Apologies for not being as attentive to this mess as I’d like to have been (aside from my initial forum post addressing the claims of shoe0nhead’s video).
Anyway.
I feel as though I should clarify something on behalf of @prostasia
As explained by @terminus , the Prostasia Foundation is NOT a MAP rights advocacy charity.
They are a CSA prevention charity that takes on a different approach to the issue of CSA, an effective one that is compatible with preventing child sex abuse while also respecting and preserving people’s civil liberties, all the while grounding their rationale and approach on valid, empirical evidence.
If some of those approaches involve humanizing minor-attraction/pedophilia and MAPs/pedophiles then great. All the power to them! That’s not a bad thing! Such things are NOT in any way incompatible with preventing child sex abuse!
@prostasia has done a lot of good with regard to the stigma of pedophilia, defending the civil liberties of MAPs and lobbying against laws that are clearly in favor of criminalizing child sex dolls. Prostasia does these things because of how overwhelmingly clear that such laws WILL NOT prevent at-risk or recidivist offenders from sexually abusing children, and such legal measures may actually incite further CSA because empirical authorities are actually beginning to notice correlations between stigma and contact CSA offending, and such legal measures do nothing to prevent CSA but only exist to validate stigma and draw a target on people who have not done anything wrong, and likely won’t do anything wrong.
Yes, pedophilia/minor-attraction is unfortunate. It’s a very controversial thing that affects everyone with minor-attraction differently, especially when combined with other primary risk factors, like anxiety, poor impulse control, callousness, lack of empathy, etc.
But that doesn’t mean MAPs who do not offend should be deprived of their basic human rights to free expression and indulgence, especially when there is no evidence that such engagement is likely to drive a MAP to commit a sexual offense against a real child.
We understand that very well, the few who didn’t certainly do now. Everyone however knew that sex positivity was one of Prostasia’s core principles and that they were against the stigmatisation of MAPs, regardless of their reasoning for being so. The problem therefore comes from Prostasia making statements that are stigmatising, presenting paedophilia as something innately bad that “should be eliminated”. Those statements both betray Prostasia’s principles, stigmatise MAPs and directly hurt them. The seeming refusal to acknowledge how those statements were problematic only makes the issue worse.
I respect the difficult position prostasia is in and the pressure they are under. But they are trying to do the impossible, you can’t appeal to everyone without betraying your core principles.
I’d add that they also cause MAPs, especially those struggling with self-hate (and therefore more likely to have risk factors for offending) to feel less comfortable engaging with Prostasia, making Prostasia’s MAP-focused prevention efforts less effective.
MAPs are not our only stakeholders. In fact, although we do consult with MAPs, they are the one stakeholder group that has no direct formal representation in our leadership structure (which is why I keep saying that MAPs need to have their own representative groups). Almost everything that we are being asked to do to that would make MAPs more comfortable, will make our non-MAP stakeholders (eg. sex workers, fans, LGBTQ+ community) less comfortable. We have to balance these interests—that’s the reality of the kind of organization we are. We are doing our best, and you will get another chance to influence the next Executive Director of Prostasia Foundation differently… but my stance is very carefully considered, of long standing, and won’t be changing over the next couple of months.
Remember that I’m here from All the Fallen when you posted on the doll thread. If you’re still interested in protecting my right to jack off to fictional anything then we’re good, but the way that you keep talking about “uncomfortable” this or “uncomfortable” that, you appear to be forgetting that I know that I make people uncomfortable, but barring direct physical harm, I’m not the sort who actually cares about anyone who I may or may not offend.
I’d like to think that everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to know that barring direct orders to cause physical damage to someone, words are not violence.
I’m legitimately curious how not using stigmatizing language and borderline misinformation when discussing MAPs would upset any of your supporters, especially since they support you because you claim to be sex-positive and base your work on research.
“Don’t use stigmatising language” and “Don’t present minor attraction as something inherently negative” don’t seem like things that would make other stakeholders less comfortable, in fact these seem like things the vast majority of your stakeholders would wholeheartedly agree with.
It feels like you’re skirting around the issue, which is your use of stigmatising language and statements, and desperately trying to justify how it was okay and “well actually I had to say that because the other stakeholders would be upset if I didn’t” rather than simply admitting it was not okay, which would have made this whole thing a lot easier for you. It was not okay for those statements to be made the first time, but for you to then pick those statements for the FAQ thinking “yes, this accurately represents the beliefs of Prostasia” just adds insult to injury.
Regardless of how negatively one may feel about the outcome of real-life enactments of some sexual predispositions, the problem is that unchosen sexual predispositions in general are like a biological roulette wheel, where you can’t say, “slots 9 and 19 are evil and we must find a cure for them.” The only conceivable way to completely avoid the developmental bio-ball rolling into slots 9 and 19 (or whatever new numbers you painted there) would be to break the wheel, analogous to ending all sexuality. Fortunately, the roulette wheel of predispositions is quite separate from the on-off switch of intentional action, so even though an effort is involved, the holders of 9 and 19 can persuade themselves that any internal pressure to flip that switch should be bled off in some other manner, e.g., fantasy outlets.
What is the exact biological nature of that roulette wheel? I’d suggest that it’s a patch of neurons that, in early development, become wired with a concept of who we are, in a way that summons up a counter-concept of who – to deploy a banality that is wiser than it looks – our ‘other half’ or ‘missing piece’ is. How could all the billions of junior minds, in the process of formation somewhere below 10 years old, uniformly be prevented from ever embedding a concept that the missing piece is juvenile in relation to the main character? Or, how could neurosurgery later be done to alter the missing piece, while also suitably reconstructing the other part of the figure-and-ground conceptualization, the self? That sort of technology is far into the realm of science fiction for us at this point in history. (We may global-warm ourselves out of business before we ever get there.) In any case, anyone who has visions of people merely taking a pill or talking to a counsellor to change their sexual predispositions is in conceptual territory that is wildly oversimplified. Anyone thinking that calling slots 9 and 19 nasty names will help is waaaaay back in the cave dweller realms of thought.
One may need to deal with such self-made anthropitheci, but one hopes that more evolved citizens can be found as spokespeople for stakeholder groups.
I have a browser window open right now that shows I am a staff member in Prostasia Foundation. Has that changed, @terminus without you telling me?
I do not find the rest of your statement compelling. I believe it is at odds with what MAP Support Club’s values are, and you can expect a formal statement from MSC soon.
You are the nominated liaison from MSC. MSC is independent of Prostasia Foundation, therefore it would be a conflict of interest for you to be on Prostasia staff. That is the reason why you have access to the staff chat, but are not listed on the Prostasia staff page. Sorry if I did not make the distinction clear. Also, let’s keep these kinds of discussions in the staff chat from now on.