I'm not a huge fan of the modern information via YouTube and TikTok culture. Unfortunately, most people apparently disagree, and so much MAP-related discourse takes place on such platforms. Browsing for examples, I came across a documentary published by Channel 4, an 'edgy' major TV network from the UK. The documentary is not an impressive piece of work; a panel of regular people, only one of them capable, interview a MAP wearing perhaps the most terrifying mouse mask ever created. The MAP, nicknamed Mouse, is from VirPed, and predictably defensive and apologetic. He uses ridiculous terms like 'CSAM', believes that all AMSC is wrong, and so on. However, he does stand up for himself when it comes to his decision to do volunteer work with children. Overall, he does astoundingly well at presenting the VirPed position, however limited that position may be.

In this article, I'm going to consider what we can learn from the panelists' comments. First, I'll discuss what was said, before analyzing their positions and then touching on the implications. I recommend first watching the video yourself, as it's not long and you may pick up on things I missed.

What was said

There's no obvious way to organize this section because the interview itself is quite disorganized, but perhaps the most logical method is to separate by panelist. The first person to really engage was the blue-haired lady, so I will start with her.

The blue-haired lady

This person started off reciting the typical absurdisms. She asked if Mouse considered pedophilia a sexual orientation or a disorder, to which he replied that he was happy with either term. She suggested that he might consider therapy to 'rewire' his brain to stop being attracted to children. She stated that she wouldn't be happy with him even looking at her children.

Mouse's discussion of difficulty growing up as gay/MAP, and being bullied in school, triggered a sudden jolt of empathy. The lady mentioned having grown up as the only openly gay person in her school. She mentioned that some people believe homosexuality can be changed via therapy, which she thinks impossible, and asked Mouse if he believed minor-attraction was equally 'incurable'. She went on to ask if he had any attraction to adults, if they knew about his minor-attraction, if he fantasized about sex with children while having sex with an adult, and so on. She seemed genuinely curious.

After a period of apparent enlightenment, she unfortunately then commented that any MAP working with children should disclose their minor-attraction, which is very obviously unrealistic. Mouse explained why that wouldn't work out, leading the lady to respond that he should just not be around children. Not great.

However, while her final comments reiterated her belief about contact with contact with children, she made clear that she didn't think Mouse was evil, and that she believed in a need to have proper conversations about minor-attraction to prevent harmful outcomes. She also pointed out that she wasn't even aware of non-contact MAPs beforehand; she assumed that all MAPs just 'molest' children. She learned something.

The lady in denim

This lady seemed very confused about how a man could possibly be attracted to a child, asking what even attracts him to them. Mouse answered the same as I would; it's hard to say, but he could name a number of physical and personal traits, just like a regular guy might if asked why he liked men or women. The lady in denim's response was like a robot reading off a checklist: "but they're adults". Obviously, that's not a logical response. The man wasn't talking about buying a seven-year-old a bottle of Jack Daniels and ravaging him in an alley. Consent-related arguments are irrelevant when talking about why someone is attracted to whomever. Mouse explained that he wasn't looking to have sexual contact with children, but for the lady in denim, it clearly wasn't sinking in.

A little later, she stated "you're talking as if you having these attractions is a harmless thing, like, you don't think it's wrong even that you find a young child attractive?". Mouse explained that there's not really much he can do about his attractions, which should be pretty fucking obvious. Before the lady in denim had a chance to illuminate us further with a response, she was interrupted by another panelist. But it wasn't long before she came back in to tell Mouse how she just couldn't understand him because he's attracted to kids on TV! How dare he... exist?!

She asked Mouse if he was abused as a child, to which he replied that he wasn't abused sexually, but was bullied badly at school. She seemed thoroughly unsatisfied with that answer; perhaps it wasn't neat, tidy, and boxed up enough to fit the narrative? When Mouse talked about adult partners being interested in age-related role play, she responded with "really?" and "wow", seemingly unable to comprehend anything beyond basic vanilla sexuality.

A bit later, the woman asked "why are you wearing a mask?", visibly giddy and proud of herself for an apparent 'gotcha!'

