The MAP community needs to chill

[BLueRibbon]

Much of my writing on MAP issues is focused outward, looking at how horribly the world treats us. Given the shocking extent of misunderstanding, oppression, murder, and all the other nastiness, this is hardly surprising. However, sometimes it's important to look inward. In a recent essay on Newgon Wiki, I asked MAPs why our community is so apathetic. In this relatively brief article, I will be discussing ways in which we need to chill.

https://www.map-union.org/perspectives/ ... s-to-chill

[PorcelainLark]

The reality is that most pro-choice advocates don't want children to be harmed, and most anti-contact advocates don't want to see adult participants in AMSC going to prison for fifty years.

I'm not sure about anti-contacts. I tried to make the case that you shouldn't want sentencing to be as severe regardless of whether you're pro or anti contact to an anti-contact on the b4um, and there was a strong resistance to viewing contact as less harmful. I'm not saying all anti-contacts are necessarily like this, but that has been my experience.
I think the fear is that if you downplay the potential harm of contact you may be encouraging people to engage in AMSC. So from a moral perspective, I'm not sure that anti-contacts can build connections with pro-contacts without undermining their own integrity. As difficult as it is, I think ultimately it has to have a decisive answer; as long as people view contact as something deeply evil they're not going to be willing to compromise. I think the aim should be to convert anti-contacts, to try to make the pro-contact position address the concerns of anti-contacts as opposing to just doing clever "gotchas". The aim should be being right rather than winning.

In addition, there are many people who quickly label others extremists over trivial issues and minor disagreements.

I feel it's not seeing the wood for the trees. There are many libertarians, anarchists, and Marxists with very idealistic/utopian views in the MAP community. While I agree that there needs to be a willingness to see society from a radical perspective, these are ultimately dead ends. A revolution isn't a magic bullet which will solve all of society's problems. Real progress will occur only if we're willing to engage with the system as it is rather than tie our hopes to the whole thing being uprooted.

Allied site PCMA, which has faced similar accusations, has admittedly had issues with slurs and intolerance that have bothered me significantly as a moderate liberal. However, the administrators are working to deal with problematic users and improve the tone, and I encourage moderate MAPs to join and help shape it for the better.

I'm highly skeptical of the PCMA being moderate.

Using more inclusive language and avoiding slurs isn't hard; MAPs of all people should be more understanding of how much hateful messages can cause harm.

Agreed, though I think I'd go a step further and say the kind of people that use slurs are doing so intentionally and that it indicates acting in bad faith. If we are in the right, there's no need to be underhanded. I think we need to have more faith that we are following our consciences rather than being self-serving.

For all that many of the online MAP forums were set up to be peer support sites, a lot of them have developed a mean streak that can be quite off-putting to all but the most seasoned of veteran trolls.

I don't think this is specific to MAPs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_di ... ion_effect
Still, we should try to be conscious of how inaccessible MAP communities can be to newcomers. I agree with that.

Recently, Tom O'Carroll upset a lot of younger MAPs with his surprisingly intolerant and coarse take on the trans community.

I don't feel surprised by this. Our perspective is fringe, so it seems only natural that we get involved in fringe or contrarian ideologies.

Meanwhile, 'vanilla' MAPs need to be more respectful and supportive of the sub-identities.

I feel this needs a caveat. Have you ever read "Thinking, Fast and Slow"? In it, Kahneman has this example of "what's more probable a woman being a banker and a feminist, or a woman being a just a banker?" Many people thought it was the former rather than the latter. The point I took is that the more complex a thing, the less probable it is. I think we should empathize with the sub-identities but we shouldn't tie our advocacy to them as we would be inviting a layer of complexity that makes our task (the acceptance of MAPs) less probable of succeeding.

The wars and grudges, as seen between Newgon and NNIA, also need to stop.

I don't see grudges going away. MAPs are stubborn people (society makes it that we have to be).

[GregoryBayclark]

I've been in the MAP community long enough to remember a time before a superficial divide between anti-contact and free-choice (ie. pro-contact). I would have to agree that this dichotomy isn't as strong as it may seem (hence my referring to it as superficial).

Now, before I get told I myself am being divisive, no. I am not willing to be divisive. I can only offer predictions in hopes of rationale as to why my predictions are incorrect (if they indeed are). As any reasonable person, I am trying to learn something from these discussions, not act as if I am right after being shown wrong.

