Prostasia will recover from this

It is my sincere, honest belief that this bout of negative press by detractors on Twitter will inevitably pass.

However, after studying, monitoring, and even participating in some of the discourse, I can safely and confidently say that, although the majority of it is unwarranted, unfounded, or built on a sheer or deliberate misunderstanding of exactly what Prostasia’s stances are, not all of it is needlessly unwarranted.
Yes, the vast majority of the hate is coming from those who simply do not/refuse to try to understand Prostasia and what these things are or hurl debunked logical fallacies and conflations or are just in shock over something like child sex dolls being harmless.

However…

Some of it is out of genuine concern for Prostasia’s involvement with two former sex offenders (one of whom knowingly failed to disclose their criminal history) and the other was a ‘reformed/rehabilitated’ individual with knowledge and skills that Prostasia could benefit from, as well as Prostasia’s involvement with the MAP Support Club and the fact that MSC allows minors to join and participate.

I can live with the fact that negative PR is something that a CSA prevention organization who takes on such prorgessive, forward-thinking, and sensible policies such as sex-positivity and the preservation of civil rights and liberties with relation to victimless/harmless expression, such as simulated/virtual child pornography in the form of art, literature, or sex dolls. Those people tend to have trouble thinking clearly or critically and simply go on what their emotions tell them. I could care less of what they say/think/do. They’re not the ones who make it to enough meaningful policy-making positions, nor are they likely to be accomplished/qualified academics in relevant fields such as clinical psychology, psychiatry, neurology, sociology, etc.
They are the same people who went along with anti-LGBT rights because it’s what their peers did.

My concern are those who are skeptical, those whose opinions are not just backed up by a loose patchwork masquerading as understanding because they read Federline’s outdated and borderline inflammatory website or saw some half-baked blog posts written by anti-intellectual, sex-negative and post-modernist radical feminists.
Sure, one can argue that people who are stupid enough to fall for these publications aren’t worth appeasing, but that’s not a very progressive, nor functional means to approach this. Ignoring and chastising those who are wrong is not how you convince the other side your case.
To make a convincing and compelling argument, it requires understanding and knowledge of them, their beliefs, and where/how they reached the conclusions they did, as well as whether those means and how they acted under said beliefs themselves were reasonable, as opposed to focusing on the beliefs/conclusions themselves.

That being said, I do believe @prostasia ought to consider some of the criticisms they offer, specifically with regard to the following:

  • MAP Support Chat and how they handle underage users/participants as well as how their communications (as well as who communicates with them)
    Some people cited a blog post wherein the admins go into detail about changes made with regard to minor-MAP comms, wherein they disabled 1-on-1 communications with minor-MAPs. I believe more could be considered, specifically the disallowing of sharing off-site communications (such as Discord, IMs, etc) full-stop on the platform, if not specifically for minors.
    Some people find that allowing minors to communicate with adult pedo-hebephilic individuals is reckless, and the risk of something going wrong outweighs any potential benefits. I can agree with that, but I also believe that such communications, if done right under appropriate supervision by qualified experts, can yield positive results for all involved. It’s a known fact that teenage pedophiles exist and that a sizeable chunk of CSA is perpetrated by teenagers against pre-adolescent or young teens.
    Some people on Twitter attempted to brush this off as ‘situational and complicated’ and I found that as a uniquely and boldly stupid thing to claim because it seems like an attempt to side-step that necessary truth as a means to preserve your criticisms.
    CSA shouldn’t happen under any circumstances, regardless of whether its situational, and approrpiate means ought to be considered to help reduce the risk or likelihood of it happening.

In any case, it’s well-established that Prostasia takes an advisory and support role for the MSC, which is its own independently-run support network.
I do believe that @prostasia ought to consider recommending or influencing policy decisions that would accomodate for the risk of off-site communications or grooming, as well as make it a prime focus for interested/offended parties that such things wouldn’t be or shouldn’t be tolerated

  • Prostasia working with Jeff White and Hamilton-Smith.
    I do believe that reformed and rehabilitated sex offenders shouldn’t be discriminated against, nor should their insights be immediately discounted when considering means to prevent CSA.

