placeholder

[chronic_ally]

I made a post yesterday ranting about a certain issue with liberal (ostensibly) “pro-MAP” theories in discourse. i.e. how many tend to replicate the same logics that scapegoat mapness for CSA by finding some other scapegoat, with the same issues of blaming biology or characteristics commonly mapped onto biology, and ignoring the influence of ideology, culture, and material conditions. A prominent example of this is how some (e.g. Newgon) think (at least “real”) CSA is the fault of “psychopathy” or some other mental illness or feature of neurology (or perceived neurology). In my thread, I listed various other scapegoated factors I recall hearing from such sources (though mainly anti-c or anti-c-adjacent ones). I continue to be frustrated at how liberal “anti-CSA” MAP allies (or MAPs themselves) might be willing/able to accept some basic pro-MAP points (e.g. “most CSA’ers aren’t MAPs”) but refuse to interrogate normative logics further and really think about why that’s the case and what else might follow. So they might continue with, for example, “well most aren’t but also MAPs are still unique risks for some reason and the world would be better if more received therapy to not offend.” Or “well mapness isn’t solely The cause but it’s still a possible cause and you need to target that for prevention too.” This isn’t particularly radical, and the more I go on the more uncomfortable I feel with these theories which I feel do not represent me or my experiences at all, either with CSA/adultism or MAP attractions, and likewise for many of the other survivors and MAPs/allies I’ve met/talked to. We might get the bulk of our theories (e.g. about pedophilia not being the cause of CSA / CSA not necessarily correlating with pedophilia) from talking amongst ourselves, examining and concluding from our own experiences, extrapolating from radical theory on other forms of abuse or sexual violence, or by listening to others, but academics dominate the arena when it comes to being seen as the “representatives” of discourse so people would much more readily listen to them than to our own correctives, which allows major errors to proliferate and then be collapsed with our rhetoric and our movements even if we (i.e. our side of the net) are antipsych and anti-academia and rather bitter about the hegemonic authority of “experts” over our lives, and even if they come to their conclusions for incorrect reasons, different from ours.

So far I’ve mostly written longer things breaking down the theoretical frameworks and origin points behind such ideas in Mastodon threads or in private chats, which is rather difficult to transfer to somewhere more useful like a public blog, but I’m starting to think it might be a good idea to try something like that here? These might cover:

• trying to trace the very first advocates of such theory (as well as, maybe, people who advocated this theory but also advocated the same wrt MAPs too; these two groups’ similarities and differences, and points of cross-pollination and separation)
• the false dichotomy between “situational offenders” and “pedophilic offenders” (how the concept of “situational offending” originated in general criminology, but is inapplicable when it comes to abuse or sexual violence); the remaining differences between what we mean by “pedophilia” and what Researchers/Psychiatrists/Criminologists mean by “pedophilia”
• how both antimaps and pro-MAPs will repeat the same myths
• Seto (maybe taking a look at his book), his articles (mainly the one I’ve read so far, the one on his “motivation-facilitation model of offending”; Prostasia’s article on the MFM; some other problematic/pseudoscientific Prostasia moments.
• examining Seto’s evopsych theory (the weird “mating effort” thing)
• Seto’s crossover with Finkelhor’s theories, and how “emotional congruence → CSA” theory made it into the DSM-V; digging up our old NNIA thread on the adultism of the entry and its problematic political/policy/social implications
• Blanchard’s argument that adult SA of adolescents is evolutionarily programmed although SA of children is still deviant, and correlating hebephilia and pedophilia to the above
• theories such as Sara Jahnke’s that pro-c ideology is not at fault for CSA (and instead, anti-c’s offend equally because—random accidents? mental illness? lack of impulse control? insufficient therapy?)
• various random criminological or psychological studies or papers or books making any claims like the above (there’s a significant chunk, not just for individuals who focus on pedophilia research, that will concede “pedophilia isn’t always at fault” but still argue various CSA myths)
• probably some of the things psychiatrists or sexologists etc. have written about “impulse control,” “(dis)inhibition,” “hypersexuality,” “sex drive” and so on and so forth
• (I had planned out this post in my head but didn’t write it down quickly enough so I’ve probably forgotten some things I’d wanted to write beforehand.)

One such article of note which I remember: https://www.b4uact.org/know-the-facts/behavior

Evidence suggests that non-offending MAPs actually have better inhibitory control abilities than offending MAPs on both a neurobiological and behavioral basis (Kärgel et al., 2016; Jorden et al., 2018). Studies also report pathological symptoms or personality disorders as important correlations with sexual offending (Cohen et al., 2002; Gerwinn et al., 2018; Neutze, Seto, Schaefer, Mundt, & Beier, 2010). Overall, these point to other concrete factors as predictors of sexual offenses against children than minor attraction itself (Massau et al., 2017; Mitchell & Galupo, 2015).

“Concrete”? “Pathology” is in fact quite vague still. Do they mean “biological” or “physical”? But that still is a pretty arbitrary designation and points to a certain mechanistic model of sexual behavior which is inaccurate and pseudoscientific and underpins patriarchal rape myths, and would certainly be different from what we as materialists would consider a more precise, accurate, “real” manner of understanding social phenomena.

I had criticized this sometime last year or in 2021, mainly for the claim about “personality disorders” (and cluster B’s, especially ASPD and sometimes NPD, are very much so treated in a closely parallel way to pedophilia & mapness in academia/psych, scapegoated for abuse and violence with most studies done on criminals, and various incorrect and deterministic assumptions being attached to them as well as limited models of what they are to experience). If I remember correctly, two of the studies were just for the “pathological symptoms” claim and only one mentioned personality disorders (and specifically only clusters B and C) (I might be remembering wrong though). If I have more time I might do what I’d considered last time (reading it more thoroughly and looking over where this claim is coming from). Although, I don’t believe that “empirical” attacks devoid of social context are particularly meaningful so of course this would also have to involve better theoretical grounding and an interrogation of medicalized/pathologizing/statist language about CSA perpetration as a whole.

One thing I was thinking about was WDHDT and its role as an early player in debunking intimate partner abuse myths (I acknowledge issues with the author’s views and how they seeped into the book itself too, obviously; it’s not perfect). Especially the section just going down a list of bullet points of things people popularly assume “cause” abuse (e.g. alcohol, stress, pathology, lack of self-control, and so on). I had remarked earlier this year that it might be useful if there was something like that but for CSA myths specifically. I think the same basic concepts apply: “lack of impulse control/couldn’t help it” is incorrect here too for reasons XYZ, etc.

I’m very exhausted and burnt out right now and disabled and have barely any free time so writing things is difficult, but I try my best.