MAP Forum

• Lack of women: Yes, it's circular logic. But a "boy's club" atmosphere can be hard to break down, and women may not want to deal with having to break it down in the first place. Perhaps there could be more female-only spaces, such as Butterfly Kisses was for lesbian pedophiles.
• Pedophilia seen as a male phenomenon: Even if a woman comes out to herself as a pedophile, she may think of herself as the only one, or as different from other pedophiles. Related to the above, if she seeks out pedophile sites and sees that they're male-dominated, then her perception of herself as abnormal may be validated.
• Sexism/male chauvinism: A problem that's plagued BL spaces since the beginning. Characterizations of women as emotional, deceitful, hysterical bitches who are always playing the victim; un-nuanced attacks against "feminism"; disparaging remarks about women's bodies and personalities. All of these are off-putting and certainly don't make women want to work with such men.
  (And to head off any arguments: yes, I'm aware women can be sexist toward men as well, and such sexism isn't good either)
• Seeing man/boy love as the ideal: Boylove spaces and writings often take the tone that men and boys need each other and have special relationships. The special, non-maternal bonds between women and children are not spoken of, and so women may feel they don't "fit in" with such spaces.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:52 am As long as MAPs come across as an anti-social element (like the far right, religious extremists, or anarchists) women will avoid getting involved. We need to be more moderate, and socially conventional if we want more women to get involved.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:52 am Women receive more unwanted sexual attention, and from an earlier age than men. Pedophilia is one issue they can ts pressure against this, because no one wants to be seen as defending pedophiles. Basically, either society has to loosen it's sexual boundaries (like during the sexual revolution) in which case unwanted sexual attention wouldn't be seen as a big deal, or you need to get rid of rape culture.
It's easier to understand why the first possibility isn't going to happen: if you're straight, would you really want to put up with being groped by gay men, or if you're an exclusive MAP would you really want to put up with being groped by a 70 year-old man or woman? Then there's the issue of STDs: a big part of why the sexual revolution went backwards was because of the AIDs crisis, which made casual sex potentially fatal.
So there's the possibility of getting rid of rape culture. Logically speaking, the the structure of the fear of MAPs is because of the equation "attraction = action", as though openly admitting to being attracted to children will lead to assault children. Again, think these in terms: under what conditions would you be comfortable with the open expression of the sexual attention of a 70 year-old of the sex you are unattracted to?

Combine this with the fact that women tend to be more concerned by following social conventions than men. Consider the fact that the majority of political extremists are male. As long as MAPs come across as an anti-social element (like the far right, religious extremists, or anarchists) women will avoid getting involved. We need to be more moderate, and socially conventional if we want more women to get involved.
After all, from women's perspective, why would they want to be involved with people that already disregard the biggest sexual boundary that almost everyone else agrees to? Note, I'm only aware of three cisgender female MAPs, and all three of them have made an explicit point of being opposed to rape culture (although, interestingly all three are pro-contact).