Minor attraction is a sexual orientation, deal with it

[InfinityChild]

I wish normies could deal with this and not be so obsessed with trying to change us or worse things.

[WavesInEternity]

While a few bold researchers are getting around to that view, we're far from a scientific consensus.

An alternative point of view that's gaining traction in both the academic world and among "virtuous pedophiles" is that minor-attraction is a "serious mental illness", and in some cases I've seen it described as a "neurological disorder".

This does involve the acknowledgment that it's not a choice and that the preference itself can't be changed. However, it also includes the claim that due to the distress it causes for MAPs themselves and the risk of harm to minors, minor-attraction should be "managed" or "treated" like schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder. According to this approach, the "correct" behaviour for MAPs is medicalization: for instance, therapy and/or medication (chemical castration).

My opinion is that this new conception of minor-attraction, while arguably better for us than outright demonization, is ultimately detrimental to our cause in many pernicious ways. Pathologizing our desires involves the assumption that there could never be any way to actually satisfy them that's morally acceptable. This entails inevitable self-loathing and ego dystonia for MAPs.

[Jim Burton]

James Cantor has attempted this full in the face by putting pedophiles on a par with gay men such as himself, while also refusing to mention his bizarre theories about pedos being "developmentally perturbed".

All that happened to him was some free publicity and attacks for his views on trans people (mainly mentioning his Virped connection to own the transphobes). It didn't seem to harm his career, nor the number of slots he gets as a talking head on TV.

[PorcelainLark]

I think the view that pedophilia is a mental illness is pseudoscientific. It comes from uncritically accepting prejudices, e.g. that people are morally failing if they acknowledge their attraction. I recall reading a story from a support forum of a MAP whose therapist was insistent that their attraction could be changed or cured. I think this is probably a major part of the opposition to organizations like Virped, people think acknowledgement of attraction itself is a kind of error. Other times, I've seen antis who are deeply invested in opposing MAPs, insist that people actually choose their attractions, against the major of people's opinions.

I think there's a sort of compartmentalized irrationality across social groups. There's the major public discussions, where people are hostile but limited in how far they can go against majority opinion. Then there are smaller spaces, where ideas like conversion therapy and sexual attraction being a choice, are tolerated. As I've said before, I really believe a lot of the mainstream hostility towards MAPs is fed on whitewashed religious ideas; consider the film The Sound of Freedom, would it have achieved it's level of popularity without the background of Qanon?

Basically, if you lie frequently enough, you can poison the well of people who disagree with you. Since fundamentalist Christians know that, for most liberal people, stuff like believing dinosaurs aren't real will discredit them, they have to frame things in a way that appears plausible to secular people. While privately they believe in Satanic ritual abuse, outwardly they won't say that that's what they're looking for. They use the terror and urgency that comes from the belief that pedophilia is something supernaturally evil, demonic; but they are great at concealing that when working on bipartisan legislation. You can see it today, with the drive to prevent minors from being able to access pornography.

Anyway, just as there's no evidence that homosexual attraction can be changed, that it's the result of childhood experiences, or that it cognitively impairs you in any other way, there's no evidence for those things regarding pedophilia either. People label pedophilia a mental illness, and then sometimes search for reasons to justify that label after the fact if they are pressed. That's not how science works, you don't start with a forgone conclusion and then find excuses for it.

[WavesInEternity]

I've seen antis who are deeply invested in opposing MAPs, insist that people actually choose their attractions

I've encountered such people too. I'm beginning to think that part of the reason for some people's stubborn counterfactual insistence on minor-attraction being a "choice" is that they have become masters of self-delusion regarding their own sexuality.

Statistically speaking, a large number of those people are likely to have all sorts of paraphilias themselves, but they evidently choose to think and act as though they do not, as much as humanly possible. From that point of view, "being straight" is indeed "a choice" insofar as we can decide to lie to ourselves (and to others). I wonder if some of our foes would go as far as to argue that self-deception is actually preferable for MAPs to ensure we act morally (not that there is any evidence this can work, quite the opposite).

We must remember that, among Christians, there are still many who erroneously believe that "conversion therapy" works for LGBTQ+ people, and many so-called ex-gay people claim they were "cured" themselves.

