These are the people that are the danger. Not MAPs

[TNF_13]

You said it’s not accurate to say minor-attracted people are a danger. They are. Every human is, because they’re human, whether anyone thinks it’s stigma to say so or not. Especially when it’s a group that’s marginalized away from support. That increases risk factors. That’s well-documented. Do I need to cite specific research showing that pushing people away from support, systemically or otherwise, increases their risks for maladaptive behaviors?

@Sirius

No! What makes a person dangerous in this constellation is not the sexual orientation, but believing that they are entitled to act out their sexual orientation with other people. This cognition can make anyone dangerous, no matter their sexual orientation.

Wrong. See above. I’m just repeating myself. You all want to spout feel good stuff to make the masses of minor-attracted people feel good, not actually helpful truths that can get us the support we need. The truth is when you marginalize a group of people, they present more of a risk. minor-attracted people, because they are minor-attracted people, and because of the stigma with which they are treated and how they are pushed away from support, are at increased risk for a range of behaviors - including dangers to children.

Refusing to acknowledge that isn’t advocacy. Quibbling about the details isn’t a debate.

@Sirius

It’s the logical conclusion of your statement, backed up by history and stigma research. You can’t expect people to tolerate, accept and not stigmatize us after having established that we are in fact a danger to what’s most precious in their lives.

It’s not the logical conclusion. It’s a fear based assumption on your part, and I can absolutely expect people to tolerate, accept, and not stigmatize us because I’ve talked with people in real life. Most of my friends and family get it and don’t hate me because I’ve explained the issues over time. Convincing people takes time and means not painting an overly bright picture of what’s going on, it means acknowledging their own fears and concerns and addressing them.

You can’t make people understand if you don’t acknowledge why and how the dark shit happens. Watch Star Trek. Watch how the captains (for the most part, cough) try to own up to their fuck ups and the consequences and correct them, and try to bridge gaps of understanding. Watch how marginalized communities interact with their oppressors. Watch how hated minorities have handled the issues they face.

I guarantee you if any of them started off with ‘we’re not risks and dangers actually’ or downplayed the risks, they would never be taken seriously. To use one relevant example in America, if Black neighborhoods and Black leaders didn’t confront the violent crime statistics and come up with the statistics that literally show where that comes from, poverty from historical racism, from systemic discrimination, from brutal policing, they’d have nothing with which to convince concerned white people worried about their safety in inner cities. There are similar examples on less charged issues.

You mention Germany. If Germany handled the events of WW2 and the Holocaust and said, well, yeah, this happened, but it was only some Germans and it won’t happen again, would anyone take it seriously? No, of course not. People needed to be held accountable, and remember the atrocities and know - from the Germans - that it was not fucking acceptable before Germany could be taken seriously (the bullshit end of WW1 not withstanding). You can’t just quibble about research and expect the average person to take you seriously.

@Sirius

I’m not sure what you mean here. If anything it’s the stigma and the difficult social cirumstances we live in that push MAPs away from support, not their MAPness.

See above. If you don’t start from a basis of commonly held fact, no matter how much you dislike the fact or you want to clarify where the fact comes from, you have no common ground to go and educate people with.

@Sirius

I’m doing that already, thanks. To fight against normalized injustices and inhumane dominant narratives you have to reveal them as what they are, not repeat them.

If you’re doing that, but you’re not starting from a point of common ground with people who will listen, rather than trying to argue with the people who very much will not listen, all you’re doing is burning yourself out. And that is exactly what you’re doing if you’re going around saying minor-attracted people aren’t risks.

@Sirius

This is what I mean. Depending on how you define pedophile (i.e. at what cutoff score do you classify someone as being a pedophile?) you get different numbers.

This is a disingenuous argument and one you could make for literally any issue on the face of the planet. You have to define it and measure it somehow, and no matter where you set the line, someone will bitch about it. Maybe I’d rather not sit and quibble about it, yeah? And if I’d rather not - knowing the issues and clearly being fine with a casual debate - do you think the average person will care?

