Brian Ribbon

Pro-Reform is a framework arguing that cautious legal reforms are needed to offer greater rights and protections to MAPs and Youth. The framework is endorsed by myself as an individual, and the opinions expressed here are not necessarily agreed upon by all members of Mu.

Going forward, my editorials will feature discussions on MAPs, Youth, AMSC, PIM, and what I call 'The Push', where left-behind/ostracized MAPs might become a risk for criminality, violence or extremism. All of my writings will ultimately be underpinned by my pro-reform framework and consent philosophy.

Position statement on MAPs

The Pro-Reform position supports the destigmatization of MAPs regardless of the finer details of their sexual orientation. We believe that people identifying with all sexualities and 'paraphilias' should be able to access compassionate information about themselves and their sexual orientation, speak openly and safely about their feelings, receive mental health support without the threat of being reported, hold lawful meetings with other MAPs without threats of violence, and have access to non-harmful sexual outlets without the risk of prosecution.

Position statement on Youth Rights

The public typically frame youth rights advocacy by MAPs as an attempt to push through favorable changes to AMSC/PIM policies by piggybacking on less controversial youth rights initiatives. This is not a fair criticism, as such attempts to piggyback are doomed to failure in a world where arbitrary age restrictions on matters like voting, contract rights, and purchase of restricted goods are almost universally set even higher than the age of consent. The Pro-Reform position is supportive of youth rights advocacy due to its shared liberal and civil rights ideology. However, it does not see youth liberation as the magical key to reforming attitudes related to AMSC and PIM. It is hoped that youth liberationists will continue their good work independent of the MAP community.

Position statement on AMSC

AMSC-related laws prohibit sexual contact between not only adults and children, but also between adults and pubescent adolescents, and even between two pubescent adolescents. Some jurisdictions acknowledge the reality of teenage sexuality with close-in-age exemptions to their age of consent laws. However, there is no reason why a teenager with the sexual knowledge and desire to consent to sex with another teen would magically be unable to do so with an adult. The argument of a 'power imbalance' or 'eagerness to please' may apply to young children, but it does not apply to teens who are notoriously rebellious and insubordinate to any kind of authority. The Pro-Reform position is nonetheless concerned about the protection of children, and also keen to protect teens who are developmentally behind their peers. Therefore, the proposal is for an Age of Consent of 16/12. Teens between 12-15 years old would be free to choose their own partner of any age, and would have the right to make a complaint up to young adulthood if the older partner deceptively exploited their lack of sexual knowledge or interest. Similar legislation is already in place in countries such as Germany, Uruguay, and Argentina.

Take a look at Pro-Reform's detailed argument on moderate Age of Consent reforms.

Position statement on PIM

The Pro-Reform position has two main proposals related to PIM.

• The simple possession of PIM should be decriminalized.

Regardless of the circumstances of production, there is no mechanism by which the simple possession of PIM causes actual harm to children. Supply and demand economics relate to financial transactions, not pirated media. Unless PIM is purchased, an act which our proposal does not seek to decriminalize, the supply and demand argument against PIM possession has no merit. Additionally, there is no evidence for the claim that viewing PIM encourages contact offenses against children. For many MAPs, it would be more likely to act as a form of sexual release, and therefore a deterrent.

• All virtual erotica should be fully legalized.

Generative AI programs can generate images entirely from text prompts, without the need for sexual images of real children at any stage of the production process. During the entire production and distribution process, there is no point at which any child could ever have been harmed, because the process is entirely artificial. MAPs using these programs to generate artificial PIM have reported difficulties in reproducing children's genitalia precisely because images of real children in pornographic situations were not used in the images on which the AI was trained.

Despite the realities of the technology, photo-realistic and animated representations of minors are criminalized in many jurisdictions. Decriminalizing these images would offer a legal outlet for MAPs, thereby offering a safe alternative to real PIM and making the production of real images of children significantly less desirable. There is no valid child protection justification for the criminalization of entirely fictitious images.

Position statement on 'The Push'

Avoiding 'The Push' is a major component of the Pro-Reform position. It argues that the risk of harm to children and the wider public is severely amplified by the overwhelming stigma, attempts to criminalize every possible outlet of sexual release (including those that don't involve real children), danger of confiding in friends and family, and the difficulty of accessing mental health support.

Minor-attraction does not present an inherent danger to children or the public, but the horrific treatment of MAPs certainly does. Regular adult-attracted people, when faced with unwavering persecution, eventually resort to violence and other harmful behaviors. If the persecution of MAPs continues, it is unfortunately only a matter of time before we see more harmful behavior and violent retaliations.

The Pro-Reform position promotes non-violent activism and does not endorse any kind of violent or sexually harmful behavior. We are, through our efforts in promoting the Pro-Reform framework, trying to mitigate the risk of such outcomes. However, we feel it is necessary to inform the public of the dangers of maintaining the extremely antagonistic approach toward MAPs and their sexual orientation.

Take a look at a real-life example of the consequences of The Push.

Please feel free to discuss this article on our forum thread.