Brian Ribbon

Earlier this month, I wrote an article focusing on the need for greater tolerance within our own community. I discussed various points of contention, such as alliances with other paraphiles, contact stances, and generational differences. The article generated a fair amount of criticism, which was inevitable. Let's consider some of the issues raised.

Identity politics within the community

One of the main criticisms in response to my article was my focus on identity politics, in particular the discussion of 'woke' ideology. Personally, I would not describe myself as 'woke', and I do have concerns about the extremity of some aspects of what might be described as part of the 'woke agenda'. However, I also feel it is both morally and practically correct to support other marginalized groups, and make some effort to avoid using language that offends them. It's worth reiterating that I did, in my original article, express the need for marginalized groups to also less readily take offense when it was obviously not intended. There's a difference between someone screaming the n-word and an accidental misgendering that was not in bad faith. What I ask for is some effort from all parties.

Still, to some people, even getting involved in identity politics is a mistake. Mu reader John Tawvnik wrote in with his concerns over the perceived focus on identity politics over legal reforms, in a guest blog published earlier this week. He summarized:

The priority of any group for MAP activism must be on taking action to eliminate legal persecution of MAPs, rather than on affirmation of identity.

In my original article, I endorsed my pro-reform framework, which proposes a number of legal reforms including a hybrid Age of Consent offering greater freedoms and protections for young people and their older partners, as well as the decriminalization of the possession of PIM. These reforms would improve the lives of MAPs significantly, but to advocate them, we first need a movement. This is where identity is important.

Getting people on board

The focus of identity in my original article was not so much about peace on Earth, but about building a movement. Right now, there is barely a movement at all; many of the major MAP communities are exclusionary anti-contact and even anti-PIM, or they are social clubs or image-sharing groups that do not engage in significant activism. Without a united team of people working to promote reforms, we have no chance of achieving any success.

Mu's interactions with other communities and on social media revealed a significant number of young MAPs - potential activists who could be effective in the future - who subscribe to what many people would call 'woke' ideology. These people are severely put off by what they perceive as intolerant behavior, and their complaints are not always without merit. Given the ease of not offending them, my original article provided examples of how to talk with them which do not require much effort. While I understand that policing one's own language can in fact be annoying, I contest that refusing to change a word in a sentence because it's 'too woke', when it affects getting people on board for the mother cause, is just unnecessary stubbornness. If we want to get anywhere, we're all going to have to make some small compromises.

Speaking of community building, I need to veer off course a bit and talk about the darknet sites. Mu cannot have representatives on such sites, or at least would be extremely foolish to do so. However, there are reportedly hundreds of thousands of users on the major sites, and my understanding is that there is very little interest in activism among their members at present. I am not going to clumsily suggest visiting illegal sites, but I will ask this: if you happen to know anyone who goes to the major darknet sites, please encourage them to share links to activist content without viewing any illegal material in the process. We desperately need to get people from these sites interested in activism, not just whacking off. If there really are more MAPs on a single darknet site than all of BC, BLOL, VoA et al. combined, recruiting them into activism could have a huge impact on our movement.

What I am proposing, in my call for tolerance and community-building, is handing out metaphorical olive branches and manifestos to all those who might potentially join us. To get people on board, we need to be nicer, even if we might not agree on every point.

Identity politics facing outward - a dual approach

Let's look at a couple more comments in response to the debate over my article.

In fact, only in a situation of relative comfort can one focus on identity and affirmation as the core of politics, rather than on concrete changes.

• John Tawvnik, in his guest blog

This corresponds with what I've been saying about how woke/identity politics is actually establishment politics and how when truly marginalized groups such as ours imitate the political tactics of the establishment, we are actually putting the cart before the horse. When we beg for the same protectionist favoritism that other establishment groups have attained, we overlook the fact that we are not a favored group to begin with.

• Errant, in response to Mr. Tawvnik, via BoyChat

My position here is misrepresented. Although I wouldn't mind certain legal protections, I am not desperately looking to 'join the establishment' via achieving protected class status or cozying up to governmental organizations in general. Mu supports such activism rather than being opposed to it, but it's not a top priority for myself as an individual editor. Besides, we have MEDAL for that kind of thing. My critics ought to note that I have not, at any point since my return, suggested that 'soft reforms' such as image improvement and identity politics should be pursued exclusively, even if they have been a major focus of my writing for the past few months. In fact, in my pro-reform framework, I make the argument that soft reforms and legal reforms must be pursued in tandem. My return to activism is in no small part encouraged by my rejection of the outright NOMAP views I promoted as a teenager back in the second wave. As I already wrote in my framework:

Many of our detractors believe that, without treatment, we will all eventually act on our feelings, and that we will cause harm by doing so, either through the use of PIM or by engaging in AMSC. While it is not correct that PIM always depict AMSC, and the argument that every instance of viewing AMSC contributes to the abuse of a child is incredibly illogical in itself, all arguments against PIM (except for religious nonsense) have absolutely no basis if we can successfully argue that AMSC is not inherently harmful. Of more importance, if AMSC were accepted as a potentially positive experience, much like AASC and MMSC, the argument that non-offenders are nothing better than ticking time bombs would be of no use either.

[...]

Every argument against non-contact MAPs is predicated on the belief that 'pro-contact' MAPs are fighting against: the idea that AMSC is harmful. And with their staunch position against AMSC, NOMAPs are now at a point where the inflexibility of their position is shooting themselves in the foot. The anti-contact lobby needs to adopt a more moderate position.

