MAP Forum

Is there anything in the literature about the risk of harm based on type of sex? For my next article, I want to cover the awkwardness of having oral performed on you being treated the same as being anally penetrated; in many countries, sucking a 12 year old boy's penis is considered literal rape, the same as if you fucked them in the butt. Obviously one act is much more likely to be perceived positively by the boy, and the two acts should not be covered under the same clause.

Despite being absolutely hysterical about MAPs, the UK treats rape as an of-age person putting their penis in an underage person. This has been criticized for not adequately punishing women who have vaginal sex with boys (they can be convicted of a lesser offense), but realistically this is something most boys would like a lot more than having a penis put inside them. Ignoring my concerns about punishing consensual AMSC in general, I think the UK gets it right in this case.

Is data available to support the upcoming article?

I think we're back to the confounds again, with this one. There really is no meaningful data, because there already is no decisive data on AMSC as a whole.

Say, for example, penetrative sex is twice as likely to happen in an incest setting. Then penetrative sex is lumbered with all the incest confounds, family environment, socioeconomic factors etc.

Say penetrative sex only happens in "trusting relationships". Then penetrative sex might get an undue boost from this factor (actually happened in Felson).

I have conducted reviews of some of this literature, showing that type and frequency are ultimately meaningless variables.

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Double-Taboo_CSA

All this does is pretty much show that AMSC, even some of it that might disturb us, or be utterly immoral, is intrinsically harmless.

Not the answer I wanted, but you make an excellent point.

Would you be willing to write a more detailed explanation of these research issues for the upcoming article?

I think it would be good to explain why I'm not citing evidence.

Or, even better, if you could write an article about research issues that could be linked to from other articles, that would make our work much more efficient.

That is something you have the brain for.