MAPs hurting MAPs (a thought bubble)

[Red Rodent]

Contact skeptical MAPs should shift to language like “even actions done out of love can be harmful, so it’s better to be safe than sorry” instead of conceding that “offenders are monsters”.


As a "contact skeptical MAP" I wholeheartedly agree. However, not all sexual encounters are motivated by love. Sexual exploitation does exist, and children are prime targets.

[FairBlueLove]

Fragment, from what I read around the forum you are presenting very good and well reasoned points for bridging the gap between pro-c and anti-c. Kudos!

[Lennon72]

The next "pro-reform" article should be coming out shortly. Hopefully doing more to try and break down "contact stance" barriers.

I wish you the best of luck. I too prefer the words "pro reform ".

[stropa]

Touching a child, even if consensual, displays a lack of consideration, a lack of self-control, and possibly selfishness. Knowing what the consequences of committing this crime are and how they can affect the child and yet still doing it anyway shows you care more about your own satisfaction than about any kids, making you a monster.

[Brain O'Conner]

In regard to sexual interactions having unintentional harm to children/minors, that is the same with any age group either due to a lack of communication, regretting the interaction due to societal/religious stigma despite enjoying the experience physically and emotionally, or finding out you were used as a toy after unknowingly getting pregnant or an std by someone that was more informed about sex despite you wanting to explore and enjoyed the sexual feelings you may have had.

[Phossu]

I agree Fragment. I think some anti-contact / contact skeptical MAPs have a tendency to demonize MAPs who face legal charges, even if they don't deserve it.

In some cases this can be done unintentionally. News reporting on sexual offenses involving minors are rarely charitably framed, and some MAPs may not be ready or willing to question a specific story when they don't know anything about the real life situation themselves. This can lead to people assuming that those who are arrested must be the monsters the news frames them as. I would like to see more neutral language used when referring to those who face legal charges.

In some cases this is likely done out of self-preservation. When talking to non-MAPs the pressure to condemn all forms of AMSC is very strong. While I agree that this is not a good long term strategy, it may still be valuable as an interpersonal rhetorical tool.

“My feelings are only valid because I don’t act on them” is not an affirming or supporting message.


Typically the statement is "attraction is not action", which is distinct from a judgement on the validity of feelings. I consider feelings and attractions to be emotionally valid regardless of whether or not you act on them. I agree that it is important to emphasize that what most MAPs want is not a horrible thing and comes from a place of genuine love. However some people do in fact want to do horrible things, and these people deserve dignity as much as anyone else so long as they refrain from causing harm.

[stropa]

I worked at a school where a lot of parents were pressuring their children into becoming doctors and lawyers. Some of those kids broke under the pressure. Some even stopped attending school entirely. The parents were motivated by love to a degree, but it was also their own selfish wish fulfilment driving them. And they ignored the damage they were causing.

I wouldn't call them monsters, though.

Nor would I call a thief who is acting out of their own self-interest without caring about their victim a monster.

The clear and obvious difference is that sex with a child is unnecessary unlike educational success. It provides no tangible benefit. You do not have to have sex with a child. In addition, sex with a child is highly illegal and taboo. The possible emotional ramifications of the child internalizing shame due to this taboo over time outweighs any benefit the child can get. It also outweighs any effort to attend to the child's feelings during and after sex. Moreover, if the crime is discovered or reported it can have even greater negative consequences. You are risking lifelong trauma to a child for 10 seconds of pleasure. That makes you a monster in my opinion.

Those overbearing parents with high expectations you talk about are doing what they believe is necessary. They believe the child's suffering is justified if it is the only path to success. Even in the West we allow children to suffer temporarily if it means they will benefit from it in the future (getting your shots, spanking, etc). If the parents don't understand that it is wrong then I wouldn't label them as monsters.

[stropa]

You do realize that pro-c people support changing the laws and removing taboos?

I am talking about how things are currently, not how things are in your little fantasy world. In the world we live in now, any adult who touches a child is a monster in my opinion.

It's true that there may be cases where despite care and concern unintended harm occurs. But that is very different to the image of the predator pedophile who gets off on causing pain and suffering.

False dichotomy. Those are not the only two options that make someone a monster, at least in my mind. Knowing the risks involved and fully understanding that you are breaking the law and could be causing untold future suffering to the child is abhorrent and betrays a lack of empathy. There is no benefit that makes it worth the risk. None.

[Brain O'Conner]

The clear and obvious difference is that sex with a child is unnecessary unlike educational success. It provides no tangible benefit. You do not have to have sex with a child. In addition, sex with a child is highly illegal and taboo. The possible emotional ramifications of the child internalizing shame due to this taboo over time outweighs any benefit the child can get. It also outweighs any effort to attend to the child's feelings during and after sex. Moreover, if the crime is discovered or reported it can have even greater negative consequences. You are risking lifelong trauma to a child for 10 seconds of pleasure. That makes you a monster in my opinion.

Those overbearing parents with high expectations you talk about are doing what they believe is necessary. They believe the child's suffering is justified if it is the only path to success. Even in the West we allow children to suffer temporarily if it means they will benefit from it in the future (getting your shots, spanking, etc). If the parents don't understand that it is wrong then I wouldn't label them as monsters.

