#the monster is suicidality. there's a more obvious meaning to me but to simplify it to be more applicable to the average joe its suicidalit

[eeveelutionsforequality]

Hey, just wondering what your stance on MAP/Peadophiles is? The posts you’re talking about are fairly long winded and I would like to know.

It's not really a topic that I can afford to dumb down or simplify my opinions on, I'm afraid - if I don't include all of the nuances of my stance then I'm quite likely to be misconstrued.

Three important things before I begin: 1) I am not a MAP, I'm a CSA survivor and abuse survivor and I, and many professionals, believe what we believe in regards to NOMAPs because this seems like a potentially effective way to prevent CSA. and 2) My opinions do not represent or speak for the opinions of Mod Flareon, who is also active on this blog. and 3) I'm dyslexic, very tired, and my predictive text is fucking up, so I apologize if my wording isn't perfect here. Being somebody with OCD (which causes severe and uncomfortable intrusive thoughts) and other mental health issues, I understand what it's like to have disturbing thoughts that you cannot control and would never act upon, so I can somewhat sympathize with how the world at large does not understand such things and vilifies innocent people for things that are not their fault - Tumblr especially seems to be a hub for the kind of people who enjoy demonizing the brainwaves of others, rather than basing judgement on the harm (or lack thereof) that an individual has elected to cause via action.

I was initially going to give you the benefit of the doubt in how I responded to this question, but two minutes of scrolling on your blog has shown me that you wouldn't give me the same courtesy - given that you want to "limit" Lecter's "reach" because he said that trans people can be MAPs, and are still LGBT+ despite being MAPs (because being trans makes those individuals LGBT+, regardless of anything else about them).

Judging by the post after that, I need to take my explanation of my position all of the way back to the terminology itself. "Minor Attracted Person" is actually a more understandable term than "Minor Focused Chronophilia", which is another way that you could potentially word the grouping of nepiophilia, pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia. Conversely, "Unconventional Campfire Enthusiasts" is substantially more vague - none of the terms within the title you proposed adequately convey what is going on, while "Minor Attracted Person" describes exactly what is going on - and your label would include a lot more than simply the action of arson (which is an action, while your proposed label describes a very vague state of mind), such as people who enjoy dancing naked around campfires or people who sing Spongebob songs around them. What you proposed is more like saying that you could call child molesters "Unconventional Kid Enthusiasts" (with MAPs being more akin to people who like fire in your analogy), which I think is a pretty telling and disheartening mistake. Suffice to say that your comparison sucked (that said, it started me singing Firestarter, so thank you), and I think that the term "MAP" is a clear and concise way to group those particular chronophilias.

The next term that I want to address is "non-offending" - this term is specifically and exclusively referring to legal, criminal or sexual offenses against minors. You reblog things that define being rude, insensitive, etc, as being "offending" (like reblogging the post of somebody who didn't want to be reblogged from) - I think that really belittles the severity of the word "offending", which means child abuse, it means that an individual has sexually abused a child. I really don't want the shit that happened to me as a kid to be lumped in with and compared to "He reblogged from a 17 year-old one time", for obvious reasons. It's fine to say that somebody's being rude, a dick, unfair, etc - I'm in no way saying that reblogging from somebody who doesn't want to talk to you is a nice thing to do, it's not - but there's no need to accuse them of a term that means something much more serious, when they haven't done that thing. Calling people "offending" when they are not only serves to make it easier for them to say that your side doesn't care about victims and that your side unjustly paints innocent people as monsters - because you are unjustly, perhaps unintentionally, painting somebody who hasn't harmed a child as a child abuser.

About 50% of child molesters (people who assault pre-pubescent children) are minors themselves, and the peak age to commit that crime is 14 - the repeat offense rate is low (given how high repeat offense rates are for other crimes), especially in these cases (the Ted Talk on the topic, here: https://youtu.be/h2iV3Gf0lVA which I highly recommend that you watch, said that 97% to 98% do not offend again within that young demographic, so rehabilitation works and by extension prevention could well work even more effectively). Estimates put situational offenders (people who are not MAPs) as the majority of offenders, while preferential offenders (people who are MAPs) are estimated to make up between 20% and 50% of offenders - with the general populace being made up of substantially less MAPs than people who are not MAPs, that means that MAPs are still more likely to offend (against children specifically, but not necessarily more likely to rape in general), but it also means that attraction is not the sole risk factor or the sole cause of offending, and that the path to preventing CSA is more complicated than simply preventing MAPs from offending. Estimates of the number of people with these chronophilias in the general populace have put the rate of offending within the MAP population as low as 2% - but I'm going to be honest and say that I think that some of the estimates of the prevalence of these chronophilias in the general populace fall victim to some of the same flaws that the studies that found higher rates of preferential offenders fall victim to (testing genital reaction is unreliable, and thus results in estimates of the number of MAPs in both that I think are just unreasonably high), however it seems definitive that the rate is still far from being even a majority. Offending has been shown to be linked to other psychological and situational/life issues like dependency on drugs and alcohol, poor impulse control, history of abuse, and so on. Like all of these things, attraction is a risk factor - something to take into consideration, be aware of, be mindful of - but it's not the deciding factor, it's not the sole cause, and it's not an inevitable prophecy.

