thread: the narrative of situational offenders

bly rede 

12 April 2020    
from twitter and bluesky threads


 

Are sexual offenders against children really divided neatly into 'pedophilic' and 'situational'?

Bly Rede is the co-director of Virtuous Pedophiles. Blog posts reflect his personal views, and are not statements from the organisation.

 

There's a bit of a worldview among online MAPs that is formed out of the finding by @MCSeto and crew that, among child sex contact offenders, fewer than half appear to be MAPs.

This leads to an idea (not proven) that there are OMAPs and "situational offenders". But are we >


> really sure these categories are quite so distinct?

Presumably, someone reporting or found to have sexual attraction to minors gets sorted by such studies to one side of the divide as a pedophile, while others default to the situational category.

I personally suspect that >


> we should be cautious with assuming from the headline that child abuse happens for one of two distinct reasons.

I don't see why some of the pedophilic offenders might not also have situational reasons for offending.

Also, attraction can be more contingent than the standard >


> MAP narratives allow. Yes, a lot of us know quickly that we find a particular child attractive or not, but sometimes something about them - their personality (or our feelings about a character they're playing in a film/show) or other contextual factors like a paraphilia >


> can make us view someone we were at first indifferent toward as a (for want of a better word) "prospect for fantasy".

There are limits to this. No amount of context would probably ever be sufficient for me to be attracted to a girl, for instance, or a cartoon animal.

All >


> the same, though, it does seem that situational factors are a thing that exist for MAPs too.

Minor attraction is for me seems a combination of two things:

(a) intuitive, instant desire for specific children who meet certain highly defined criteria of physiognomy and >


> bodily attractiveness.

Then there's (b) a more paraphilic, conceptual thing, where the *very fact* someone is a male child in a range of ages, while not necessarily immediately attractive, puts them in a category of enhanced interest for me. At the very least, I might be >


> be more interested in them and their life based on this criterion than I otherwise would, and through a (projected) feeling of connection with him, this can tip over into eroticisation.

I find this all a little foggy, and vaguely troubling, but I try to keep in mind that >


> what makes a 'virtuous pedophile' virtuous is that regardless of the mysteries of his motivation he does no harm to a child.

The critical distinction us between someone who is able to deliver the outcome of "no offences" and someone who persistently can't.

I say >


> 'persistently', since clearly there are those in between recurrent offending and never having offended at all, for instance with a single offence, whose virtue may rest on their degree of remorse and the efforts they make to improve things. ::


 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

thread: welcome, pandemic maps!

 

thread: autopedophilia and pedophilia

 

the non-offending pedophile

   

bly rede

Advice based on three years of social media maptivism.

 

bly rede

Is there a difference between being attracted to a child and wanting to be a child? Yes. But there is also overlap.

 

ender wiggin

Too many people still refuse to acknowledge the difference between pedophile and child molester. They judge people for feelings they didn’t choose.

 
 
 
thread: welcome, pandemic maps!
bly rede

Advice based on three years of social media maptivism.

 
 
 
thread: autopedophilia and pedophilia
bly rede

Is there a difference between being attracted to a child and wanting to be a child? Yes. But there is also overlap.

 
 
 
the non-offending pedophile
ender wiggin

Too many people still refuse to acknowledge the difference between pedophile and child molester. They judge people for feelings they didn’t choose.