With that out of the way, my argument that focusing on expanding our access to mental health services, legal protections and services, and other things that do not serve to alleviate serve to diminish the public's fears surrounding what will happen to minors if we interact with them (platonic or otherwise), has not been properly debated against, despite several attempts to spur such debates.

Why does this matter to me, so much?

As I alluded to, this is a product of a few bleak predictions. The public will accept the implementation of the changes I listed above so long as they believe it will prevent a sharp decline in the sexual crimes against minors. No matter how proud we are, we don't make the majority of the voting public, and we will need the support of nons. That will require selling them on the idea that all of this will benefit their interests of preventing sex crimes against minors by curbing our urges through the aforementioned changes.

Of course, the glaring issue is that most sexual offenses against minors are not committed by MAPs. Rather, near-85% of those are committed by situational offenders. The reasons as to why non-MAPs become situational offenders are firstly, very different than the reasons MAPs commit offenses (if and when they do), secondly, are extremely diverse, and most importantly, are known to push nons to commit other crimes and harmful behavior instead. On that last point, someone who shows a known risk factor for committing a situational offense cannot reliably to commit one, and may do something else that they would be at risk of doing. For example, severe anti-social personality disorders or severe schizophrenia can be considered a risk factor for child rape, but it's also a risk factor for becoming a serial killer, self-harm, becoming a hostile executive, or fraudster. The logic is that, since there is no guarantee that any risk factor for a situational offense will result in one, and there's so many risk factors for situational offenses, you cannot predict who to help, let alone create programs to help most people at risk of committing a situational offense. And with most sex crimes against minors being situational offenses, this means we can promise the public a 15% reduction in sex crimes at best. That leads into another problem.

The public doesn't know the difference between situational offenders and MAPs, and isn't ready to accept they aren't the same thing. They refer to them collectively as 'pedophiles' regardless of who they were sexually active with, and nature of the offense. In regard to the belief that we can simply educate them, that method isn't working. If they were simply misinformed, they would simply look up more accurate information. They have access to the internet, and all of its information. They are fully capable of becoming better informed, and have chosen not to. What that implies is an irrational motive motivation to believe falsehoods. Similar to covid-denialism, something is making them uncomfortable, and even if they know deep down they are believing a lie, it's a lie that brings them comfort. In keeping with their belief of a lie, the public won't accept a 15% drop in sexual offenses against minors. For them, it's so low that it's a slap in the face.

Even if they accept it, free-choice MAPs will have a hard time making progress in such a world. After having implemented so many programs to try prevent urges to be sexually involved with real minors from arising, the public will see any organized front to reform the AoC in age or purpose as a failure to have those support programs to do what they (the public) wanted them to do. They agreed to have systems in place to help MAPs not become sexually-active with real kids and teens, and in this scenario, now they want to reform the law to allow themselves to do what nons thought they were helping MAPs avoid. I fail to see how the public wouldn't be upset at this prospect. Some have argued that this would actually be a better world, because we'd be safer to practice activism. I'd argue this misses the forest for the trees. Realistically, this world would not have made being a MAP acceptable. It would have only made being a lifelong-celibate MAP, with no plans on changing that, acceptable. This is because the narrative would not change the interpretations of how minors receive sexual intimacy, and how they are believed by nons to be affected by it. Nor will those beliefs of nons on how minors perceive sexual situations they're in change without directly efforts to change those ideas. Everyone, and especially other free-choice (again...pro-contact) MAPs, needs to put themselves in the mind of a non-MAP within this scenario. You had been begrudgingly convinced that if you support changes that give MAPs an outlet to avoid direct sexual contact with minors, kids won't be molested. That must mean exposing kids to sex is really harmful to them, right?

The conclusion that the true way forward is one in which we have a better understanding of how kids respond to sex. We cannot move forward without changing the way society thinks of minors and sex. Scientists may not be able to research this even close to directly right now, but I believe their is a number of frontiers we push for. It all comes down to our curiosity and imagination in spite of these restrictions of what can currently pass ethics boards.