I understand where you are coming from in terms of how the child can be traumatized from the legal system, but I completely disagree with you on how the adult is a monster for engaging in a mutual sexual interaction with a child that they both enjoyed physically and emotionally. If a young girl is with an adult friend, and she has sexual feelings and desires she wants to express to the person, and the adult reciprocates that back, then that does not make the adult the monster, that's society. By you blaming the faults of society onto the adult is like blaming the person who was forced to kill a person to protect his family and not the person who had the gun behind the person's head. It's not the best analogy but shows how people like you tend to take the blame and focus away from society onto to the adult. Also, I don't really like you how you made the remark of how the adult is risking lifelong trauma for "10 seconds of pleasure", implying some kind of cum and dump where the older person just wants to get his rocks off and not a mutual thing where they want to take their time to make each other feel good emotionally and physically like they are in a relationship. And yes, you are right in terms of how sex is not as necessary compared to education but saying that is very mute. Sexual activity is a human interaction that is naturally rooted from a very young age and should have never been treated as the same as signing a damn contract or whatever. I know that most people will then say the reason for that is because sexual activity can carry long term consequences like pregnancy or potential stds, in which you would be correct, but those are easily avoidable, and children are more the capable of understanding the consequences of sex. A good example of that is kids as young as six years old riding and participating in dirt bike tournaments that carry long term consequences like breaking your harm or suffering from a head injury that can last for a lifetime. By those kids engaging in those kinds of activities, they understand that they need to wear protective gear, so they want bust their head open and understand when to speed up or slow down to not crash and get hurt. That is more complex than sex. So don't tell me how they can't understand the consequences of sex because their brains aren't "fully developed". If you go there, I will run circles around you dude. Honestly, by reading all of your comments, I think you're some kind of troll.

[stropa]

If a young girl is with an adult friend, and she has sexual feelings and desires she wants to express to the person, and the adult reciprocates that back, then that does not make the adult the monster, that's society

I disagree. We can phrase it this way to see the issue:

"If a young girl is with an adult friend and she wants to skip school to be with her adult friend, and her adult friend lets her skip school for 2 weeks, and she comes back to school and fails her classes and gets suspended, then that does not make the adult the monster, that's society"

Of course, in that example I dont think the adult is a monster, but the blame still falls on him for the outcome. Adults have the responsibility of weighing the consequences that children otherwise can't. Adults can see the bigger picture. Just because something is consensual and feels good in the moment does not make it moral or ethical.

It's not the best analogy...

It really isn't. And no, I won't take the focus away from the adult because he's the one the kid looks toward for guidance and he's the one who knows right from wrong better than the kid. Discussions about the problems with society and its laws and morals can happen separately.

Also, I don't really like you how you made the remark of how the adult is risking lifelong trauma for "10 seconds of pleasure", implying some kind of cum and dump where the older person just wants to get his rocks off and not a mutual thing where they want to take their time to make each other feel good emotionally and physically like they are in a relationship.

I don't care. It makes no difference to my point. I don't care if you have romantic feelings about the kid or not. You can have romantic feelings about a person and still make morally awful choices. Watch the movie Passengers.

I know that most people will then say the reason for that is because sexual activity can carry long term consequences like pregnancy or potential stds, in which you would be correct, but those are easily avoidable, and children are more the capable of understanding the consequences of sex.

Terrible argument. I'll explain later.

A good example of that is kids as young as six years old riding and participating in dirt bike tournaments that carry long term consequences like breaking your harm or suffering from a head injury that can last for a lifetime. By those kids engaging in those kinds of activities, they understand that they need to wear protective gear, so they want bust their head open and understand when to speed up or slow down to not crash and get hurt. That is more complex than sex.

When children enter those dirt bike tournaments, they are doing it under the guidance, care, training, and consent of an adult. They aren't even able to sign up without an adult. So clearly the adults are the ones who are considering the potential negative consequences and the mitigations to those consequences (like teaching their kid how to ride properly, saftey gear, skill level, age, etc). The child's not responsible for doing any of that. If the parent/guardian determines that their child is properly prepared for riding a dirt bike in a tournament then they sign them up, otherwise they don't. In addition, if anything bad does happen, it remains the adult's responsibility. You're making it sound like the ethics of bike tournaments all hedge on a 6 year old's understanding of the consequences. That is laughable.

It has nothing to do with complexity, it has to do with a sober and rational consideration of the risks and consequences and a cultivation of an environment that mitigates those consequences as much as possible - which is what we entrust adults to do on behalf of their children.

On the contrary, when you say "the negative consequences of sex are not much of a concern because the child is capable of understanding those consequences and can easily avoid them" you are taking away the responsibility from the adult and putting it on the child. Now the onus is suddenly on them to weigh the pros and cons of their behavior instead of an adult. No where else in society do we weigh the ethics of a decision based solely on the knowledge of a child. So these are not the same arguments.

If you want a consistent argument then either admit you want adults to control and be responsible for the sex lives of children, or admit you want children to be treated like adults in all aspects of society, including blaming 8 year old's for their irresponsible decison-making when they ultimately get pregnant or an STD.