However, the likelihood of this being seen as a potential conflict of interest by the administration of Prostasia or its partners is extremely high, and such complications could hinder Prostasia’s ability to act as a reliable consultant or arbiter with regards to matters of public policy.
Credibility matters, basically.

I hope Prostasia would consider adopting and making an effort to make it apparent and clear that they would not work with registered sex offenders, and if such things could be done, they be done under specific limited circumstances with administrative roles being out of the question.

I hope my feedback will be considered. I genuinely do believe that Prostasia will be fine, but they should still be conscious and mindful of public relations.
I don’t want Prostasia to be looked at the same way people look at NAMBLA or discredited/disavowed doctors who preach anti-vaxx or ‘alternative medicines’.

6 Likes

She wrote another article saying that universities doing studies on pedophilia are trying to normalize it.

This is why scientists are afraid to study pedophilia. These people think that it’s better to wander in the dark and know nothing about their enemy. What exactly do they fight here then? Is it the possibility of understanding a human with pedophilia better and thus learn methods to protect children, or is it just a campaign to push everything pedophilia related into the darkness. It is not visible anymore, but that does not mean the problem is solved.

Cringe.

6 Likes

We in the LGBT movement had long dialogues about the politics of appeasing haters, ‘looking respectable,’ and so on – see the great coffee table book “We are Everywhere. Protest, Power, and Pride in the History of Queer Liberation” by Matthew Riemer and Leighton Brown. The basic conclusion was that you have to keep doing the right thing no matter how much frantic is thrown at you by people who adhere to the prejudiced status quo.

In the present discussion, if you believe that someone who has turned their life around and been a solid citizen for decades is not only worthy of support but is also, for present and future purposes, a good example, then to turn away from that person to appease people who unreasonably fear them (individually or symbolically) appears weak. There is an underlying power discussion going on in all such social debates, and one of its aspects is whether or not we validate the prejudice that anyone considered a deviant is intrinsically and permanently weak, and thus also a weakening force in social interactions. There are 1001 varieties of political rhetoric that are used to encode this debate, but the unspoken subtext remains monotonously constant. People in minorities, or supporting minorities, who capitulate in this struggle are what I refer to, in my system for understanding political parties, as “influence-conservatives” (see graphic illustration at The five basic political parties | thismoonlesssky). LGBT activists who followed this influence-conservative strategy were reasonable, respectable, and almost completely unsuccessful. Their kowtowing to prejudice MADE them appear weak, thus validating the prejudice, and that merely emboldened the haters to make further advances against them. It was only when a combination of reasonable-but-still-adamant egalitarians and flamboyant and sometimes maddeningly provocative inversionists (referring back again to the terminology in the graphic at the link) led the struggle that progress was made. The reason is because power-conservatives only really respect strength. They may panic about it when they see it in an underclass, and they may deploy the classic political ‘cancer metaphor’ (“weakness that degrades us is taking over with terrifying strength!”) against it, but in the power-struggle subtext that is always a decisive factor, the show of strength is obligatory to prevent their simply walking all over you.

Sometimes you simply have to take the heat.

2 Likes

For fuck’s sake, please stop advocating respectability politics. Prostasia should continue to allow ex-offenders to work with them. MSC should allow minors. In fact, they should start allowing private DMs as well, because the idea that MAPs are inherently more in need of monitoring to not abuse is stigmatizing and inaccurate.

It seems like you don’t actually give a shit about the rights of ex-offenders or MAPs more than your precious assimilationism and PR. Not a good look on you.

