With regard to MAP groups, there's the male population as a whole, of which most of them probably, if they'd be honest with themselves, would be open to the idea of messing around with kids if (1) it were legal and (2) they didn't think it would be harmful to the kid. A lot of, but not necessarily most, men are willing to be open about the fact that they're attracted to teenagers and would not mind banging a girl who's sexually developed, under the conditions mentioned above.

In the common parlance, "perverts" are the subset of the male population that's too obvious about having these desires, especially with regard to particular girls (e.g. whistling at the junior high school cheerleaders at a parade). And the "pedophiles" are either perverts by another name or those who actually act on those desires and touch a child.

One of the problems with showing what good people pedophiles are, is that it tends to get interpreted in a negative way, as grooming, for example, or trying to gain trust within a community in order to betray it. It's almost like, the more good you do, and the more people come to like you, the worse you are regarded when your pedophilia is revealed (e.g. because of a CP arrest), because they feel like you've undermined people's ability to trust. On the other hand, mere perverts are simply treated with real or feigned disgust and ostracized and ignored from that point onward, rather than being treated with ongoing hostility and persecution so much (unless they're Jack McClellan).

Looking at past movements, we can see how stuff works. Blacks are viewed as having a legitimate historical gripe that entitles them to various kinds of handouts and indulgences and tolerance for criminal behavior forever, which whites don't mind paying or extending, respectively, because we figure we can afford it; maybe someday it'll become unaffordable, but that day hasn't arrived yet. The assumption has been that throwing them a few bones should appease them and/or at least make whites look like they're trying to be good.

Gays were viewed as harmless; not only are lesbians hot, but all homosexuals seemed to want was their civil rights, which didn't seem too much to ask till they got obnoxious with this "bake the cake" stuff, but by then it was too late; we'd already committed to this course and even enshrined it in our constitutional law. It would have to become totally disastrous, rather than merely annoying and/or unacceptable to a few religious diehards, in order to be reversed.

It went much the same way with women's rights; men figured they could afford to give women opportunities to try to succeed in the work world, and that if women proved to be unsuitable or unambitious, it would just reaffirm how much they need men. They also figured women would probably not abuse their rights in ways that would fuck over good men too much, if they were given legal equality. Plus it was hard not to respect some of the sacrifices women were making for their cause, starving themselves in the prisons and whatnot.

Also, men just didn't have a lot of solidarity behind their male privilege, compared to what the feminists had. At this point, a lot of men are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, but still are more inclined to "go their own way" rather than form a united front to fight for the restoration of the old male privileges, even if they have sexist or misogynistic beliefs.

With pot smokers, there was the advantage right off the bat that most people had smoked pot so weren't totally unfamiliar with it, even if boomers claimed today's pot is stronger. Medical pot provided a convenient wedge issue, with patients on their deathbeds saying that pot provided the only relief that worked. Now, it seems that the racial disparities are finally going to be the coup de grâce to prohibition, although legalizers had been talking about those disparities for decades and nobody cared all that much till now.

The thing is, it's really easy for the media to cherry pick certain stories, and spin cases to make their designated victim look good and their designated victim look bad. For example, a lot of these blacks are thugs, and a lot of these gays have caused problems (such as being the main disease vector for AIDS when it was first introduced), and a lot of these feral women have treated men unjustly (e.g. with false rape allegations).

There are a lot of stories that could be told about pedophiles, and how they've been mistreated. Maybe some of their younger partners, kinda like Vili Faulaau, would be willing to share their stories, if there weren't such a stigma. The thing about Vili, though, is that he seemed more masculine by being able to brag of his conquest; the same might not be true of a young girl (who might be regarded as a slut) or a young boy in a gay relationship (unless he's like Milo Yiannopoulos and decides to own it; but even Milo seemed to have mixed feelings about some stuff that happened).

The movement against sex offender registries mostly focused on telling about the effects these registries have on families of the offenders, since they figured, nobody would care about the offenders themselves. Basically you have to make the arguments that prohibition destroys families stronger than the arguments that the offense itself destroys families. Then again, that wasn't what brought an end to the drug war; wedge issues and people's own experiences with pot provided a lot of the help there.

With pedophilia, people are exceedingly wary of wedge issues, because they're aware of how slippery a slope that could be. That's why they're so vigilant about trying to stop stuff like child porn that could easily awaken men's latent pedophilic desires if they were allowed to watch it. But, it may be that there will come a point where most men have indulged in watching CP, and so are familiar with scenes where children look "complacent," to borrow a term from the Department of Justice. That could work to our advantage.

I think it's going to be hard to win over the women, because they don't like the idea that men would prefer younger girls to them. So maybe we just have to give up on appeasing them, and not even worry about coming off as misogynistic in a way that would offend them.

Maybe men are the ones to win over, especially fathers. A lot of fathers would like to have sex with their daughters, so that's a possible constituency. Or, they might be willing to give their daughter to a pedophile if they could get someone else's daughter in return. There are a lot of possibilities.

Most fathers probably don't want their sons going gay and messing around with an older man, but a lot of them will outgrow that phase anyway and eventually go straight, or else they were destined to be gay regardless because they were born that way, I suspect. Then again, some say that these boys who go straight when they get older are succumbing to social pressure. Idk what to think about boylove, honestly; I think most guys have at one point or another thought about messing around with another dude, though, especially if they went to prison or someplace like that. I don't consider myself gay, but I can occasionally look at a boy and acknowledge that he has sexually attractive characteristics.

The gay rights movement probably won't be much help; I think they want to avoid confrontation with straights over what happens to young boys, even though most gay men would probably like to have sex with a teen or little boy. I think they're afraid of a backlash if they go too far.

We need to show that the desired reforms are going to be in kids' best interests, or at least harmless. Do we have the evidence? If not, we need to get it somehow. Maybe some state like California will be open to doing a social experiment.

We have the Rind report, but we need some academic and scholarly and professional organizations to support the stance that pedophilic behavior toward kids is not bad for them. But they too are probably worried about backlash. Look what happened to University of Missouri-Kansas City after Harris Mirkin published his essay; they lost some funding.

Child porn could turn out to be the real weak point in the anti-pedo armor, because there are legitimate First Amendment issues involved, enough so that three justices in Osborne v. Ohio said laws against possession are unconstitutional. Maybe a good approach would be to put more legal resources into tackling the issue of child porn in the courts, and maybe getting some research done that can be used in these legal briefs.

The fact that most men are at least mildly sexually interested in children (or "child-curious"), and that certain offender populations (like CP offenders) tend to be white men, in a way works against us because it makes it seem like more of a privileged group and therefore less deserving of the protections given to minorities. But it's also an advantage, to the extent that the privilege is real and means that there's some political muscle that can be flexed, if this group can get behind a pro-pedo agenda.

There's a lot of institutional solidarity behind the anti-pedo position; there are a lot of NGOs that make money off of doing research and providing services related to "child exploitation". And the psych profession makes a lot of money off of court-ordered evaluations and treatment for both "offenders" and "victims". There are also a lot of sex offender detectives who like to feel like they're playing a role straight out of Special Victims Unit and make easy money and earn prestige by luring horny men into stings. Horny men aren't known for being a particularly sympathetic group, especially if they're unattractive, so some cultural change around that could be needed.




• ( https link ) Child pornography
[Anonymouse]