[elliot]

@TNF_13

You said it’s not accurate to say minor-attracted people are a danger. They are. Every human is, because they’re human, whether anyone thinks it’s stigma to say so or not. Especially when it’s a group that’s marginalized away from support. That increases risk factors. That’s well-documented. Do I need to cite specific research showing that pushing people away from support, systemically or otherwise, increases their risks for maladaptive behaviors?

There’s a massive difference between “acknowledging that everyone could pose a danger is central to some of the most effective child protection measures” and “this specific group is a danger full stop.” I’m not sure if “everyone’s a danger” was the original framing of your argument, but since you’re saying it is now, expressing it as “this specific group is a danger” is misleading and only reinforces the stigma and misinformation that make prevention so hard.

If you don’t want your points to be misinterpreted, talk about the actual source of CSA risk, rather than portraying groups that experience increased risk factors due to stigma and misinformation as “a danger.” If you mean everyone, just say everyone.

And again, if you want to know my other positions, just read up. I’m not sure why you’re trying to pretend I don’t understand the impacts of insufficient support.

@elliot

stigma and a lack of support are likely the main factors in MAPs offending

[TNF_13]

@elliot

There’s a massive difference between “acknowledging that everyone could pose a danger is central to some of the most effective child protection measures” and “this specific group is a danger full stop.” I’m not sure if “everyone’s a danger” was the original framing of your argument, but since you’re saying it is now, expressing it as “this specific group is a danger” is misleading and only reinforces the stigma and misinformation that make prevention so hard.

I disagree that it reinforces stigma and I really don’t care what you think to the contrary. I’ve explained my point and how and why I’ve arrived at it. Minor-attracted people are a danger, and saying so isn’t stigma, it’s fact. If advocates and community leaders like you can’t get over it, you won’t get far in convincing anyone to hear you out. And no, it’s not a communication issue. I’m not sure how much more blunt I can be.

@elliot

If you don’t want your points to be misinterpreted, talk about the actual source of CSA risk, rather than portraying groups that experience increased risk factors due to stigma and misinformation as “a danger.” If you mean everyone, just say everyone.

You don’t get to control what I say or how I say it, not anymore. Fuck that shit mate. I’ve been clear. If you can’t take the time to listen, don’t debate.

[elliot]

@TNF_13

I’ve explained my point and how and why I’ve arrived at it

No, you flip-flopped between saying MAPs are a danger, stigma and a lack of support is a danger, and everyone’s a danger, and I responded by saying there was a big difference in how people interpret those statements. Maybe I’m misinterpreting something, but I wouldn’t know, because when I asked you to clarify what you viewed as the source of the danger you accused me of trying to control what you say.

@TNF_13

you won’t get far in convincing anyone to hear you out

I’d rather be ignored than ignore the evidence that telling people they’re a danger when they’re not can lead to an increased risk of offending. It’s not about making people “feel good,” as you claimed earlier, it’s about using accurate and clear language to keep kids safe and prevent the spread of misinformation about abuse and its causes.

@TNF_13

I really don’t care what you think to the contrary

Then why are you talking about it on a forum for people who are interested in discussing the nuances of prevention including the framing of risk factors? You have every right to share your opinion, but other people have the right to disagree with you. That’s the tradeoff you make by posting here.

[TheLemmaLlama]

Alas, the inevitable tragedy of people talking past each other because one side is unsuccessful at communicating and the other side is unsuccessful at deducing what the first party was trying to say and they each blame the other for not trying :'D

@elliot

No, you flip-flopped between saying MAPs are a danger, stigma and a lack of support is a danger, and everyone’s a danger, and I responded by saying there was a big difference in how people interpret those statements. Maybe I’m misinterpreting something, but I wouldn’t know, because when I asked you to clarify what you viewed as the source of the danger you accused me of trying to control what you say.

I do think it was uncharitable of @TNF_13 to accuse you of trying to control what they say; and oddly enough, I’m reading it as their way to tell you how you should’ve phrased your request in turn. As in,

@elliot

If you don’t want your points to be misinterpreted, talk about the actual source of CSA risk, rather than portraying groups that experience increased risk factors due to stigma and misinformation as “a danger.” If you mean everyone, just say everyone.

can come across as a bit controlling/demanding, but if you phrased it as a question like

I’m a bit confused; can you clarify if you’re saying the danger lies with:

• MAPs inherently,
• stigma and lack of support, or
• everyone?

maybe it would’ve been received better?

