The Man-Bat Dilemma

[hershey]

I've conjured up a silly anecdote about a little-known DC Comics character that I think accurately describes a certain aspect of our plight as maps and how the public perceives us:

So, imagine that you're at some Comic-Con. You're decked-out in your Lex Luthor cosplay; you're ready to have some fun, and you meet some guy who's a big comic-book nerd. You're something of a comic connoisseur yourself, so you get to asking your new friend "who's your favorite character?"

"Man-Bat," he answers, without hesitation.

"Oh, yeah, Batman! Cool guy. Classic pick," you reply, hardly even noticing your friend's perceived slip-of-the-tongue.

"No!" He insists, "not Batman. Man-Bat."

Dazed and confused, you begin to question your friend's sanity. "That's," you stutter. "They're... the same... thing..."

"They are not!" He shouts. "Batman and Man-Bat are two completely different characters. You've really never heard of Man-Bat?"

With squinted eyes and a raised eyebrow, your face says it all. "Who in the hell is 'Man-Bat,'" you think to yourself.

"Jesus-fucking-Christ-I-swear-to-god," he starts. "Here, let me show you," he says with an exasperated breath while whipping out his phone. The pictures he shows you are of a bat-faced man with wings on his arms and fur on his back; definitely not Batman.

"Ohhh... Man-Bat... He's real. I can't believe it."

"Yeah~ Pretty cool, right?" Your friend brags.

"I mean, sure," you chuckle. "Shitty name though."

"Definitely."


---- End Scene ----


In this anecdote, your friend struggles to prove the existence of Man-Bat to you for two reasons. First, you don't know who the hell Man-Bat even is. You've never heard of the guy. And second, Man-Bat's resemblance to Batman, a much much much more popular and widely known character means that any mention of "Man-Bat" is simply misinterpreted as a mispronunciation of "Batman." As you have probably guessed, we maps are Man-Bat, mistakenly identified as abusers of children, our Batman, by the general public who are blissfully unaware of our existence. They don't quite realize that its possible for an adult to genuinely love a child, so they assume that we're just groomers pretending to be in love so we can cause harm. I think it's incredibly important to understand this dynamic because it helps us see the perspective of the public and appeal to them effectively. I know many of us are eager to start the conversation by, for example, advocating for a lower age of consent, or no aoc at all. But when we use this anecdote to try and see this type of advocacy from the public's perspective, we find that coming on so strong is a hasty idea at best. Imagine, for a moment, a person coming to you and describing themself as a "murderer" before declaring that "murder is actually beneficial" and that "murder should be legalized." You would, rightly, tell them to piss-off. Then, imagine your embarrassment when, years later, you find out that they were using an entirely different definition for "murder," one that describes something completely benign. As it turns out, they weren't Batman; they were Man-Bat. I think this anecdote shows that, considering our position as Man-Bat, we really can't make any demands of the public until we first prove to them that we exist as a harmless, separate entity from our evil, more commonly known counterpart. So, let us be more clear about our differences with abusers and groomers as we move forward.

Moving beyond the public, this anecdote also helps to describe the dynamics at play within our community. Anti-contact maps can be described as suffering from the Man-Bat Dilemma as they, like the public at large, conflate consensual intergen sex with child sexual abuse. They don't recognize that intergen sex is something completely different, with different emotions, different actions, and different outcomes associated with it. They often don't even acknowledge that consensual adult-minor sexual contact even exists. Conversely, many pro-c maps also suffer from this dilemma, but from the opposite direction. These are the types of maps to argue staunchly that "consent is a meaningless concept" and to rally against the "CSA industrial complex." These maps make the mistake of conflating all amsc with consensual sex. Genuinely harmful sexual abuse is their Man-Bat. As such, it goes unnoticed. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Before I conclude this post, I ought to mention one last thing. I imagine that some of you may be bothered by the irony of my describing maps as Man-Bat, a mysterious super-villain, in explicit favor of Batman, one of the world's most beloved heroes. Fortunately, these two characters can easily be substituted for any pair of people or characters that share a similar dynamic. Here's a fun example: Adolf Hitler. Child abusers are Adolf Hitler, the most evil man in modern history. Maps, on the other hand, are Adolf Hitler, little known Namibian civil rights activist and beloved politician. Two completely different people. Feel free to use whatever silly examples you like. The outcome is the same.

