With my latest return from the abyss of necessary (but regrettable) hiatus, I figured I would share a few details on the common traits of antis that I learned over my many years with the community, and dealing with their counterparts in other political communities. I am also figuring that now would be a prime time for that, since we have another anti prominently making his presence known here, so maybe this is a novel time for my return :-)
I have to do this in 2 parts, since the onion doesn't seem to like it when I try to make too big a post at one time.
The following are the first 15 of a list of the 30 main points I have observed in antis during my 20 years as part of the MAP community, and for many years prior to that while reading about and watching televised dissemination of their favored narrative. This is compiled for whatever it may be worth to anyone reading it.
1. Antis, whether from outside or within the MAP/Kind community, almost always spout the same arguments. This is why they meet such informed challenge when they engage us, as we are seasoned veterans in dealing with their argument. So are non-MAPs who have a particularly strong regard for civil liberties in a more sweeping sense.
2. Their arguments are based more or less entirely on emotions, anecdotal statements, popular appeal, infantalization of youths "for their own good", a strong hint (or sometimes blatant expression) of misandry, and unsubstantiated negative assumptions about adults coupled with a dichotomous unwavering belief in adult wisdom. Their ideology is very low on scientific evidence and research that does not appeal to public sentiment; or to their own, which is mostly in harmony with the latter.
3. The anti attitude is very appealing to contemporary liberals, who have gone a long way towards developing support for Nanny State laws that prohibit personal choices they disapprove of for certain demographics. These prohibitions very often (though most certainly not always) target unpopular sexual choices. This is not limited to unpopular sexual choices from youth, but also with women, as you see with so many liberals that oppose the right for adult women to choose sex work as a vocation (we'll get to the sex trafficking hysteria in just a bit). This means that many liberal antis are essentially moral crusaders at their core.
4. Social conservatives make good antis as well, and for obvious reasons in their case. Hence, conservatives and contemporary liberals can make surprisingly comfortable bedfellows when it comes to controlling the choices and lifestyles of others, even if coming from different perspectives.
5. Antis are huge on presuming to know what other people think, and make their broad assumptions on this basis.
6. The anti ideology hinges not on demonstrable evidence or cogent research but on popular narrative. These narratives make for good press and appeal to readers on a deep emotional level, and successfully promote laws in accordance.
7. The primary motive for anti-choicers, in contrast to what they claim, is basic (though not necessarily overriding) loyalty to the status quo as it stands. They may protest individual aspects of it, but their worldview is basically in harmony with the prevailing WEIRD version. They keep any protests they do make to be well within bounds of "acceptable" political discourse, i.e., stances that may be controversial but are nevertheless considered "debatable" to mainstream liberal thought (as opposed to radical).
8. Contemporary liberals, despite many of them being atheists, are nevertheless as prone to deep-seated, emotionally stimulating beliefs as any religious person. In the case of antis, though, their beliefs take on secular versions of superstitious religious beliefs. For example, in the eyes and narratives of contemporary liberals, the Satanic ritual abuser morphs into the sex trafficker (the modern counterpart of the early 20th century white slaver); the Devil or Slenderman-types waiting in the hidden depths of the forest to abduct and torture kids morphs into the depraved torturer/exhibitor of children and teens that allegedly infests the mysterious depths of the Dark Web.
9. The strength of the anti narrative and accompanying assumptions are that they can never be proven, and focus on a hysterical concern over what might be true over what can be proven as such.
10. Meticulously conducted research or investigations that successfully disprove or provide good demonstrable evidence against their system of beliefs and claimed assumptions about the world are simply ignored or dismissed by them. If said research may turn off corporate sponsors, then they can't be sources worth acknowledging, right? They are well aware that as long as their beliefs are very popular on an emotional level, they need not be overly concerned about anything to do with convincing evidence at this point. Accordingly, they tend to judge the merits of researchers on how well the media judges them, which is tantamount to not being too unattractive to corporate sponsors or off-putting to the readers.
