order and peace, as the nazi reversal of the swastika was intended to indicate.
If you are not willing or able to detail the particular reasons behind your opposition to laws permitting marriage to minors, perhaps you could be so kind as realize that they may not apply to me. Just because some people abuse certain privileges does not mean they should be denied to everyone.
There’s no one here who supports marriage to minors, if you somehow haven’t realised that yet here you go:
Your position is not one that prostasia supports, you will not find support or agreement for it here
I don’t need support or agreement, neither have I asked for it. I simply stated what the law is (and that it happened to be on my side in this case) and you went off on a tantrum obviously based upon your own biases, either as the result of some unfortunate experience of your past that I am in no way responsible for, or on those tabloid internet horror stories about “child marriage” (accompanied by a staged stock photo of a leering middle-aged man standing next to a tiny little girl in a bridal dress, no doubt).
Get a grip, old chap.
Ah fuck this, I’ve got better things to do than waste time on someone desperately trying to justify (extremely badly) why acting on their attraction (and specifically theirs, how convenient) is okay. Enjoy your tantrum.
You’re the one pulling a tantrum, man. I don’t have to “justify” anything because it’s already literally justified, i.e. legal.
I do find it rather odd that you call yourself a “youth liberationist” yet oppose one of the very few laws that prevents under 18s from actually being in the same social status that slaves once were.
Forgive me for being concerned with my own “attraction”. Notice, however, that I have in no way insulted you for yours.
You seem to have a masters degree in motive impunement, it would appear as if you are only capable of that along with appealing to the law.
When all I see is someone repeating the same meaningless terms over and over, that’s all it takes. If MAPs would learn to appeal to the law, instead of either decrying it or letting themselves be influenced by misconceptions about it (as in this case), perhaps they will no longer be so despised.
It continues to astound me to see MAPs using the very mistaken terminology of our enemies (“justifying” for instance). Our African-American brothers and sisters, wonderfully wise to such things, have a name for such behavior. It’s called being an Uncle Tom.
One does not make peace by pretending to agree with one’s enemies, as some MAPs are attempting with antis. That will only get you dominated. One can only make peace by agreeing to disagree.
Your position is so weird, definitely one of the weirdest MAP positions I’ve heard. Pro-C (for Hebe up) while simultaneously assimilationist and strongly anti-reform, things that rarely go together, if ever.
If MAPs appealed to this law that I find convenient for my sake
We all know you’re only talking about the law that works for you here, one that has been changed long ago in most developed countries. Obviously however your law is right and the others are wrong.
“If MAPs just did what societies laws say” is a very assimilationist position.
And you somehow say both this and the previous statement, the first being highly assimilationist, the second anti-assimilation.
I think your position is nothing more than a self serving appeal to legality. Your local laws provide a convenient legal loophole for acting on your attraction, so why would you ever want that changed? You don’t care what the laws may be elsewhere and don’t care about reform of them, you care about those that affect you and work for you.
You’re all in on youth liberation, where it serves your desires, you draw the line at the ages you’re not attracted to.
Again, one of the weirdest and most confusing pro-c positions I’ve ever heard. On second thought I think you’re an extreme hebe pro-c, absolutely pro child marriage and with little concern for what is ethical (all that matters is whether something is legal, you’ve already demonstrated you base your morals on the law), you’re just really bad at making arguments and uninterested in change.
How badly do you want to end up on the wrong side of the firing squad when the real revolution comes? Global change is coming, by 2050, climate change will reach a point of no return, and we will see 10-12 degree Celsius of warming, there is going to be an era of massive strife. Do you want to be on the wrong side? Because this is how you end up on the wrong side of the firing squad.
Children cant have sex or get married. the reason is why it might be technically legal is the fact that law makers have not fixed the laws yet. But a child in marriage is going to be raped and you know that. Either get on the right side of history or horrible things will happen to you.
I didn’t say I was anti-reform. If you want to put forth some ideas for changing laws in our favor, I’m willing to listen. I’m even willing to help as long as it harms no one. (My apologies to Prostasia if speaking on this subject is against the ToS, as I know you are against the idea of changing laws. I didn’t bring it up.)
Nevertheless, I can’t see how changing laws in our favor will help if MAPs are even afraid to exercise the rights we already have.
Oh my, looks like the cuckoo’s nest is open. I’m on the side of love, which is never the wrong one.
A minor who is married is legally no longer a minor (so there’s no “child rape” involved to excite your prurient imagination). It is a form of emancipation.
But yes, I would die a martyr rather than live as a slave.
Are you like Q anon or something i’ve heard this global revolution crap before.
Yes, I will gladly be on the side that’s “being shot by the firing squad” if that’s the side I feel is right and true. Anything else would be cowardice and dishonor. I live every day with the possibility that some nutjob might attempt to murder me for being publicly open about what and who I am. Nothing new in that to me. Even if your imagined future dystopia were a reality, it wouldn’t change me one little bit, Adolf. And no, I don’t want to be on the side that’s doing the shooting under any circumstances. Civilized people don’t commit murder because someone disagrees with their opinions.
Again, an emancipated minor is not a child and is legally able to give consent. Deal with it. Again, don’t judge a subject by the examples you see on fake tabloid internet sites.
Yes, I’m very aware of the climate problem in Canada and elsewhere. I fail to see how commiting mass murder (especially of people you personally dislike) is going to help.
Eh… no… I’d have to fact check you on that. Emancipation only grants specific rights and privileges to those below the age of majority, typically under the advisement of a court, and only for very specific use cases or instances, things like property rights and other specific instances, and I’d imagine it varies by state. I also know that emancipation typically when the minor is already close to the legal age of majority anyway.
It’s also not very common, in general.
Children can’t consent to sex with adults, period. We can go on and on about specific age differences, but the fact remains.
I’m going to assume that means anti-contact.
I can sort of understand why such a hard-line stance might be alienating to MAPs who are still trying to figure things out, but I still think that encouraging or accommodating pro-contact mindsets is the wrong way to go if fostering community support is the end-goal. I can see a great deal of value to be had, as studies have actually been conducted on the NOMAP Virped forum, and Virped leverages the usage of safe, legal sexual outlets as a means of remaining offense-free, which is precisely what I like to see.
Addressing the existence of pro-contact mindsets for new MAPs looking for support among peers is very delicate, but it may be necessary to truly and effectively foster a NOMAP community.
If those communities truly aren’t anti-contact, then they ought to be removed from this guide.
There’s a place for both. Some anti-cs are uncomfortable sharing spaces with pro-cs so explicitly anti-c spaces are needed, although I still feel VirPed’s stance is a bit too hard-line and definitely pushes away some people who are more neutral or undecided.
Places that allow both are more comfortable for the majority who do not have such a hard-line stance, and pro-cs as well as some anti-cs who just prefer such spaces. From an anti-c perspective this should be a good thing as it can allow for the exchange of information and showing pro-cs where they’re wrong, forcing them into only their spaces would only create an echo chamber where pro-c beliefs are reinforced. It can also help anti-cs construct better arguments and make them examine things more closely.
B4UAct has no official stance, but it’s an extremely important organisation.
Pro-cs deserve support too. A good middleground for this is spaces that allow people of all stances but don’t allow contact debate of any kind and are solely support spaces.
This is a term most people have moved away from now, the “non-offending” part alienates ex or current offenders who are seeking support.