As I've said before, I really believe a lot of the mainstream hostility towards MAPs is fed on whitewashed religious ideas
[...]
You can see it today, with the drive to prevent minors from being able to access pornography.
[...]
That's not how science works, you don't start with a forgone conclusion and then find excuses for it.

Three excellent points.

[PorcelainLark]

I've encountered such people too. I'm beginning to think that part of the reason for some people's stubborn counterfactual insistence on minor-attraction being a "choice" is that they have become masters of self-delusion regarding their own sexuality.

I'm agnostic about the extent to which people are projecting their own feelings of guilt about MA onto others; however, I feel like it can lull you into a false sense of security, i.e. if antis just learn to accept themselves, our problems go away. On other hand, imagine an egocentric pansexual: from their perspective, attraction really could be construed as what you give attention to; or an someone who is on the edge of asexuality: it would be easy to imagine that sexual desire is a choice from that perspective. There are people to whom sexual desires can appear to be a choice, and if you add the motivations of moralizing and disgust, it's easy to see how those experiences lead to certain conclusions.

Statistically speaking, a large number of those people are likely to have all sorts of paraphilias themselves, but they evidently choose to think and act as though they do not, as much as humanly possible. From that point of view, "being straight" is indeed "a choice" insofar as we can decide to lie to ourselves (and to others). I wonder if some of our foes would go as far as to argue that self-deception is actually preferable for MAPs to ensure we act morally (not that there is any evidence this can work, quite the opposite).

It's hard to say how much a zoophile (for example) is being self-deceptive (if they act like paraphilias are a choice) versus being performative. I think there's a big layer of people that go along with something they know doesn't reflect their own experience, but there's an inner core of people who are actually blind to sexuality in various ways, all the while still having strong opinions about it. That core, like the hypothetical egocentric pansexual, enables regressive attitudes towards sexuality.
I do think the current dominant tactic of avoiding giving ground, on the part of antis, is to take the position self-deception is a good thing. It's so effective - you don't need to talk about the difficulty making therapy accessible to MAPs, you don't have to take the idea that MAPs need support groups seriously, you don't need to consider whether MAPs are a stigmatized minority, all because self-identification as a MAP is itself wrong.

We must remember that, among Christians, there are still many who erroneously believe that "conversion therapy" works for LGBTQ+ people, and many so-called ex-gay people claim they were "cured" themselves.

Absolutely. Also, you'd be surprised how many anti-MAP organizations and figures, that outwardly look like they're secular, are literally tied back to churches (Tim Ballard and OUR, for example, are closely connected to Mormonism). I wonder if you sifted through the origins of these organizations, how many actually come from secular origins? With the exception of feminists, the CSA industry seems to be a Trojan horse for otherwise unpopular and declining religious beliefs.

Anyway, I think the very idea that MA isn't a choice is radically opposed to the anti position. I think if a person can acknowledge that, they've rejected a major foundation of anti thinking. However, then there's the other side to deal with, the Nazis/retributivists; it doesn't matter if it's a choice from their perspective, because they advocate for killing. Like how the belief that sexual desire is a choice, is a compartmentalized belief that informs the public without the public becoming aware of it, I think there are a lot of antis that are literally just Neo-Nazis. I think as religion goes further into decline, the main opposition to MAPs will switch from white-washed religious beliefs, to white-washed Neo-Nazism. We already saw from this forum how unrestrained a member was in their willingness to apply the death penalty. While that person may or may not be a Neo-Nazi, it is indicative of a kind of genocidal attitude that's become more normal.

[WavesInEternity]

I'm agnostic about the extent to which people are projecting their own feelings of guilt about MA onto others; however, I feel like it can lull you into a false sense of security, i.e. if antis just learn to accept themselves, our problems go away. On other hand, imagine an egocentric pansexual: from their perspective, attraction really could be construed as what you give attention to; or an someone who is on the edge of asexuality: it would be easy to imagine that sexual desire is a choice from that perspective. There are people to whom sexual desires can appear to be a choice, and if you add the motivations of moralizing and disgust, it's easy to see how those experiences lead to certain conclusions.