That's all I have for today. Thanks for reading, and feel free to share any thoughts or criticisms.

[Fragment]

We definitely saw this dynamic in the Twitter comments after #campgate. The most prominent in my mind being the comments that were outraged that we'd consider ourselves victims. People conflate us with Travis Mullis (who sexually assault, choked and then stomped on the head of his 18 month old son). If someone like that, or Danny Heinrich (who molested and murdered Jacob Wetterling) came out and said "no, I'm the real victim here" it would be outrageous. Yet MAPs, and especially NOMAPs, are more equivalent to Marcellus Williams (who was sentenced to death despite the prosecutors and victim's family saying "he's innocent"). Even most offending MAPs aren't acting out of a predatory urge to harm, they are acting out of despair, loneliness and (naive?) optimism that the person they're sharing intimacy with is willing and capable of returning that intimacy. Society doesn't think minors are capable. But even so someone who "misreads the room" shouldn't be painted as predatory.

Anti-contact maps can be described as suffering from the Man-Bat Dilemma as they, like the public at large, conflate consensual intergen sex with child sexual abuse. They don't recognize that intergen sex is something completely different, with different emotions, different actions, and different outcomes associated with it. They often don't even acknowledge that consensual adult-minor sexual contact even exists.

I think you're strawmanning the anti-contact position a little here. I think most anti-cs recognize that AMSC isn't always forced. But they think that it's always harmful and they think that minors aren't in a position to consent. I think that anti-c people are too pessimistic about the possibility of mutually enjoyable AMSC. But I sometimes think pro-c people can be naively optimistic about it. When a police officer says to someone "come with me please", large numbers of people will do as they're told without thinking why. Even though they're "choosing" to do what the police officer says, they aren't consenting in the most meaningful sense of the word. I think many anti-c people see an adult-child dynamic as similar and they see sex as an area where that dynamic is particularly problematic. I have a lot of questions that I feel anti-c people haven't sufficiently answered (they have the benefit of incumbency so don't need to), but I don't think it benefits us to say that "anti-cs think that rape and mutually agreed sex are the same".

Otherwise, though, I think your analysis is very good. People hear "MAP" and they think "child rapist". That's why we need to push forward into the public, to rebrand. Not to try and hide what we are. No. The opposite. To show who we really are.

[Phossu]

When talking about minor attraction with people who are "out of the loop" or otherwise unfamiliar with the concept, it helps to take it slow and start small. You make a good point with the "murder advocate" who is perceived as being absolutely out of their mind because of the language being used. Openly advocating for AMSC or AoC reform as a MAP is very much an uphill battle.

The taboo around discussing minor attraction makes this a very difficult barrier to overcome. Not only are MAPs assumed to be predatory, but mere intellectual engagement of the subject will get raised eyebrows. "This guy has thought about this way too much" kind of thing. Not only are people unaware of "man-bat", they are afraid to consider his existence because it implicitly questions a lot of assumptions they have about how the world works.

[Fragment]

Yeah, it's even more difficult when talking with survivors (I won't extend the metaphor in this case- it would be poor taste to bring up one of Batman's enemies). Some can actually be extremely open minded. But for many, they have experienced trauma at the hands of "Batman", and it's impossible to explain that "Man-Bat" might be in any way different.

I think the strategy I support is partly about rehabilitating Batman's image. That's why I believe it's important for MAPs to admit that (some) offenders are also MAPs. Instead of just claiming "We are not Batman" I think it's better to say "We are not Batman, but even if we were, your attitudes towards Batman are not okay!"