---

@TNF_13

If you can’t take the time to listen, don’t debate.

When you really are trying your best to explain yourself and the other person doesn’t get it, I get it can feel like the other person isn’t even trying to listen. Thing is though, if I’m trying my best to do something (e.g. picking an apple off a tree) but I’m stuck, and someone else gives me a tip to get unstuck (e.g. ‘have you tried using a ladder?’), I’d take the advice in the hopes that it gets me unstuck

This is essentially what @elliot was trying to do when they said “If you don’t want your points to be misinterpreted, talk about the actual source of CSA risk”. They’re basically saying ‘have you tried using a ladder?’
I get the way they phrased it might come across more like ‘if you want apples, use a ladder rather than trying to climb the tree (which is not allowed)’, or maybe you feel more like ‘I’ve already tried the ladder and it didn’t work!’, but the intention was to help you communicate, not control how you communicate, I believe.

---

That said, @elliot, I feel like there was also more you could’ve done to deduce what @TNF_13 was trying to say. If you have trouble interpreting the primary source (their actual comments), I don’t think it’s great to insist they explain it themself; it can come across as saying they’re not worth listening to unless they can directly explain themself to your satisfaction
I’ve had a guess at what @TNF_13 was trying to say in my own comments in this thread, and judging by the fact that they liked my comments and didn’t argue with them or try to clarify my interpretations, I think it’s reasonable to assume that they agree with my interpretation, or at least don’t vehemently object to it. You yourself have liked this comment, so I feel like you already understand what @TNF_13 is trying to say if you understand what I said there ^^;

---

(Anyways, apologies if I was being mega condescending just now; I get triggered by conversations that go around in circles lmao XD)

[elliot]

@TheLemmaLlama

can come across as a bit controlling/demanding

I’ll acknowledge I probably could have worded that better to prevent things from escalating. I have a tendency to talk very literally when debating

[TNF_13]

@elliot

No, you flip-flopped between saying MAPs are a danger, stigma and a lack of support is a danger, and everyone’s a danger, and I responded by saying there was a big difference in how people interpret those statements. Maybe I’m misinterpreting something, but I wouldn’t know, because when I asked you to clarify what you viewed as the source of the danger you accused me of trying to control what you say.

I did no such thing. If you can’t listen, I won’t engage. Fuck off.

[TNF_13]

@TheLemmaLlama

When you really are trying your best to explain yourself and the other person doesn’t get it, I get it can feel like the other person isn’t even trying to listen. Thing is though, if I’m trying my best to do something (e.g. picking an apple off a tree) but I’m stuck, and someone else gives me a tip to get unstuck (e.g. ‘have you tried using a ladder?’), I’d take the advice in the hopes that it gets me unstuck

There’s a ton of history you’re missing. Elliot has a habit of putting his own twist on things, just like every other advocate or so-called ‘leader’ in these bubble MAP communities, as a way of controlling how others respond. That’s part of why I left MAP circles and I absolutely will not tolerate it in a discussion. You people can either listen to what I’m saying and change how you interface with the public, and change your strategies, or you can not and be less effective. It’s your call.

I’ve been very clear that I think that minor-attracted people specifically, as human beings and as a stigmatized minority, because of how minorities are treated, are risks and why. I’ve tried getting smart people to think about it. I’ve spelled it out explicitly and what impact it has for strategy and activism and y’all are insistent I’m trying to stigmatize maps. Well, I’m not, and and I’m not changing my thought process or my mind. I came to a rational conclusion based on evidence and experience and it’s not my job to sit here and convince anyone until the cows come home. You want less stigma, it behooves you to listen to what might contribute to less of that, not bitch and moan at people trying to help.

[Sirius]

In 2018, you wrote an entire article about why MAPs are not a danger to children. In 2019, the idea that pedophiles are dangerous made #4 on your list of 5 Lies About Pedophilia. Even if you have changed your mind since then, you should at least understand where we are coming from.

You talk about finding common grounds from where to argue from, yet at the same time you antagonize and insult people here who are trying to have a rational discussion. You are entitled to your own opinions, and we don’t have to come to an agreement. But telling people to “Fuck off” is neither appropriate nor constructive.

