This post talks about anti-c and pro-c contact stances. These positions are philosophical; a person being pro-c does not mean that they engage in, or encourage, sexual contact with children.

As a teenager back in 2006, I was one of the very first anti-c voices. New to realizing I was a MAP, I was determined to let the world know that I was not like the 'bad guys'.

I was, throughout my adolescence, anti-social and detached from peers. This meant I didn't really get a good indication of how boys behaved, despite having been one. I remained fairly distant from others through college, only meeting up socially with fellow MAPs. As such, I was still fairly naive of the ways of the world, including the behavior of adolescents.

I eventually took the leap of becoming a teacher, which thrust me into a world of being around kids. This started in an Asian country that hadn't - at that time - been poisoned by western thinking, and where boys behaved much more naturally and uninhibited. It made me realize that the concept of under-18s as sexually innocent or unaware is complete nonsense. Adolescents, and children, are inherently sexual, despite adults' constant attempts to desexualize them. If you spend enough time with young people, it is impossible to remain philosophically anti-c unless you have your eyes closed.

In my case, my early anti-c perspective was part misunderstanding of reality, and part desperation for acceptance by affirming myself as not one of the 'bad guys'. But this attempt at self-affirmation does not change the reality of youth sexual behavior, and furthermore, being anti-c will not win you many friends.

As I have pointed out in several articles recently, anti-MAP ideology is largely based on revulsion of what MAPs feel, not what people think we do. Humans have a long history of being wildly discriminatory and incredibly cruel, and to think that the human race is somehow 'past that' would be absurd.

For those who dislike MAPs because they assume we will eventually hurt a child, well... can they really be blamed for assuming that? They will no doubt be looking at the situation from their own simplistic perspective: "I'm attracted to women so I have sex with them" or "men are always catcalling me; imagine what MAPs do to kids!" If you're a regular reader, and/or a MAP yourself, you'll no doubt be aware that this is poor logic. MAPs understand that having sexual contact with a child potentially comes with a range of severe consequences, even if we argue over the extent to which the MAP versus society would be to blame. Therefore, a lot of MAPs, even pro-c MAPs, refrain. But most 'regular people' are not thinking deeply enough to see the distinction, and are not even willing to try.

While I acknowledge the use of anti-c arguments in garnering some sympathy among a minority of people who both care about harm reduction and understand the distinction explained above, it is better not to entertain the mantra that children are sexless beings who will be severely harmed by a consensual relationship. Any narrative that follows along these lines is ultimately going to be unhelpful; it is akin to saying "I constantly desire and fantasize about doing the worst thing imaginable, but I super duper promise I won't do it!" This is more or less what VirPed are doing.

I don't expect anti-c MAPs to become rabidly pro-c - at least not overnight - but I do think they should be outwardly prouder of who they are, and a bit more balanced. For this purpose, the Pro-Reform Framework would be an excellent start.