Post a response:
|
Minor-attraction is a risk factor for offending because underage sexual activity is illegal even if it's consensual. If same-sex sexual activity was illegal even if it was consensual, then homosexuality would be a risk factor for offending. Westerners acknowledge that homosexuals are indeed more likely to practice homosexuality than heterosexuals. And it's likewise recognised that the bisexual probability is intermediate. Obviously if someone's sexual inclination is towards a particular behaviour, that behaviour is more likely for people with that inclination. That's just common sense. So MAPs are obviously more likely to have sexual relations with kids. It seems that when you hear "offending" you think "rape" and "sexualized violence" but I don't. I hear "breaking the law". I think that's how we must think of it, for our own sanity. And I think the Sexual Assault Misconceptions article that you cited was wrong about something. Specifically I don't agree that sexual repression doesn't cause sexual assault. And I don't like that people claim rape is about power, not sex. Why can't it be both? It's a non-sequitur. Rapists are abusing their power, yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't motivated by sexual desire. By the way, if you only count actual sexual abuse, would MAPs be more likely to commit it? Even though kids can consent, I'd imagine a lot of MAPs, especially ones attracted to younger kids, would be hardpressed to find a consenting kid, and this problem is exacerbated by the stigma. So it's possible this leads to sexual assault. Yes, sexual assault happens due to perpetrators disregarding consent, not just having repressed sexual desires, but perhaps they're more likely to disregard kids' consent due to the stigma. For one, most of society and the law disregard kids' consent in an anti-contact manner. This is exactly why I think anti-contacters are the ones thinking like abusers. Both disregard consent. The only difference is the anti-contacter thinks that since consent doesn't matter, it's always wrong, while the abuser thinks that since consent doesn't matter, it's never wrong. I suspect it's likely that many pedophiles are attracted to a range of ages, and think kids cannot consent, but they also think they must have underage sexual relations, so they choose kids 4 and under, maybe they think that's the most ethical since they're least likely to remember it. They also don't bother seeking consent, or educating them about sexual matters, because they think it doesn't make it any better, as kids can't consent, and maybe they think early sex education is bad. Or maybe they think this sort of thing would get them hit with grooming charges. I think they might actually have a point, since society does indeed stigmatise consensual sexual relations with kids more than non-consensual. Pro-contacters like me may think the worst sexual relations with kids are cases in which intimidation is used, but that's not how society seees it. Intimidation might not be seen as grooming, or as a lesser form of grooming. Sexual adultists think consensual sexual relations with kids are the worst, because they're "grooming". [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst] |