MAP Forum

I think of it in dramaturgical terms. People perform the role of being anti-contact for two audiences - other MAPs and non-MAPs. The point of the performance is to distance themselves from CSA, which they usually do by conflating pro-contact (an abstract ethical position) with being being a sexual predator (a pattern of behavior). The reason why there is a limit to trying to build alliances with anti-contact MAPs is because it isn't actually an ethical position, it's a defense mechanism.
They feel that if they internalize the hatred of MAPs sufficiently, society will respect their right to exist. They won't confront the possibility that the hatred of MAPs is genuinely irrational and unconditional.
I think a good way to bring out the problem is by saying "I'm not pro-MAP, I'm anti anti-contact". You notice the idea of being "anti anti-contact" is necessary because being pro-contact doesn't necessarily mean having any ill will toward anti-contact people. In contrast, anti-contact and anti-pro-contact are the same thing, because anti-contact people tacitly accept MAPs desires are awful and anyone that crosses the line or who defends those that have deserves no sympathy.
The problem with building connections falls squarely with anti-c people. I say this because of my experiences on ATF: it doesn't matter how fairly you treat them, every debate is a foregone conclusion. They're scared of appearing pro-contact, so anything that even resembles being pro-c gets dodged.
If so many of them are as complacent and cowardly as they are, it seems like it's a waste of time trying to build alliances. We may be better off ignoring them and just getting to work. We don't need their permission to do what's right.
Until you have anti-contact MAPs that publicly state that not all statutory rape should be lumped with CSA, I'll maintain that being anti-c is a performance motivated by cowardice rather than a serious ethical position. As long as anti-contact MAPs are afraid of looking like pro-contact MAPs, what serious conversation is there to have? It's just optics.

I agree that contact labels are lacking in important nuance. I haven't been around MAP communities long, but I have also seen wildly different opinions expressed under the same contact label. Just reading "pro-c" or "anti-c" alone doesn't tell me much about the person's beliefs on legal reform, age of consent, or the nature and cause of harm in an AMSC context.

It's a complex issue with a lot of variables and what I see as a lot of uncertainty. I'm aware that there is research that indicates AMSC may not be inherently harmful, but currently I do not feel confident enough in the specifics to hold a position that advocates for AMSC. More research and data is needed. I suppose I would be "Someone who thinks that there is a certain degree of inherent risk in AMSC, but [it may not be] always harmful and in some instances [may] be beneficial, therefore [reform]"

Even if we assume that harm caused by AMSC is entirely sociogenic, what societal conditions would be necessary for AMSC to be accepted? Is this something that can even be achieved?

Fragment wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2024 12:15 am It feels like pro-c and anti-c might actually be more about strategy than philosophy? The anti-c person might believe in certain kinds of legal and social reform regarding AMSC but their position is not to talk about it and not to prioritize it. Pro-c people, meanwhile, believe that reform has to be discussed as it is the core underlying issue.

I think this is insightful. This exposes my unconscious motivations on this issue for me to examine. When considering strategy we have to consider our audience, and therefore our rhetoric. Who the hell is going to listen to a pedophile advocating for AoC reform? Currently society is going to push our voices out of AoC discussions regardless of your "contact stance". Is one strategy more effective than another? An "anti-c framework" might have flaws, but if it's effective in getting people to stop and think for a moment it can be a powerful tool.

I personally would not have joined the community if I thought that MAPs necessarily had to adopt a pro-c mindset, due to my above mentioned uncertainty. Most Non-MAPs are going to be more skeptical than I am.

I have seen some argue that while anti-c / NOMAP arguments are useful in this way, we have reached a point where it is no longer useful. I think this may happen in the future, but we aren't there yet. There are still massive amounts of people who have never really heard basic arguments like "not all MAPs are offenders or ticking time bombs". If everyone in the world suddenly believed that overnight, that would be a massive shift in our favor.

PorcelainLark wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:25 am anti-contact people tacitly accept MAPs desires are awful and anyone that crosses the line or who defends those that have deserves no sympathy.

I disagree. These are certainly the beliefs of some people who identify as anti-c, but others (such as myself) believe that the desires themselves are perfectly fine, and most offenders still deserve sympathy. These beliefs can be held independent of whether or not you believe AMSC is acceptable.

Phossu wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2024 6:16 am

PorcelainLark wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:25 am anti-contact people tacitly accept MAPs desires are awful and anyone that crosses the line or who defends those that have deserves no sympathy.

