When the MAP-haters are MAPs

[Strato]

When John Walsh, co-founder of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, first started dating his current wife, he was comfortably in his twenties and she was only 16 years old. After Corey Feldman became legally an adult at the age of eighteen, he started a sizzling romance with a 14-year-old girl (Drew Barrymore). If I were to accuse either one of these men of being pedophiles, every self-proclaimed child advocate would be sniping at me from every direction.

Came across the above at the below link. Moderately amusing. The post itself is a hebephile = normal, pedophile = deviant assertion by an MRA. It was a semi-interesting read but the above quote is what most stuck in my mind.

https://peakd.com/@epicenterdefacto/all ... pedophiles

‘All Pedophiles Are MAPs, But Most MAPs Are Not Pedophiles.’ But where does our fearless leader, Spaceship Captain, draw the line? What is the age-of-interest threshold when a MAP automatically becomes a paedophile in his view, and thus vice-versa? What is his view on MAP/boy relationships - the only gender discussed is girls? What is his take on the circa 300,000 legal child marriages (from 10 year old and up) between 2000 and 2018 across the US?

‘The term "MAP" ("Minor-Attracted Person") is a linguistic aberration that should never have made its way into the English language. To put it shortly and sweetly, it is a word that has definitely lumped oranges and apples in together in a way that is catching innocent bystanders in its line of fire.’ Well he evidently will not approve of the MAP Union then.

‘In my opinion, Dr. von Krafft-Ebing is another Dr. Alfred Charles Kinsey in sheep's clothing. Both psychiatrists presented themselves as child advocates, but I would not doubt that Dr. von Krafft-Ebing had a hidden agenda like Dr. Kinsey that endangered society as a whole.’ Krafft-Ebing I will agree, but Kinsey – I thought he was one of the good guys. ‘Kinsey ... endangered society ...’ – Spaceship Captain has to be taking the piss, surely.

[PorcelainLark]

I'm not sure that's a great point. Aren't people allowed to change their views? For example, if a person is homophobic as a teenager, but then opposes homophobia as an adult, are they really being hypocritical? I don't think so, otherwise we're implicitly saying people can never change their views.

Also, is there historical evidence of pedophilia (as opposed to hebephilia) being considered acceptable? I haven't been able to find it, yet.

[ZeroXJoker]

I'm not sure that's a great point. Aren't people allowed to change their views? For example, if a person is homophobic as a teenager, but then opposes homophobia as an adult, are they really being hypocritical? I don't think so, otherwise we're implicitly saying people can never change their views.

Also, is there historical evidence of pedophilia (as opposed to hebephilia) being considered acceptable? I haven't been able to find it, yet.

Yea people are allowed to change their views. I was rather racist and sexist in my teen years but now oppose that stuff as an adult.

[PorcelainLark]

Which "point" are you referring to? The part I quoted? If so, what I find more amusing about it is that historic offences are still treated super seriously in most cases. People aren't excused for things that happened years ago. Yet both of those people are important figured in the cult of anti-CSA, despite those past relationships. If you posted about either of those relationships on reddit, they'd be roundly condemned. I'd like to post about it and then reveal who I was talking about after the fact. See how they calculate the change.

Fair enough. Although I will say at this point I expect they'd have negative reactions regardless of the person's involvement in those organizations. I think the pedo hysteria has gotten so out of control, it wouldn't even matter if you'd spent your whole life trying to protect children. The CSA industry has created a monster that could easily end up devouring them. It would be poetic justice if all the zoomers started a movement to get John Walsh to step down. I expect none of us here think he's done anything wrong, but he is responsible for creating a culture in which he would be pilloried. He should have to face the choice, either to say publicly that what he did was acceptable or to say it was wrong and resign. There's no way he would do the first, but maybe you could get a petition going for the second.
TL;DR It isn't really comparable to normal cancel culture, when the person being cancelled is partially responsible for creating creating and maintaining that culture. It's not like getting someone fired from their job for having the wrong political opinions, it is holding these people to account.