A Feminist Critique of the MAP Movement

Well-meaning progressives argue that "minor attracted persons" represent an unfairly stigmatized sexual minority group. Here, I offer a feminist argument for rejecting this claim.

The logo of the Prostasia Foundation, which claims destigmatization of pedophilia will actually protect children.

A raft of articles in recent years has promoted the idea that some of the most unfairly stigmatized people in our society are “minor-attracted persons”, also known as “MAPs” or “virtuous pedophiles”. According to such articles, MAPs have an unchosen, uncontrollable sexual orientation directed at children. But so-called virtuous pedophiles don’t act on this orientation and are as horrified by the thought of child molestation as a “normal” person. Instead, virtuous pedophiles battle their urges in a fraught and lonely existence; they can’t act on their desires, and if they even admit their desires, they are likely to be scorned and shamed by a society that unfairly despises them for desires they didn’t choose and can never act upon.

Our culture has a long history of intense sympathy for men who battle themselves over unrequited desires. We often view such men as romantic heroes, nobly and tragically battling their obsessions in a cold and uncaring world. The MAP movement appears to be capitalizing on that cultural goodwill; MAPs argue that so long as the never act upon their desires, they should be “destigmatized” and viewed sympathetically, even heroically. Here, I’m going to critique that idea and offer reasons feminists should be deeply skeptical - to say the least - of the MAP movement.

Assumptions Made by MAP Proponents

Implicit in MAP activism are a number of assumptions that many proponents accept unquestioningly. Yet these assumptions are far from universally accepted, and if any of them are incorrect, social acceptance of MAP doctrine may have disastrous consequences. These assumptions include:

• Attraction to children is a fixed, completely unchosen aspect of one’s psychology, and encouraging people to form a sexual identity around this attraction, and to think about this attraction as a significant aspect of their identity, has no possible negative impacts whatsoever in terms of their likelihood to molest children.

• Spending time bonding and talking to other pedophiles about desire to offend will necessarily reduce the chances of offending; there is no risk it will raise those chances.

• Repeatedly fantasizing about sexual acts with children, using sex dolls of children, or consuming media that eroticizes children is perfectly moral so long as no actual children are harmed in the production of such sexual aids, and such use of “alternate outlets” in no way positively impact the likelihood a practitioner will engage in actual sex acts with children.

• “Destigmatization” of pedophilia - making admission of sexual desires for children unremarkable and uncontroversial as an admission of straight or homosexual desire - will in no way increase the number of people who explore or act on pedophilic desires, and it will not diminish the public’s (correct) view of pedophilic acts as a great moral evil.

• “Virtuous pedophiles” themselves are good judges of their ability to refrain from sex with children, and prominent virtuous pedophiles and advocacy groups are not misleading the public about their goals and their ability to consistently refrain from offending.

I take as a given that any increase in sexual abuse of children is an unacceptable result of normalizing MAP dogma. Moreover, I argue that if we have good reason just to doubt the validity and accuracy of the assumptions above, we should view popular MAP advocacy (which relies on these assumptions being true) as irresponsible and dangerous, and we should distrust its claims to place the well-being of children first and foremost.

Reasons to Reject These Assumptions

The exact origins of sexual orientation are still debated. Researchers have long debated whether, and to what degree, biological factors such as genes and prenatal hormones impact sexuality. Genetic studies have come up largely with little of explanatory value, and the extent of impact of prenatal environmental factors are hotly debated.

With that said, there is little disagreement that social factors play some (and perhaps the major) role in forming and solidifying a person’s sexuality. Anthropologists and scientists have noted for decades that homosexuality does not consistently appear cross-culturally, which suggests sexual orientation is to some degree culturally dependent. (This is not to say that people consciously choose their sexuality. It simply means that an individual’s sexuality is influenced by the relationship models they recognize in the culture around them.) If this is true, changes to how a society understands a particular sexual orientation may result in more people from that society identifying with and acting on that orientation.

Because homosexuality is not a moral wrong, there is no reason to be concerned that widespread acceptance of and modeling of homosexuality might increase the likelihood some individuals desire homosexual relationships. But obviously this is not the case for pedophilia. If we present “child-attracted” as just another morally neutral orientation, encourage people to define themselves in a significant way via that orientation, and eliminate any sort of shame or discomfort around being defined that way, a plausible result may be an uptake in people defining themselves this way. (This is particularly worrisome if the idea of the MAP is construed as somehow noble due to its impossible-to-requite nature.)

