Non-offending/non-contact MAPs/pedophilic individuals are valid. I think the science proves that pedophilia is as much of a ‘sexual orientaion’ as bisexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality, or pansexuality. They’re not qualities that can be change, nor is it enough to be considered a ‘disorder’ as the DSM-5 has shown a difference between a pedophilic sexual interest/orientation and pedophilic disorder.
There has been a burgeoning and well-respected consensus among clinicians and scholars who study paraphilia, sexual orientaiton, etc. that pedophilia is very much a sexual orientation.
I bring this up because of an interesting Twitter post I saw by @prostasia regarding James Cantor’s stance on pedophilia as a sexual orientation.
Cantor’s stance is not just that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, something prostasia agrees with, but that paedophilia should be included in the LGBT umbrella, something almost no one wants or agrees with.
All MAPs have a valid sexual orientation, regardless of current it past offending. “Non-offending” as a term discriminates against past offenders pushing them away from peer support and also pushes away current hands off offenders, it is not a useful classifier.
I can agree with that to an extent, but I feel as though those who have offended or are high-risk should be classified differently.
I feel as though a hard-line stance needs to be drawn with regard to the intolerance of sexual offending, as well as a commitment to remain offense-free.
There are a lot of factors that could lead people to offend by viewing CSAM (mental illness, utter stupidity etc). The current lack of legal outlets and professional support in a lot of countries doesn’t help to prevent that either.
If someone recognizes that they did something wrong and are sorry for it, then why should they have to be reminded of their wrong doing for the rest of their life? They already got their punishment.
That pedophilia is a sexual orientation shouldn’t be controversial, and thankfully among the relevant scholarly circles, it doesn’t seem to be. Correcting the popular misconception that pedophilia is an ideology or transmissible contagion is going to be necessary for NOMAP as an identity to even begin to be accepted in amongst broader society.
That said, I’m under no delusions that that alone would be enough; there’s a pretty large subset of people, even on the 'left", that believe that pedophiles (even non offending) should never be given a place in society because of “cultural purity” - the fairness or practical consequences be damned.
According to a U.S. study on 2429 adult male sex offenders who were categorized as “pedophiles”, only 7% identified themselves as exclusive; indicating that many or most child sexual abusers may fall into the non-exclusive category.
So to call NOMAP’s automatic child molesters is just demonization at this point.