I wasn't referring specifically to MA, but rather to all sexual preferences that deviate from monogamous heteronormative intercourse between two adult teleiophiles (for the primary purpose of procreation). We've known at least since Kinsey that "perversion" is the norm, not the exception. Human sexuality is spectacularly diverse and exuberant. While some atypical "normal" individuals do exist, any large group that pretends to have homogeneous and restricted patterns of sexual activity on a macro level is necessarily sexually repressed—and if they claim otherwise, they're in denial.

I agree that there are individuals such as those you describe, for whom sexual desire may superficially appear to be a "choice". However, I'd be inclined to think they are fairly rare, and unlikely to have had a profound effect on the dominant narrative. By contrast, perverts of all kinds that grapple with denial to the extent of self-delusion are likely to be numerous, if not a majority in any given sexually repressed population.

It's hard to say how much a zoophile (for example) is being self-deceptive (if they act like paraphilias are a choice) versus being performative. I think there's a big layer of people that go along with something they know doesn't reflect their own experience, but there's an inner core of people who are actually blind to sexuality in various ways, all the while still having strong opinions about it. That core, like the hypothetical egocentric pansexual, enables regressive attitudes towards sexuality.
I do think the current dominant tactic of avoiding giving ground, on the part of antis, is to take the position self-deception is a good thing. It's so effective - you don't need to talk about the difficulty making therapy accessible to MAPs, you don't have to take the idea that MAPs need support groups seriously, you don't need to consider whether MAPs are a stigmatized minority, all because self-identification as a MAP is itself wrong.

The comparison here would be a zoophile who doesn't identify as such. I'm sure that different categories of deception are involved to various extents for different people. Lying to oneself, lying to loved ones, lying to the world at large... some might start on one end of the chain and end up at the other, or vice-versa. The core of my argument is that all forms of erotoconformist deception involve some degree of self-delusion regarding one's sexuality, if only because it requires deluding oneself into believing that a certain illusion of "normality" is desirable.

That said, you are also correct in calling attention to the role played by people who have little to no sexual inner life but nonetheless have strong views on the topic (my mother is one of them, although it's likely that her asexuality is a consequence of CSA). The current situation regarding AMSC & MAPs certainly can't be ascribed to a single cause. As with all great cultural/social phenomena, the roots are complex.

Absolutely. Also, you'd be surprised how many anti-MAP organizations and figures, that outwardly look like they're secular, are literally tied back to churches (Tim Ballard and OUR, for example, are closely connected to Mormonism). I wonder if you sifted through the origins of these organizations, how many actually come from secular origins? With the exception of feminists, the CSA industry seems to be a Trojan horse for otherwise unpopular and declining religious beliefs.

Anyway, I think the very idea that MA isn't a choice is radically opposed to the anti position. I think if a person can acknowledge that, they've rejected a major foundation of anti thinking. However, then there's the other side to deal with, the Nazis/retributivists; it doesn't matter if it's a choice from their perspective, because they advocate for killing. Like how the belief that sexual desire is a choice, is a compartmentalized belief that informs the public without the public becoming aware of it, I think there are a lot of antis that are literally just Neo-Nazis. I think as religion goes further into decline, the main opposition to MAPs will switch from white-washed religious beliefs, to white-washed Neo-Nazism. We already saw from this forum how unrestrained a member was in their willingness to apply the death penalty. While that person may or may not be a Neo-Nazi, it is indicative of a kind of genocidal attitude that's become more normal.

Oh, I know about the role of religion in the CSA industry. Feminists are, however, not a mere exception, but an entire other wing of what might be summarily described as the "anti" movement.

And, yes, our "Nazi/retributivist" adversaries don't care about whether or not our preferences are a choice or not. We're essentially worse than murderous psychopaths and deserve death or lifelong incarceration. I'd add that I see the pathologization of our sexual orientations as little more (and definitely no better) than a "moderate" version of that genocidal paradigm, as it requires MAPs to be mentally "imprisoned" for life, so to speak.

[PorcelainLark]

I wasn't referring specifically to MA, but rather to all sexual preferences that deviate from monogamous heteronormative intercourse between two adult teleiophiles (for the primary purpose of procreation). We've known at least since Kinsey that "perversion" is the norm, not the exception. Human sexuality is spectacularly diverse and exuberant. While some atypical "normal" individuals do exist, any large group that pretends to have homogeneous and restricted patterns of sexual activity on a macro level is necessarily sexually repressed—and if they claim otherwise, they're in denial.

