On the Oppression of Anti-Contact MAPs and Its Implications for Furthering the MAP Cause

[WavesInEternity]

I believe that most of us would agree that one of our most important immediate goals is the mere acceptance of our existence as human beings, including the possibility for us to be "out" with dignity and respect, without enduring severe hatred, intimidation, death threats, actual violence, etc.

In the past, back when I was firmly convinced of the immorality of AMSC in virtually all cases and of the adequacy of the current legal framework, I was already confronted to the fact that even those MAPs and MAP organizations that have an unwavering anti-legalization/anti-contact stance face censorship and oppression.

At the time, my understanding of this fact was that it was due to people misunderstanding the difference between the sexual preference for minors and the desire to commit sexual assault, or else that people did not believe that MAPs were generally capable of controlling their "urges".

Having now adopted a new, tentatively pro-legalization stance on such matters, my analysis of this situation has evolved considerably. As I pondered the issue recently, I noticed a certain argumentative chain that is implied by the acceptance of MAPs as fellow human beings capable of moral reasoning and making morally adequate choices.

1. If MAPs are in any way understood as reasonable and morally aware human beings, you must accept that their sexual desires are an unfortunate but natural part of them rather than a perverse, selfish and sadistic choice.

2. If you accept the premise that such desires are natural and ingrained, this implies that in the absence of an intent to act, they are morally neutral in and of themselves.

3a. If such desires can potentially exist within a human being without causing harm to others, this means that a person can have thoughts and feelings that are deeply impacted by those desires without committing harmful acts.

3b. Going further, if a human being can experience such deep feelings of sexual attraction to minors while being a good person, this means that those feelings are in no way necessarily evil (according to a consequentialist ethical framework, at least).

4. If feelings of sexual attraction toward minors are not evil, and the people who have them can be good people (including towards minors), this implies that there may be something positive about the underlying desires (love, respect, etc.).

5. If there is something ever so slightly and ever so indirectly positive about such desires, this suggests that actions directly informed by them could also be positive (i.e. that some AMSC can be loving, respectful, etc.).

I believe that our foes instinctively, or perhaps even consciously in some cases, understand such implications.

We ought to stand our ground in insisting that others respect our fundamental dignity as human beings and acknowledge our capacity to do good.

[PorcelainLark]

At the time, my understanding of this fact was that it was due to people misunderstanding the difference between the sexual preference for minors and the desire to commit sexual assault, or else that people did not believe that MAPs were generally capable of controlling their "urges".

I don't know if people care whether there's a difference. They find the desire disgusting, and they have the excuse of all these sensationalistic, lurid stories to rationalize their disgust as morality. Also, there's the second hand fear of being labelled a pedophile or pedophile sympathizer, so even if they weren't disgusted by our attractions, most aren't going to entertain the idea that MAPs are entitled to a normal life because they don't want to risk the ostracism that would come with supporting us.

1. If MAPs are in any way understood as reasonable and morally aware human beings, you must accept that their sexual desires are an unfortunate but natural part of them rather than a perverse, selfish and sadistic choice.

I'd be more modest, I'd just say it's an assumption to say MAPs are worse than the average person. There's no reason to think MAPs are any more fallible than anyone else.

3a. If such desires can potentially exist within a human being without causing harm to others, this means that a person can have thoughts and feelings that are deeply impacted by those desires without committing harmful acts.

The trouble is the tendency of antis to say that you are doing something wrong by even acknowledging you have those attractions. Even if you're anti-contact, people will say your doing something wrong by talking about the struggle to live within social norms.

3b. Going further, if a human being can experience such deep feelings of sexual attraction to minors while being a good person, this means that those feelings are in no way necessarily evil (according to a consequentialist ethical framework, at least).

Can't otherwise good people do evil things?

4. If feelings of sexual attraction toward minors are not evil, and the people who have them can be good people (including towards minors), this implies that there may be something positive about the underlying desires (love, respect, etc.).

Or they could be neither good nor evil, just neutral.

5. If there is something ever so slightly and ever so indirectly positive about such desires, this suggests that actions directly informed by them could also be positive (i.e. that some AMSC can be loving, respectful, etc.).

True.

I believe that our foes instinctively, or perhaps even consciously in some cases, understand such implications.

