Are antis implicit apologists for rape culture?

[PorcelainLark]

Consider that they erase any distinction between someone attracted to a child and someone who abuses or assaults a child. Are they saying we can't have a society where people have control of how they respond to their sexual desires?
The story about MAP camp mentions a fear about it being near a school. For comparison, under Sharia law women have to be veiled if they are around men because immodesty is implied to cause men to lose all self-control of their sexual urges.
If we're trying to move towards a society where people are treated as responsible for their sexual actions, it requires us to firmly distinguish between desires and actions. Implicitly, people know this applies to MAPs. Otherwise, why would we be angry about a parent or teacher abusing a child? If the attraction and possibility is there, how would a MAP be responsible, since it would be inevitable that they assault a child?

[Fragment]

There definitely does seem to be a lot of people that think "sexual attraction leads to uncontrollable sexual behavior". I don't know if they think that only applies to MAPs or if they think it applies to all people (all men?) It definitely seems to be the kind of view that implicitly supports rape culture, though.

I noticed in the Facebook comments that people seemed worried that MAP Camp participants would be able to see children at the school. Apparently a MAP looking at minors is problematic. People might say "because minors can't consent", yet that's a fundamentally flawed argument. No-one consents to be fantasized about. Miranda Kerr has never offered explicit consent to each and every man that fantasizes about having sex with her.

Actually, on a small tangent, as a teenager I used to feel guilty about thinking about specific people while I masturbated. I kind of considered it "raping them in my mind" because I didn't have their permission to imagine them. That's clearly nonsense, but it's the attitude people seem to hold towards MAPs.

[Outis]

I think this is correct.

Men and women generally assume that a relationship between two people must have an abusive angle where one person is exploiting another for pleasure. I don't know why that is assumed, it may be that this is the experience of most people either as the abuser or a victim or it might just be that people have learned to assume this from the media and other sources. So if a relationship involves a child then it must also be abusive, the child must be a victim and the adult must be an abuser.

But all this is saying is that as a society we've accepted that abuse is fine and normal as long as it doesn't involve children. We've effectively normalised abuse in society.

[FairBlueLove]

But all this is saying is that as a society we've accepted that abuse is fine and normal as long as it doesn't involve children. We've effectively normalised abuse in society.

Can it be that society is effectively over-protecting children as a kind of compensation for this perverse normalization?

[Outis]

But all this is saying is that as a society we've accepted that abuse is fine and normal as long as it doesn't involve children. We've effectively normalised abuse in society.

Can it be that society is effectively over-protecting children as a kind of compensation for this perverse normalization?

I think so.

When I look at this argument it really doesn't impact me because cp is illegal anyway and I don't think that will ever change unless the debate shifts into a debate that impacts everyone. There's no incentive for non-maps to change how maps are treated when it comes to cp. Shift the narrative so it encompasses everyone and then a real debate can be had as to whether porn should be banned or not.