Apertado's Pedophile Funposting!

Apertado's Pedophile Funposting! is an argumentation guide written for pro-MAP people to handle internet debates with anti-MAP people.
Download the PDF
Download the .odt

Web version:

Pedophile Funposting! Argumentation Manual to Handle Internet Debates With Anti-MAP People Written by me and the guys and girl at Boychat for the minor-attracted people in general. Introduction When something is worth fighting for, it doesn't matter if it's a possible goal or not; just fight for it, to death if needed. Minor-attracted people, specially pedophiles, are a group that is very misunderstood everywhere. Because of people's bias and media hammering wrong ideas away, it's hard for us to get a civil conversation going. But notice how people react to us: they either don't reply or stifle our voice, by filing bogus trouble tickets to get us banned. When they reply, they don't argue. They deny vehemently, as if speaking aloud with ears closed. Are they scared of something? They probably are not. They are just filled with self-righteousness, preconceptions and hate. Have mercy on them. But if you ever get in a real debate with anyone, you are likely to win. That's because scientific evidence of beneficial intimacy with children, as well as evidence that adult-child sex isn't always harmful, is being produced to this day. It never ceased and keeps coming up. We have science on our side. Unbiased science, that is, as a lot of good minds won't discuss this subject due to fear of losing things like ad revenue or State funds. But we have access to those studies, articles, books, interviews, from the seventies to 2017. We have a damn lot of evidence and argumentation that are unheard of by many people, because they never cared to look it up. They took things for granted. If people aren't going to speak it publicly, we gotta speak about it and we have the Internet. We gotta use it wisely. There must be a strategy to make people actually debate and be interested in the studies we dig. We have to set preferred demographics, aim for the undecided MAPs who are confused, make people feel safe around us, even if we are up to tearing age of consent apart. Hard task, given the stigma that we carry. However, that stigma is being slowly removed. The proof of that is that confused MAPs are embracing the cause, rather than just trusting what media says, the changing views in science and philosophy and, what still baffles me, the spawning of “supporters”, people who share our views without sharing our attractions and struggles. If our argumentation works, along with stigma reduction, we may be a sizable minority to be taken in consideration during elections. Imagine people seeking votes from us. Strange, isn't it? We gotta invest into changing people's minds and I hope this document comes handy. The next decade is going to be hell exciting! Arguing on-line has two benefits. The first is, obviously, getting our views out there, for people who are more open-minded to read, as well as to provide an “invitation” for undecided MAPs. That works well: I was anti-contact before reading Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch, because I thought that traumatic contacts were majority. The second benefit is anonymity. There's no need to fear backlash online, unless you really are the kind of guy who gets offended by words on the screen. If we do it alright, they may even admit defeat, even if just for themselves. They, of course, won't say in public that they lost. Take, for example, Todd Nickerson. What if he suddenly felt like we are right and he is wrong? He built a community, with many followers, a philosophy, a praised website, he wouldn't be willing to admit defeat because that would mean throwing away everything he built around his mistake. So, don't expect people admitting defeat to you, but enjoy when they flee. Cause they eventually do. Three points should be addressed, tho. 1. Many people don't argue with us decently because our argumentation is lengthy and enrages them. Take, for example, Newgon's Debate Guide. I would have to summarize each argument, as some are three-paragraphs-long. If I got in an argument on Twitter, the Guide would be almost useless, unless I had a compiled list of arguments that I already summarized. They aren't up to reading a wall of text. Arguing on Twitter is a nightmare, no less. So, if we want to have chances of winning, we gotta keep it short and complement with a link to a study that supports our affirmation, if they or a passer-by is up to clicking. I'll try to keep each reply as short as possible, removing addendum. It's also needed because, according to Herbert Marcuse, in his Ideologia da Sociedade Industrial, short sentences are harder to criticize by people who just don't or can't think (majority of the population), compared to a long text. To make people more encouraged to read your point, fill in the gaps with personal reflections, experiences, jokes, don't be too dry. Try to give a personal spin to things, be emotive, express feelings too. But the core of the argumentation, the argument itself, needs to be short, clean, self-contained and concise. 2. Our accounts are banned due to bogus reasons, even when we don't break any rules. So, a good way to keep active is having an account queue. You create two accounts, but uses only one. If that account is banned, you have a second one that is unused. Make a third account and move to the second. If the second is banned, move to the third and make a fourth. If the third is banned, move the fourth and make a fifth. And so on. If you need to validate e-mail, Mail.com is painfully easy to create and manage, requiring no cellphone, but it's much better to use disposable e-mail services, such as Abine's “mask me” feature in Blur Firefox add-on. You can have one e-mail attached to each account that way. To keep your accounts from being easily banned, don't use your account solely for arguing. Use them normally and share others things, rather than focusing only on proving your point about sexuality. 