I don't want to feed into doom and gloom, or any more cynicism. No... we can move forward if we focus. If we are moderate and logical, and put pressure where it counts. We can be build a better world for MAPs and for sexually active minors. One where both are safe. We can end the cruelty directed at us, and have minors better equip to avoid those who wish them ill.

Yet...all of this starts with understanding the problem with the platform as it is. MAPs aren't minors. Minors aren't MAPs. For the freedom and safety of one, we need the freedom and safety of the other. I encourage everyone to debate my logic, but I expect you show how you came to your conclusions. I want to learn. Perhaps I am wrong. However, if you don't explain why you don't agree, in spite of my logic, I'll learn nothing, and it makes helping everyone harder to do.

I see promise in the community, if we push a rational plan with good optics. However, a contact neutral one seems like a trojan horse.

[BLueRibbon]

Thank you both for your replies.

Considering the present reality, what do you think MAPs can realistically do, and what do you think allies can realistically do?

[PorcelainLark]

Thank you both for your replies.

Considering the present reality, what do you think MAPs can realistically do, and what do you think allies can realistically do?

I might try to filter out more radical ideologies (e.g. Marxists, fascists), because their solution to conflict is to use force. That means they are less likely to compromise with people they disagree with.

Another idea is "adversarial collaboration". You take two people that disagree on a topic and have them research it together.

However, I feel what's really needed is outwardly focused conflict. A common enemy we mostly agree on, to bring us together instead of in-fighting. I think Operation Underground Railroad was a good candidate due to their unscrupulous actions. For another example, I always try to draw attention to the role of the NCMEC when they come up.

Maybe we need a listing, similar to the SPLC's listing of hate groups, for organizations/groups that fail to follow the best evidence on how MAPs should be treated. For example those who argue for harsh punishments for/restrictions on the use and possession of lolicon/shotacon, could have blurb on their Wikipedia article saying, "This organization has been criticized for their failure to follow the best available evidence". But I digress.

[GregoryBayclark]

Thank you both for your replies.

Considering the present reality, what do you think MAPs can realistically do, and what do you think allies can realistically do?

There are a number of things allies can do, right now.

To start, they can address and make known the sensationalism around how sex crimes are reported. Expose how over-the-top the negativity of such reports are, and sew doubt in how realistic those reports describe what happened to those children. Now, this must be done carefully. There are cases where significant evidence shows children were be predated. In other cases, asking for people to calm down and think reasonably about how the adults acted and how the children reacted is a good start. In fact, this doesn't even require discussions on actual police reports. Even Reddit threads, or other online discussions, where you can provide a more moderate interpretation of inter-generational sexuality (from both the perspective the MAP and the minor) can help at least do damage control. At best, it could move the needle ever so slightly closer to an accepting world.


Secondly, help MAPs better connect with the outside world. I hate to say it, but the MAP community can be a bit of an echo chamber. It's certainly not the worst echo chamber out there. I have seen plenty with more echoes. With that said, we can still lose grasp of the reality of the specifics entailed in the public's opinion on MAP-Minor matters. As an important point, this can go both ways. We are capable of having too optimistic and too pessimistic ideations of how nons think. Allies can act as middle-men, giving us a better perspective on the finer details of reality. How are nons really thinking of MAPs and sexually-active minors, in detail? What are the finer nuances?

The final one I can think of off the top of my head is helping push for better research. I already mentioned this in my initial reply, but I do want to go into more detail. As I already said, directly researching how kids interpret sex is not in the cards, and I don't see it being possible for a long, long time. We likely wouldn't even be able broach questions of how children respond to nudity. Ethics boards won't have it. However, we can break down the research into smaller subjects. Perhaps, researching what kids think makes people different sexes, or research how and why the defy authority. Allies could really give us a boost in this, because they are going to seem less suspicious to researchers than MAPs, simply for not being presumed to have an ulterior motive.

Now, this is just a start. If I can think of other ways, I will certainly submit them. Thank you for everything you're doing, BLR!

[Jim Burton]

Maybe we need a listing, similar to the SPLC's listing of hate groups, for organizations/groups that fail to follow the best evidence on how MAPs should be treated. For example those who argue for harsh punishments for/restrictions on the use and possession of lolicon/shotacon, could have blurb on their Wikipedia article saying, "This organization has been criticized for their failure to follow the best available evidence". But I digress.

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/List_of_CS ... proponents