Re: V for Visibility

On the question of whether Mu will advocate for 'reform' or elimination of the sex offenders register, there seems to be an inconsistency on their website, so I do not know what they will advocate. Perhaps they might like to clarify that point. I agree that rape and sexual assault is something that is rightly excoriated, but I am not so sure about "iatrogenic" harm. Even 'consent' can be overemphasised. If a boy climbs into the bed of another boy and wanks him off, should he be punished, regardless of the other boy's feelings, on the ground that the latter did not give prior 'consent'? I would personally suggest that the only thing that should be against the law is rape and assault where a degree of physical force is involved, or where the person is threatened, tricked or otherwise suborned. The whole trend since MeToo goes in the other direction, and tends to regard even consent as doubtful or insufficient in situations where, it is alleged, there are inequalities of power. It is this cultural reality that we must face. So when you say that "We need to argue...that the current practices claiming to address harms associated with sexual activity in fact exacerbate these risks." I would point out that adult-child sex is not associated with "risk" of harm, so far as existing culture is concerned. It is harm, instrinsically harmful, in our culture. So first any movement has to get over that hurdle, and this can only be done through arguing that adult-child sex is not intrinsically harmful. Since Mu do not say they wish to do this, this implies, for me, that either their advocacy will be futile or they will be forced into making concessions to our enemies. Your hopes for a reformist strategy seem wildly out of step with current realities. It's as though you believe - as the Mu-ologists believe - that our case is so obviously reasonable that people must listen to us and change their minds. The problem with this is that our case has been obviously reasonable for half a century, and the reformist strategy has been pursued in different guises throughout this period, with results that we can all see. This surely lends credence to kit's view that what we are facing is not some sort of unfortunate accident - and all we need to do is point out how reasonable our view is, and do a little advocacy and everyone will realise that we're just like the gays, actually. The history of the last few decades does not support this notion. Our persecution forms an indissoluble unity with other aspects of the modern state and society, and we need to be far more radical in our approach. The Global strategy that I have outlined represents a doable, practical alternative. It faces up fully to the reality of our situation. Each can contribute in their own way, and coordination is not essential. It requires no compromises with the enemy; nor does it require outright victory in order to be of benefit to us. And it merges our struggle with the wider struggle of humanity for liberty, peace and continued flourishing.