@lolitasyndrome the fact that you would publicly state this is stunning to me. I feel sorry for you in a way, but I hope a community of this identity group never forms here.
Echo chambers and communities provide validation and support for certain ways to live. It allows political capital to accrue, leading to legal changes. This has happened consistently with the LGBTQ community, who has seen a massive rise in social acceptance.
LGBTQ affects people who can consent. Minors cannot consent due to their underdeveloped prefrontal cortex and compliance to authority figures. Because of this, MAPs should not be supported.
It is not a good thing to be a MAP. Please seek therapy if you haven't already, and for god's sake never act out on your impulses.
@Demosthenes @lolitasyndrome "LGBTQ affects people who can consent. Minors cannot consent due to their underdeveloped prefrontal cortex and compliance to authority figures. Because of this, MAPs should not be supported. "
The fact that the relationship between children and adults is something we should not defend is not an excuse for not supporting maps.
MAPs involve topics that go far beyond "adult child relationships". And there are several ways to act on this attraction that do not involve abuse.
Just because you are afraid of the possibility that this movement would cause people to defend this type of relationship is not a sufficient and necessary argument for not supporting MAPs.
@nate_river @lolitasyndrome "The fact that the relationship between children and adults is something we should not defend is not an excuse for not supporting maps" you are technically true here, but the trouble with social media is that it tends to expand the norms and boundaries of acceptable behavior within groups.
Look at gay rights. It changed to LGB rights. Then LGBT. Now its LGBTQIA+, and is now pushing towards not even gendering children.
@Demosthenes @lolitasyndrome You have an interesting insight into history. And in fact it is a view that I agree with you.
But gay rights would not have passed if most people in the movement itself and outside did not agree with that.
The vast majority of MAPs are against relationships with children and would not advocate that kind of thing. The most they could defend is the philosophical discussion of "whether this is right or wrong" (which is a discussion that every MAP should have the right to have).
I don't see the MAP movement in the distant future as something that would promote this type of relationship as something to be legalized.
What I imagine is that we would have isolated groups that could potentially try to do that. But that would surely fail because we are becoming an increasingly conscious society.
@nate_river @lolitasyndrome "The vast majority of MAPs are against relationships with children and would not advocate that kind of thing." They aren't currently. I'm just afraid of what will happen in several years if it's allowed.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Thank you for staying respectful.
@Demosthenes @lolitasyndrome I think that fear is not an excuse to take away people's right to create communities and to be able to fight for their rights. And I honestly don't think this is an argument about whether it should be allowed or not. For it is not the right of anyone to prevent these people from having communities.
But yes, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I am happy to see that you were respectful in this conversation, thanks for that.