One last point I want to make. In Germany in the 1970’s, there was a popular movie which basically sparked the liberation movement for gay and lesbian people. The (translated) title of the movie: It Is Not the Homosexual Who Is Perverse, But the Society in Which He Lives.

I feel like there is a similar statement to be made regarding MAPs:
It is Not the Minor-Attracted Person who is Dangerous, But the Way Society Treats Him.

From what I gather you agree that it is the way marginalized people are treated that can make them more dangerous, so I honestly don’t even quite understand what we are arguing about.

[island]

Like has been stated by others before me. If MAPs are treated as potential criminals from the start, making them targets of hate, potential suspects, put on lists; what’s to stop them from offending? If they’re going be treated the same way regardless of whether they victimize someone or not. The penalty of offending or not offending is the same.

Many times we see people in the news, never knowing if they were MAP or not. Well, why would they admit they were? The story always goes on to say that no one had any idea. “He seemed like a nice fella. Kinda quite. Kept to himself.”

How about some of these female teachers that have engaged in relationships with male students. Women always seem excluded from these discussions. Yet they demand to be in every other one.

These attitudes of attraction=action within society need to stop if any progress is to be made in this area. Everyone using the word “pedophile” to mean “molester”. Or potential molester, is abuse and hate-speech.

Many people use it as a derogatory term to put a permanent label on an innocent person to stigmatize them among their peers. And as far as I’m concerned, those people are pieces of shit!

[TheLemmaLlama]

@Sirius

In 2018, you wrote an entire article about why MAPs are not a danger to children . In 2019, the idea that pedophiles are dangerous made #4 on your list of 5 Lies About Pedophilia .

@TheLemmaLlama

‘MAPs are a danger’ feels like an incredibly simplistic way to sum up a claim. It could mean any number of things:

1. Statistically speaking, MAPs are (currently) more likely to commit CSA than non-MAPs (what @TNF_13 is saying)
2. 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 @AgentColeBowl linked)

I mean, it seems pretty clear to me; those articles are arguing against ‘MAPs are a danger’ in the sense of Claim #2, and it’s perfectly consistent for the author to simultaneously believe ‘MAPs are a danger’ in the sense of Claim #1.

@TNF_13

There’s a ton of history you’re missing.

Tbh I feel like I’m kind of seeing that now; I personally don’t ever like to accuse anyone of deliberately twisting things or trying to control people, but it does feel like a lot of people are stuck in one way of interpreting what you’re saying, and just don’t seems to understand no matter how hard we try to explain otherwise -.-

Though I’d attribute it to just being dense (having an overly simplistic mental framework of the world that has trouble parsing claims that don’t fit into your mental ‘grid’), rather than disingenuousness, no matter how frustrating it is to deal with. It’s incredibly common; cognitive biases are a hell of a drug, I’ve been there myself (and probably still am in some respects).

I kind of feel strongly about accusing people of acting in bad faith when there’s even a chance they might not be; a certain family member used to do it to me all the time and all instances of (anything that looks like) intention-bashing gets my blood boiling. Part of why I came to learn about MAPs and sympathise with your plight is antis always accusing MAPs of acting in bad faith and really intending to normalize CSA; even the ones who clearly just want to exist and be left alone.

[Sirius]

The article stuck with me to the point where I remembered it years after reading it precisely because it makes a clear and unmistakable statement: MAPs are not a risk to children.

In a society where, as a MAP, you are constantly told that you are dangerous, a ticking time bomb, that you should stay away from children, that you are bound to offend one day and should go to therapy or even castrate yourself to prevent future CSA, this is an extremely important message to convey that imho should not be compromised. Especially for younger MAPs, who when listening to society’s messages may feel that they are destined to become a rapist one day, this message is critical to hear.

I feel that saying that MAPs are dangerous when in reality you mean that the stigmatization of MAPs increases risks of offending is an attempt to make your statements as inoffensive as possible. Problem is that people will stop listening after the “MAPs are dangerous” part. The only thing they will take away from that is that “even MAPs themselves say that they cannot be trusted”, thus furthering the marginalization and stigma against MAPs (and therefore the risk of offending too).

