Essay:Pro-Reform: The Rational Middle Ground

Pro-Reform: The Rational Middle Ground

16/06/24 ◆ BLueRibbon

Includes thoughts and minor additions from Fragment.

Legend: AMSC = "Adult-Minor Sexual Contact", PIM = "Prohibited Images of Minors".

Author Foreword: As a teenager attracted to pre-pubescent boys, BLueRibbon was one of the original advocates of the non-offending pedophile position, now reinterpreted as 'NOMAP' activism. During his childhood, he possessed very strict interpersonal boundaries and disliked any kind of physical contact. Through this lens, the anti-contact position seemed logical. Now an adult approaching middle age, who has worked with thousands of boys and observed the reality of boyhood, he realizes that although his experience of childhood correlated with the claims made by those opposed to AMSC, his experience did not align with that of most children. In this essay, the author acknowledges the importance of the work done by NOMAP activists, highlights the limitations of the NOMAP position in the third wave of MAP activism, and proposes the Pro-Reform position as a rational and agreeable framework for both 'pro-contact' and 'anti-contact' activists.

---

The Birth of NOMAP Advocacy

Part of NewgonWiki's essay series on MAPs in the 2020s
♦ Jim Burton ♦ MAPs, Paraphiles and Fascists MAPs, Zoophiles and Transids The Virped Paradox Hamstrung (a case for Anti-c) Pedophile trolling for beginners [D] ♦ BLueRibbon ♦ The Push Pro-Reform 12+ ♦ Talix ♦ On "The Trauma Myth" ♦ A.H.J. Dautzenberg ♦ Marthijn, Lesley Uittenbogaard
Category: Minor-attracted people
Template:MAE - This template

Non-offending pedophile. NOMAP. Anti-C. Virtuous Pedophile. Gold Star Pedophile. Prior to 2006, these were concepts that did not exist. In the second wave of what is now known as MAP activism, a number of people associated with the ANU/ATC blog, led by myself, pushed the concept of the non-offending pedophile and non-contact pedophile incredibly hard. In addition to posting articles on our own websites, we submitted comments to various forums, blogs, online newspapers, and traditional social media platforms like Slashdot. We participated in protracted editing wars on Wikipedia and Wikia. We engaged to a small degree with the mainstream media, limited by the need for anonymity. Back then, the idea of a non-offending pedophile was a very radical concept, and we received a barrage of hate and abuse.

Virtuous Pedophiles did a much better job of publicizing the main idea that we were trying to convey: being attracted to children and having sex with children are not the same thing. Meanwhile, B4U-Act worked quietly to persuade mental health professionals of this distinction while working to improve academic understanding, research, and access to mental health support. I understand that various other groups sprang up and faded away while I was busy with other pursuits.

These days, there is still a lot of resistance to the concept of MAPs as non-offenders or victims, but there is also a lot of support. There are many articles condemning MAPs, yet even generic pro-establishment news organizations like the BBC have published articles about non-offending MAPs. Some of the most upvoted comments in discussions about 'MAPs' or 'pedophiles' on major social media platform Reddit are supportive of MAPs who do not act on their feelings. This is progress, but the victories come with caveats, and we are close to reaching the limitations of what has been a very successful model so far.

Limitations of the NOMAP Model

One of the most common complaints from detractors in discussions about non-offending MAPs is that, to be considered a 'safe and proper' member of society, the MAP should at least do something about their feelings by 'getting help'. Some of these adversaries acknowledge that it is extremely hard for MAPs to 'get help', but many think it is an MAP's responsibility regardless of the risk. Unfortunately, there are still a significant number of people who label our sexual orientation a treatable mental illness, despite the absence of evidence to support that a sexual attraction to any demographic can ever be 'cured'.

Many of our detractors believe that, without treatment, we will all eventually act on our feelings, and that we will cause harm by doing so, either through the use of PIM or by engaging in AMSC. While it is not correct that PIM always depict AMSC, and the argument that every instance of viewing AMSC contributes to the abuse of a child is incredibly illogical in itself, all arguments against PIM (except for religious nonsense) have absolutely no basis if we can successfully argue that AMSC is not inherently harmful. Of more importance, if AMSC were accepted as a potentially positive experience, much like AASC and MMSC, the argument that non-offenders are nothing better than ticking time bombs would be of no use either. In fact, the 'ticking time bomb' argument could only be used to support my argument that MAPs should not be pushed into dangerous behavior by unnecessarily harsh social and legal structures.

Every argument against non-contact MAPs is predicated on the belief that 'pro-contact' MAPs are fighting against: the idea that AMSC is harmful. And with their staunch position against AMSC, NOMAPs are now at a point where the inflexibility of their position is shooting themselves in the foot. The anti-contact lobby needs to adopt a more moderate position.

