A Review of Academic Use of the Term "Minor Attracted Persons"

The article under discussion it is a paper by academics which is highly critical of other academics going down the slippery slope of calling paedophiles 'MAPs'.

The abstract and 'Critical Findings' show that the academics who wrote this article are concerned about the use of the term MAP and its dangers in regard to child protection. This is just one of their findings:
Strong claims in the MAPs literature that the stigmatization of sexual interest in children is the primary driver of child sexual abuse, and thus sexual interest in children should be socially and culturally normalized, are empirically unsupported and contrary to child protection prerogatives.
[my emphasis].

I also want to point out that paedophilia/MAPs/whatever is just one aspect of child abuse. Most child abuse takes place within the family or the close circle around children. The fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, stepfathers, etc. who do most of the abuse are often 'lovely chaps' who carry on a perfectly 'normal' life - 'good neighbour, highly respected in his community, happily married with three children' was how my abuser would have been described.

Most abusers are not career paedophiles or campaigning MAPS; they are 'normal' men, the man next door, your husband, your daughter's boyfriend, the guy works down the chip shop, your GP, anybody.

Identifying abusers as one group, be that campaigning MAPs or clergymen, or whatever, keeps the attention off all the low-profile everyday home-based abusers who do most of the damage to children.

As a CSA survivor, I am for whatever lowers risk to children. However that outcome is achieved. Education programs for kids, stronger community health, whatever it takes. I don't know enough to know what the solution is, but I only hope we can find one.

Maybe being less isolated will help stop paedophiles reoffending. But it's only a maybe which is a bit fucking awful when you consider the potential harms to children. Plenty of well known paedophiles weren't socially isolated at all e.g. Saville.

When, on the other hand, a prison cell will 100% guarantee protection for children. This rehabilitation 'circles' approach still leaves 20-30%of those men harming children even if you believe their self announced statistics (which I don't). Which would be zero if they were in prison. Child abuse should be unacceptable.

I also think there's a risk of paedophile rings with this approach, call me cynical.

Agreed, I'm all for locking them up and throwing away the key. They don't care about children and they lie and reoffend. Protecting children is incompatible with rehabilitation for paedophiles. Once they've destroyed a child's life, they should never get the chance to do so again. Some crimes are too heinous for rehabilitation to be attempted - he risks too high.

I would suggest the vast majority of the population agree with me, sadly it's often not what happens.

I hate this modern trend to focus on the criminal rather than protecting existing and future potential victims.

That is horrifying! And something I did not know.

Good question. Why are people happy to call out some supposed ethical failings, but shy away from this?

Consider why Welby publically expressed shame over his family's apparent links to slavery, while failing to report a horrifically abusive priest to the police.

Not academia, but I suppose the dynamics are similar.

Children can enjoy sexual activity. Children can be very productive factory workers, their little hands can do intricate work. Children can be good soldiers - small size, trainability and lack of insight into what they are doing are great assets.

But children can also be protected by adults, taught to read and write, to play, to become social beings, to reason, to develop empathy, to explore their world.

Achieving that takes a lot of work by the adults who look after them, in their families, in their schools, in their wider society. Work and commitment to protecting their best interests, not just until puberty, but beyond that, while their brains and bodies are still not fully formed. That isn't always about making them choose. Sometimes telling them rather than asking them, and protecting them both from their own bad choices and from exploitative adults is the better way.

Exploitative adults including career academics and advertising executives, as well as more traditional perves.

That doesn’t surprise me when you consider what the ‘intellectuals’ in France achieved when they convinced the French government to lower the age of consent.

Both in how they convinced the decision makers and the horrific impact on the children after this law change.

It becomes very clear when you look specifically at who actually benefited from the change. Directly and indirectly. And the answer was never ‘the children’.

Which is exactly what PIE were saying, decades ago.

Horrifically, a few years ago, while I was still in academia (social sciences), there was a call for papers for a special issue of a journal, on “children's sexual subjectivity”. The premise was that children’s sexual feelings are stigmatised, and as this causes shame in children, it should be destigmatised and the children’s sexualities liberated.

It seems clear that there is a pincer movement happening, with the idea of oppressed “maps” on one flank, and the sexual liberation of children on the other.

And too many gullible academics are lapping it all up.

You can send them (or any other media) a message if you wish:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/contactus/index.html

OMG I can't believe I forgot about that 😳 ☹️.

Well, that just settles it then: men are vile.

(NAMALT, obvs)

Actually it isn't universally reviled. Iraq has just reduced the marriage age to nine. Many other countries also allow child marriage.

Yes I posted about it earlier in the thread. Quakers have been doing it a while.

https://www.quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/86/Circles-of-Support-and-Accountability-in-Britain

You're right about the mission creep/ egging on. It's almost accepted without thought that finding a like minded "community" of people going through the same thing is always good but there are absolutely times when that's not true. Pro ana sites come to mind too.

What are they hoping to achieve? It will never be normalised, because it is universally reviled.

Yes, we are all responsible for our actions, not our feelings. No, we can't kill or imprison them all, because we have to wait for them to commit a crime first.

But they would have to have a death wish to confide in anyone about it, and that's never not going to be true.

Well, this is the kind of thing that makes academics and 'the left' look ridiculous.

But there is a real underlying problem of how to stop offending, if everyone treats them with disgust irrespective of whether their actual behaviour is impeccable.

They can't support each other, because of mission creep - they egg each other on to break the law/campaign to change the law.

I read about a project to provide released offenders with a support group of ordinary people who act as witnesses to the offender's life and keep him on the straight and narrow. This sounds promising, but needs enough people who are willing to hate the sin but love the sinner. Who are in short supply, I fear.

Absolutely.