Brian Ribbon

Percy Shelley

Pro-Reform is a framework arguing that cautious legal reforms are needed to offer greater rights and protections to MAPs and Youth. The framework being proposed is a personal position and not necessarily agreed upon by all members of Mu.

Pro-reformists are moderate and rational MAP activists who advocate reasonable and balanced changes to how MAPs are treated without endangering minors. We recently discussed how to protect children and teenagers from sexual harm while respecting the agency of people who are mature enough to give properly informed consent. In this article, we will explore the social changes needed to create a more harmonious society in which MAPs can openly live responsible and peaceful lives within the community.

Attraction is not action, but views about AMSC inform views about minor-attraction

The pro-reform framework is authored primarily by Brian Ribbon, whose 2006-2010 blog known as ANU or ATC (archive), and work on public fora in early 2007, were some of the earliest examples of discussions on non-offending pedophilia and 'minor-attracted people'. The term 'MAP' was adopted by B4U-Act later in 2007, while the popular anti-contact group VirPed was not founded until 2012. Given the history of the individual who authored the framework, it would be wrong to label pro-reformists 'radical Age of Consent abolitionists' in the shape of NAMBLA. We prioritize informing the public of the extremely important fact that most people who are attracted to minors do not act on their feelings, in addition to demanding the destigmatization of MAPs, the right to association and access to mental health resources, and other 'soft' rights. Even the more controversial elements of pro-reform, such as 16/12, barely go further than extant policy in developed countries like Germany and Uruguay.

Although we primarily focus on destigmatization, we do not support a myopic focus on it as a sole goal. We are not willing to accept the popular yet purely ideological position that Adult-Minor Sexual Contact (AMSC) should be defined as abusive in every circumstance. Evidence shows that, for over-12s at least, many young people reflect positively on such experiences, despite the risk of secondary harm (harm coming from social messaging). We believe that addressing this reality is crucial, even from the viewpoint of destigmatization. The public frequently ignore efforts by MAPs to explain that the majority of us do not act on our feelings, never mind do something absurd and outrageous like abducting or violently assaulting someone, and they continue to treat us like cunning and evil predators skulking around in the bushes. The fact that an American school called in Homeland Security and State Police in response to a planned MAP Camp in a small American town shows that the public's perception of us is beyond ridiculous. They consider us crazed, psychotic hypersexuals who fantasize about stealing kicking and screaming children from playgrounds. That is highly offensive to MAPs regardless of their views on age of consent reform. We find even the thought of that disgusting, the same way that a normal non-MAP would be disgusted by the idea of violently attacking a woman. Of course, there are a very small number of psychopaths in both the MAP and non-MAP communities, but they don't represent their community as a whole. Unfortunately, very few people are willing to accept this, or even make any attempt to understand.

If people cannot understand that most MAPs are responsible people who will never act on their feelings, whose fantasies themselves are non-violent, and if they continue to imagine us in the horrible ways they do, we have no choice but to state controversial realities that the public really do not want to hear. Without necessarily seeking legal reforms, although that is a part of the pro-reform framework, we must explain an extremely uncomfortable reality to the public; that even if minor-attraction were acted on, though in most cases it never is, the nature and outcome of a mutual relationship might not be anything like what they imagine, especially with adolescents rather than young children. This will lead to backlash and anger, but so does any argument we make. Even planning to host a camp and roast marshmallows over a fire together leads to threats of violence and Homeland Security teams sent to the nearby school. Ultimately, it is hoped that even without changes to Age of Consent laws, a gentle softening in the extreme attitudes toward AMSC will lead to less violent reactions to MAPs who never act on their feelings. Our position will no doubt be misrepresented as NAMBLA 2.0 by the lynch mob, including people within our own community, but our advocacy should ultimately lead to progress even for the huge number of MAPs who are sworn to abstinence regardless of legal restrictions.