2 Likes

No, Prostasia shouldn’t allow former criminals or sex offenders to work within their organization because, as I’ve said before, it helps reduce the likelihood of bias or misuse of the charity and its resources, as is the case with any potential organization, whether it’s a business or a charity. I wouldn’t want a former Verizon lobbyist being appointed to head the FCC, nor would I want a lawyer for a goddamn pharmaceutical company having control over the Red Cross!
As for whether such actions would run the risk of reinvigorating or reinforcing the prejudices people have for non-offending/no-contact MAPs, I highly doubt it. People are smart enough to know the difference between a child rapist, a likely child rapist, and a non-offender. This distinction HAS to be made because of how many pedophilic persons ARE pro-contact!
To deny or disregard that fact is simply naive.

As for the MSC, absolutely yes they should keep 1-on-1 comms with minors disallowed and minor-related comms heavily monitored!

MSC is designed as a support channel first and foremost. Vulnerable, impressionable minors who are extremely paranoid about their sexual interests and what they mean may flock there for peer support, just like minor-attracted adults! Special care and due diligence ought to be taken whenever and wherever possible in order to prioritize safety for those involved.

Also, to hell with your unfounded and flimsy arguments about ‘respectability politics’!
I’m looking at this from an objectivist, utilitarian perspective and while a great deal of hatred and vitriol towards pedophilia is empirically unfounded, we still have to keep in mind that sex between children and adults is innately harmful and never acceptable. Society isn’t wrong for caring about the rights and safety of children the way they do, and all of their compelling arguments are backed up by a focus on harm, and the risk of harm. There’s a difference between concern and prejudice, and with the concept of pedophilia and CSA, a very careful and specific line needs to be drawn and it’s especially important that such a line is clearly understood by all involved.

I liken pro-contact pedophiles in the context of MAP rights and CSA prevention to ‘bug chasers’ during the HIV/AIDS pandemic during the days of LGBT repression.
Their existence and actions doesn’t justify the raw hatred and prejudice against the LGBT community, but it certainly didn’t stop homophobic, conservative activists from using them to fuel anti-LGBT sentiment, especially from those who didn’t subscribe to religious dogma.

People are already comparing Prostasia to NAMBLA, so of course Prostasia needs to make it very clear that their goals are antithetical to NAMBLA and other pro-contact groups by first affirming that they’re a CSA PREVENTION CHARITY first and an advocacy group second, if at all.

1 Like

Yeah, but this isn’t the same as that.

Total crap, do you not trust prostasia to properly check potential advisors beliefs align with prostasia’s values? Do you not trust that Prostasia would very quickly get rid of those people? Do you believe that one advisor could sway the organisation in a direction that it’s fundamentally at odds with? I don’t discriminate against ex-offenders, a group who can have an extremely valuable input in this area.

And when they’re not treated as peers they flock elsewhere where they will be treated as peers. You need to weigh up pros and cons, pro is that minors can’t have private DMs on MSC, the con is that minors go elsewhere so aren’t in MSC at all rendering the pro irrelevant. What’s more important to you, minors having an anti-c space where they feel comfortable and welcome, or PR? I dislike MSC regardless but that is besides the point.

1 Like

No one situation is ever “the same” as any other, but like most people who use comparisons, I only use them when they’re explicitly applicable.

I have another comparison coming. I lived 6 years in the Netherlands, and there, if someone is arrested and even convicted for a crime, not only is their last name never released, but it’s illegal to publicize it. The reason is that people have the ability to get into adverse spins, featuring depression, alienation, confusion and crime, and into benevolent spins, where they ‘turn their lives around’ and become socially engaged, able to handle adversity, and completely opposed to crime. If you look at the second graphic at The five basic political parties | thismoonlesssky and see step 4, about karma (the traditional secular philosophical concept, not the superstition about mysterious forces evening things up), you’ll see that there’s a split there where people’s attitude to their past can either push them into getting into a worse situation, or buoy them into staying on the up-and-up.

