Hello from Antarctica! OK, not really, but a lot of people would like to know where I live and I'm not especially inclined to inform them.

I'm sorry that I haven't been posting so much recently. It's hard when you live three separate and individually challenging lives. A teacher, a MAP activist, and last but not least... an AF to a gaggle of young adolescent boys.

I had a busy time of things last weekend, with lots of sexy shirtless fun. Shirts are seriously overrated. Well, maybe not in Antarctica...

This post started off as a collection of scattered thoughts, which I then connected to commentary I was informed of half way through writing. And rather than rewrite when I simply don't have the energy, I'll just tie it all together at the end. Not everything needs to be polished, and it's not like pro-pedophile commentary is regularly nominated for a Pulitzer Prize anyway.

But Pulitzer Prize committee, if you would like to make a new category of 'best pro-pedophile blogger', Tom and I could certainly slog it out!

Our pride bothers them most

Recently, one of my readers argued that when people tell MAPs to 'get help', the outcome they envisage is getting rid of the sexual attraction. I think this reader is partly right. Many of our detractors do demand we go into therapy because they are offended by our feelings (as if it's any of their fucking business) and believe those feelings can be magically wished away. Obviously this will never happen, because sexuality is hardwired, no matter how much the bastard profiteers at the APA seek to endlessly categorize whatever they can as an illness to be treated for $$$.

Being the sadistic bullies they are, our enemies love nothing more than a self-loathing MAP. They revel in pushing MAPs to believe they are shitty, dirty, and diseased. They make themselves feel better about their own shortcomings and sexual misdeeds in doing so; it's no surprise that the most vocal ones are prolific cheaters and rapists. This is why resources like LifeLine and B4U-ACT anger the public so much. Those resources tell MAPs that their feelings are nothing to be ashamed of. They rob the public of their punching bag, and of their excuse for all the wrong that they do.

MAPs shouldn't be swayed by this. We should do exactly what they don't want, like a bullied kid who desperately needs to stand up for himself. We must force MAP pride in the public's face. We need to post comments about how proud we are to be MAPs. Hell, we can even proudly call ourselves pedophiles to deprive them of their "you're a pedophile!" gotcha. We will inevitably be banned on the mainstream platforms, but there are millions of us. The more we push back, the better, even if every account is fleeting.

Consider dropping something like this into a random Reddit thread where it makes at least some sense in context:

I had a lot of fun today. I took my young friends to the water park. We had a splash fight in the pool, went down all the slides, and then I bought them ice cream. They are so cute and I love them so much!

MAPness is absolutely normal, experienced to a degree by a significant number of people, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Yet the public are beyond hysterical about the issue, and need desensitizing as a matter of priority. He'll, I'd support strapping the ignorant masses to a chair and forcing them to watch pro-MAP content until they stop being nasty little Nazis!

It's OK to fail a thousand times

A reader astonishingly eloquent in his second language recently sent me an e-mail asking a number of questions. One of them stood out as particularly deserving of a response here. He asked what I expect to change in terms of MAP-related discourse and laws.

My answer was that I have no idea. I can't predict the future, and frankly I'm not very optimistic. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. To do nothing would be thoroughly inexcusable. I don't want to die an old man who saw his community brutally oppressed and made no effort to improve things. It's not like you have to make MAP activism your entire life, either. As I mentioned in the introduction to this post, I am essentially leading three separate lives, despite running the most active MAP blog and co-managing the most active pro-MAP activist forum.

I beg everyone to just try, no matter how 'hopeless' it may seem. And do remember, with absolute clarity, that prior civil rights activists must have felt their cause was absolutely hopeless once. MAP activism hasn't succeeded yet... that doesn't mean it's doomed to fail forever.

Peddling bullshit

Here's where I diverge from the original piece...

My old buddy Patrick has updated an old article with another attack on clearnet MAP sites. It's a bit of a dull one really, rehashing much of what he said before, supposedly connecting a few already-outed MAPs with their current board names. I have no idea how accurate those claims are because I'm not close to the victims.

What I want to talk about, however, is two outright falsehoods.