I guess my view is that suppression, rather than repression, plays the biggest role today. In the first place, there's the direct knowledge of sexuality that comes from having a body (which can be controlled by adding claims like "if you masturbate, you'll go blind"); and then as you live in cities, have access to libraries, and access to the internet, the individual has to play a more conscious and active role in maintaining sex-negative beliefs.

I agree that there are individuals such as those you describe, for whom sexual desire may superficially appear to be a "choice". However, I'd be inclined to think they are fairly rare, and unlikely to have had a profound effect on the dominant narrative. By contrast, perverts of all kinds that grapple with denial to the extent of self-delusion are likely to be numerous, if not a majority in any given sexually repressed population.

My view is that the asexual is the new heterosexual, the model which sexuality is measured against and shamed for not being more like. The only safe expression of sexuality is aversion or indifference.

The comparison here would be a zoophile who doesn't identify as such. I'm sure that different categories of deception are involved to various extents for different people. Lying to oneself, lying to loved ones, lying to the world at large... some might start on one end of the chain and end up at the other, or vice-versa. The core of my argument is that all forms of erotoconformist deception involve some degree of self-delusion regarding one's sexuality, if only because it requires deluding oneself into believing that a certain illusion of "normality" is desirable.

I think self-deception is pretty rare. Regarding conformism, I don't think a person needs to have self-deceptive beliefs in order to perpetuate it. I think the major of the problem lies with people that are conscious hypocrites: they understand their own sexuality, but act as though they lack that understanding.

That said, you are also correct in calling attention to the role played by people who have little to no sexual inner life but nonetheless have strong views on the topic (my mother is one of them, although it's likely that her asexuality is a consequence of CSA). The current situation regarding AMSC & MAPs certainly can't be ascribed to a single cause. As with all great cultural/social phenomena, the roots are complex.

Fair enough.

Oh, I know about the role of religion in the CSA industry. Feminists are, however, not a mere exception, but an entire other wing of what might be summarily described as the "anti" movement.

True, although I wonder about the proportions of the anti movement. My hunch is that religion plays a higher proportional role than feminism, like religion makes up the supermajority of the anti movement.

And, yes, our "Nazi/retributivist" adversaries don't care about whether or not our preferences are a choice or not. We're essentially worse than murderous psychopaths and deserve death or lifelong incarceration. I'd add that I see the pathologization of our sexual orientations as little more (and definitely no better) than a "moderate" version of that genocidal paradigm, as it requires MAPs to be mentally "imprisoned" for life, so to speak.

I disagree about that. I'd rather be imprisoned than be in Auschwitz; if I had to choose between a religious captor and a Nazi, I'd tend to choose the religious person. Nazism coming to replace religion is definitely going from out of the frying pan into the fire, in my opinion.

[WavesInEternity]

I guess my view is that suppression, rather than repression, plays the biggest role today. In the first place, there's the direct knowledge of sexuality that comes from having a body (which can be controlled by adding claims like "if you masturbate, you'll go blind"); and then as you live in cities, have access to libraries, and access to the internet, the individual has to play a more conscious and active role in maintaining sex-negative beliefs.

Hm. I still think that family, peers, coreligionists, etc. play an important role in pressuring people to adhere to certain sexual norms. I'm not sure that I fully grasp the distinction you make between "repression" and "suppression", apart from the former being a collective phenomenon and the latter an individual one. (?) Could you expand?

My view is that the asexual is the new heterosexual, the model which sexuality is measured against and shamed for not being more like. The only safe expression of sexuality is aversion or indifference.

That is an interesting perspective. I'll have to ponder it in greater depth, but at face value, I still find that our sex-negative society values romantic relationships and procreation. Even in a "desexualized" form, sexual acts are nonetheless culturally important, and it's considered abnormal not to seek them out. Carefully stereotyped sexuality—even when "diversity" is depicted, it's still incredibly "normal"—is shown in popular movies and written about in mainstream books, as long as it doesn't show or describe "too much" and doesn't risk offending anyone.