I disagree. These are certainly the beliefs of some people who identify as anti-c, but others (such as myself) believe that the desires themselves are perfectly fine, and most offenders still deserve sympathy.

This doesn't make sense to me. Compare it with other desires which you never want to be fulfilled, like murder. How can the desire to murder be fine as long as a person doesn't act on it? I don't see how you can accept MA without also saying AMSC isn't as grave a moral matter as it's been made out to be. I don't believe MAPs that claim AMSC is terrible but also say the desire is perfectly fine.

These beliefs can be held independent of whether or not you believe AMSC is acceptable.

So are you willing to admit a person that has been charged for statutory rape that was non-coercive doesn't deserve the penalties society puts on them? At that point you would be pro-contact.

I maintain that being anti-contact requires a negative judgement of MA and AMSC. If neither were a big deal, why not just be pro-contact? If they are a big deal, why sympathize with statutory rapists?
Personally, I'd prefer anti-c people to reconsider their position rather than to try to build bridges based on mutually incompatible positions.

I'm sorry to press these points so forcefully, however I think it's necessary because we've fallen into the habit of acting as though the anti-contact position has the moral high ground without any need for justification.

Fragment wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2024 12:20 am There are anti-c people like this. But when pushed, I find some of them will reveal their more nuanced positions.

If you have to push them, there's a concern with optics. The problem I think people struggle with is accepting that the moral thing may also be dangerous; the resistance in Nazi Germany put themselves in terrible danger because they believed they had a moral obligation to. The reality is that I feel more guilty about not publicly standing against the mob for the sake of future MAPs, than feeling guilty about being a MAP. We are dealing with an irrational hatred which we shouldn't really be placating. However, if I'm not willing to "martyr" myself by openly standing up to the mob, how can I really expect anyone else to? If I find anything shameful about who I am, I think it's that.

PorcelainLark wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2024 12:41 am How can the desire to murder be fine as long as a person doesn't act on it? I don't see how you can accept MA without also saying AMSC isn't as grave a moral matter as it's been made out to be. I don't believe MAPs that claim AMSC is terrible but also say the desire is perfectly fine.

I consider thoughts and desires to be morally neutral. Desires for murder, rape, and other unethical acts are experienced by many people, even those who believe that acting on these desires would be immoral. There are a lot of people who desire harmful acts, but if they're not harming anyone I don't consider them bad or evil.

I'd be curious to hear what you think about sexual sadism. Is it bad for someone to sexually enjoy causing others pain? Specifically talking about the desire itself here, not any act.

PorcelainLark wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2024 12:41 am So are you willing to admit a person that has been charged for statutory rape that was non-coercive doesn't deserve the penalties society puts on them? At that point you would be pro-contact.

I am willing to admit this, yes. However my issue is more with the legal definitions of "statutory rape" and the associated penalties rather than anything to do with inherent risk/harm of ASMC. If that makes me "pro contact" then I suppose I am, but I would disagree with this assessment because I find that to be an overly legalistic definition of "pro contact". Whether or not I think a sexual interaction is acceptable has nothing to do with what the law says, or what punishments are given. Would it be a "pro contact" position to say 17 yr olds can consent with older adults, but nobody younger? Because many statutory rape laws would punish sexual contact involving a 17 yr old and an older adult.

I consider myself "anti contact" in the sense that I feel there is a great amount of risk involved with AMSC, and it should not be attempted. I am open to the idea that not all forms of AMSC are harmful, but I am highly skeptical of the details. I don't claim to know anything about where the lines are on this, only that I want to prevent harm. Does this make me pro or anti c? To me, this just makes me cautious.

The whole point of this thread is how these labels don't capture the full nuance of the issue, and this demonstrates the idea well. My position is not the same as many other "anti-c" positions, and "pro-c" positions can vary wildly as well. You could categorize me into one of these camps, but what value does that serve?

Phossu wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2024 2:36 am

PorcelainLark wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2024 12:41 am How can the desire to murder be fine as long as a person doesn't act on it? I don't see how you can accept MA without also saying AMSC isn't as grave a moral matter as it's been made out to be. I don't believe MAPs that claim AMSC is terrible but also say the desire is perfectly fine.

I consider thoughts and desires to be morally neutral. Desires for murder, rape, and other unethical acts are experienced by many people, even those who believe that acting on these desires would be immoral. There are a lot of people who desire harmful acts, but if they're not harming anyone I don't consider them bad or evil.

