Read on Twitter
Through the bleary-eyed drifts of sleep I started scrolling on Twitter (of course) and I came across an article by the Prostasia Foundation who claim that they are a child protection organisation. I think it’s a concerning example of how easily organisations might be manipulated.
I dont know much about this foundation except almost all the positions I’ve seen them take have been eyebrow raising, nonetheless I recognise the kind of “discourse” theyre pushing as prominent in some left spaces&through that,I see the potential for other orgs to fall to this
The narrative goes that paedophiles have something in their brains that make them that way (if true,so?). Then the story is most of them don’t offend but they have no support b/c they’re stigmatised&vulnerable. We are told we can’t call them paedophiles anymore b/c of that stigma
We’re told to distinguish between someone who doesn’t offend&someone who hurts children (the law already makes this distinction).Then we’re told the reason to do this is b/c it will protect children. Ostracising paedophiles who dont offend,they say,will lead to more abuse of kids
This is the way the discussion is set up,and I’ve seen good people fall for it. They fall for it because they’re naive about just how manipulative predators can be, and because the second they’re told that agreeing to stuff like this will protect children they’re willing to do it
What’s happening actually uses a similar template to the one being used to erode women’s rights through self ID. (I’ll make the obvious disclaimer that the group of people ostensibly being championed in each case are not comparable but it’s useful to see similar methods in play)
In the discussion of women’s rights, we see how people threatening us with rape&murder can be seen to be vulnerable&talked about as such. Even sex offenders who transfer to women’s prisons.
But women can’t be vulnerable because “terfs”
Making aggressors the victims is a ploy.
But women can’t be vulnerable because “terfs”
Making aggressors the victims is a ploy.
While in the case of eroding women’s rights the very bad thing that we are threatened with is being the cause of the murder or suicide of vulnerable people,in the “MAP” discussion we are told that if you don’t capitulate&agree to what is being said then children will get hurt.
This contradicts a core position taken by the people pushing this which is that most paedophiles don’t offend&are therefore not the danger we imagine.If most don’t offend&are not actually a danger,they don’t need us to do what they want to stop them raping someone do they?
But then we get into what they’re asking us to do here. Besides sanitising their proclivities and rehabilitating the cultural image of the paedophile (let’s remain a firm no on doing that please), what are they ultimately going to ask for? Well, back to the article by Prostasia.
It was written by a paedophile who, as expected, calls himself a MAP and whose pseudonym has the surname FURY. How reassuring. In this article he is sad about the fact that the “MAP support club” he helped run on a discord server was shut down by discord.
He floats the idea that this support club, which he’s now relaunching, can help prevent child sex abuse citing that he even once called the police on a paedophile outside of the discord server!!!
He also talks about the fact some of these paedophiles are suicidal.
He also talks about the fact some of these paedophiles are suicidal.
So what should we have against this noble effort to clean up the streets Batman stylee and stop men committing heinous crimes? Um. Has everyone heard of paedophile rings? Do we not have pretty well documented evidence of what happens when large numbers get together?
Is bringing together a vast network of paedophiles a sane&sensible idea we should all embrace? And given that few of them are likely to be mental health professionals who specialise in dealing with offenders or those who might offend,what expertise are they using to stop abuse?
If someone tells you that they, or their friends, might assault a child if they don’t get to have their online club together, then they are just telling you that they are extremely dangerous individuals who ought to be on a watchlist.
This is before we even mention one of the support groups Prostasia endorsed is for 13-18 yr olds. So,a 13 yr old who thinks they might be a paedophile is going to go hang out with a bunch of 18 yr old paedophiles who probably hang out with far older
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG
I think this is what tends to happen when you reframe safeguarding as something bad or oppressive and you shift focus away from vulnerable groups towards those who make them vulnerable (I.e mainly males).
One of the stand out passages of the article by FURY was about how he sometimes had to help a paedophile stop viewing images of illegal pornography. Something that is already criminal, and something that, no, your chums shouldn’t be dealing with. The police should.
In much the way I’d oppose a rapist’s convention and a bunch of rapists setting policy or conversational tone in a discussion on how to prevent them raping women and girls, I really oppose paedophiles being conversational arbiters when it comes to child sex abuse.
I spoke to someone once who had experience with sex offenders.
He told me people who have these drives&who commit these offences lie a lot. They lie,manipulate,say what professionals need to hear to sign off on their treatment and feel sorrier for themselves than their victims.
He told me people who have these drives&who commit these offences lie a lot. They lie,manipulate,say what professionals need to hear to sign off on their treatment and feel sorrier for themselves than their victims.
He told me to never trust someone is safe or truly reformed just because they say so. If you personally want to give an individual benefit of the doubt it doesn’t absolve you of safeguarding as though they are as dangerous as they may be. It doesn’t mean ceding your sense to them
If professionals can be fooled how are you/your org going to magically know they’re sincere in wanting to reform? If someone tells you they have the urge to commit x crime but hate it and your response is to help put them in touch with others who feel the same, you’re an idiot
I see how institutional capture could happen with this&they are already laying groundwork quietly.I’d like to think people have lines they won’t let be crossed but I think many good people are actually extremely susceptible to dishonest manipulation precisely because they’re good
TLDR; if someone threatens to do a terrible thing to others if you won’t give them what they want, please consider that they are exactly the kind of person who will do the terrible thing anyway and ask yourself if what they want you to do might actually aid them in that goal