Pro-Reform Advocacy

'Pro-Reform' advocacy is moderate. It is not about going out and penetrating a 5 year old, nor do many of its supporters think that would be a decent thing to do. In fact, due to the possible risk of secondary harm, the position grudgingly does not even advocate AMSC with minors that would be inherently mature enough to give appreciable consent. However, Pro-Reform expresses the premise that the broad condemnation of AMSC in itself, without considering all of the circumstances, is absurd. A lot depends on the nature of the acts and the minor's age. Pro-Reformists believe that many instances of AMSC are not terrible acts of abuse. We would point out that there is some agreement from wider society, too; most regular men would laugh at the sheer luck of a 14 year old boy receiving a blow job from an attractive young woman. Pro-Reformists additionally argue that not all cases of AMSC do actually lead to secondary harm, but do not deny that there is some risk.

The Pro-Reform position is all about balance. The moderate arguments it puts forward act as a bridge between 'Anti-Contact' and 'Pro-Contact'. Some ideas are not dissimilar to views expressed by anti-contact golden boy Ethan Edwards, but they are also not in contradiction with the sex-positive messaging of the pro-contact lobby. In addition, the Pro-Reform position is named in such a way that it makes the very important distinction between seeking significant legal reforms and encouraging supporters to engage in illegal activity. Much like the separation of 'MAP' and 'child molester' endorsed with a degree of success by NOMAP activists, the very clear delineation of our viewpoints and our actions is crucial, making condemnation of our demands for legal reform significantly more challenging.

Pro-reformists would ideally like to bring the questioning anti-contacters on board, and we believe they may be hiding in unlikely places. The famously anti-contact Virtous Pedophiles made a name for itself as the quintessential anti-contact organization, but the personally expressed views of one its founders are very much questioning in nature and somewhat in line with the arguments of moderately 'pro-contact' MAPs. One of its co-founders, Ethan Edwards, argued in 2015 that perhaps the age of consent should be set at 13 with additional protections for older minors. He even questioned the likelihood of secondary harm, the most realistic argument against AMSC in present society. The general take-away from his essay was that although it could be harmful for adults to engage in AMSC with teenagers, and so they shouldn't do it, the harm was often derived more from social structures and sociolegal consequences, rather than AMSC with teenagers being inherently wrong. Doesn't that sound like the argument of a grounded, realistic pro-contact activist?

Proposed Legal Reforms

The following positions are proposed as calm and rational, desirable while remaining somewhat palatable, and agreeably moderate to most members of the MAP activist community.

Age of Consent

• Age of Consent of 12 + Additional Protections

Internationally, the Age of Consent was historically set at 10, 12, or 'puberty', to prevent adults engaging in sexual contact with very young children. It was never supposed to apply to teenagers, who are undeniably sexual by nature. It was only set higher than puberty to prevent commercial exploitation in the appalling conditions of 19th century London, before being adopted and exported by the same puritanical movement that led to the American Prohibition.

In The Push, I argued that instead of protecting children, setting the AoC so high only increases the risk of harm from AMSC. With such a high AoC, MAPs who choose to be sexually active have no legal outlet and are encouraged to prioritize sexual relationships with minors who are most likely to 'keep quiet', instead of minors who are most interested in sex with an adult and least likely to suffer from harm. If the age of consent were set at 12, with additional protections for 12-15 year olds against coercion and exploitation (similar to laws in place in the Netherlands as recently as the 2000s), this push toward AMSC with a greater likelihood of harm would be eliminated. Instead, sexually active MAPs would be encouraged to engage in AMSC with older children who have some desire for a sexual experience with an older partner.

The balanced nature of the proposal is important. Advocating a lower age of consent would not allow us to use the argument that our suggestion applied to adult-pubescent sexual contact only. However advocating a higher age of consent would put adult-minor relationships outside the reach of many MAPs; many pedophiles have an upper attraction to 12 and 13 year olds, that fades quickly at 14 years and older. In addition to being of little use from the perspective of a reformist, it would also damage our arguments against MAPs being inherent 'ticking time bombs' and the need to avoid The Push.

Prohibited Images of Minors

• Legalization of Simple Possession of PIM

Advocating the legalization of the simple possession of PIM should be an absolute minimum for any moderate position. It comes from a place of pure logic. It is a rejection of the emotionally charged and nonsensical argument that 'a child is harmed every time their image is viewed'; nobody has ever been able to explain a mechanism for this. Furthermore, it refuses to accept the strange belief that PIM is harmful due to supply and demand economics, noting that this cannot logically apply to PIM which has essentially been pirated. In a reflection of the potential harm caused by financial support of hardcore PIM production, we could support proportionate laws and penalties to be applied to those who purchase PIM in cases where a minor has clearly been harmed in the production. However, these penalties should be minor and non-custodial in recognition of the incredibly small part played by each individual purchaser.