If an ex-offender is well on the up-and-up and people around them are relentlessly tagging them with the karma of their old, negative cycle, that imposes a strong erosive effect that is one of the few things that could actually reverse the cycle. At some point, some people who are feeling that they’re leading a good life again can be induced to go “oh fuck it, what’s the use,” if they’re relentlessly branded with some infelicity they got into when they were young and stupid. In the Netherlands, it is explicitly a crime to publish that someone committed a crime, using their full name. You are guilty of that crime, but as a non Dutch person, you’re not going to get the punishment that you would in a society that’s more conscientious about facilitating the reform of offenders. Now, we’re talking about a sensible country here, so there are ways that people with particular needs, like the operators of day care operations, can do safety checks and access whether individuals have criminal records in particularly vulnerable areas. If you commit a sex offense involving children in the Netherlands, you can’t expect to be rehabilitated to the point that you can supervise a group of children. You do sacrifice some of your socio-economic possibilities if you commit such a crime. But you don’t have your name bandied all over the internet, and you are not considered to be a tarnished or compromised person.

I don’t know either of the two ex-offenders you so blithely tar with their past bad karma, and neither do you. True, one concealed information, which isn’t good, but why don’t you at least check out the other one as an individual before you start publicly cringing that Prostasia has dealt with them? There’s no need for a well meaning activist organization to participate in your potential crime of transferring bad karma onto good people.

2 Likes

" MSC should allow minors. In fact, they should start allowing private DMs as well," What in the actual fuck. No. 1000x NO. That is the most gross negligent comment I’ve ever read in my entire life. The safety of children will always trump a MAPs rights.

I won’t even entertain any argument or a debate. No. And I honestly don’t care how this sounds: I’m very concerned that an individual who admits to be a map/pedo is suggesting private dms with fucking minors. That is one of the BIGGEST red flags. So no. And if that ever even became an entertained suggestion on MSC I would do everything in my power to SHUT IT DOWN. That’s like trying to say an alcoholic should be allowed to “have a beer every now and then”. No. You are putting gasoline and a lit box of matches to grossly together. I don’t care if they’ve “been on the up and up” for 50 years. No. The childrens safety will always trump anything else. And if you disagree, I never want to year that you “care about the children” again. There is a reason theres plenty of harmful stigmas surrounding them. While I want them to be treated like humans, and be able to get help and get a life, but no. The ideas of allowing pedophiles to PRIVATELY, let alone publicly converse with minors, is the most irresponsible idea I’ve ever heard. In fact in that case, why stop there? Let them have unsuprervised play dates! Just. No.

I’m someone that hated pedophiles. Thought they should all be executed behind the back of a building. Since finding this group, my opinion has greatly lessoned. Because its a mental disorder noone chooses to have. But pretend I’m the public majority. I WANT to try and sympathize. But when you make suggestions like that, my sympathy go out the window. No, I’m not wanting you to kiss my ass for PR. But to make LOGICAL, RATIONAL CHOICES. And that isn’t one. The fact that you can stand there and think that’s a highly rational statement to make, deeply troubles me. Pedos should be treated like humans, but the children come first. I’d be inclined to even try to, compromise with MAPs that ARE MINORS, to be allowed SUPERVISED dms with other minors. But an ADULT SHOULD NEVER PRIVATELY MESSAGE A CHILD EVER. Not even Nonmaps should be privately dming children. Children should be talking to CHILDREN. any adult that seeks out children to conversate with and whatnot, is a red fucking flag. THANKS

There’s a difference between going out and seeking children vs. talking to someone who just happens to be underage, especially online.

3 Likes

@Chie If I get banned for my views I won’t be upset. I just want to tell you, you’re one of the few levelheaded people I’ve ever met. Don’t stop fighting the good fight. I know others here may not agree with you, but I 100% do. You have a good night. And thank you, for making me feel welcome into this community since Day 1. God bless

At most, I’d allow SUPERVISORED dms. But NO ADULT IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, WOULD PRIVATELY DM A CHILD. Sorry not sorry, that’s a societal fact.

