These are the people that are the danger. Not MAPs

[anon81903312]

@TNF_13

How do you know that these people aren’t minor-attracted people?

Roughly 30% of child sexual abuse and 60% of sexually harmful image offenses are committed by minor-attracted people which is pretty significant considering what a low percentage of the population minor-attracted people make up.

And yes, there could be better and more ethical outlets available and better supports, but that isn’t any reason to say minor-attracted people aren’t a danger. I did some research on the dark web awhile back for my book - and while I wouldn’t recommend people go there, there are plenty of communities that absolutely demonstrate that many MAP communities are in fact dangerous - to themselves, to MAP advocacy, to children, and to the public.

@TNF_13

It’s accurate when a population accounting for less than 10% of the population is responsible for 30% of child sexual abuse and 60% of harmful imagery. It’s reason to look into why that is and look for ways of reducing the harms, such as supports and what can drive people away from such harmful communities. Hiding from those facts isn’t advocacy.

I know what you mean when you mention “communities” and, obviously, most people shouldn’t go to such places, especially on the dark web.

But, it seems like you’re implying that MAPs themselves are dangerous, which I don’t agree with.

I made a rebuttal to something like this in another thread: Reality Syndrome needs a reality check on Prostasia - #4 by anon81903312

Someone online made this “argument” (not their words, these are mine, but this is essentially what they said):

People who are attracted to minors could eventually abuse children. The fact that these people are saying that they don’t want children to be harmed… I think it’s pretty suspicious. They need to seek help.

And here’s what I said as a rebuttal:

A frequent claim made by antis is that MAPs are essentially ticking time bombs and will eventually sexually abuse children if they do not seek help. But, why is it that it only applies to people who are sexually attracted to minors?

We already know that most MAPs don’t offend and a lot of people who do sexually abuse children aren’t even MAPs themselves. These people go after children because they’re vulnerable.

The DSM clearly differentiates between “pedophilia” and “pedophilic disorder”. See here: ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics

If this claim were true, why would it only apply to MAPs? Why wouldn’t people who are attracted to adults also be labeled as “potential rapists”? Well, duh, because “pedophilia is disgusting”, that’s why.

Whatever the case, RS is confusing anti-c MAPs with pro-c MAPs, something that he frequently does.

Pedophilia in and of itself can’t be the cause of child sexual abuse, because experts consider it to be a sexual orientation (at least, an age-based sexual orientation).

Do all straight men want to abuse women? No.

Do all gay men want to abuse other men? No.

Why would it be so for pedophilia? The logic that all pedophiles are “potential abusers” quickly falls apart when applied to other sexual orientations.

Attractions don’t equal actions. Also, correlation does not equal causation.

Just because there are MAPs that do offend doesn’t mean that being a MAP would lead someone to offend.

@elliot

People who are constantly told they have no option but to be an abuser and are given no access to support even when they desperately need it are a danger.

Which is to say a self-fulfilling prophecy: Self-fulfilling prophecy - Wikipedia