We need to argue that, as regards PIM, the expectations placed on MAPs are extreme and unrealistic. It is unreasonable for society to expect MAPs to not view pirated PIM, and extreme expectations such as these push a small number of MAPs to a mental state in which they pursue more problematic outlets for their sexual needs, as outlined in my aforementioned essay. Coupled with the scarcity of safe access to professional mental health support, criminalization of the use of pirated PIM creates a dangerous situation in which a small number of MAPs feel they will be prosecuted or driven to suicide no matter which outlet they choose, significantly increasing the risk of potentially harmful behavior.

• No Laws Against Artificially-Generated PIM

Generative AI programs can generate images entirely from text prompts, without the need for sexual images of real children at any stage of the production process. During the entire production and distribution process, there is no point at which any child could ever have been harmed, because the process is entirely artificial. MAPs using these programs to generate artificial PIM have reported difficulties in reproducing children's genitalia precisely because images of real children in pornographic situations were not used in the images on which the AI was trained.

Despite the realities of the technology, photo-realistic and animated representations of minors are criminalized in many jurisdictions. Decriminalizing these images would offer a legal outlet for MAPs, thereby offering a safe alternative to real PIM and making the production of real images of children significantly less desirable. There is no valid child protection justification for the criminalization of entirely fictitious images.

Discussion on Social Reforms

In addition to the proposed legal reforms, pro-reformists should continue the work of anti-contact and pro-contact activists in combating social stigma, pushing for access to mental health support, supporting an improvement in sexual education for minors, and arguing for the humane treatment of ex-offenders.

• Minor-Attraction is Not Rape

The Pro-Reform framework has the benefit of arguing that many MAPs do not engage in AMSC, while also arguing that if this were to happen, it would not necessarily be harmful. Advocating an appropriate age of consent of 12 with protections, and stating that such acts are not necessarily harmful, allows us to fight back against claims that MAPs are dangerous because we may act on our feelings. It is a good response to common retorts like, "I constantly fantasize about murdering people but I'd never do it. Please understand me!" However, the moderacy of pro-reform arguments separates us from extreme age of consent abolitionists who would simply be laughed at and ignored entirely.

• Mental Health Access

Difficulty in accessing mental health support is a major issue in our community. Pro-Reformists should support the efforts of contact-neutral organization B4U-Act in working to improve professional understanding of MAPs and access to therapy that does not seek to 'convert' our sexual orientation. We should engage with legitimate researchers who identify themselves appropriately and do not have obviously sinister motivations.

• Humane Treatment of Convicted Sex Offenders

One of the major consequences of being convicted of sexual offenses is not the sentence itself, but the difficulty of rebuilding one's life with such a conviction on record. Among the issues faced by ex-offenders after release are access to housing, employment, and mental health support. Along with a greater social support framework for all vulnerable people, ex-offenders should be provided with social support in these areas by redirecting funds spent on 'negatives' like military pursuits and long-term imprisonment, by taxing organized religion, and by decriminalizing and taxing softer recreational drugs.

• Improving Sexual Education

While setting an age of consent at 12 with protections, it would also be sensible to advocate for age appropriate sex and relationship education to occur during the upper years of elementary school so minors are suitably informed about sex before reaching the age of consent. Having a stronger knowledge base would make arguments about informed consent less persuasive and allow youth to better exercise their agency and autonomy.

The Benefit of Avoiding Dystonia

In addition to the benefits of the Pro-Reform position from an activist perspective, the relatively sex-positive nature of Pro-Reform offers mental health benefits to the community when compared to the anti-contact position.

It was pointed out to me, by an individual who read my previous essay and the foundations of this one, that the anti-contact position adopted by many young MAPs is awfully dystonic. Young MAPs are told that what they desire is wrong, to avoid children in case they commit a terrible act, and that masturbating to certain images of children is more or less a disease. They regularly internalize these messages.

For some people, acceptance of the negative messaging could make the commission of illegal behavior a self-fulfilling prophecy, leading them to engage in such acts even when they otherwise would not have done. Even if this doesn't happen, the dystonia caused by the negative messaging could lead to mental health issues that increase the risk of the person engaging in harmful behavior, either directed at minors or expressed through acts of violence or self-harm.

Anti-contact activists frequently focus on mental health issues, but we cannot really improve the mental health of our community until we get as many people as possible to accept that what they desire is not always inherently wrong. The balanced sex-positivity of Pro-Reform is a useful antidote to this issue, without having an off-putting extremism that alienates younger individuals.

Conclusion

The divisions within our community are pronounced. The anti-contact position offers little more in the way of future progress, and actively spreads dystonic messaging to impressionable young MAPs. To solve these issues, it must adopt some of the sex positivity of the pro-contact position. However, the traditional pro-contact positions of total age of consent abolitionism and decriminalization of real PIM production go too far to ever be taken seriously. Pro-Reform offers a very reasonable middle ground between the two positions. It is a useful framework for MAP activism, with demands that would improve our lives and have some hope of acceptance in the future.