Two messages are needed:

1. Most MAPs do not act on their feelings, and have no intention of ever doing so.

2. Even if a MAP did act on their feelings, the nature and outcome may not be the horror story the public imagines.

Please note: pro-reformists encourage all MAPs to behave responsibly and observe the local Age of Consent, no matter how arbitrary it may be.

For pro-reform's very moderate position on the Age of Consent, see here.

Those who want 'help' must have safe access

One of the most serious issues in the MAP community at present is the incredible difficulty that MAPs have in safely accessing mental health support. And ironically, one of the most frequent comments about MAPs is that we should 'get help'. Although nothing can change our sexual orientation, there are certain issues that some MAPs need help with, such as depression, loneliness, and in a very small number of cases, avoiding harmful behavior. Unfortunately, accessing mental health services is extremely dangerous even for a non-offender, and it becomes more dangerous still for a person who has been committing offenses but wants to get help to stop. The only safe way to access such services is via therapists approved by Maryland charity B4U-Act, a very expensive option that is firmly out of reach of the working class.

Mu's Percy Shelley authored an excellent article on the serious issue of MAP suicide. It touched on the history of LGBT suicide, which has thankfully now been addressed but sadly not yet solved. It went on to explain how MAP suicide is likely much more common, ignored or even laughed at, and impossible to address while stigma persists. It considered the impact upon families and friends, not just the 'dirty pedos' upon whom many people would wish a slow and painful death. It also discussed how the glaring absence of safe and affordable access to therapy leaves many MAPs without options for getting help. Crucially, it considered the damaging effects of mandatory reporting, which require a therapist to report admissions of criminal behavior by their patients. While there is some logic to expecting therapists to report criminal behavior, there is also a very good reason not to. If a person is engaging in criminal behavior but wants to stop, a therapist is clearly a suitable person to consult. However, if the person knows they will be reported, they will not seek help, and may well continue to engage in the same behavior. The idea that only the 'justice' system can prevent such behavior, or that it is even the best avenue to address it, is an unreasonable one.

Recently, we saw a horrific outcome to a case of an extremely troubled MAP who was apparently unable to get help despite his mental health spiraling out of control. The teenage MAP struggled with minor-attraction and apparent schizophrenia. While getting support for schizophrenia might have been easy enough, admitting an attraction to children would no doubt have led to him being deemed dangerous and reported to authorities. The young man became increasingly distressed about the loneliness he faced as a MAP, and developed a disturbing infatuation with a young female character in a video game that could have been addressed had he been able to get help. With nowhere to go, he lost all sense of sanity when he felt his virtual 'girlfriend' was harmed by his younger sister, and brutally murdered his family as a result. If this young man had been able to tell a therapist about his issues, the tragedy could have been prevented.

Reforms we should advocate for include:

1. Training of mental health professionals to not interpret minor-attraction as a dangerous, criminal trait.

2. Reconsideration of mandatory reporting laws, to allow those who are acting criminally to get help with stopping.

We should be able to meet our friends

The MAP camp drama illustrated the absolute extremity of the fear and hatred that MAPs have to deal with. In his response to this event, Brian Ribbon argued:

MAPs struggle massively with isolation; many feel unable to tell even their closest friends and family due to the extreme stigma and assumptions of criminality connected with being a MAP. This causes severe emotional distress, which is of benefit neither to MAPs nor the wider community. Events such as MAP Camp fill a pressing social need without involving the commission of unlawful or unethical activity, and purposefully exclude those under the age of 18. Such fellowship helps to prevent mental breakdowns and suicides, which are harmful to the individual, their family, and others who care about them. Unfortunately, while many MAPs would appreciate professional mental health support and non-MAP friends within the local community, they are rightfully terrified of confiding in anyone other than fellow MAPs. This is an extremely unfortunate reality that can only be solved by the wholesale destigmatization of minor-attraction.