3. When people try to reduce things to a flame war, by just saying hate sentences, there are two ways of dealing with the problem. The first is to poke fun at how ridiculous they are being and try to make humor out of it. It's well-known that humor disarms people. Schopenhauer said that there's no better argument than an insult. Making the person lose it's temper is a good way to make them embarrass themselves. You shouldn't enrage them in the argumentation, but only responsively. If they hate, you piss them further off, without descending to their level, by the means of joking about it and producing humor out of their behavior. Remember we are also thinking of who is reading, but not participating. If they are reduced to a flamed ball of squeak and you still keep your cool, people who are reading will tend to give you more credit than to the other. The second way is playing dumb and it's my favorite. When someone tries to hate, ask why. They will then answer with why they hate. They might say things like “kids can't consent”, “pedophiles harm children”, “children aren't sexual” and so on. All of those are argumentation grounds. Whenever you ask why the hate, the arguing is extended and you can keep plowing. Eventually, they quit. The idea of this document is to make each argument short enough to be copied and pasted. If people copy and paste arguments from here, ipsis literis, the sensation would be that the accounts are controlled by a single user or a small group of users, which is inaccurate. They will think that we have a limited set of arguments. So, when someone sees the same argument used in two or so places, he will make one counter-argument for them all. If it's the same person or a bot, they expect the same answer. What if the two people reply differently? It allows to surprise. So, copy-pasting is encouraged. Be original whenever your common sense says you must be. Also, you are encouraged to enrich others by sharing your own arguments made in the same model, in simplified manner, with links if possible (not all arguments will have links, specially if it's something too original). The arguments They are sorted by theme and follow an structure: question asked, possible answers. Some of these questions really are “what the fuck?” moments, but trust me, people ask those. An answer can only qualify if it's 140-characters-long or less. Benefit 1 What would society gain by allowing intergenerational intimacy? Answer 1: The amount of cases flooding the justice system would decrease, meaning less tax-paying. Why use public money to punish harmless intimacy? Answer 2: Intervention in harmless relationships causes harm to children. Intervening often causes trauma. Answer 3: Some data shows that those allowed to participate in consensual intergenerational intimacy have better understanding of themselves. 2 What children gain by having that intimacy? Answer 1: Desired physical touch is beneficial, loving attention increases self-esteem. See Development: question 4. 3 How can it enable them better physical or mental development? See Development: question 4. 4 Does it have a short-term benefit? Answer 1: Physical pleasure releases beneficial chemicals into the body, seducing an adult is a source of pride for a child. 5 Will it improve grades? Answer 1: It may. This is a common reason why parents are pleased by the intergenerational relationship of their child. Answer 2: Children are likely to want to impress their adult lover, in particular by studying harder. 6 Will it improve emotional stability? Answer 1: For diverse reasons, the family may not fulfill all the emotional needs of their children, which can be found with a lover. Answer 2: Caring love, attention towards the child may help him feel more secure and gain self-esteem; both are helpful for emotional stability. See Development: question 4. 7 Would it improve family relationships? Answer 1: It may. The common conflicts between children and their parents can find a positive escape in an outside loving relationship. 8 What would kids learn from it? Answer 1: They would learn about their own bodies, sexuality, self-respect and mutual respect. 9 How would kids use that knowledge in adult life? Answer 1: We base behaviors on previous experiences. Lacking meaningful relationship, we use child-parent relationship as model for love life. Answer 2: Having a positive experience with a mature person gives an advantage in later relationships: less stress, more hindsight. 10 Does the possible benefit compensates the harm that it could cause? Answer 1: Adult-child intimacy is generally safe. Traumatic experiences are a statistical minority. The benefit would, of course, compensate the harm. Answer 2: By getting rid of age of consent, we avoid putting a lot people in jail for doing no harm and avoid putting kids through unecessary therapy. Child porn. 1 How can you expect it to be allowed if kids can not consent? Answer 1: Not all porn involves real people. [EN: wrt kids cannot consent: "Obviously, there’s consent in the legal, underage sense of the term, but there’s also consent as a mental state (basically, the feeling of wanting to do something) that occurs regardless of age." - Jesse Bering] 2 What are the chances of the kids growing up and feel disgusted for what they did? Answer 1: The main reasons for this are exploitation and social stigma. None of which are specific or intrinsic to child porn. 3 What about the harm that child porn does to the models? Answer 1: Reducing the stigma attached to child porn would likely help them, in particular they could speak more freely about their experience. 