The message, messenger and shifting targets

[Outis]

I was pondering recently whether people in society need to be weened off their hate of pedophiles with something else, sort of like methodone to come off heroine?

If I go on a popular forum such as Reddit and joined a conversation about pedophiles and I presented facts that pedophiles are not the same as predators and most pedophiles are well integrated into society and are just good ordinary people, I would probably get banned or just called a pedophile.

If a woman said the same thing she might get the same treatment but I've found that they can get more favourable treatment, at least some will listen.

If a female academic presents evidence saying the same thing then they can get a more respectful response. People might not like the message but the messenger definitely makes a difference and wins more people over.

But then I wondered if that was enough because there is still resistence which I think might be down to an immune response against challenging a deeply help irrational belief. I mean if someone has spent decades hating pedophiles because of what they think they know, and then someone more informed comes along and shows them that their deeply help belief is wrong, many people will dig in deeper because that part of them that hates pedophiles needs a target and if the target is removed then that hate has nowhere left to go, and that isn't nice and triggers that immune response.

So do people need to be presented with the facts by the right messengers while being given a new place to let out that frustration they have inside?

Obviously I don't want to throw any other group under the bus and so the only group that came to mind was "predators" but defining predators as they are, people of any sexuality who lack empathy and derive pleasure from hurting others, including kids, or feel nothing for those they hurt. But guide people away from pedophiles since the pedophile target is a smoke screen by predators allowing them to operate. Take some of the highest profile abuse cases, were they pedophiles?

I don't know if this is correct, it's just a chain of thought. Is the right approach facts, presented by fair messengers who also offer an alternative to the hate they feel?

[Julia]

The hate that people feel is actually for predators, but they mistakenly direct it towards pedophiles due to a lack of understanding about the distinction between the two. When the difference is explained clearly, most people can grasp the concept. However, as you mentioned, attempting to convey this to strangers is often ineffective; people are generally reluctant to listen to someone they don’t know.

Conversely, it is also not necessary to be a female academic to get people to listen. In my experience, building genuine relationships and earning people’s trust is key. When people know you to be a good person, they are more likely to listen to your perspective, and if you explain things clearly, it's not too hard for people to get it.

To quote one of the reactions I once got:
"Hello. I wanted to reach out to you on the day that you spoke up about being a pedophile.
I was one of those who used to believe that pedophilia was synonymous with assaulting children, and I want to thank you. You have been so brave, and from the fact that you changed your name, I can only imagine the hate that you've received.
I'm so sorry for that, but thank you so much for standing up to the world and being true to yourself, however briefly it was for. It can't have been easy and I respect the hell out of you.
Also thank you for sharing because I would never have learnt without you.
Honestly my immediate reaction was 'umm no' but I read on because I love your posts and perspectives and figured you wouldn't share something without your mind having processed it.
I'm glad I took the time, and once again, thank you "

[PorcelainLark]

I think the term you may be looking for is "cognitive dissonance." Basically, if you present facts or arguments that are too radically opposed to what people believe, they'll find a way of dismissing them and doubling down on what they originally believe. Therefore, you have to be modest in how much you challenge people, otherwise it can backfire. Any approach to advocating for MAP rights needs to be careful to avoid causing cognitive dissonance.

The hate that people feel is actually for predators, but they mistakenly direct it towards pedophiles due to a lack of understanding about the distinction between the two. When the difference is explained clearly, most people can grasp the concept. However, as you mentioned, attempting to convey this to strangers is often ineffective; people are generally reluctant to listen to someone they don’t know.

Unfortunately, there's also that issue about whether child sex abusers should be called pedophiles. Despite often not having a specific attraction to children, people are adamant that they should be called pedophiles.

[Julia]

Unfortunately, there's also that issue about whether child sex abusers should be called pedophiles. Despite often not having a specific attraction to children, people are adamant that they should be called pedophiles.

Most of those people have absolutely no authority on the subject. Meanwhile, numerous CSA survivors and nearly all professionals who work with offenders and victims emphasise the importance of distinguishing between child sex abusers and pedophiles. Unlike those who mistakenly conflate the two, these people actually possess significant expertise on the matter.

When I came out publicly, I discovered that there are many CSA survivors who grasp the nuance of this issue and support us. With this understanding, and as someone who is both a CSA survivor and a MAP, I've been contemplating the idea of starting an allied initiative to educate others (among other things). I believe that people may be more willing to listen to CSA survivors advocating for MAPs than to MAPs self-advocating.

[PorcelainLark]

When I came out publicly, I discovered that there are many CSA survivors who grasp the nuance of this issue and support us.

That's quite interesting, I was hoping to study that at some point (i.e. whether CSA survivors tend to be more nuanced about MAPs). I've thought before that survivors and MAPs aren't necessarily on opposite sides, since both want society to recognize and examine pedophilia instead of sweeping it under the rug.

With this understanding, and as someone who is both a CSA survivor and a MAP, I've been contemplating the idea of starting an allied initiative to educate others (among other things). I believe that people may be more willing to listen to CSA survivors advocating for MAPs than to MAPs self-advocating.

Sounds like a good idea! If you do end up doing it, I'd be really interested to see what happens.

[Fragment]

Unfortunately, there's also that issue about whether child sex abusers should be called pedophiles. Despite often not having a specific attraction to children, people are adamant that they should be called pedophiles.

How do we acknowledge so called "preferential offenders" in a way that reduces some of the hysteria around seductive relationships while putting the focus on relations involving forced behavior?