Clarifications on TOC and Virped

There were some misunderstandings about my thoughts on Tom O'Carroll and VirPed.

Contrary to diogenes' interpretation of my original article, I consider community legend TOC to be a major asset. However, being a beloved figure and an idol to whom many young MAPs look up, I feel he needs to bite his lip just a little to avoid putting off our future activists. As a much less famous representative of our community, I have some extremely strong anti-religious and anti-anglo views that I do not share in my articles. Although I could easily connect these beliefs with my discussion of MAP issues, to do so would detract from my main objective and be unnecessarily divisive if fleshed out in full. While TOC certainly has the right to express his opinion on whatever issue he likes, a little bit of self-censorship would go a long way toward building a stronger and more cohesive activist community. I'm quite aware that he doesn't give a damn what I think and will continue as he sees fit.

As for VirPed, I want to be very clear about my position on their work. I cannot support the anti-contact extremism advocated by their current representatives. I have already explained above that I do not believe rabidly anti-contact politics is helpful, at least if it insists on promoting the unhelpful belief that all AMSC is inherently wrong. This position, now actively endorsed by current VirPed leadership, strays somewhat from the more moderate personal opinions of one of Virped's founders, Ethan Edwards. Ethan's blog, which at one point espoused support for consensual AMSC between adults and teens, is now ominously missing from the VirPed site* but archives do exist. It is highly regrettable that VirPed's current leadership has chosen to erase part of their organization's history and adopt an extreme position with no room for debate. I would be willing to work with them if and only if they chose to soften their approach, though it's fairly clear that the current leadership has no desire for such things to happen.

• After this article was published, the founders of VirPed uploaded their older content to a new site.

A valid complaint

The aforementioned Errant raised a valid criticism of the unity model in his reply to Tawvnik's critique:

If I may contradict my last point just a bit, I don't think the inoffensive intent of the virpeds is necessarily a drawback at this point. Activism benefits from pluralism and if you have MLK on one side and Malcolm X on the other side, whatever disunity in tactics may be apparent is also a display of common grievance. The most vibrant movements generate multiple heads. They don't need to have the same tactics and they don't even need to have the same goals. But if the current task before us is to gain visibility as human beings and to get our voices heard and taken seriously, even the most raucous pluralism makes it harder for us to be dismissed as a bunch of pervs with nothing more than criminal intent. The virpeds operating alone may be a dead end for activism, but the virpeds operating as one part of a larger community makes us look alive and kicking.

Overall, I agree with this premise, but we cannot have unwaveringly extreme views that attempt to drown each other out. This is happening right now, amounting even to doxxing and pro-c people being reported to the authorities. I will not name the aggressors here because doing so would inflame tensions even further, but such behavior highlights the extremity of the divide. It is not as simple as Malcolm X endorsing violence while MLK promotes peace; unlike with the MAP community divisions, those two were not actively at each other's throats. The MAP schism is currently much worse.

Still, I can accept that moderate pro-c and moderate anti-c voices should be put forward by their respective advocates, and that perhaps expecting everyone to argue as one is unrealistic. I am personally pro-c leaning, but I do believe moderate anti-c individuals such as Nitro and Arden are very much needed. Moreover, the recent dramas over MAP Camp and Bluesky show that the battle for acceptance of non-contact MAPs is far from won, and Mu's own survey of various boards revealed that hostility and hate were more pressing concerns than legal reforms for a very large number of MAPs. While pro-c voices can (and do) endorse the anti-c arguments focused on tolerance and understanding, there are clearly two major themes of argumentation that may in fact be better coming from two different voices:

• Minor-attraction comes from a place of love and does not imply sexual activity with minors (anti-c focus)
• Consensual sexual activity between adults and minors is not always harmful or wrong (pro-c focus)

I firmly believe both of these points to be true, but there is an obvious benefit in having different people making these two distinct arguments. That's not to say one can't argue both points, and that is indeed what I have been trying to do, albeit more subtly in the case of the pro-c argument. The pro-c position, as I have already explained, does support the anti-c argument to an extent as it challenges the main argument on which the anti-MAP mentality is supposedly predicated. I do say supposedly because humans have a long history of hate that does not rely on presumptions of harm, though many groups oppressed in such a way were eventually able to liberate themselves.

Errant's argument is more or less correct. However, the fact remains that we cannot be shooting each other down. The anti-c community cannot be treating moderate pro-c individuals as child rapists, and the pro-c community cannot be treating moderate anti-c individuals as antis. Furthermore, the anti-c community cannot be proactively endorsing anti-AMSC attitudes, because doing so damages a key argument that eventually comes around to supporting their own demands for liberation of the MAP identity.

Moving forward

Moving forward, I urge people in the community to try to be somewhat pleasant to each other, avoid advocating extreme views, and not act in bad faith toward people with whom they disagree. We need to be at war with our real enemies, not fellow MAPs with different perspectives on our shared sexual orientation. I would also like to see activist resources shared as widely as possible, including in communities where activism is not frequently discussed and which may not follow the famous 'BoyChat rules'.

My original article, and this one, aims to encourage readers to find areas of unity rather than division. Furthermore, building on my arguments in the original and the much appreciated feedback from the community, I reiterate the need for co-operative arguments while accepting the value of presenting diverse perspectives as unique voices. But again, that final point relies on us not attacking each other in the process. Can we do it?

Please feel free to discuss this article in our dedicated forum thread.