Even if someone accepts that child-attraction is absolutely biologically rooted and unchangeable, it may still be a bad idea for a culture to create an identity role around that attraction. Researchers generally agree that some people can become confused about their desires and may identify as part of a group to which they don’t truly belong. For example, many researchers agree that the massive uptake in teen girls identifying as boys does not reflect an “authentic” identification but is a result of confusion and social contagion. If identification as a pedophile even slightly increases the risk of assaults on children, and if people falsely begin to identify as a pedophile, there may be a risk of increased assaults from that alone.

We also have good evidence that repeatedly fantasizing about a deviant sex act leads to people acting on it. MAP groups often suggest that predators can be satiated or redirected away from actual offending through use of pornography or other simulated sex acts. But studies have shown that use of these materials may actually heighten the risk of real-world offending.

Even the idea that communicating with other MAPs about desire for children is therapeutic, or can somehow prevent acting on those desires, has been challenged. Spending time on virtuous pedophile forums may actually increase the risk of offense.

MAP Organizations and Prominent Proponents Show Consistent, Worrisome Patterns of Ignoring Children’s Well-Being

If we take MAP advocates at their word that they have children’s well-being and safety as their top priority, we should expect their primary organizations and advocates to have stellar records when it comes to children. Yet feminist advocates have uncovered shocking patterns of a lack of safeguarding when it comes to prominent MAP organizations.

For example, a prominent “MAP Support Club” also advocates for children to chat with minor-attracted adults about their feelings of attraction. A pro-MAP sex researcher did his PhD thesis on his experiences masturbating to Japanese shotacon, or pornography of young boys.

A close reading of pieces sympathetic to MAP also often reveals cause for concern. A piece highly sympathetic to virtuous pedophiles mentions this in its profile of one supposedly virtuous pedophile (bolding mine):

I had been speaking with Mike online for two months before he agreed to let me fly out and meet in person… He explained that he maintains a clear distinction between those he feels sexually attracted to and those with whom he feels a close paternal bond. He told me he only feels an erotic pull to girls aged seven to 12, and that for two-to-six-year-olds it’s more of a protective, almost brotherly instinct. He said this is what makes him such a good preschool teacher.

You’re 16. You’re a Pedophile. You Don’t Want to Hurt Anyone. What do you do Now?

Pause here a moment. The virtuous pedophile profiled, who claims an attraction to girls aged seven to twelve, is also a preschool teacher? Does that sound like a wise career choice for anyone who sincerely wishes to avoid, above all else, molesting a child? Why would such a person pursue any career involving children, considering that their foremost priority is supposed to be to avoid the risk of child molestation? Feminists should not be naïve.

Gary Gibson, a prominent virtuous pedophile profiled sympathetically in various outlets and who wrote a book on virtuous pedophiles, was later accused of raping his adopted daughter. Despite endorsing many popular claims among virtuous pedophiles - that he would never harm an actual child and that he was determined to prevent harm from coming to children - his words and views would later prove to be untrustworthy.

The defender of MAPs will likely argue that these are cherry-picked examples and that it’s still possible for virtuous pedophiles to exist. Indeed, the fact predators appear to be easy to find among MAP organizations doesn’t disprove the theoretical possibility that virtuous pedophiles can exist.

But we should expect MAP organizations that genuinely place children’s safety first would have extremely high standards for conduct among its members and proponents. Clearly, that isn’t the case, and that alone should give us pause before trusting these organizations or endorsing their claims. We should expect far higher standards from such organizations than we currently see. The lack of care when it comes to enforcing standards of behavior among members should make us suspicious of a lack of care when it comes to ideology as well.

Conclusion

Feminists should avoid endorsing kneejerk sadism towards pedophiles, as we should towards any group. But we should also condemn groups that promote policies that could recklessly endanger children, especially when those policies are based on untested assumptions that could easily be false, and when those groups show a history of disregard for actual child predation among adherents. “MAP” groups have not shown the behaviors and evidence that should make us trust them to have children’s well-being first and foremost.