stropa wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 6:22 pm
What exactly qualifies these organizations as experts? In what way are they reputable? Are they well established and highly regarded in their field?
I am not convinced that these sources come from reliable and non-biased places. So I will continue to reject them until proven otherwise.
When we talk about expertise, we’re referring to organizations that rely on qualified researchers, psychologists, and social scientists with advanced degrees, often in collaboration with accredited universities or health institutions. Many of these organizations archive and cite peer-reviewed studies, and their findings are often cited by public health organizations and academia (such as in the case of B4U-Act and Consenting Juveniles). These are the same research standards applied across fields to ensure that studies are well-designed, reliable, and objective.
Good research practices, regardless of the topic, include controls against bias: rigorous peer review, transparent research methodologies, and replication of results across different studies. When MAP rights-focused organizations publish studies or testimonies, they often employ these same controls to ensure that the findings are representative and accurate, rather than one-sided. Peer review, in particular, ensures that other experts validate the findings before publication, which is a key measure of reliability.
For instance, the
Consenting Juveniles project is perhaps one of the few platforms where minors who had relationships with adults can disclose their reality undisturbed. The project has been endorse by psychology experts such as
Michael Bailey and
Elaine Hatfield, as well as other prominent people like California state senator
John Vasconcellos, who dedicated his career to bringing principles of psychology into play in politics. This level of esteem from neutral, reputable individuals of prestige is a testament to its credibility.
Ultimately, even if you’re skeptical about organizations with a MAP-AAM focus, it can be productive to review specific studies and data they provide. Evaluating evidence based on content, methodology, and replicability often leads to a clearer picture than relying on perceived affiliations. Reliable information stands up to scrutiny because of its quality, not just its origin.
You must understand that, because of societal stigma and, in many places, historical censorship, AAM individuals have often relied on advocacy organizations to document and preserve their stories. These groups fill an essential gap by providing a safe platform for adult-attracted minors and minor-attracted people to share personal experiences without fear of discrimination. Mainstream sources, on the other hand, often avoid delving into personal testimonies around sensitive topics, not because these stories are untrue, but because they haven’t focused on this type of narrative work, whether it's caused by prejudice or otherwise.
It’s also important to remember that MAP rights organizations prioritize sharing these stories to meet a need that other sources don’t address. The goal is to preserve personal experiences, which aren’t necessarily biased but reflect real, lived events. If these testimonies are well-documented, diverse, and consistent with larger patterns found in neutral studies, dismissing them solely because of where they’re published can mean overlooking important, authentic experiences.
There are also personal accounts from allies, such as parents or friends of former adult-attracted minors, and even public figures who’ve shared positive stories in more mainstream media outlets. These testimonies help show that positive adult-minor intimate/platonic/romantic experiences are widespread and valued beyond MAP rights circles. An example would be the story of George Takei, who often recounts his positive experience with a camp counsellor when he was 13/14 years old, but only within the context of LGBTQ+ advocacy rather than MAP advocacy.
Finally, I’d encourage us to look at the content of these testimonies themselves. Consistent stories from different people and contexts are valuable regardless of who documents them. If testimonies from MAP-AAM advocacy sites are detailed, diverse, and reflect common themes, this indicates their reliability and gives us a genuine window into people’s lives.
