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

[UtopiaPlanitia]

I came across this journal article thanks to Mike Salter (Professor of Criminology) posting the following tweet:

https://x.com/mike_salter/status/1854700225648378001

'Our review of academic use of the term "minor attracted people" is now published in Trauma Violence Abuse, highlighting the conceptual, political and empirical problems with characterising paedophiles as an oppressed sexual minority
^https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15248380241270028^'

I thought I'd post the tweet and link to the article in FWR as this a subject that is of interest and concern to many contributors here.

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

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

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

(NAMALT, obvs)

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

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.

Which is exactly what PIE were saying, decades ago.

Jesus! That's just so shocking...I am really surprised that this behaviour doesn't attract criticism from academics who, as a group, can be highly critical of each other for almost any reason.

Why is so much of modern culture determined to deny children a childhood?!

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’.

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.

Yes!

When I read the article in the New Yorker magazine that detailed the German programme that deliberately placed young boys from the foster care system with paedophiles, based on an academic’s spurious arguments that this would benefit both the men and the boys, I was so bloody horrified that there were no adults in the decision making process with good sense.

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.

That is horrifying! And something I did not know.

It makes for grim reading Helle but it’s very important that the story was told.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles

I think the group dynamics must be similar because, for example, Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart (two men who are fond of criticising almost everyone and everything) are publicly defending Welby as a good chap who ought not to have resigned over this issue 🤷‍♀️

I don’t see why we should prioritise 'restorative justice' for paedophiles: I see nothing wrong in locking these men up, they’re not trustworthy or reliable narrators.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/19/public-understanding-paedophilia-not-improved-charity-circles-harry-nigh-boss

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.

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.

I agree with your thoughts @themostspecialelfintheworkshop I think these attempts at rehabilitation or restorative justice are well-intentioned but ridiculously naive. Paedophiles do not see children in a way that can be realistically changed and the only way to keep children safe is for the danger to be removed from the community. There are just some people who are too dangerous for society to take the risk with. It would also help if the justice systems would treat men who view CSAM images and films as worthy of a prison sentence, letting men off with suspended sentences because of 'mitigating' excuses is not a realistic or preventative way to deal with that offence which is often the initial phase of an escalating paraphilia.

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.

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.