GirlChat #721747

Start A New Topic!  Date Index  Thread Index

disagree on what 'anti-contact' implies

Posted by EthanEdwards on 2017-December-04 16:17:56 EST, Monday
In reply to "Anti-contact" is not pragmatism, it is defeatism posted by Explorer on 2017-December-04 10:23:23 EST, Monday
  Views: 1    Likes: 0     
That is quite a long post you made, full of assertions and passion but few arguments. Many of the points are overlapping. There's a certain "shotgun" feel to it, and I'm surely not going to reply point by point.

Calling it "defeatism" isn't part of a constructive dialog. I don't think allowing adult-child sex is a good idea at all. If you just call that view "defeatism" you're not engaging me but just attempting a steamroller maneuver.

It is currently illegal for an adult to have sex with anyone under age 16 in the US. It deters genuine and indisputable rapes. A defense against a rape accusation with an adult partner is that she agreed at the time but changed her mind. Statutory rape laws make that an impossible defense. Lowering AoC would remove that protection.

As I said, the question is going to be resolved without our help by the teleiophiles. My pedophile's anti-legalization view is of some interest because it has a "man bites dog" quality to it -- though by now Virtuous Pedophiles is pretty big. There are currently 2,513 accounts, and they do not all belong to people who share that basic view, I think it's a safe bet that at least 1,500 are pedophiles who don't want to make adult-child sex more accepted.

It is also unfair to take the consequences of the most rabid hysteria on this point and try to make them stick to more moderate anti-contacters like me. I will fully agree that many of the consequences you cite are bad and I strongly oppose them. But they do not follow necessarily at all from a basic anti-legalization position.

You surely do recognize that there is some adult-child sexual contact that is unwanted and experienced as harmful? That many adults feel that way about the sexual experiences they had as children? You may say that is totally different from girl love, but society has no easy way of making that distinction. (And heck, a person could easily support many of those draconian measures because of a desire to eliminate unwanted contact -- even while seeking to legalize wanted contact).

no matter how eagerly they try to beg for anti-MAPs’ lenience, hardly any would be shown – for general society, they would still be monsters… until the radical changes are enacted. And the “radical” should be interpreted literally here, in the meaning of “coming to the roots” of problems

I disagree strongly with that political judgment. I think VP gets a lot of support and we see some changes in societal views. But how the heck do you expect these 'radical changes' to take place? A secret army of pedophiles who violently seizes power?

And though I'm quoting Baldur here, it is a bad idea to put the fate of MAPs entirely into the hands of people who either hate MAPs or are indifferent...

That may be in some theoretical sense, but there's no way you are going to reduce the hate of MAPs until you convince them that you aren't itching to rape kids.

many “anti-contacts” ... approve of this situation, apparently trying to make sense of the demonstrably absurd idea of the intrinsic negativity of child-adult sex

I told you I supported the ban on the basis of pragmatic considerations, not "intrinsic negativity". You just ignore that. I'm up for an exchange of ideas, but if you aren't reacting to what I actually say then there won't be much point.

This post is archived, preventing any new replies.

Responses