Like I said. I’m not debating this. And if you don’t like what I’ve said, tough. I’m one of the most open minded people you’ll meet. But if any of this is to try and sway me to sympathize with the cause, ya’ll are doing the utmost to push me in the wrong direction. If ya’ll can’t convince me, that what Prostasia stands for, is in the best interest of society, and will keep the safety of children at the forfront, than yall have no chance of “nonoffenders” EVER being sympathized with. And if you don’t see that as a bad thing, then god help ya. Cause I know for a fact if people came in here and saw pedos saying they should be allowed to privately message children just because they’re on “good behavior”, the media would turn this into a firestorm. Good night

" MSC should allow minors. In fact, they should start allowing private DMs as well," What in the actual fuck. No. 1000x NO. That is the most gross negligent comment I’ve ever read in my entire life. The safety of children will always trump a MAPs rights.

Why are you here, then? The whole point of Prostasia is to advocate for methods of CSA prevention that are compatible with maintaining human rights. That it’s possible to have both at the same time.

I won’t even entertain any argument or a debate. No. And I honestly don’t care how this sounds: I’m very concerned that an individual who admits to be a map/pedo is suggesting private dms with fucking minors.

Why? And are you aware that this “map/pedo” is also a minor aerself?

That is one of the BIGGEST red flags. So no. And if that ever even became an entertained suggestion on MSC I would do everything in my power to SHUT IT DOWN. That’s like trying to say an alcoholic should be allowed to “have a beer every now and then”. No. You are putting gasoline and a lit box of matches to grossly together. I don’t care if they’ve “been on the up and up” for 50 years.

MAP attractions do not inherently involve a lack of self-control anymore than heterosexuality does.

No. The childrens safety will always trump anything else. And if you disagree, I never want to year that you “care about the children” again.

I do not want to hear “I care about children” from someone who wants to deny children/teens their rights to privacy and freedom.

There is a reason theres plenty of harmful stigmas surrounding them.

Are you implying those reasons are rational?

While I want them to be treated like humans, and be able to get help and get a life, but no.

Are you assuming all of us need help in order to not offend?

The ideas of allowing pedophiles to PRIVATELY, let alone publicly converse with minors, is the most irresponsible idea I’ve ever heard. In fact in that case, why stop there? Let them have unsuprervised play dates! Just. No.

Do you believe DMs on all platforms, not just ones with open pedophiles, should be actively supervised?

I’m someone that hated pedophiles. Thought they should all be executed behind the back of a building. Since finding this group, my opinion has greatly lessoned. Because its a mental disorder noone chooses to have.

It is not, in fact, a mental disorder. And even if it was chosen, it would still be harmless.

But pretend I’m the public majority. I WANT to try and sympathize. But when you make suggestions like that, my sympathy go out the window. No, I’m not wanting you to kiss my ass for PR. But to make LOGICAL, RATIONAL CHOICES. And that isn’t one. The fact that you can stand there and think that’s a highly rational statement to make, deeply troubles me.

I was sitting, actually.

Pedos should be treated like humans, but the children come first. I’d be inclined to even try to, compromise with MAPs that ARE MINORS, to be allowed SUPERVISED dms with other minors. But an ADULT SHOULD NEVER PRIVATELY MESSAGE A CHILD EVER. Not even Nonmaps should be privately dming children.

Why not?

Children should be talking to CHILDREN.

Adults should not be allowed to force children to talk to other children.

any adult that seeks out children to conversate with and whatnot, is a red fucking flag. THANKS

At most, I’d allow SUPERVISORED dms. But NO ADULT IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, WOULD PRIVATELY DM A CHILD. Sorry not sorry, that’s a societal fact.

Nice ableism.

Like I said. I’m not debating this. And if you don’t like what I’ve said, tough. I’m one of the most open minded people you’ll meet.

