A foundational truth that can't be challenged

[Outis]

I've been reading through materials from various researchers and I've made a few observations that I'm not sure how to deal with.

Reachers into maps are generally sympathetic towards maps. It seems to be accepted that being a map isn't a choice, maps are not the same as offenders, maps suffer, society misunderstands maps and mistreats maps. That all feels like positive progress.

But wherever I read materials there's often statements about a fundamental non-negotiable principle that children have a fundamental right to be protecte and any civilised country must prioritise the protection of children. Now I have no issue with that except it comes with an automatic, non-negotiable assumption that any sexual activity with a child breaches that. I've read in advice to the media for instance that this must be a non-negotiable truth and that the media should not use terms such as inappropriate relaionships with a child since it trivilised the unmovable truth that it's abuse and a terrible act.

It's the non-negotiable aspect of this that concerns me and the assumption that ALL such activity is abuse of the worst kind and any state has a responsibility to stop it.

To put it another way, by making it non-negotiable it means that regardless of evidence or reality, the current position must never change. It precludes research from challenging this view, it makes it about the only act that can't be challenged. Even murder can be challenged such as the debate of whether someone should have the right to terminate their own life if they are suffering, or self defence.

This means all research is about stopping any risk of sexual contact while minimising the suffering of people who barred from such activity, it is never and can never be about asking whether it is ever acceptable for such activity.

I can't think of anything that should be beyond questionning, there should be nothing in the world we should be afraid to ask "is that true?" or "is that right?". And yet here there is one thing and I can't understand why. I mean if the foundation of this argument is so strong then there should be no problem with challenging it, in fact people should want it challenging to help cement the foundation of the argument? When Newton discovered gravity he wanted people to challenge it, to investigate it because that helps to solidify the case for it. I can only conclude that the foundation is very weak and that's what makes it terrible to challenge. Academics are taught to start with this assumption as their foundation, so they talk about suffering and actions to take but if everything is built on a flawed assumption then how valuable is it ultimately? And because it's even presented as a non-negotiable requirement for any nation then it snuffs out any way to question and challenge this foundation.

[Aurelian]

Some authors had already scrutinized CSA as an ideology, putting in check the trauma model, exposing the history and construction of CSA in late 70's and early 80's and some authors in applied ethics have even make questions about what qualify AMSC as different from any other activity to hold such prohibition. We, however, shouldn't expect so much heresy from just one person. It would be pretty onerous for a person with some career be positioned in this way (look Stephen Kershnar for example). Sometimes i wonder if any of these researchers have secretly a pro-c stance, but we can't expect publicly such position and think it's probably not necessary to struggle for life improvement of MAPs and their good existence in society.

My biggest dream would be street activism soon, like in less than 10 years, but this sounds completely utopic and the visibility of our ideas still low.

[Outis]

Some authors had already scrutinized CSA as an ideology, putting in check the trauma model, exposing the history and construction of CSA in late 70's and early 80's and some authors in applied ethics have even make questions about what qualify AMSC as different from any other activity to hold such prohibition. We, however, shouldn't expect so much heresy from just one person. It would be pretty onerous for a person with some career be positioned in this way (look Stephen Kershnar for example). Sometimes i wonder if any of these researchers have secretly a pro-c stance, but we can't expect publicly such position and think it's probably not necessary to struggle for life improvement of MAPs and their good existence in society.

My biggest dream would be street activism soon, like in less than 10 years, but this sounds completely utopic and the visibility of our ideas still low.

I think street activism is a real possibility. When all official routes to discussion are closed off then it only leaves the route of going directly to members of society to get them to really think about the messaging they are hearing and the logic (or lack of) being applied. When enough people question then it doesn't matter if official routes are closed, change just happens organically. I've been an advocate for in person meetups and activism for a long time but it is starting to feel like people are warming to this more broadly so I feel that real world activism is starting to feel more real.

[RoosterDance]

It's the non-negotiable aspect of this that concerns me and the assumption that ALL such activity is abuse of the worst kind and any state has a responsibility to stop it.

It is this assumption from which all this hysteria originates. As such I believe it is the assumption that is most vital to disprove, but also probably explains why it is the assumption that is most vehemently defended. If people accepted that sexuality is not harmful to children, then all other attitudes towards pedophilia, child pornography, sex offender registries, and all the laws surrounding them would have their foundations greatly weakened. And someone's been making too much money off of this hysteria to allow that to happen.

[Outis]

It's the non-negotiable aspect of this that concerns me and the assumption that ALL such activity is abuse of the worst kind and any state has a responsibility to stop it.

It is this assumption from which all this hysteria originates. As such I believe it is the assumption that is most vital to disprove, but also probably explains why it is the assumption that is most vehemently defended. If people accepted that sexuality is not harmful to children, then all other attitudes towards pedophilia, child pornography, sex offender registries, and all the laws surrounding them would have their foundations greatly weakened. And someone's been making too much money off of this hysteria to allow that to happen.

You make a good point. Maybe it's worth a focused attack on that foundational principle as you say since it's the corner stone for the whole argument against maps.

However, having given in some thought I think the issue is that the argument is so weak and flawed that it has already fallen apart and caused the argument to become that even a single abuse case is sufficient to underpin the law and require any counter research or investigation to be blocked.

What I mean is that I've heard the argument numerous times now that "OK, it's not always abusive but sometimes it is and to protect kids in those situations then we must blanket treat every case as abusive, just to be certain". The argument seems to be that power imbalance and trust and mental development means it's too difficult to unpick whether a case is abusive or not, so treat every case as abusive and we at least know we're not letting any abuse cases slip through the net.

But that argument seems lazy and flawed, you could apply that same lazy thinking to any situation. In an extreme example you could decide that black people are involved in more crime per population so we'll treat all black people as criminals, just to make sure we protect society. Obviously a deeply flawed and nonsense argument that ignores the details of each situation and turns a blind eye to all the white people committing the same crimes.

So eroding the argument that all intergenerational relationships are abusive is still worth doing since I don't think most people even think about it and just assume that it is because the media only presents those cases, you'll never read a story about an adult and child in a loving relationship, the paper would be destroyed for repeating such a true story. But then off the back of that then pull apart the argument that blanket bans are the correct option since it often causes more harm than good.