4 Laws against child porn keep society in shape, don't they? Answer 1: By making no distinction between harmful, exploitative material and harmless one, laws may indeed favor the worst behaviors. See Laws, Justice: questions 6, 7 and 9. 5 What would we gain by allowing child porn? Answer 1: Porn is often used to release sexual tension. It may help some people to control their urges and not force an unwilling child. 6 Won't child porn pave the way to legalize child prostitution? Answer 1: This is a slippery slope argument. Has the legalization of marijuana increased the use of hard drugs? 7 Isn't it immoral? Answer 1: What we call morality is often just the cover of our prejudices and gut feelings. Nothing wrong with caring love towards children. Answer 2: Anyway, isn't it more immoral to deny the reality of human desires, and condemn actions regardless of the existence of any intrinsic harm? Answer 3: Many societies and civilizations all around the world have included such relationships in the moral standards. Why couldn't we? 8 Is it true that children and adolescents produce child porn? If so, are they arrested? See Laws, Justice: question 6. 9 Is it true that parents produce child porn? If so, are they arrested? See Laws, Justice: question 9. 10 What classifies as child porn? Answer 1: One problem with the legal definition of child porn is that it is very broad and open to interpretation, and not based on harm done. Child sexuality. 1 How can someone in their sane mind say that children are sexual from birth? Answer 1: Fetuses masturbate in the womb, babies manipulate their genitals for several minutes. Why else, if not because it feels good? Answer 2: Kids masturbate because it feels good. The difference is that adults know why. Nonetheless, it's still masturbation, still sexual pleasure. 2 How does child sexuality show and how does it relate to pedophilia? Answer 1: They want to see, touch, feel... They have many questions. How many adults would be up to answering them in a satisfying manner? 3 How does it differ from adult sexuality? Answer 1: For one, kids don't know about sex. So, their sexuality has nothing to do with penetration. They indulge at skin level. 4 What do kids actually desire? See question 2. 5 Do kids really want sex? Answer 1: Many teens cry for lowering age of consent. Kids have sexual games among themselves. Those who don't want sex may still want intimate play. 6 Isn't it just curiosity? Answer 1: Nonetheless, a sexual curiosity. They want to know about sexual things. Difference is that they don't realize those things are sexual. 7 How could someone help a kid with their sexuality, if such was allowed? Answer 1: Kids often feel insecure and guilty when discovering sexuality. An older partner they can share it with can provide some relief. 8 What would happen if I repressed my kid's sexuality? Answer 1: Shame over their own body, reluctance to enter relationships, sexual incompetence, sexual deviance, emotional instability. See Development: question 4. 9 Is there a benefit of allowing child sexuality to express itself? What's acceptable? Answer 1: That would be a great way to both teach sexual education and common sense. What's acceptable varies by environment. 10 How should the law deal with child sexuality? Answer 1: The same way it should deal with intergenerational relationships. It's okay if no harm is done. 11 At what age should intimacy be allowed? Why? See Consent: question 2. 12 Why sex is seemingly the only youthful activity that faces so much opposition? Answer 1: There's a general dislike of sex in society, not necessarily in child sexuality. The aversion to sex in society extends to children. Answer 2: Notions that sex compromises virtue, that sex damages youth... these outdated, ritualistic distortions are the cause of abuse. Answer 3: Because the subject matter is embroiled in ritualistic, and unfounded stereotype that date back to ancient believes of paranoia and control. Answer 4: Parents need to protect the boys and, aided by psychiatry, a hysteric view is taken on boys that had a loving romantic passion with someone. Answer 5: Pregnancy, sexual diseases, stigma, all play into the “why”. Education is removing these problems exponentially. Consent. 1 If kids don't know better, how can they consent to sex or intimacy? Answer 1: Intimacy and sex is down to bodily friction, it's not hard to get prepared to. They can be informed in an afternoon. Answer 2: Kids can get sex reassignment surgery at age 12. Sex and intimacy are way safer than that. So they can consent in childhood. 2 Why should age of consent be abolished? See Laws, Justice: question 1. 3 Why can't age of consent be just lowered or stay the way it is? Answer 1: Age of consent, no matter how low it is, still punishes potentially harmless and beneficial relationships. 4 Why can't age of consent be raised? Answer 1: That would multiply the problems. A lot of people already think it's too high. Rising would do no good. 5 Is there a difference between willingness (simple consent) and consent (informed)? Answer 1: Willingness is “yes”, while informed is “yes, because...”. Both can only be validated after the consequences. See Laws, Justice: question 2.