It's worth noting first that while Patrick is clearly competent at OSINT, he is obviously not a particularly intelligent individual. He reminds me of those mediocre students who can rehash what they've read but never extrapolate or come up with their own ideas. His writing... well, the less said about that, the better. With all the eloquence of a discarded cum rag, he really ought to go back to using his beloved Claude AI.

Minor-attraction is a mentoring orientation

Patrick claims:

These predators try and pretend that pedophilia is a sexual orientation like homosexuality, when in reality there's no actual feelings involved, it's 100% about sexual gratification.

It's apparent from the abstract of the study he cites that it deals only with people convicted of offenses against children, not with MAPs in general. Many such offenders are not even MAPs. The study states that those who engaged in heterosexual criminalized relationships were motivated more by sexual gratification, though nowhere does it claim that they have no romantic or emotional feelings whatsoever. The abstract further indicates that homosexual 'pedophiles' are motivated more by emotional attachment, the exact opposite of what Patrick is claiming. That's despite the fact that these are convicted sex offenders, likely more impulsive and sexually focused than the MAP community as a whole.

As I've written in many of my articles here, minor-attraction is a mentoring orientation, one driven as much by emotional and romantic feelings as sexual ones. It is less sex-obsessed and less predatory than adult-attraction. The only reason it's labeled a 'paraphilia' or an 'illness', and not a sexual orientation, is political.

As a homosexual MAP, I personally have a group of young friends on whom I spend a hell of a lot of time and money, and I don't expect any sexual activity in return... not now, not ever. I am the polar opposite of a 'predator' or sex fiend. Those who would label me such deserve the guillotine, one with a remarkably dull blade, for their vile acts of defamation.

Images don't magically become child porn because they're hosted on a MAP site

Patrick also writes:

These forums don't post pictures and videos of children in the way I believe a lot of you assume. I have never seen any images of a nude child or a child being physically harmed. These predators use that framing to say these are "legal" photos and videos. The illegality has nothing to do with these factors. In the major jurisdictions (US/EU/UK) Child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) does not require nudity, penetration, or violence for material to count as CSAM/CSEM, they define it by what the media was created for.

US courts generally use the Dost test in determining whether an image can be deemed child pornography. They weigh up the following, the final point focused on the intent of the photographer rather than on which board the images are displayed:

• Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
• Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
• Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
• Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
• Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
• Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

That last point was also denounced in a highly influential case in which a conviction was reversed. One of the judges wrote:

While I agree with the panel opinion, I write separately to note my misgivings about excessive reliance on the judicially created Dost factors that continue to pull courts away from the statutory language of 18 U.S.C. § 2251. There are many reasons to be cautious of the Dost factors, several of which other courts have previously identified. As jurists, we have “every reason to avoid importing unnecessary interpretive conundrums into a statute, especially where the statute employs terms that lay people are perfectly capable of understanding,” such as “lascivious.” The Dost factors are not definitionally equivalent to the statutory standard of “lascivious exhibition of the genitals,” but many courts have treated them as such, even requiring that a certain number of factors be present for pornography convictions. As a result, these factors often create more confusion than clarity.

The sixth factor, which asks whether the visual depiction was intended to elicit a sexual response in the viewer, is especially troubling. Congress did not make production of child pornography turn on whether the maker or viewer of an image was sexually aroused, and this Dost factor encourages both judges and juries to improperly consider a non-statutory element. A pedophile may be aroused by photos of children at a bus stop wearing winter coats, but these are not pornographic. Conversely, a photographer may be guilty of child pornography even though he is not aroused by the photos he produces purely for financial gain. Regardless of whether the photographer was aroused by the images he produced, to qualify under § 2251, the images must show a minor being used to engage in sexually explicit conduct.

Our court first used the Dost factors in United States v. Carroll. In response to a request for rehearing en banc, the Carroll decision was altered by the panel, but the section citing the Dost factors was reinstated. In his original panel dissent, Judge Garwood steered away from these factors and noted that § 2251 “unambiguously requires that . . . the minor must actually do something—‘engage in’—which constitutes actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct.” In its en banc brief, the Government conceded the statute required that the image show a minor who engaged in sexually explicit conduct:

“After a thorough and searching review of the plain wording of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and the legislative history addressing it at the time it was enacted . . . the government concedes, that a violation of Section 2251(a) requires that the defendant employ, use, persuade, induce, entice or coerce the minor himself to engage in the actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of the minor’s sexually explicit conduct.”