[PorcelainLark]

How do we acknowledge so called "preferential offenders" in a way that reduces some of the hysteria around seductive relationships while putting the focus on relations involving forced behavior?

I don't think we should budge on the position that preferential offenders are the exception rather than the rule. Like the claim immigrants are the root of criminality in America. There are some immigrants that are criminals, but the vast majority aren't. It's rooted in xenophobia, so catering to it is catering to prejudice rather than legitimate concerns. The point of that position is an excuse to make life harder for immigrants rather than reduce crime, likewise the focus on preferential offenders isn't about helping children, it's about perpetuating mistreatment of MAPs, in my opinion. As unpopular and difficult as it is, I think it's necessary to defend, since the idea of MAPs as preferential defenders is a (if not "the") core justification for how MAPs are treated.

[Aspire6]

That's quite interesting, I was hoping to study that at some point (i.e. whether CSA survivors tend to be more nuanced about MAPs). I've thought before that survivors and MAPs aren't necessarily on opposite sides, since both want society to recognize and examine pedophilia instead of sweeping it under the rug.

What I keep seeing time and time again is most of society seems to rather not care about actually preventing a bad choice from happening and instead seeks to wait until afterwards so they can punish for it. Banning child-like dolls, which in my eyes is just criminalizing fantasies, or going after fictional material the same as PIM is in my opinion just showing that they expect us to suppress our urges/desires entirely and our any failure to do such is grounds for severe punishment.

It's very frustrating to have any possible non-harmful outlet criminalized heavily or in the process of being criminalized. These outlets hurt nobody besides society hating the idea MAPs may "indulge" in something, privately in their own place, that they don't like the idea of.

[Fragment]

I don't think we should budge on the position that preferential offenders are the exception rather than the rule. Like the claim immigrants are the root of criminality in America. There are some immigrants that are criminals, but the vast majority aren't. It's rooted in xenophobia, so catering to it is catering to prejudice rather than legitimate concerns. The point of that position is an excuse to make life harder for immigrants rather than reduce crime, likewise the focus on preferential offenders isn't about helping children, it's about perpetuating mistreatment of MAPs, in my opinion. As unpopular and difficult as it is, I think it's necessary to defend, since the idea of MAPs as preferential defenders is a (if not "the") core justification for how MAPs are treated.

I just wonder what that means for people like me.

"Most of us wouldn't do horrible things like THAT (we just wish we could)." still seems... ? as a message to me.

[Julia]

That's quite interesting, I was hoping to study that at some point (i.e. whether CSA survivors tend to be more nuanced about MAPs). I've thought before that survivors and MAPs aren't necessarily on opposite sides, since both want society to recognize and examine pedophilia instead of sweeping it under the rug.

That's exactly the case. Some seek to understand the mindset of their abuser(s) and start doing research, ultimately discovering that harm reduction necessitates destigmatisation. Though certainly not all go this path, and those who don't tend to hate us because they associate us with their traumatic experiences.

One survivor I spoke to also told me that their partner is a MAP. I'll quote that one here as well. It's one of the most heartening responses I got.

Them: "I'm sorry you're getting so much hate. My partner is a map and they are simply the best person in my life. I was the victim of childhood SA. They told me when I told them. It was a long, hard talk, but I feel as though they have an understanding of how harmful it really was; better than any other person who just respond with disgust or pity. We keep it super private because of obvious reasons. They are kind and caring and sensitive, and couldn't take the rejection from family or friends. For a long time, they wanted to end it all, just because of the feelings of shame and the fact that they couldn't tell anyone or get help that wouldn't end up in institutionalisation.
It's a good cause to fight the stigma. I think that in doing so, there's a good chance that some children will be spared from those who lack enough empathy, but also that people like my most beloved can get the support they need.
My partner would rather be invisible, and it's not my flag to fly, but I am heartened that you have the courage and self-understanding to make a stand.
Sorry about the ramble "

Me: "Thank you for taking the time to write this message! I appreciate it a lot! I can totally understand not wanting to tell anyone else. It's for the best. I've already lost 4 friends so far."

Them: "Yeah, a lot of people say they're for abolishing the prison system but don't make acknowledgements of the sort of radical compassion it requires. If we think some people are innately beyond our compassion and should therefor be excluded from the benefits of our society, how will things ever be any different than they already are? Especially when we talk about people who have _literally done no harm to anyone_ who other leftists/anarchists think should be locked up for just who they are. Hypocrisy."

I've also met a few others who belong to both groups like me. One of them messaged me when I came out, and is currently one of my best friends. Another I used to date for a while. Neither of us knew from each other that we were when we started dating. Something hateful she posted online about pedophiles was what motivated me to write an essay to come out with, which then also helped her come to terms with herself.

Sounds like a good idea! If you do end up doing it, I'd be really interested to see what happens.

I've given this a lot of thought, and there are a couple of obstacles. For one, survivors typically do not organise in public online spaces like other communities. Instead, we mostly just form small, private support groups. Due to the stigma surrounding CSA and feelings of shame and isolation, many of us feel uncomfortable discussing our experiences publicly. I believe the closest we have to a large online community is the r/CPTSD subreddit, which is not exactly the healthiest space either. It's unfortunate because survivors could greatly benefit from a strong community to raise awareness, educate, destigmatise, and advocate for rights and better support services. The parallels with this community are quite ironic.