“Open-minded,” and yet you are unwilling to debate? Press X to doubt.
I’ve met people who are literal offending pro-contacts, you can’t beat them lol.

But if any of this is to try and sway me to sympathize with the cause, ya’ll are doing the utmost to push me in the wrong direction. If ya’ll can’t convince me, that what Prostasia stands for, is in the best interest of society, and will keep the safety of children at the forfront, than yall have no chance of “nonoffenders” EVER being sympathized with. And if you don’t see that as a bad thing, then god help ya. Cause I know for a fact if people came in here and saw pedos saying they should be allowed to privately message children just because they’re on “good behavior”, the media would turn this into a firestorm. Good night

Have you considered that perhaps I am not interested in convincing people like you? That I am not the type of MAPtivist who believes in incrementalism? That the media has already has a firestorm about MSC, without ever mentioning that it supervises DMs? I value the wellbeing of children and MAPs equally (not that the two categories are mutually exclusive), and I am not interested in becoming an assimilationist to appease the likes of you. Good night.

4 Likes

Than you and the rest of NOMAPS with never find sympathy from society XD Good luck lmfao

This is ecactly why Prostasia will never be taken seriously. This is why it got raided. This is why I’ve been hearing people talk about taking things further. Oh well. You missed the entire point. But you gladly proved my point. Lmao

As I said above, are you going to prioritise your feelings and good PR, or young paedophiles having a space they feel comfortable and welcome in, because with the DM ban minors do not feel welcome in MSC and are simply going elsewhere?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

You don’t say?

I want minors who do end up in MSC to feel comfortable and welcome there, with the DM ban they no longer do.

A popular but always invalid comparison. Attraction is not like addiction. Paedophiles do not lack self control any more than the non-paedophilic population. The stigma that we do is unhelpful from a CSA prevention stance.

I make my choices free of stigma and falsehoods about paedophiles. I look at the facts and determine the best choice. It’s hard to set aside that deeply entrenched stigma, I understand that.

No, there are many places and situations in which children and adults may interact, many shared communities and interests and that communication can lead to great things. I worked with kids, would’ve been hard to do that without talking to them.

To clarify my position is not that of prostasia, I disagree with them on many things including some fundamental beliefs.

All the minors on MSC do still DM their adult peers privately, they just do so off platform now in even more isolated spaces away from anti-contact peers. It’s in the anti-c interest to allow private DMs on MSC, it keeps minors there and keeps their DMs on platform.

As chronic said, we’re not interested in becoming assimilationists to appease you.

Showing your true colours I see. Then shoot me. Shoot all the leading researchers in this area, all the leading CSA prevention experts.

You don’t know what treatment is, there isn’t even treatment for paedophilia and you know why? Because it’s a sexual orientation, unchanging and not in need of changing.

2 Likes

@CaptainCrunch
You need to calm down. Reading your posts is like reading /pol/ after Trump won in 2020.

I agree with you on a few things, like not allowing open DMs with minors on a SUPPORT CHAT for people in need of guidance and the needless attempt to kowtow to public sentiment, rather than think critically or objectively. Supervision and safety are utmost concerns and due diligence ought to be taken whenever and wherever possible, and due diligence simply precludes that.

However, you likening minor attraction to alcoholism is a blatant false comparison, one that I, as a victim of CSA and someone who isn’t a MAP, take great offense to. It does nobody justice to make charged comparisons like that and only serves to be a lazy attempt at virtue signaling, rather than produce a coherent argument for WHY allowing minors to be direct-messaged in the MAP Support Chat would be a bad idea, and that argument could be boiled down to how unacceptable would the risk of doing so would be for something to go wrong. No other argument is necessary.

But your hatred towards @Prostasia is insanely misdirected and you’ve admitted to committing heinous and unreasonable acts to try and harm their operations and communities without due consideration.
And that cannot go unaddressed.

6 Likes