I don't know, I feel like most antis just don't care. They are disgusted at the thought of an adult having sex with a child, and any good we do is never worth the cost of that happening.

We ought to stand our ground in insisting that others respect our fundamental dignity as human beings and acknowledge our capacity to do good.

Agreed.

[WavesInEternity]

I don't know if people care whether there's a difference. They find the desire disgusting, and they have the excuse of all these sensationalistic, lurid stories to rationalize their disgust as morality. Also, there's the second hand fear of being labelled a pedophile or pedophile sympathizer, so even if they weren't disgusted by our attractions, most aren't going to entertain the idea that MAPs are entitled to a normal life because they don't want to risk the ostracism that would come with supporting us.
[...]
I don't know, I feel like most antis just don't care. They are disgusted at the thought of an adult having sex with a child, and any good we do is never worth the cost of that happening.

Disgust is part of it and likely even the central factor for most uninvolved observers, but for those who actively express hatred or engage in violence against us, it isn't a sufficient explanation, and this vocal minority among our foes is the most dangerous to us by far. To such people, we are evil... perhaps, in fact, the closest thing modern Western society has to an "embodiment of evil". The Enemy From Which Children Must Be Saved.

Additionally, from what I've seen in my own research and discussions, those in a position to censor or deplatform dissenting views to enforce the dominant narrative often have a slightly more nuanced understanding of the matter.

Can't otherwise good people do evil things?
[...]
Or they could be neither good nor evil, just neutral.

Of course. Pay close attention to my use of the words "necessarily" and "may".

In a nutshell, the reasoning here is that if one accepts that the desire itself isn't necessarily evil, this entails that it can be positive (or neutral), and this in turn implies that the corresponding act also can be positive (or neutral). This mere possibility is generally viewed as unacceptable by the antis, who typically insist that the act must necessarily and always be evil. Think about the Rind et al. debacle where the vast majority of people rejected out of hand the empirical observation that AMSC is not always harmful, leading some philosophers to suggest that "harm" failed as a moral criterion with regard to sexuality (!).

The trouble is the tendency of antis to say that you are doing something wrong by even acknowledging you have those attractions. Even if you're anti-contact, people will say your doing something wrong by talking about the struggle to live within social norms.

Yes. That is precisely my point. I was trying to understand why antis perceive the open and transparent acknowledgement of our attraction to be so unacceptable. My initial observation was that it was because it humanizes us, but delving deeper, I wondered: why do they so aggressively reject any attempt at making society see us as fellow human beings?

[PorcelainLark]

In a nutshell, the reasoning here is that if one accepts that the desire itself isn't necessarily evil this entails that it can be positive (or neutral), and this in turn implies that the corresponding act also can be positive (or neutral). This mere possibility is generally viewed as unacceptable by the antis, who typically insist that the act must necessarily and always be evil. Think about the Rind et al. debacle where the vast majority of people rejected out of hand the empirical observation that AMSC is not always harmful, leading some philosophers to suggest that "harm" failed as a moral criterion with regard to sexuality (!).

It might be because of having different life experiences. Since I've never felt like I was a bad person because of my attractions, I find it hard to imagine what would be involved in changing an antis perspective on this. I suppose because I don't feel there's a genuine moral question, I tend to ignore questions about the logic of pro-contact ethics, preferring to think in terms of persuasion. I'm probably not the right person to look at this from a moral perspective.

Yes. That is precisely my point. I was trying to understand why antis perceive the open and transparent acknowledgement of our attraction to be so unacceptable. My initial observation was that it was because it humanizes us, but delving deeper, I wondered: why do they so aggressively reject any attempt at making society see us as fellow human beings?

I think because it helps resolve cognitive dissonance for them, otherwise they'd have to revise their beliefs and have to defend us. They're afraid of being put in our position, being ostracized. Like during the Stalinist purges, they denounce anyone and everyone for the sake of self-preservation, they can't be seen to be on the side of the enemy.

Most can't be convinced, they have to be told or forced. I believe they would continue their paranoid disavowals of us, even if the laws changed. I think MAPs should focus on the handful that might change their minds, but at the same time keep in mind that, over all, the liberation of MAPs has to be a top-down process. We don't need to convince the majority, only the people who actually matter.