Pedophile and child molester are not synonymous - one describes a psychological phenomenon, one is a crime, an action. The former is an unchosen collection of thoughts, an attraction, and in most cases is as likely (according to the research that I've seen) as any other attraction to be entirely resistant to conversion therapy or being "cured"; the latter is an action, a behaviour that causes incredible harm, and something that a person (especially with the correct professional intervention) can prevent themselves from doing. It's important to remember that the attraction does not inherently come with any kind of desire or urge or fantasy, and neither it nor desires would indicate an intent to act on the attraction, and the presence of the attraction definitely does not indicate or convey the person's moral position on acting on said attraction (I think that it's important to separate desire from intent - as human beings, we all want things in theory sometimes without wanting them in reality, emotionally want things but know that we can't or shouldn't, and we can even be wholly against those things ethically - you may want to eat the nice chocolate bar in your friend's lunchbox in theory, but in reality you would never take something from your friend like that and you have no intention of eating the chocolate bar, no matter how much you want it, how much you fantasize about eating it, and so on). For example, a person can fantasize about killing their bully, they may even have the desire to kill their bully, but that doesn't mean that they have the intent to kill their bully, it doesn't mean that they think that killing their bully would be ethical, and it doesn't mean that they will kill their bully. You can suffer from suicidal ideation, fantasies and desires, without ever attempting suicide and without even having the intention to attempt suicide. An attraction may entail daydreams, fantasies, etc, but it does not tell you what somebody's behaviour will be, what their moral opinions of that behaviour are, or even what they want to or intend to do in reality. We as human beings, all of us, can't control our attractions or even necessarily our thoughts, but we can control our actions - not only that, but it's actions that cause harm to others, not thoughts, be those actions creeping on somebody or committing atrocities against somebody.

I think that the goal of the NOMAP community is to create a space that fosters a healthy outlook on the world, a space that fosters a healthy understanding of the science and psychology of consent (and why kids cannot consent, and why it's important that MAPs do not act on their thoughts), and a space that fosters a positive attitude, willpower, and mental stability - which, in turn mitigates the other risk factors that I mentioned. Nobody's going to go from a good person to a rapist overnight just because they took up heroin, but the steady decline of one's health and willpower that comes with heroin, the depression, the financial strain, other circumstances surrounding them, etc, may eventually have the power to warp their outlook on life, their connection to reality, and send them down that dark road - a function of the NOMAP community is to prevent people from falling into bad places and adding more risk factors into the mix. Another function is to provide tips to people for how to find a trustworthy therapist and how to broach the topic with said therapist - if it's safe and/or necessary, it's important to speak to a professional about worrisome struggles. Another function of the NOMAP community is to prevent the radicalization, especially of younger or more vulnerable MAPs, by pro-contacts. The power of indoctrination, radicalization, manipulation, misinformation, and/or a charismatic liar are never ever to be underestimated - it's not just their victims that abusers can manipulate, and they're just as capable of getting into the head of a slightly uneducated late-teen who's just discovered their attraction, who's already isolated and vulnerable to being led to believe that the sick pro-c community is the only place that truly cares about them. The NOMAP community aims to debunk pro-c arguments, to stop people from falling victim to the pro-c rhetoric, and to catch the attention of lost MAPs before they are roped into that sick ideology.

I have many other opinions on MAPs - my stance is not one of just picking a side, not on this topic and not on any other topic, and I try to address each issue as it comes - but unless we can agree on the basic framework that feeling an attraction towards an individual does not mean that you will cast morality aside and make like a viking (you are capable of not raping the adults that you are attracted to, so you know from firsthand experience that attraction alone does not render somebody a rapist), then you'll likely disagree with almost anything I say past this point.

~ Vape

[fishylife]

I just finished watching all three seasons of The Fall.