I'd be curious to hear what you think about sexual sadism. Is it bad for someone to sexually enjoy causing others pain? Specifically talking about the desire itself here, not any act.

Yes. I may be in the minority here, but I just can't see MA as being in the same category as any other immoral sexual desire. I don't see a MAP as being equivalent to a sadist. Having said that, I think humans have a innate drive towards immoral things, so I don't think a person is exceptionally evil for having sadistic desires.

I am willing to admit this, yes. However my issue is more with the legal definitions of "statutory rape" and the associated penalties rather than anything to do with inherent risk/harm of ASMC. If that makes me "pro contact" then I suppose I am, but I would disagree with this assessment because I find that to be an overly legalistic definition of "pro contact". Whether or not I think a sexual interaction is acceptable has nothing to do with what the law says, or what punishments are given. Would it be a "pro contact" position to say 17 yr olds can consent with older adults, but nobody younger? Because many statutory rape laws would punish sexual contact involving a 17 yr old and an older adult.

Given the variation of ages of consent, I don't think ephebophiles should really be considered MAPs. I believe that the scale of difference between people willing to accept ephebophilia and hebephilia is much larger, and that the taboo on ephebophilia is much more recent (for example they had topless 16 year olds in newspapers within living memory). Then there is another massive difference in scale between hebephilia and pedophilia, since marriage at the start of puberty wasn't unheard of, historically speaking. Accepting genuine pedophilia is the only thing without historical precedent.
I think you would have to accept that hebephilic sex could be morally permissibly, in order to be meaningfully pro-contact, to be honest.

I consider myself "anti contact" in the sense that I feel there is a great amount of risk involved with AMSC, and it should not be attempted. I am open to the idea that not all forms of AMSC are harmful, but I am highly skeptical of the details. I don't claim to know anything about where the lines are on this, only that I want to prevent harm. Does this make me pro or anti c? To me, this just makes me cautious.

I see it as having a similar pattern to how fear has been spread surrounding having vaccinations. Most people who are anti-contact, are anti-contact because of vibes rather than a disinterested look at the evidence (like why anti-vaxxers are anti-vaxxers). It's not just pro-contact people that have biases.

The whole point of this thread is how these labels don't capture the full nuance of the issue, and this demonstrates the idea well. My position is not the same as many other "anti-c" positions, and "pro-c" positions can vary wildly as well. You could categorize me into one of these camps, but what value does that serve?

People aren't going to read pages of painstaking arguments. I know because until recently I had an overly nuanced view. I think at some point you just have to slash through the Gordian knot. Take a look at how I used define my position, it puts me to sleep just trying to reread it:

WandersGlade wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 6:47 pm Roughly speaking, I take a contact complex position, i.e. consequentialist anti-contact + reform pro-contact (though I have caveats: not all contact currently puts a child at risk of trauma, though you should act like it does; and legal reform wouldn't be sufficient to change this because it's as much a cultural and psychological problem as a legal one).

I want things to be punchier and easier to follow than that.

Fragment wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2024 2:46 am What if you think non-coercive statutory rape should be punished with a fine but not prison time (misdemeanour rather than felony). Is that an anti-c or pro-c position?

Unless the person is trying to be strategic, anti-c.

What if you support an age of consent of 16 but live in Germany? But you live in the UK? But you live in California? Is pro-c/ anti-c something that changes based on geography?[/quote]
See what I said about ephebophilia above.

Otherwise anti-c is just a label that for many says "keep the status quo, I don't want to talk about it because it makes people uncomfortable".

This is what the overwhelming majority of people mean when the say they're anti-c and what I'm taking issue with.

I agree that we need to move past the narrative of "troubled desires" and I think the only sensible way of doing so is to break down the myths of harmfulness. While a harmful desire to murder someone itself isn't blameworthy, I do think it makes sense to call that desire harmful. I don't think it's a matter of merely worrying about optics, though. I think it's a resignation regarding what can and what can't change.

Agreed, though I do think it's important to pay attention to when we adopt positions because of a concern for how we're being perceived. It's really transparent when you see someone new come in and make strong anti-contact statements that it's because they are afraid. I think people have an actual anxiety over thinking about pro-contact positions.

I got in trouble elsewhere for using this language, but I honestly find such a view as "incoherent". If I never have any intention of looking at or engaging with minors sexually then why do I need social acceptance for that? Even if I am socially accepted for my desires, if they remain unfulfilled then in what way does social acceptance even help me?