The absolutely massive stigmatization and isolation we feel is extremely damaging in itself, and risks pushing responsible men with excellent levels of self-control to become the very monsters that society believes us to be. Most of us, feeling absolutely unable to trust anyone other then fellow MAPs, rely on peer support as a final resort to avoid their mental health spiraling out of control. If it's impossible to trust friends and allies outside of the MAP community, and also impossible to access mental health support, peer support is crucial. Vigilantes threatening such support should be strongly condemned for prioritizing their hateful feelings over the well-being of MAPs and the general community.

So far as criminal activity is not involved, MAPs should have the legally protected right to:

1. Freely meet with other MAPs to engage in socialization, networking and recreational activities.

2. Discuss issues related to being a MAP, not limited to but including legal reforms.

MAPs must respect their fallen brothers and sisters

For roughly a decade, MAPs who offend have been a topic that many public facing MAPs have strategically avoided. In fighting for destigmatization, focusing on the more palatable NOMAPS (non-offending MAPs) has seemed, to some, like a better approach. MAPs who have offended are said to have had their chance and messed up, appearing in the news as predators and making other MAPs look bad by association. Thefore, through the 2010s, many community leaders facing the wider community decided to distance themselves from the topic of AMSC altogether, insisting they had no interest in legal reform and condemning those in favor of changing laws, throwing people who had broken laws under the bus. One prominent example of this was Todd Nickerson's debut article for Salon in 2015, "I'm a Pedophile but Not a Monster", a title which implies that people who had offended were monsters. As dialogue developed and researchers began getting involved, some even said "there are some individuals who refer to themselves as 'minor attracted persons' (MAP) or 'virtuous paedophiles' who do not act on their attractions", implying that those who do act on their attractions are somehow a different demographic from MAPs altogether.

Pro-reform rejects this binary. People who have a preferential attraction for minors are MAPs, regardless of their actions or views on reform. 'MAP' merely refers to a sexual orientation. There are some straight men that commit terrible crimes against women, and those crimes certainly do not represent adult-attracted heterosexuals as a whole, but neither are the men committing those crimes any less heterosexual. As part of a movement, MAP activists need to be willing to support other MAPs, even if they have made bad decisions. Their criminal and sexual history does not automatically make them monsters. It does not define them absolutely. Therefore, pro-reform refuses to throw these men and women under the bus. NAMBLA's founding goal was "Abolish All Age of Consent Laws and Free All Men Incarcerated for Non-Violent Sexual Offenses." We do not support unconditional abolition of age of consent laws, nor do we think that it would be possible to free all men (and women) incarcerated for non-violent sexual offenses. But we do strongly support more humane treatment of people that are incarcerated for non-violent sexual crimes. As outlined earlier, accepting the narrative that AMSC is a crime worse than murder has negative flow-on effects to even non-offending MAPs.

No more kicking a person when they're down

One of the biggest problems, especially in the US, is the existence of public sex offense registries. Countless studies have been done showing that these registries are ineffective, costly and punitive for the sake of it, targeting a population that statistically has one of the lowest risks of recidivism. Groups like NARSOL and Women Against Registry are working hard to raise awareness of the harmful effects of registries, while mounting legal challenges against the more punitive aspects when they can. These groups, however, have their weaknesses. Typically they frame the stories of registrants as people who made a single bad mistake that they learnt from. This is a story that is harder to sell if you acknowledge an innate, immutable attraction. That is why NARSOL and its affiliates are not outspoken on the issue of minor-attraction. Ignoring the elephant in the room might help achieve short term goals, but it ignores the reality that hundreds of thousands of the close to a million people on the registry are likely MAPs. NARSOL does campaign against civil commitment, but it ignores the fact that this policy punishes people with a preference for minors by suggesting they have a higher propensity for recidivism and considers them "uncooperative" when conversion therapy inevitably fails and they continue being aroused by minors.

