I need to address the elephant in the room. All of these presumptions are based upon the fallacy that all violations of age of consent laws are committed by MAPs; people likely to have a feeling of love and care toward their partners. Studies show that only 20-40% of age of consent violations are committed by those who are attracted to minors. Most of these offenses are committed by situational offenders.
I reckon that a situational offender (I'll abbreviate them as SitO's) is considerably less likely to care about a child's well-being, let alone in a sexual situation. In fact, some SitO's have the motive of control through intimidation. Consider the horrific sexual war crimes committed again Ukrainian children. I highly doubt any of that was consensual sex between MAPs and minors, when considering them in context with the other atrocities the Russian military has inflicted on the Ukrainian people. Or, consider the treatment of First Nations children in the Canadian Residential School system. The intended impact was the same; intimidation through violation.
Even in less forceful scenarios, such as bribing a children with frivolous amounts of money, or with candy, there's little to presume these adults are MAPs, and much more credence to the idea that these are desperate teliosexual adults who can't attain sexual contact their preference group. In other words, more often than not, desperate, pathetic men that are preferentially attracted to women, if you wish to put it in a crass way. They see kids as easier to manipulate, and so they taken advantage of children to get their rocks off.
No matter one's opinion of us MAPs, what is clear is that we put forward a strong effort to care about children, and that is likely no different with those MAPs who violate AoC laws. While I would say breaking said laws isn't good for children, because it opens them up to the possibility of iatrogenic harm, the massive effort to care is likely still as strong in most cases. This is not some virtue signalling effort, either. No, it's from the empathy and love that MAPs have for minors. With that said, the main point in this argument needs to be kept clear. That is, we show clear signs that we care about how we affect minors, and wish to have a positive impact on theme. SitO's show no signs of care, yet our main objective is to give minors a good experience with, sexual (again, not recommended under law) or otherwise. To that end, we keep ourselves in-tune with minors emotions. Failing to make a minor happy can feel like a personal failure. Again, we care; SitO's don't, and both facts are easily observable.
Now, this is not to suggest that existence of MAPs who lack any capability to emotionally bond with minors is impossible. It is theoretically possible MAPs who simply see minors as sexual objects and nothing else do exist, but I would presume these people are exceptionally rare. I have never seen them. However, all of this prefaces my main argument, which is about the likelihood of minors reporting CSA/ACSR.
It would be logical to presume that a minor would report that they've been abused if done by someone like a SitO, and far less likely if done by a MAP. Considering that the former doesn't care about them, at best, and at worst is victimizing them as a means of control through what amounts to me as sexual terrorism, such a scenario is much more likely to be traumatizing. A minor is far more likely to see the SitO as a victimizer, and their own trauma severe enough to report said person. Even if we assume the child was lied to, extorted, or bribed, or otherwise not outright forced against their will, when the child gains an understanding that they have been cheated or lied to give up the privacy of their body to someone who hasn't earned it through trust and a care, I presume they'd likely report the perpetrator. A candy bar isn't worth showing your crotch for. Add to that the facts about the rate previously discussed of situational offenses versus MAPs violating AoC laws, and it would certainly skew the results shown by Creature Bipedal here:
https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.p ... 474#p20474
There are simply not enough MAPs breaking AoC laws to presume that minors are reporting their MAP partners. They are more than likely reporting cases where they are legitimately (from a moral sense) being taken advantage of. While I don't think MAPs should, if they were breaking AoC laws at anywhere close to the rate of SitO's, that would skew the numbers of minors who report themselves as being victimized down. Again...please don't break the law. It's not worth it for you or the minor.
The only scenario where I think a minor would report a MAP who loved and cared about them would be through iatrogenic pressure. Iatragenic pressure is a form iatrogenic harm that results from negative messaging around the minor. The minor is enjoying the relationship, sex included, and doesn't want to stop. However, the world demonizes what they are doing, and always presents minors who are sexually active with adults as victims, never consenting and engaged participants. The minor sees this in the media, might hear about it in the news, and hears backhanded jokes about pedos. Their partner has told them that their relationship can only work in secret, or someone will hurt the adult partner. They now have the pressure of hiding what's going, and all of the negative messaging around MAPs, like her partner. The world clearly wants her to believe she's a victim. Sure, no one outside of the relationship knows it even exists, but that doesn't matter. She faces cognitive dissonance, because her experience is so counter to everything she's hearing. She is a victim, but not a victim of a MAP. She's the victim of the social climate. The world is telling her that it's impossible that she's feeling what she is indeed feeling. This unease may result in her reporting her partner, simply because she succumbs to society's indirect pressure to conform. She can't take society telling her she's wrong to feel good about her relationship. She loves her partner, but she's tired of the misery of being at odds with the narrative that she's a victim. Those espousing those negative opinions, while not specifically targeting her, have succeeded. They made her question her feelings. She's now afraid that there's harm she's enduring that she doesn't even know about, despite a lack of empirical evidence of such in the relationship. But everyone says such harm must exist. It's in every inter-generational relationship, after all!...or so the current narrative suggests. The fear comes to a fever pitch, and she reports her partner. Both beautiful lives are ruined. He rots in prison to the sinister applause of antis and the who have fallen their lies and traps. In the immediate aftermath, she may regret what she did. However, questioning brings about counselling. Her soul is extinguished through. She is told to doubt her past positive feelings. For antis, you get yourself another twisted statistic; another uptick in the numbers to use as a talking point. Good job..... you've "protected" another child.
CSA does exist, but it isn't what the law says it is. Such offenses where minors report it are largely committed by SitOs, not by MAPs. In the rare case minors do report MAPs, those MAPs are of the very rare kind who don't care about minors, or the minor has fallen to society's fear-mongering that they are victims and they don't know it yet. When reading statistics, please consider how those stats may be affected by these factors.
