In our latest guest blog, Mu reader John Tawvnik critiques Brian Ribbon's recent article on MAP community politics. This article is a critical response to a publication by a Mu editor; therefore, we have chosen to post it without copy editing. As with all guest blogs, opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the Mu Committee or its editors.

Background

I recently read Brian Ribbon's piece entitled “The MAP Community Needs to Chill” and while there are many aspects that he touched upon with which I would concur, there are some fundamental issues with it that can also be seen as a trend in modern MAP activism. These issues are the focus on identity over actions, community inclusion and mental health over organization, and assimilation with other activism over independent thought.

Identity

The identitarian strain of thinking has been ever more prevalent within activism, with the focus of each activist group being the prioritization on themselves as an oppressed group, which should receive the same amount of attention as other groups. This can be clearly seen in the history of sexual activism. In Western countries, such as the UK and US, there were clear laws prohibiting same-sex sexual relations between two males, often referred to as sodomy. While in theory, these might have been occasionally used against women who had sexual relations with other women, depending on the law in question, in practice the focus was always on men. In this respect, the priority was not in gay men identifying as gay men and being proud of it, the priority was to not be thrown in jail or otherwise punished for actions occurring in the bedroom. Political lesbianism, on the other hand, was not primarily about reforming laws but on lesbianism and, more fundamentally, womanhood as identity. In fact, only in a situation of relative comfort can one focus on identity and affirmation as the core of politics, rather than on concrete changes.

Specifically as related to MAP activism, this strain of politics is extremely evident within the Virtuous Pedophiles organization and related organizations and individuals. Even the name itself, “Virtuous Pedophiles” shows the desire to identify both as a pedophile and as a pedophile that can be accepted by society, due to his virtue in remaining abstinent or perhaps even refraining from all interaction with children. To that, one must ask the obvious question, what exactly is the point of such an organization? If it's merely a club for people of similar attitudes and inclinations to interact with each other, that might be understandable, though the inherent demand for virtue is unlikely to create a particularly welcoming environment, but it clearly perceives itself as an activist organization, advocating for the rights of pedophiles.

But which rights are we speaking of? The most clear violations of MAP rights are their imprisonment for consensual relations, imprisonment for mere private possession of material deemed illegal, and, in some countries, a perpetual scarlet letter in the form of the Sex Offender Registry, for which there is not an equivalent for non-sexual crimes. Identity-focused groups, such as Virtuous Pedophiles, clearly do not consider these as worthy causes, since the perpetrators of such actions are not virtuous.

However, this is only one flavor of identity as politics. Another flavor is the desire to find common cause with other “stigmatized sexual identities”. There is, however, an obvious distinction that can be drawn between attraction to minors and almost all other “stigmatized sexual identities”. Namely, the acting on said attraction is illegal and punished harshly by the government. If one person's kink about diapers, for example, becomes public knowledge, it might be embarrassing, it might even cost them in their personal life. It will not land them in jail. They will not be on a sex offender registry.

These examples, among others, show a desire to be accepted and a creation of organizations around that theme. While on a personal level, this is completely understandable, on a political level, it should not be regarded as relevant when MAPs are facing criminal prosecution for what are primarily victimless crimes. The priority of any group for MAP activism must be on taking action to eliminate legal persecution of MAPs, rather than on affirmation of identity.

Inclusion and Mental Health

The issue of inclusion and mental health is intrinsically connected with the issue of identity, namely in the area of affirmation of said identity. Given the extreme legal situation surrounding minor attraction and its extreme social stigmatization, it is only natural that many MAP groups are oriented around support and affirmation. Being inclusive and understanding of individuals' differences and their mental health challenges is completely understandable and often laudable in personal settings or in the setting of a social club. However, within a political context, when one is desiring political change, this can very easily be a negative, rather than a positive.

With the focus on support as politics, the feelings of each individual take priority over the cause of the group. Each person has to be careful not to step on the other's toes and fruitful political discussion and debate become exceedingly more difficult. A support group can easily be taken over by an individual with narcissistic, histrionic, or attention-seeking traits and within an environment based on support, there is no means to control such behavior. It is clear that a focus on mental health, to the extent that it is useful, should be kept separate from organizations pushing for political change.

As concerning inclusion, a political movement cannot be focused on maximal inclusion of different viewpoints. The effectiveness of a political movement is not determined simply by the amount of people that can be involved, but by its ability to push for a given cause. In order for an organization to push for a given cause, there must be unity of purpose, leading to unity of effort. This does not mean there cannot be disagreements and discussions about methods, but fundamental disagreements will only lead to more division and ineffectiveness.

Instead of trying to accommodate and accept everyone, the focus should be on the cause and on specific proposals. People who agree with the proposals and with the cause can offer their contribution. If they do not agree with the proposals, they can practice their own type of activism, if they so wish, with no ill will directed towards them. As for other “stigmatized identities” and inclusion of them, such as trans, if an individual is trans and is willing to focus on the cause of reducing the legal persecution of MAPs, then their contribution should be welcomed. Trans politics, however, should not be the priority and there shouldn't be silencing or self-policing when it comes to trans politics, which is ultimately a different, unrelated issue. This is not meant to be exclusive to trans politics and can be applied to any group or political movement. If the legal persecution of MAPs is regarded as something that is important to be overturned, that should take priority over other differences of opinion.

Assimilationism

An unfortunate trend in political activism today is the paucity of independent thought and a desire to copy the past, as it is perceived today, and other political movements. This is where the focus on identity, as previously mentioned, originates from. Many MAPs seem to see a movement advocating for the rights of MAPs to be an extension of the activism of LGBT (and other letters). While it might be the case that many MAPs are accepting and inclusive and enthusiastic about such activism, it is clear that these feelings are not reciprocated. It is also clear that the goals are not shared. While there might be some MAPs that want to be “out and proud”, the primary focus is fundamentally different, as MAPs are facing legal persecution, not just social stigmatization.

Being cognizant of this fact, we cannot allow ourselves to feel like we have to ingratiate ourselves with these groups or follow their current form of activism, because their situation is different, their cause is different, and, frankly, most of them are just as hostile to MAPs as anyone else, if not often more so.

This does not mean that the experiences of previous activism, including sexual activism, cannot be learned from, but it must be done in an independent way, rather than a desire to copy or identify with. We must allow ourselves to think past conventional wisdom and classifications and not allow the ideologies of other groups to unduly influence us. There are fundamental issues and contradictions within the ideologies of such groups, which can be discussed at a later point, which run the risk of being inherited.

Conclusion

The interrelated issues of political organization around identity, inclusion, and assimilationism cannot be ignored or papered over. There must be a realization that organization must be around a cause, not an identity. There must be a focus on unity of purpose and effort, rather than undue caution and self-censorship concerning one group or another taking offense. Finally, there must be a capability to think independently, rather than to try to assimilate with modern political and sexual activism.

---

Please feel free to discuss this article in Mu's forum thread.