I mean, you could steelman that perspective. Laws against harassment, laws protecting freedom of expression (e.g. lolicon/shotacon), etc. would improve quality of life, and talking about age of consent reform could slow those causes down. Though personally, I can't say these goals keep me motivated.

Fragment wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2024 12:15 am Even without changing laws around AMSC we can still improve things for MAPs of all kinds. I don’t want to ignore OMAPs entirely, or treat NOMAPs as somehow different and better. The stories of NOMAPs are an important part of what we’re doing, but ignoring OMAPs seems a flawed strategy.

I’d rather just call my position unambiguously “pro-MAP”.

What does OMAP mean? Offending MAP ? I am categorically against such a division. This is a false dichotomy. If people who are against contacts (call themselves no-offending), it does not mean that Pro-Choice MAP want to offend someone. They just want young people to have the right to choose consensual, non-offending relationships. For this reason, it is important to focus not on Contact (this creates the wrong impression of being fixated on sex), but on free and safe Choice . The term NO(MAP) needs to be thrown into the trash. This is what is dividing our community.

This a fascinating discussion, remarkable in its civility and sophistication of debate, that I've not encountered before.

Society is relentlessly infantilizing pre adults. There's no retreat from this that isn't political suicide. Psychology get shredded if they fund/publish anything that controverts the official social dogma. And yet, the vast types of MAP, and their origin, could massively help those who must deal with those feelings. All are not alike - molesters to be - as society tends to believe. There are some beyond help: violent, sadistic psychopaths who want to to hurt children. On the other hand there are those whose MA coexists with attraction to age-appropriate partners. There are those who are convinced a 10yo possesses informed sexual agency. Others just want to rape, groom, molest, etc. Even others find part of MA to be inherent in the taboo - an adrenaline boost. Some others just use there imagination, consume erotic images and stories.

These are all different types, with different motivations or traumas, that do not get studied on a granular level.... because they're all lumped together as dangerous pariahs.

The suppression of genuine, un politicized research, I think, diverts attention and resources away from those most likely to cause harm, and damages the psyche of the far less dangerous types.

MAPs exist. Have since recorded history. MA is not equivalent to either pedophile nor sexual abuser. There is some overlap, sure, but empirical evidence suggests the vast majority of MAPS keep it tightly locked away, to stay safe in society and avoid the stigma of shame and self loathing that society expects.

Fragment wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2024 12:20 am If we look at it in terms of harm, it really does become subjective.
Looking at girls aged 12-14 in the Finnish data (which is based on current social norms regarding sex):
For peer relationships [sample size 1128] 13.4% felt it was negative, 42.2% felt it was neutral 44.4% felt it was positive.
For adult-minor relationships [sample size 485] 37.7% felt it was negative, 28.2% felt it was neutral and 34.0% felt it was positive.
Peer relationships are regarded as negative in 13.4% of cases. Is 13% negative response enough to regulate these relationships?
Adult-minor relationships do trend more negative so is a 38% chance of a negative reaction enough to merit regulation, even if 34% of people are having positive experiences? An anti-c might say "yes".

But then if we look at boys, then:
For peer relationships [sample size 793] 2.6% felt it was negative, 32.3% felt it was neutral 65.1% felt it was positive.
For adult-minor relationships [sample size 113] 11.5% felt it was negative, 13.3% felt it was neutral and 75.2% felt it was positive.
The negative response is only 11.5% for AMSC, even lower than the peer-response seen in girls. It seems hard to justify regulating this. Especially when the positive response for AMSC is even higher than for peer relationships.

Of course "positive reactions" can potentially exist alongside harms and trauma. But I think I've already explained how I think a lot of the discovered harms are very similar to the "harms" I experienced from masturbating while being part of a church culture that defined it as a moral wrong and stigmatized it.

One thing I don't hear mentioned is about negative experiences. Just because an experience was negative, that doesn't mean that it was harmful or caused someone trauma. Even if the experience was harmful, that doesn't mean that it won't turn out to be a net positive in the long run. I know a lot of people who had been in shitty, abusive relationships with horrific breakups who, in retrospect, are thankful for the life lessons and for teaching them who they really are.

Fragment wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2024 8:11 am That’s true, but also a very hard argument to convince anyone with.

“We should increase child sex abuse because it builds character.”

You could leave out the S part from CSA, and most parents would justify beating/corporally punish their children with that exact reasoning:

"Beating my son will build his character. Source? Trust me bro."