[TheLemmaLlama]

… I still don’t think you’re getting what we’re trying to say ^^;

@Sirius

I feel that saying that MAPs are dangerous when in reality you mean that the stigmatization of MAPs increases risks of offending is an attempt to make your statements as inoffensive as possible.

It’s not either-or! BOTH ‘MAPs are dangerous’ and ‘that the stigmatization of MAPs increases risks of offending’ are inadequate summaries of TNF’s claim! I’m not sure if I can spell it our any more clearly:

(TNF’s claim is that)

• MAPs are currently, statistically, more likely to offend than non-MAPs
• We DON’T KNOW how much of the ‘offence gap’ can be attributed to stigma. Probably a lot, but also probably not ALL of it. Reducing stigma will DEFINITELY help, but it probably won’t close the ‘offence gap’ entirely.
• NEVERTHELESS, MAPs are NOT doomed to offend! You’re NOT ticking time bombs! MOST MAPs do NOT offend; they DON’T need therapy or castration to help with that!

It IS possible to believe the third point this while at the same time acknowledging the increased offense rate among MAPs compared to non-MAPs, AND the possibility that said increased offense rate cannot SOLELY be attributed to stigma! Like, as a human, I’m statistically more likely than a tree squirrel to rape a human^, but that doesn’t mean I’m doomed to rape a human.

^ and not because of stigma either; there’s no stigma towards humans

@Sirius

Problem is that people will stop listening after the “MAPs are dangerous” part. The only thing they will take away from that is that “even MAPs themselves say that they cannot be trusted”, thus furthering the marginalization and stigma against MAPs (and therefore the risk of offending too).

You make a good point that the public would stop listening after the “MAPs are dangerous” part - you can’t trust people to engage with effort and nuance. However I don’t think the answer is to simplify our messages to make it stick better to people’s skulls.

If it’s not “even MAPs themselves say that they cannot be trusted”, then it’s “MAPs are twisting things to make themselves look more acceptable”. There’s NO winning in the short term. All we can do is keep speaking truth, and trusting that ultimately, truth will prevail. And part of that involves being rigorously honest and nuanced, and leaving the haters NO room to accuse us of politicking and being disingenuous.

(Well okay, there’s value in just having the simple message of “MAPs are not a danger” in the sense of anti-Claim #2 when doing outreach and communicating with the general public, but at the very least we should not feel the need to shy away from more nuanced discussion on a CSA prevention forum.)

Remember that we’re right . Reason is our home court. We’ve nothing to fear from deeper examination of the issue.

[island]

Please, don’t start posting memes like this. or those *****mn woodchipper memes. They’re disgusting and cement for the ignorant who have no interest in hearing the truth.

[luerker]

not sure if I don´t get what they are saying but as far as I see it they don´t deny that statistically maps are more likely to offend.

They just say that this Knowledge is already out there so continuing to state that does not achieve anything (except marking maps as dangerous) Therefor we should not make the statement. It´s simply already widely spread knowledge and continuing to focus on that will archive nothing except stigmatization.

And furthermore that this constant messaging is in it self a danger.

[island]

Most people who buy a gun don’t go on a shooting spree. Arguments and debating over who is more or less likely to commit a crime or act on an impulse are circular. Just like most people with cars don’t drive through crowds.

[TheLemmaLlama]

@luerker

They just say that this Knowledge is already out there so continuing to state that does not achieve anything (except marking maps as dangerous) Therefor we should not make the statement. It´s simply already widely spread knowledge and continuing to focus on that will archive nothing except stigmatization.

Ah, gotcha; makes sense if that’s what they’re trying to say ^^;

I myself never thought they were denying that statistically maps are more likely to offend; I mostly thought THEY were disagreeing with US because they didn’t understand our position. So I was trying to really spell out where I (believe TNF) stood on the facts because it seemed like they were disagreeing because they weren’t understanding.

(Though I did get the impression that they’re assuming the increased offense rate must be 100% due to stigma and that MAPs won’t have any higher of an offense rate IF stigma was completely eliminated. Which is possible I guess, but also a hasty assumption imo)

But I guess they actually do actually agree on the facts, just disagree on the methods of how to best educate people and fight stigma?