I think self-deception is pretty rare. Regarding conformism, I don't think a person needs to have self-deceptive beliefs in order to perpetuate it. I think the major of the problem lies with people that are conscious hypocrites: they understand their own sexuality, but act as though they lack that understanding.

Here, we are in partial disagreement. I am rather of Ludwig Wittgenstein's view: "Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself." (And: "It is truly strange how long it takes to get to know oneself.") In other words, I do believe that self-deception is quite common.

However, I also did mention that other forms of deception were involved, and I'd correspondingly characterize "conscious hypocrisy" as such a form of untruthfulness.

True, although I wonder about the proportions of the anti movement. My hunch is that religion plays a higher proportional role than feminism, like religion makes up the supermajority of the anti movement.

Perhaps I feel differently because of my personal experience being raised in a relatively liberal family that struggled with widespread incestuous CSA for generations and addressed it by turning to feminist reasoning.

I disagree about that. I'd rather be imprisoned than be in Auschwitz; if I had to choose between a religious captor and a Nazi, I'd tend to choose the religious person. Nazism coming to replace religion is definitely going from out of the frying pan into the fire, in my opinion.

I didn't mean that the genocidal retributivist and the pathologizing attitudes toward MAPs are equally bad, only that they are both bad and, most importantly, rely on very similar underlying assumptions and motivations. Of course, if I had to choose between a world ruled by one or the other, I'd choose the pathologizing religious & feminist folks.

[PorcelainLark]

Hm. I still think that family, peers, coreligionists, etc. play an important role in pressuring people to adhere to certain sexual norms. I'm not sure that I fully grasp the distinction you make between "repression" and "suppression", apart from the former being a collective phenomenon and the latter an individual one. (?) Could you expand?

In the context of psychodynamic therapy, repression is unconscious, suppression is conscious. If I'm unaware that I'm avoiding something, that would be repression (e.g. incest); if I'm aware that that I'm avoiding something, that would be suppression (e.g. eating certain foods while being on diet).

That is an interesting perspective. I'll have to ponder it in greater depth, but at face value, I still find that our sex-negative society values romantic relationships and procreation. Even in a "desexualized" form, sexual acts are nonetheless culturally important, and it's considered abnormal not to seek them out. Carefully stereotyped sexuality—even when "diversity" is depicted, it's still incredibly "normal"—is shown in popular movies and written about in mainstream books, as long as it doesn't show or describe "too much" and doesn't risk offending anyone.

Maybe I'm overgeneralizing my own experience. It seems like the majority of people I encounter are antinatalists. In my context, pursuing sex, procreation, and romantic relationships are all luxuries at best, negative at worst. Maybe it's mashing my own experience growing up around environmentalists, the Zoomer sex aversion, and the idea of the corporate nun, into something that isn't really there.

Here, we are in partial disagreement. I am rather of Ludwig Wittgenstein's view: "Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself." (And: "It is truly strange how long it takes to get to know oneself.") In other words, I do believe that self-deception is quite common.

I read a fair amount about self-deception when I was younger, but I felt there are conceptual difficulties with the idea; I can't think of something I would unambiguously call self-deception. I won't discount that it's possible, but I prefer to appeal to other things for explanations.

Perhaps I feel differently because of my personal experience being raised in a relatively liberal family that struggled with widespread incestuous CSA for generations and addressed it by turning to feminist reasoning.

Certainly, I think feminism plays a big role, however, much of the infrastructure and law making required American religious conservatives. Like the NCMEC and the ICMEC, and the various cosponsors of laws, for example:

Megan's law cosponsors: 23 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006: 32 Republicans, 5 Democrats
Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996: 7 Republicans, 1 Democrat
Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011: 28 Republicans, 11 Democrats

Basically, I think American religious conservatives are responsible for the core dissemination of anti ideology, and propping up and enabling sex negative feminists on both an American and an international level. However, at a more local level, feminist justifications are going to have a more currency in Europe because we're more secular than America.

I didn't mean that the genocidal retributivist and the pathologizing attitudes toward MAPs are equally bad, only that they are both bad and, most importantly, rely on very similar underlying assumptions and motivations. Of course, if I had to choose between a world ruled by one or the other, I'd choose the pathologizing religious & feminist folks.

Fair enough. Ultimately, we are talking about greater and lesser evils here.