MAPs hurting MAPs (a thought bubble)

[Fragment]

It provides no tangible benefit. You do not have to have sex with a child.

You must not have very good sex

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 do realize that pro-c people support changing the laws and removing taboos? Those harms are created by prohibition, not prevented by it. Is a homosexual in Saudi Arabia a monster because of the legal and social consequences they and their family face if they engage in sodomy? Or is the society the monstrous one? Or maybe there's no villain at all, just a clash of values that is hard to reconcile.

Furthermore, you're not engaging with the original statement:

the idea that we want to do something horrible

My fantasies never involve harm to minors. 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. "I'm not a monster because I don't offend" tacitly concedes that "I am a predator that gets off on pain and suffering, but I spare children from my monstrous nature by not offending". That's a terrible narrative for ANY MAP to be putting forward. It serves as a huge roadblock for non-offending MAPs to equally participate in society.

[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.

[Fragment]

You're still talking about something very different to the OP.

And you're relying on a circular argument to perpetuate very real harms against MAPs, including non-offending MAPs, while simultaneously discarding any kind of attempt at progress as "fantasy".

How does it benefit children who have a sexual encounter with an adult to be told "you were abused by a monster"? I see that as exacerbating harm.

I also don't think mainstream society views MAPs as "monsters" only "because they should've known better about the harm caused by the legal system".

[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.

[stropa]

You're still talking about something very different to the OP.

Well, we're here now so we might as we'll keep talking about it.

And you're relying on a circular argument to perpetuate very real harms against MAPs, including non-offending MAPs, while simultaneously discarding any kind of attempt at progress as "fantasy".

What circular argument would that be?

How does it benefit children who have a sexual encounter with an adult to be told "you were abused by a monster"? I see that as exacerbating harm.

I'm just telling you what my opinion of them is. I never claimed it to be an objective viewpoint. The idea of a monster is different to everyone as it's a subjective word.

I also don't think mainstream society views MAPs as "monsters" only "because they should've known better about the harm caused by the legal system".

It's not just the legal system, but yes that's what I believe. I never brought up mainstream society.

[Artaxerxes II]

In the world we live in now, any adult who touches a child is a monster in my opinion.

Even parents and caretakers?
What's with this moralising language that you're using now? If you're going to debate, then you should refrain from using loaded language like the one in the quote.

[Fragment]

tacitly imposing agency on the child

Wow. Just wow. Allowing children to express their agency is not imposing anything. Freedom is not a fucking liability.

What circular argument would that be?

You're saying that the harms are caused by the laws, yet wanting to change the laws is "monstrous" because it means ignoring the harms (caused by the laws). As a programmer might put it, your whole argument amounts to

while True
{

}

The reality of sociogenic harm, while perhaps not the only factor, is reason itself for wanting reform. When adults and minors do have sex (and they always will) I want the minor to experience less, not more harm from it. Making the experience less harmful hardly seems like a selfish goal to me.

But I'm not sure we're going to make much more progress in this conversation. It seems that your values regarding sex and your values regarding fundamental human agency are incompatible with mine.

So long as you see minors as an entirely different class of people to adults, and sex as an entirely different class of action you'll likely continue holding these harmful views.

[stropa]

Wow. Just wow. Allowing children to express their agency is not imposing anything. Freedom is not a fucking liability.

I noticed that this isn't a rebuttal to what I was saying in-context, but whatever. My point is that the argument he was making implied that it's the child's responsibility to be informed about pregnancy and STDs, which contradicts his example where children are not expected to be informed about the consequences of dirtbike riding in order to partake in it.

You're saying that the harms are caused by the laws, yet wanting to change the laws is "monstrous" because it means ignoring the harms (caused by the laws).

What? No, I never said anything like that. I'm not opposed to changing the laws. What I'm opposed to are actions taken by pedophiles without regard for the law, I thought I made that clear.

It seems that your values regarding sex and your values regarding fundamental human agency are incompatible with mine.

So long as you see minors as an entirely different class of people to adults, and sex as an entirely different class of action you'll likely continue holding these harmful views.

Wow, more fabrications of my beliefs. I suppose you're right that this convo can't go on any longer like this. Maybe your friend Brian will argue less disingenuously.

[Fragment]

I'm not opposed to changing the laws.

I'm not trying to strawman you, but I'm finding your position so hard to wrap my head around.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think it is positive to call MAPs who break the law monsters, even though what they do is only "monstrous" due to the law existing in the first place?

And you think that kind of narrative helps push forward MAP rights how?

I don't think I've seen anyone arguing for illegalism (actually a non-MAP friend recently did, but that's a different topic). It's almost universally held that obeying current laws is the sensible, and likely more ethical thing to do. But "you're not doing anything innately bad, but because it's illegal you're a monster" seems such a confusing take to me. If the action itself is ethical, then breaking a law against that action definitely isn't praiseworthy but it doesn't suddenly change the nature of the act to its polar opposite.

What I'm opposed to are actions taken by pedophiles without regard for the law, I thought I made that clear.

Yet this topic was originally about how framing those actions informs perceptions of people who don't act. Rejecting the narrative of offenders as sadists.