Once you get beyond the wood chipper jokes and 'pred catcher' slop, you'll find people who claim to be a bit more tolerant. They might say that MAPs are fine as long we 'get help' and stay away from children. To me, those who demand psychiatric treatment for a sexual orientation are just as bad as those who demand our execution, as I explained in a prior piece.

But what of the demand that MAPs must do whatever we can to stay away from children? Well, I've already written about how minor-attraction is a mentoring orientation and why MAPs are needed in classrooms. I've also talked about the need for MAPs in an imperfect world; there are so many kids who need a mentor, role model, or just someone to spend time with, often because their emotional needs are not being fulfilled elsewhere.

I don't believe that minor-attraction is 'accidental', or some form of disorder, even in the case of people with very low ages of attraction like nepiophiles. In my aforementioned article on MAPs as mentors, I wrote:

From a group selection perspective, it is possible that the role of MAPs would be to take care of young people in the event that parents were unavailable. This, more than any ridiculous claims of targeted 'grooming', is why MAPs end up befriending young people from single parent families and other positions of vulnerability, and also why minor-attraction has persisted despite not being an obvious boon for reproduction. Nature produces a certain proportion of MAPs because we are of benefit to young people - despite the sexual attraction that adds to the motivation - rather than evil monsters who intend to do harm. It is quite a shame that so many MAPs are robbed of their natural purpose in life, and that young people don't get their intended mentors, in a world where the fear of 'pedophiles' surpasses all else.

It is worth asking, then, if MAPs staying away from kids is not a smart choice, nor even a neutral decision, but fundamentally wrong. In staying away, a MAP is denying emotionally vulnerable children the friend or mentor that evolution has provided for them, one they may desperately need.

I accept that hysteria surrounding minor-attraction does make it scary, dangerous perhaps, to spend time with children. This is especially true in anglo countries, where sometimes it sounds like people would rather sacrifice their children than have a MAP even so much as look at them on the street. Nonetheless, even in the craziest of countries, MAPs do make YFs because they are not the drooling ogres that so many expect MAPs to be. And it's not like you can't move to a more relaxed country. The west is wildly overrated anyway.

I'm not going to pretend that spending time with children is always enjoyable. There are many good reasons why a large number of adults dislike kids, and being a MAP does not necessarily make you immune to those realities. Still, a significant part of being a mentor is setting and enforcing boundaries. To this end, you will need to make tough decisions, such as disciplining students or YFs when needed, and potentially even refusing to interact with YFs for a period of time should they be unwilling to accept reasonable rules. Being a spineless teacher, or a total doormat for local kids, helps no-one.

There is also a need to have the prerequisite self-control to not do anything stupid. Antis insist that MAPs are completely incapable of this, which is nothing short of slander and in many cases a projection of their own lack of self-control. I think it not wise to listen to their words, to assume that you'll be unable to control yourself simply because that is the prevailing mantra. Still, if you have actual reason to believe you can't control yourself around children, this article is not for you.

In summary, unless you genuinely have issues with self-control, you should do whatever you can to interact with children as a MAP, despite the challenges you might face. You are doing both yourself and the community a disservice by not doing so.