‘MAPs are a danger’ feels like an incredibly simplistic way to sum up a claim. It could mean any number of things:
- Statistically speaking, MAPs are (currently) more likely to commit CSA than non-MAPs (what @TNF_13 is saying)
- MAPs are inherently a danger, and as long as someone is a MAP, they as an individual pose a danger to children (what Reality Syndrome was saying in the thread @anon81903312 linked)
I think it’s important not to conflate these two. Even this claim:
is compatible with claim #1 since it implies that MAPs offending is A Problem (and singling it out over people in general offending). It doesn’t seem like you actually disagree that the numbers say MAPs as a group have a higher rate of offending; you’re just attributing that higher offense rate to stigma and lack of support, which doesn’t really go against what @TNF_13 is saying ^^;
Personally, I suspect MAPs (as a group) may still have a higher rate of offending even if stigma was taken out of the picture, but don’t get me wrong, I do NOT think MAPs are more likely to be bad people than non-MAPs or that as long as someone is a MAP, they as an individual pose a danger to children. I vehemently disagree with claim #2.
This is my model of the situation; please hear me out here:
-
Suppose 5% of MAPs and 5% of non-MAPs are terrible people, who don’t give a crap who they hurt in pursuit of their self-interests
-
The 95% of decent MAPs and the 95% of decent non-MAPs are absolutely no danger to children. A decent MAP is no more of a threat than a decent non-MAP.
-
But the terrible MAPs are more likely to commit CSA than the terrible non-MAPs, simply because the terrible non-MAPs do not get as much out of abusing children. Sure, they get some things; profit from making CSAM, a power trip since sexual abuse is often about power rather than sex, etc. But the terrible MAPs are just as likely to get these things out of CSA, but in addition, they also get sexual gratification. So instead of committing CSA, the terrible non-MAPS are off doing other terrible things (e.g. teleio rape)
-
So idk, let’s say 40% of terrible non-MAPS commit CSA while 70% of terrible MAPs commit CSA. Then 2% of all non-MAPs commit CSA while 3.5% of all MAPs commit CSA.
-
Therefore MAPs as a group still end up with a higher rate of CSA, while at the same time it’s also true that a decent MAP is just as safe as a decent non-MAP, and a decent MAP is safer than non-MAPs on average.
-
So if I say ‘MAPs have a 3.5% chance of committing CSA’, it does not necessarily mean ‘each individual MAP have a 3.5% chance of committing CSA’. It could mean '95% of MAPs have 0% chance of committing CSA while 5% of MAPs have 70% chance of committing CSA.
So basically:
It’s still possible it has something to do with them being MAPs, even if it’s not nearly as big of a factor as being in a community of abusers, or thinking it’s okay to take advantage of the vulnerable. And definitely not nearly as big of a factor as the stigma-believing peeps make it out to be.
But it could still be A Factor. They can be multiple factors. The world is messy like that. :'D