Allyn Walker hysteria

“They don’t know the first thing about MAPs”

I don’t know… I think a non insignificant percentage of “ordinary” people know more about the *
way MAPS think then they would ever admit, to others or themselves for that matter.

1 Like

Cowards. (not Dr. Walker, but the ODU and especially its president)

4 Likes

This video was made for the Rittenhouse trial, but there are philosophies general enough that it can be used anywhere, including here:

1 Like

Ostensibly “child protection policy”

And consequently, that will highly likely lead to “acting out” as a means of justifying one’s own identity/history. This is basically the ‘Pygmalion Effect’ in action; a form of self-fulfilling prophecy that suggests people will behave as others might expect them to behave. So thus, they may become highly promiscuous or get involved with people who are out to genuinely exploit them, either sexually and/or in other ways.

I see this as a most evil, unconscionable influence, as those who criticised the original film can then say “See! This is because of the way they were exploited in ‘Cuties’!” totally absolving themselves of contributing to this outcome.

“Honi soit, qui mal y pence”.
(Shame on him who sees evil in it)

…and a “non insignificant percentage” of those people would not “ever admit, to others or themselves” a lot more loudly and vehemently than the rest!!!

The entire point of this is to suppress opinions and/or research that are not liked.

In July of 1999, the U.S. Congress condemned the so-called Rind study. The votes were 355-0 in the House of Representatives, and 100-0 in the U.S. Senate. This was the first time in American history that Congress condemned an academic study.

The American Psychological Association (APA) originally published and supported the Rind study, but in the face of withering public criticism, the withdrew the study, and their support of it, essentially, joining with its’ detractors, lest they too, be similarly condemned.

It is sad when even scientific organisations kowtow to the mobs.

2 Likes

Child porn is whatever the legislators say it is. In the country where I live, people have been jailed for writing/publishing non-illustrated fiction featuring underage characters. You can go to jail here for possession of cartoons that feature nudity, and whose characters appear to be, or are described as, underage.

2 Likes

There’s a new Rind publication just out:

I am not endorsing it by sharing the link. Prostasia would never use terminology like “minor-older sex.”

4 Likes

I ordered the book as well, before Amazon decides to take it off.

1 Like

The disgusting thing is that Amazon openly listed Xi Jinping’s works about “socialism with Chinese characters for the new era”… Yes, that’s the obnoxiously long title. You know the actual dangerous stuff. To put things into perspective, do they have Mein Kampf (a much shorter title)?

2 Likes

Yes, $10.99 in Kindle format, also the Communist Manifesto and Quotations from Chairman Mao (the little red book).

1 Like

The Rind study was very controversial, even for its time, and has largely been discredited (if not ‘debunked’) by the academic community, as other studies have failed to reproduce enough evidence to warrant their controversial conclusion, that being that adult-child sexual activity was not inherently abusive and that all harm caused by it were secondary.

Also, the APA merely published it, they didn’t ‘support’ it.

1 Like

I feel like this couldn’t be said enough.

I don’t want proper evidence-based approaches to CSA perpetration to be hijacked by pro-contact MAPs with papers like this being used as their ammo.

1 Like

Found Allyn’s response to these claims so I figured I should make sure it’s included here for future reference

4 Likes

Dr. Walker SPECIFICALLY suggested that VIRTUAL/FICTIONAL materials, where no real children were abused, would be a valid option, as such materials do not involve the sexual abuse/exploitation of a child in order to exist.

6 Likes

Apologies for reopening an old thread, but I reached out to a legal group about their misleading article regarding this controversy and figured it would be worth sharing in case others are interested in doing similar outreach.

Full text of the email with links (some stuff might be different from the image because I'm still editing)

I am reaching out regarding your article “Minor Attracted Person – A Troubling Phrase Causing Controversy”. While I understand the concerns it conveys and the importance of getting things right when it comes to child sexual abuse, I believe you have overlooked some important points.

First and foremost, neither “pedophile” nor “minor-attracted person” is intended to describe someone who has sexually abused a child. The former is a medical term describing individuals who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children, and it appears in the DSM-5 and the ICD-11. The latter is an umbrella term, used by mental health experts to describe anyone who is attracted to minors (including pedophiles). Because it includes people who are not pedophiles but may be at risk of sexually offending against minors (such as ephebophiles, which you refer to in your article), the term is considered more concise and accurate and is preferred among child sexual abuse prevention experts, as can be seen in recent studies.

Words already exist to describe people who sexually abuse children: “sex offender,” “sexual abuser,” “child molester” (as you point out in your article), etc. Conflating them with medical and research terminology not only confuses the public, but also makes it harder for child protection experts who use those words in their work to communicate important findings. Findings that could help survivors get justice in cases where you provide representation. I believe we all owe it to children who have been abused and those who are at risk of being abused to ensure accurate information about why abuse happens and how it can be prevented is as widely accessible as possible.

To be clear, “minor-attracted person” is not a word that carries any meaning regarding sexual abuse. It refers specifically and exclusively to attractions. Are there MAPs who commit abuse? Of course. But those people can still be called child molesters, even if their sexual thoughts make them a MAP. The phrase does not in any way diminish the seriousness of child sexual abuse. Because it does not refer to an action, your comparison to phrases like “life takers” and “others’ property preferrers” doesn’t make sense.

You also emphasize the importance of ensuring MAPs do not offend, and I agree that it is important to ensure abuse is prevented by working with MAPs who are at risk of committing sexual violence. Even here, however, the term has some value. “MAP” provides a non-stigmatizing way to refer to attractions (not the act of sexual abuse). The benefit here can be found in a 2020 study, which concluded that stigma (such as the social stigma carried by words like “pedophile”) can actually make MAPs more likely to offend. As your article states, “it’s always better safe than sorry when it comes to kids,” so shouldn’t we encourage the use of terms that are both more accurate and less likely to contribute to someone’s risk of harming a child?

I understand that these concepts are novel to the public, but they are well-established in the field of child protection research. This can be seen in the fact that Allyn Walker was recently hired by the widely-regarded Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse at Johns Hopkins University and invited to give a plenary address at the 2022 Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse, a renowned sexual abuse prevention organization that also provides support services to help those who have abused in the past live a non-offending life going forward.

In the end, we all want to prevent sexual abuse where possible and bring justice to victims when it occurs. I hope you will consider rewriting the article in a way that better reflects this mission. If you are interested in learning more, please let me know and I can pass along contact information for some well-known child protection experts and organizations who may be interested in telling you about their work. You can also check out this open letter to Allyn Walker’s previous employer signed by over 60 “researchers and clinicians in the fields of sexual abuse prevention, mental health, human sexuality, and criminology” in support of Walker’s research.

5 Likes

I was not aware of this article… I’d expect a publication made by a law firm to be more well-read on these types of matters, knowing better than to target employees of Johns Hopkins University.

2 Likes

They wrote the article on the day that Allyn Walker’s JHU employment was announced. Not sure if they knew about it or if it played a role in them writing the article. They have an email address listed at the bottom of the page if anyone else wants to reach out, especially from the perspective of a survivor who cares about preventing abuse.

1 Like

Reply I received. Their contact info is in the article if anyone else wants to reach out and encourage them rewrite something that is blatantly harmful to prevention efforts and does a disservice to survivors of abuse by spreading misinformation about why abuse occurs.
image

5 Likes