She more or less concluded by stating that Mouse's position was hopeless, that she couldn't empathize with him, and that she thought he was a lost cause. Lovely!

The angry man

The angry man asked, for reasons that are not quite apparent, if Mouse "understands why [he'd] feel uncomfortable having [him] in a room while [his] daughter is there". He said it through gritted teeth, clearly seething about a hypothetical that is presumably never going to occur. Mouse contended that he may feel uncomfortable about a man being alone in a room with his wife, to which the angry man just told him that it was "a different situation". Well, it certainly would be, as Mouse is a boylover!

The angry man's next concern was about... children on TV shows. He asked, "so do you watch, like, TV programs and stuff, and look at a kid and be like, I fancy it... I fancy him?". Mouse confirmed that this does indeed happen, to which the angry man and lady in denim stated their shock. How utterly revolutionary!

Later, the angry man confronted Mouse about his volunteer work with kids. He was clearly upset that Mouse chose to spend time with kids with the knowledge that he's a MAP. He asked, "is that so you can perv' on 'em?" He questioned how Mouse thinks the parents would feel if they knew, something which to me seems completely irrelevant if Mouse can be taken at his word that he will never do anything. Even looking at it from an anti-c perspective, it's no different to a man working with women, unless all the women in the workplace would consent to sex with that man.

Finally, in response to Mouse giving an emotional speech about how he would like even the tiniest slivers of acceptance and understanding, the man stated that it won't happen, and that people won't want to work with someone who "fancies kids". Classy!

Panelist perspectives

Among the three panelists, I saw three different perspectives.

The blue-haired lady was intolerant at first, but was clearly moved by Mouse's childhood struggles reminding her somewhat of her own. She asked interesting questions about his relationships with adults, showing a degree of curiosity as well as concern. And while she unfortunately still perceived him to be a risk around children, she was able to process the new information she was given to conclude that extreme hysteria is potentially more harmful to children than an attempt at understanding.

The lady in denim is apparently of low intelligence, and lacking in critical thinking skills. She just couldn't empathize with Mouse, nor logically process any of the points he made. It's as if she reads from a script, only believing what has been drilled into her from above. It follows that she thinks being attracted to children is wrong because she's been told it is, and she isn't looking to challenge her views with new evidence. A simple person, she has probably led quite a sheltered life and would like to continue to do so.

The angry man was both disgusted and angry about Mouse's feelings. His attitude was somewhat similar to the lady in denim, with a bit of testosterone thrown in. His question about whether Mouse works with children to "perv' on 'em" seemed very much like a projection of vanilla male sexuality onto MAP sexuality. As I've discussed before, MAPness is less one-dimensional, more of a mentoring orientation than a purely sexual one.

Implications

The three people all participated in the same conversation and started out similarly negative. However, one of the people - the blue-haired lady - came out with a fresher perspective. I think there are two reasons why she was persuaded while the others weren't. First of all, I believe she was the most intelligent of the panelists. The other two were clearly not of high intelligence; and, additionally, the lady in denim also lacked any semblance of critical-thinking skills, while the man was viewing everything purely through the lens of base male instincts. But it was when the blue-haired lady and Mouse found common ground that a switch seemed to flick in her head, allowing her to suddenly empathize with the MAP representative.

While I don't agree with all of the things Mouse said, I'm not convinced I'd have done any better than him in such an intense situation. He made both logical arguments and emotional appeals quite competently. Still, he was only able to persuade one of the three panelists. So where does that leave MAP activists in terms of engaging with the public? Certainly, it suggests that finding common ground is helpful. Does it also imply that we're better off just ignoring the many idiots who mindlessly regurgitate a deeply internalized popular narrative? Is there any way to get through to those people?

These are questions I plan to explore in more detail in an upcoming collaboration with a professional MAP psychologist. But in the meantime, please let me know what you think! The more we have to ponder, the better...

Note on comments: There is bug with how comments are displayed. Please scroll down below the comment form to see comments. Sorry for the inconvenience.