What do you think of it?
Overall, good. I have a few nitpicks though.
Many members of the public think that banning possession is necessary because of "market demand" principles that apply to financial transactions, but most MAPs who use PIM download leaked images and videos for free, kind of like how people download regular movies from torrent sites. Saying that this encourages a market for PIM just doesn't make sense.
A citation or citations for this would be useful, since it's such a common talking point.
A lot of the images labeled as 'Child Sexual Abuse Material' (CSAM) are fictional depictions or actually made by minors - who will frequently even be prosecuted themselves. Calling this abuse material when no primary harm is involved doesn't make sense, since it stigmatizes and undermines the autonomy and agency of minor producers. We think it's important to focus resources on real abuse and exploitation, not on consensual activities or fictional content.
I think this section could do with addressing the myth that minors have no interest in sex or that it's unhealthy/abnormal for minors to engage in this kind of behavior.
This
We also believe that providing support and resources for MAPs can help prevent harm to minors. Faced with stigma and potential social sanctions, many MAPs have no support in finding safe ways to manage their attractions, even if they desperately need it. Proper support and social integration is necessary to reduce the risk of anyone getting hurt.
Seems slightly rhetorically at odds with this
Just like adult-attracted people, virtually all MAPs are opposed to forced or unwanted sexual activity. Furthermore, the majority of "pro-c" MAPs recommend following local laws regarding sex with minors, even if they disagree with them.
I understand from a practical point of view, it's a good way of getting people to think about MAP issues by suggesting more openess would mean more MAPs go to therapy and therefore less children would be hurt. However, I think it might reproduce the misleading impression that MAPs are going to commit crimes unless they go to therapy. Might have to sacrifice that rhetorical strategy in the long run.
We don't know for sure, but studies suggest over 10% of men could be MAPs.
Opening that section with the most conservative estimate might strengthen the document. If you see a person is willing to admit information that is against their own agenda (in the this case that there may be less MAPs), then you are more likely to trust the other information you find yourself wanting to reject. It's potentially credibility boosting.
For a long time, the world has been fascinated by the question of whether there is a "gay gene" or if homosexuality is environmental. We still don't have a clear answer, but it seems there is a mix of factors. Similarly, minor attraction may have some factors that are biological and some that are environmental. We don't know the mix. We also don't know if there are any differences between people who have a heterosexual minor attraction and those who have a homosexual minor attraction.
Might be a good place to mention the false equivalence between the environmental and the products of nurture. If pre-natal hormones determined homosexuality, it could be environmental and at the same time a product of nature rather than nurture. In any case, it might be that neither being homosexual nor being a MAP is the product of up-bringing. TL;DR Nature vs. Nurture =/= Genetic vs. Environmental.
Unfortunately, the stigma and discrimination MAPs face make it extremely tough for them to seek help openly, even from these specialized organizations. Many mental health professionals aren't trained to handle MAP issues, and there is always the fear of being reported to authorities even if no crime has been committed, which can lead to severe ostracism within the community.
A citation of a study of unprofessionalism of therapists towards MAPs could strengthen this point.
The MAP community doesn't currently have a formal activist alliance with paraphile (e.g. objectophile) and zoophile groups, but this might be a possibility in the near future.
The language here seemed a bit strange to me. What does it mean to have "a formal activist alliance" between the MAP community and any group? It makes it sound a bit like the MAP community is some sort of corporation considering a merger with another corporation.
The freedom to speak openly about their sexual orientation.
Although it would sound repetitive, I think maybe adding "without fear of harassment" again would make more sense here, because arguably we do have the freedom to speak openly (but not safely).
Most people will have a loved one who is a MAP.
Is that actually true? Isn't it more like 1/100 people are MAPs?
Can you understand Mu's basic position as an organization?
A big tent organization for as many different stripes of MAPs as is feasible? I still feel like there's some tonal dissonance between this more sanitized vision and having a section labelled "Disruption" on the forum, since not all MAPs are going to be comfortable with raids. Even though there may be strong practical reasons for, it still feels a bit out of place to me.
Do you think we've done a good job of representing the variety of MAPs that are in the community?
Overall, yes.
Thanks for sharing, sorry for all the nitpicking!
