Pro-c no more (?)

[Fragment]

Even without changing laws around AMSC we can still improve things for MAPs of all kinds. I don’t want to ignore OMAPs entirely, or treat NOMAPs as somehow different and better. The stories of NOMAPs are an important part of what we’re doing, but ignoring OMAPs seems a flawed strategy.

I’d rather just call my position unambiguously “pro-MAP”.

What does OMAP mean? Offending MAP ? I am categorically against such a division. This is a false dichotomy. If people who are against contacts (call themselves no-offending), it does not mean that Pro-Choice MAP want to offend someone. They just want young people to have the right to choose consensual, non-offending relationships. For this reason, it is important to focus not on contact (this is selfish and creates the wrong impression of being fixated on sex), but on free and safe choice. The term NO(MAP) needs to be thrown into the trash. This is what is dividing our community.

It was half a joke, but I don't mean pro-c MAPs. I mean MAPs that have actually been arrested and convicted. Anti-c MAPs can be offending MAPs. Actually many members of VirPed struggle with child pornography. Self control can undermine someone's personal beliefs.

Pro-c and anti-c describes moral and political stance.
NOMAP and OMAP describes action.

Pro-c NOMAPs exist. Anti-c OMAPs exist.

"OMAP" is not really used by anyone. It's half a joke, but I also kind of like it. It's cute. Otherwise what else do we call MAPs that have offended? Molesters? Child rapists? Sex-offenders?

But basically I don't see many MAPs openly saying "I want to support criminals". NAMBLA did.

Abolish All Age of Consent Laws and Free All Men Incarcerated for Non-Violent Sexual Offenses.

My position isn't that extreme. But I don't want to forget the men incarcerated for non-violent sexual offenses.

[CAMOPED]

This a fascinating discussion, remarkable in its civility and sophistication of debate, that I've not encountered before.

Society is relentlessly infantilizing pre adults. There's no retreat from this that isn't political suicide. Psychology get shredded if they fund/publish anything that controverts the official social dogma. And yet, the vast types of MAP, and their origin, could massively help those who must deal with those feelings. All are not alike - molesters to be - as society tends to believe. There are some beyond help: violent, sadistic psychopaths who want to to hurt children. On the other hand there are those whose MA coexists with attraction to age-appropriate partners. There are those who are convinced a 10yo possesses informed sexual agency. Others just want to rape, groom, molest, etc. Even others find part of MA to be inherent in the taboo - an adrenaline boost. Some others just use there imagination, consume erotic images and stories.

These are all different types, with different motivations or traumas, that do not get studied on a granular level.... because they're all lumped together as dangerous pariahs.

The suppression of genuine, un politicized research, I think, diverts attention and resources away from those most likely to cause harm, and damages the psyche of the far less dangerous types.

MAPs exist. Have since recorded history. MA is not equivalent to either pedophile nor sexual abuser. There is some overlap, sure, but empirical evidence suggests the vast majority of MAPS keep it tightly locked away, to stay safe in society and avoid the stigma of shame and self loathing that society expects.

[Peter Caldwell]

If we look at it in terms of harm, it really does become subjective.
Looking at girls aged 12-14 in the Finnish data (which is based on current social norms regarding sex):
For peer relationships [sample size 1128] 13.4% felt it was negative, 42.2% felt it was neutral 44.4% felt it was positive.
For adult-minor relationships [sample size 485] 37.7% felt it was negative, 28.2% felt it was neutral and 34.0% felt it was positive.
Peer relationships are regarded as negative in 13.4% of cases. Is 13% negative response enough to regulate these relationships?
Adult-minor relationships do trend more negative so is a 38% chance of a negative reaction enough to merit regulation, even if 34% of people are having positive experiences? An anti-c might say "yes".

But then if we look at boys, then:
For peer relationships [sample size 793] 2.6% felt it was negative, 32.3% felt it was neutral 65.1% felt it was positive.
For adult-minor relationships [sample size 113] 11.5% felt it was negative, 13.3% felt it was neutral and 75.2% felt it was positive.
The negative response is only 11.5% for AMSC, even lower than the peer-response seen in girls. It seems hard to justify regulating this. Especially when the positive response for AMSC is even higher than for peer relationships.

Of course "positive reactions" can potentially exist alongside harms and trauma. But I think I've already explained how I think a lot of the discovered harms are very similar to the "harms" I experienced from masturbating while being part of a church culture that defined it as a moral wrong and stigmatized it.

One thing I don't hear mentioned is about negative experiences. Just because an experience was negative, that doesn't mean that it was harmful or caused someone trauma. Even if the experience was harmful, that doesn't mean that it won't turn out to be a net positive in the long run. I know a lot of people who had been in shitty, abusive relationships with horrific breakups who, in retrospect, are thankful for the life lessons and for teaching them who they really are.

[Fragment]

That’s true, but also a very hard argument to convince anyone with.

“We should increase child sex abuse because it builds character.”

[Artaxerxes II]

That’s true, but also a very hard argument to convince anyone with.

“We should increase child sex abuse because it builds character.”

You could leave out the S part from CSA, and most parents would justify beating/corporally punish their children with that exact reasoning:

"Beating my son will build his character. Source? Trust me bro."