MAP Forum

https://benthams.substack.com/p/a-defen ... -attracted

This blog is almost 2 years ago, but it's very well written and very comprehensive so I couldn't help but link it.

Imagine we lived in a society in which even saying that you’d like another’s stuff was heavily stigmatized. People who admitted to liking other people’s stuff were seen as monsters — a huge portion of the population thought they should be killed or tortured. They were called thieves merely for this — despite it being outside of their control. Liking another’s stuff was seen as an unforgivable moral failing.

In this society, people who liked others’ stuff would be afraid to seek treatment, and they’d be ashamed of themselves. They’d see the line between themselves and actual thieves as thinner, and be more likely to steal things. This is basically the situation for pedophiles.

To take the analogy even further pro-c would be saying that "permanently borrowing" should be legal, as long as the other person said it's okay. But both society and anti-c positions would be saying "but if you're permanently borrowing something, that's the practical equivalent of theft so it shouldn't be allowed". Then you'd also have voices saying that people that covet others' items should be undergoing treatment to stop coveting, with others saying "it's okay to covet as long as you don't act on it".

This is just one of the very good arguments/ analogies in the article. It does focus primarily on NOMAPs and does assume that AMSC is inherently harmful. Yet even pro-c people must concede that the demonization of desire is exceptionally ridiculous (even though they'd go a step further and say that the demonization of consensual actions is also stupid).