NARSOL is deep in the trenches fighting hard against post-sentence punishments for people that have "done their time", but the question of how much time should be done is one that is rarely asked, either. Pro-reform believes that, in general, sentencing of non-violent sex crimes is unnecessarily punitive, especially in English speaking countries. We also strongly oppose moves to sentence people to death, castration (surgical or chemical) or life without the chance of parole, even in cases where the crimes committed are barbaric and horrific. If we concede that the "true monsters" should be punished harshly, that sets the bounds at an extreme, and less 'monstrous' conduct will be dragged towards it. Supporting harsh punishments for the most heinous crimes, including those that MAPs scornfully condemn, results in harsher punishments than necessary for less serious offenses. We also think that there are a range of chilling effects and push factors resulting from harsh punishment that can encourage unethical behavior by people who offend, while also making the hurdles to report offenses and seek help harder to surmount. While not exclusively a MAP issue, we support further discussions of restorative justice and prison reform (and potentially even prison abolition, or at least prison as a last resort). Criminal justice should be focused on safer societies, not vengeance.

Pro-reform supports a MAP community which:

1. Recognizes that lives of MAPs who have offended are equally valuable.

Thus supporting reforms that would dramatically improve their quality of life, such as:

2. Abolition of sex offense registries and civil commitment.

3. Reasonable sentencing for non-violent offenses and a prohibition on all kinds of cruel and unusual punishment.

Empowering and educating minors works better than putting people in cages

A central assumption shaping much of public policy around minor-attraction is that more punitive measures protect children and reduce child sexual abuse. But is the status quo actually helping, or is the "war on CSA" failing just like other forms of prohibition have? The pro-reform framework strongly believes that by sheltering children from sex, we actually make them more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. We support comprehensive sex education that, rather than having a single module about puberty and STIs, is integrated into the curriculum, focusing on age-appropriate discussions of relationships and consent. Given that children can be victims of abuse at any age, promoting sexual awareness can never start too soon.

Abstinence, anti-masturbation and anti-porn positions are thankfully seen by most in society as antiquated. Yet, many people's opinions about teen, or even more so child sexuality, contradict this progressive stance. We advocate for legal, social, and educational reforms that empower children and teens in line with their evolving capacities. At all developmental stages, agency and autonomy should be held paramount, without abandoning necessary protections. Autonomy allows individuals to make their own decisions without excessive legal or social constraints. Thus, we believe in allowing children to engage in sexual activities with peers without the fear of legal repercussions. Minors should always be the primary agents of their own sexuality. Our 16/12 framework embodies this principle, granting adolescents the authority to determine whether to initiate legal proceedings without unwanted interference from parents, police, or prosecutors. Recognizing that adolescents may sometimes choose to engage sexually with adults, it’s important to ensure they are prepared through comprehensive education and legal support, as these measures are far more effective in preventing abuse than increasingly draconian, yet ironically ineffective sentences.

Pro-reform makes no claims to being a youth liberation framework. The authors are not youth and feel it would be disingenuous to stand on a platform of youth rights, shamelessly pretending to speak for youth. However, while our platform is a fundamentally MAP-centric one, it is also not a platform that seeks to achieve victories at the cost of minors' well-being. We believe that a core feature of our argument is a demand for respect for youth, including their desires, needs and lived experiences. This means that both positive and negative evaluations of experiences should be listened to and respected. It is not for us to decide if someone's individual experience was traumatic or harmful; one person's 'abuse' is another person's fond memory. We need to listen to the diversity of youth voices sharing their experiences, without excessive judgment. We must also not be so fixated on child sexual abuse that we forget other kinds of abuse that can be just as, if not more, harmful. We believe, not simply for selfish reasons, that any reform purporting to help MAPs should be achieved through a rubric that reduces excessive vertical power imbalances between adults and minors, rather than exploiting them.

Pro-reform believes that empowering youth starts with:

1. Age appropriate sex and relationship education at all ages.

2. Validating all youth experiences, including voices that stray from mainstream narratives.

Balance is the key to better outcomes

Pro-reform is a balanced framework that seeks to offer balanced solutions to key points of contention among pro-c MAPs, anti-c MAPs, allies, and people outside of our community.

If you have anything to contribute to the discussion, please comment in our forum thread, or e-mail the authors directly and let them know what you think.