11. Antis have a neurotic mistrust or dislike of anything to do with sex on a deep-rooted level that often only manifests when it comes to dealing with controversial subjects which allow them to express it (at least if they are liberal rather than socially conservative). They purport to have no problem with sexual activity when conducted between consenting adults, but this claim is destroyed when you note their insistence that adult women who choose sex work for a vocation are only doing so because, in one way or another, they do not actually have a choice (e.g., enter the sex trafficker or the "oppressive" male in a more general sense). Yet it already becomes evident that antis do not have any particular love for the notion of freedom of choice, at least not when the latter takes the form of a choice they disapprove of and goes against the integrity of the status quo and its popular narratives.
12. The above point is why, as Baldur pointed out in a previous post over the past few days, that antis place such a disproportionate concern upon sexually transmitted diseases than the many even more deadly or injurious diseases plaguing the world that are not sexually transmitted, e.g., ebola, malaria, yellow fever, anthrax, etc. Protecting kids from exposure to non-sexual diseases do not have the same emotional "punch" to them that diseases connected to sexual activity do.
13. The above overcompensating concern also extends into an anti's near-total lack of concern for many readily demonstrable threats to younger people's lives and emotional well-being that do not involve sexuality. For instance, this is why you almost never see them even acknowledging youth liberationists' concerns for our society's reliance on the personal automobile -- responsible for by far the highest number of fatalities and serious injuries inflicted upon youths every year; parental neglect & abuse -- antis rarely want to even discuss the harm that many kids per year receive as a result of being confined to the insular nuclear family; the emotional and even physical abuse that so many kids endure every year by being compelled to attend the authoritarian schooling system with its rigidly hierarchical and heavily standardized regimen of "learning" that is actually based on the methodology of the Prussian military developed in the early 19th century; or the forced denial of access to information at the discretion of parents and politicians that could potentially enable kids to learn about the world around them and thus make more informed choices. This is why their claim that their primary goal is the well-being of kids overall does not stand up to serious objective scrutiny. Anything that may cause kids a lot of demonstrable harm on either a physical or emotional level (or both) that is not heavily disapproved of by society, which is arguably necessary for the status quo as-is to function properly, and does not involve sexuality of any sort is almost always given everything from only nominal displays of concern to a complete free pass.
14. Antis, even those from within the MAP community, have an obsessive focus on particular aspects of sexual contact that teleiophile adults place so much emphasis on, but which many MAPs in reality do not. This prominently includes the focus on specifically intercourse, which MAPs (both pedophiles and hebephiles) do not focus so heavily upon but which antis continue to be concerned about anyway because: a) non-MAPs are willfully ignorant about the MAP attraction base overall, and thus tend to project their own obsessions and base their assumptions upon -- e.g., if adult sexuality is so obsessed with penetration and kinky forms of rough sex, as is evident in all of their pornography, then it must be "safe" to presume that MAP sexuality shares a similar focus; b) MAP anti-choicers may know better, being MAPs themselves, but their narrative requires baseless assumptions in order to carry their ideology so they do not challenge this aspect of the teleiophile list of assumptions and projections.
15. Antis often claim to be concerned about kids being "traumatized" by relationships with MAPs. In other words, they often claim that romantic relationships with adults are not good for the emotional well-being of younger people, or at the very least carry a high inherent degree of risk for doing so. This forces them to blatantly ignore their ready degree of tolerance for how many common practices and policies of the current status quo that are known to demonstrably harm kids emotionally -- such as the effects of forced authoritarian schooling (already mentioned above), the rigid rules of society that deprive kids of full personhood and place them at the mercy of adult authority, the effects on kids in foreign countries of war violence & imperialism (contemporary liberals tend to support war & imperialism as much as any conservative), or the often traumatic effects of forcibly de-sexualizing kids -- e.g., punishing them severely for taking nude or provocative selfies or relentlessly shaming youth celebrities for taking "provocative" photoshoots & bullying them into apologizing for doing so, as was done to Miley Cyrus (and who recently made this clear in the media in dramatic fashion when she redacted the apology she was forced to make by Disney and the media back when she was 15).