Pro-Reform: 'Soft Reforms' for community adoption

[Fragment]

The newest pro-reform article is out, discussing the reforms that we believe should be adopted by MAPs regardless of contact stance. Please discuss, while remembering this is not an official position of Mu.

Pro-reformists are moderate and rational MAP activists who advocate reasonable and balanced changes to how MAPs are treated without endangering minors. We recently discussed how to protect children and teenagers from sexual harm while respecting the agency of people who are mature enough to give properly informed consent. In this article, we will explore the social changes needed to create a more harmonious society in which MAPs can openly live responsible and peaceful lives within the community.

Read it here.

[BLueRibbon]

Key points:

1. Even if you do not agree with reform of AMSC laws, and you are very welcome to not agree, please do not help to perpetuate the narrative that AMSC is always inherently harmful.

2. Even if a MAP has engaged in unethical behavior, they are still victims of an extremely oppressive society, and they should be treated as fallen brothers or sisters, not monsters.

Let's not be black-and-white. Pro-c, anti-c, whatever.... we should be ALLIES.

[Phossu]

I generally like this article. I fully agree with better training for mental health professionals, robust sex education for all, reform of mandatory reporting and sex offender registries, right to MAP free assembly and speech, and abolishing punitive and inhumane treatment of offenders, particularly if the offense is non-violent.

Even if a MAP has engaged in unethical behavior, they are still victims of an extremely oppressive society, and they should be treated as fallen brothers or sisters, not monsters.

I agree.

However I do have some questions about defending MAPs who have committed an offense. In cases such as simple possession of PIM or AMSC that is known to be nonviolent it may be possible to defend. However, in many cases the details on what actually occurred are not at all clear to the public. I have concerns that if we take a blanket approach of defending offenses we may end up sanitizing events that deserve condemnation. I'm not just talking about obviously violent crimes such as abductions, even non-violent AMSC can still be worthy of condemnation.

If we as a community defend an individual because we believe that their crime is not as bad as the media portrays, what happens if strong evidence comes to light that shows it was even worse than suspected? We need to be careful when speaking on events that we don't have insight on.

I propose a focus on value-neutral language alongside condemnation when circumstances call for it. We must recognize ambiguity and the limits of our knowledge.

I fully agree with the article that we should not attempt to categorize offenders as non-MAPs. Like all sexuality there are MAPs who do awful things, and acknowledging this is important. I think pointing this out as no different from gay or straight orientations is useful rhetoric.

[Fragment]

(Cross post from B4um)

Thanks for highlighting how delicate we'll need to be in framing these discussions going forward. Typically I try to avoid saying too much about cases I haven't read court transcripts about, but I will point out that often the media has a particular angle and will default to extreme language.

Particular cases can provide an opportunity to discuss systematic problems, but you're right that those cases may end up more problematic than we initially hope.

My preferred line is simply:
"Not all MAPs are offenders, and not all offenders are monsters". I don't want to overclaim about particular cases, nor even make assumptions about the proportion of "monstrous" offenders.

One challenge I also have is when talking about "monsters" is ignoring their background, mental health and other contributing factors. "Psychopath" is the default word in these cases, but in many ways that's as problematic and slur-like a word as "pedophile"

[Fragment]

A comment I made on another forum that follows on from the discussion of sentencing reform:

I think a lot of people non-offending MAPs think that laws don't affect them because they don't break any laws.

I think that the laws can impact how we're seen, though.

Are we slightly creepy weirdos that have a strange sexual fetish? Or are we predatory monsters that shouldn't be alive? The former is implied by a misdemeanor, while the latter is implied by a 20 year sentence.

Even non-offending MAPs will never get accepted while adult-minor sexual contact is seen as life destroying.

[terminally_unique]

A comment I made on another forum that follows on from the discussion of sentencing reform:

I think a lot of people non-offending MAPs think that laws don't affect them because they don't break any laws.

I think that the laws can impact how we're seen, though.

Are we slightly creepy weirdos that have a strange sexual fetish? Or are we predatory monsters that shouldn't be alive? The former is implied by a misdemeanor, while the latter is implied by a 20 year sentence.

Even non-offending MAPs will never get accepted while adult-minor sexual contact is seen as life destroying.

I agree that legal norms can influence societal norms. While politics is generally downstream of culture (as it was for the gay rights movement), I don't think the MAP rights movement will start becoming socially acceptable until the laws change to reflect our humanity.

[Fragment]

You consider yourself more on the anti-c side of the fence, TU?

I think what I'm saying makes sense regardless of one's ultimate position on contact stance. Perception of AMSC determines, to a large part, perception of MAPs.

AMSC can still be illegal if needs to be to protect minors, but "illegal" has so many degrees. Yet, I feel that even if a lot of anti-c people feel current penalties are too harsh they aren't really willing to talk about it.

Do you have any suggestions for how our message might get through?