I agree with our panel’s opinion today that an unaware minor may be used to produce child pornography, but even so, the statute requires that the image display sexually explicit conduct. The statute does not suggest that the definition of pornography is contingent upon what arouses the defendant, especially if the defendant is aroused by objectively asexual images.

As this court noted in Grimes, § 2251 supports a finding that one who inappropriately films a minor for his own sexual pleasure may not be convicted of child pornography unless the images display a minor being used to engage in sexually explicit conduct. The statute’s definition of sexually explicit conduct includes a “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area”—not a lascivious exhibition of winter coats, children’s faces, or even breasts, but a lascivious exhibition of the pubic area. The video of C.B. contains no such exhibition. That is the most important “factor” this court should consider because it derives from the statute, not a lonely decision of a district court.

Under US law, images of children playing on the beach do not suddenly become illegal because they're reposted on a MAP board.

UK case law is also fairly clear about the fact that the legality of an image is not determined by additional context. While evidence of a person accessing a MAP board may be used to 'prove' that criminalized images had been intentionally downloaded, an image of a child does not magically become 'indecent' because of where it's hosted. It's either illegal wherever it's hosted, or legal wherever it's hosted. And per case law from the 1980s, even the intentions of the photographer are not relevant in determining 'indecency'.

As for the EU, specific definitions are up to member states. I'm not going to trudge through judgments from dozens of countries, in various different languages, when I've already proven our moronic detractor wrong.

The push to the darknet

The drama that Patrick stoked led to the suspension of the legarcon.net domain. Thankfully our community was able to get that domain back... after we cleared up the misunderstanding generated by a corrupt Angolan civil servant. There will soon be an article about this, after I've contacted the authorities in Angola and the corrupt French charity that took credit for someone else's work.

But what happened while the legarcon.net domain was suspended? The site moved to a .onion URL, where it could have been rehosted and operated with absolutely no rules whatsoever. What does this suggest about the demanded cancellation of MAP sites?

Let's imagine that all lawful MAP sites were taken down by their providers, as the public would demand. Does anyone believe that MAPs would stop talking? Stop existing? Stop interacting with children? Not at all. Well-meaning MAPs would be pushed to the darknet, where they would be counseled by those rather less well-meaning. This is obviously better for the sadistic cunts who wish only to make MAPs less visible for their own sake, and care not at all about the welfare of children. Yet it is the worst possible outcome for children, and exactly the kind of hell that people like Patrick would create.

Tying it together

Our detractors spread blatant, dangerous falsehoods. Are they malicious, or simply lacking both the intellect and empathy to understand? I think it varies case by case. Whatever their motivation, their commentary is being readily consumed across a plethora of social media sites, while our responses are nowhere to be seen.

I understand that it's scary to be actively pro-MAP, yet we have to push back. To not do so is simply intolerable. We need to force our responses in people's faces, even if we get downvoted or banned. It's OK to fail a thousand times, but it's never OK to not make an effort.

Do you want to die an old man or woman who never fought back? A hollow shell of a person who allowed our enemies to push our friends toward sites that encourage actual child abuse, while simultaneously silencing the beauty in our community?

Do you want to submit to misery? To never even make a platonic young friend? Would you like for your fellow MAPs to skulk around in the shadows, whipping themselves out of self-hatred, trying to 'pray the pedo away'?

I certainly do not wish for any of those awful things.

I do very much appreciate the reticence to give social media giants your phone number. I wouldn't do it either. However, unless you have a bullseye on your head as I do, you can safely buy bulk accounts online using cryptocurrency, without registering your personal phone number. While VPN use is discouraged by the platforms that sell these accounts, my understanding is that VPNs work in practice. One friend was even able to log in using Tor.

Still feeling anxious? You could also pretend to be an anti to drive traffic to our sites, in which case you don't need to worry so much. Our content will still ultimately get read by those who dare to click, and such individuals are more likely to be open-minded. It's better than nothing.

What do you have to lose but a few bucks on some pre-registered accounts? Just give it a go.

Don't feel bad about being a MAP... but do feel terrible about doing nothing while the bastards spread their lies unchecked.