I was actually really uncomfortable with the show up until early Season 2. Paul’s “charade,” as Stella calls it was just too much for me. I hated how he tried to present himself as an upstanding and normal citizen when he has actually never done a sincere thing in his life other than love Olivia and commit murders. This is how I felt in season 1. 

In Season 2 I was warming up a bit to the show because they were getting deeper into the police stuff, but I didn’t love the Rose story line. I get that her kidnapping helped the audience to get to know Paul better but I just wanted the Stagg family to be happy. I guess I like Tom and Rose as characters, I suppose. They’re flawed but real and sincere. 

Also, this is probably the #1 peeve of mine but Katie and Paul’s relationship made me so uncomfortable. I don’t remember what happened in which season but I got extremely uncomfortable when Paul was encouraging Katie to explore her dark side, and he would invite her to his hotel room, ask her to do things for him. When they skyped each other was also pretty uncomfortable. To Katie, it was her chance to get to know Paul better and advance their relationship, but to Paul, I’m guessing she’s just a tool to further his reach and influence. When Paul is arrested, it’s harder for Katie to reach Paul, and that’s when her obsession with him becomes something more like a fangirl crush. Before, Katie was actually able to interact with Paul, and so he was able to influence her directly. However, while he’s in police custody, Katie begins to paint a picture of what she thinks Paul is like because he’s no longer there to continue exerting his influence.

In Season 3, when Paul got amnesia, I was annoyed because it felt like such a cop out. I thought they were going to use the amnesia to make the trial morally ambiguous, since if they convicted a man who had no memory of his committing the murders, it would be like convicting an innocent man. But I’m glad that a different approach was taken. Actually, the amnesia was a chance for the audience to learn about Paul’s past. If the police brought up anything related to the murders, Paul could just say he couldn’t remember and wouldn’t have to comment, but as Paul said, the police were clever by bringing up something that happened before the block of memories he can’t remember. 

I feel bad for Sally Ann and the kids. I mean, you could say that her crime was believing that her husband was a good person. She was definitely under a lot of stress and I was kind of pleasantly surprised to see that Stella sympathized and wanted the police to be a little easier on her. I can definitely see why she was driven to attempted murder-suicide. She thought she had a perfect stable family. Then she finds out her husband is having an affair with a minor. And then she finds out that her husband is actually a serial murderer. 

I’m curious whether Olivia’s unwavering love for Paul would also be a point of stress. Olivia’s love for her father will never change, even though it’s heavily hinted that she understands the gravity of his actions. However, to Sally Ann, she probably can’t see this. I think Sally Ann can only see that Olivia continues to love her husband despite all these terrible things that he’s done, and I can imagine that it must feel painful. To Sally Ann, Olivia’s unwavering love seems like she is siding with dad rather than mom, but to Olivia, she loves both her parents but in different ways. Also, side note. It seems that Sally Ann did a lot more caretaking of the kids, so she ended up being the “mean” parent. Since Paul was away more, he had the opportunity to be the “fun” parent, and I wonder if that had an effect on Olivia’s love for her dad. 

Even if we take that out of the equation though, Paul’s relationship with Olivia is very interesting. He definitely doesn’t have the same relationship with Liam. Maybe it’s because Olivia is his first born. In his conversations with Dr. Larson, his fondest memory is of Olivia as a baby. So when she was born, I think that awakened a special feeling within Paul, and so he associates Olivia with that epiphany. It’s obvious that Paul has a complicated relationship with women for sure, filled with both love and hate. 

The entire series, I just felt like Paul was a shell of a man. As Stella said, he’s always putting on a show. He’s always wearing a mask. And the issue for me is I don’t know why. I did some reading on /r/TheFallTV and someone mentioned that for Spector, it’s either love or death. His entire life, he’s loved two people. His mother, and his daughter. This is definitely simplifying, but I think his murders are a manifestation of his love and anger for his mother (since his love wasn’t good enough for her), and the only thing he had left was his love for his daughter. But by the end, he’s so far removed from Olivia. When the therapist/counselor is speaking with Olivia, she says she loves her dad, but she probably won’t see him for a while, not until she’s bigger or when she has a child of her own. So it’s clear that Olivia isn’t ready to see her father as of now. Since Paul doesn’t have Olivia, all he has is death. 

Now, STELLA. A brilliant character. She’s always so level-headed but she’s emotional when it’s required. I thought it was interesting when Spector’s lawyer acknowledged that his paralegal admired her. I mean, I definitely admire her. Even when she’s “freaking out,” she’s extremely cool and calm. I probably have more things to say but for now I can’t think of anything to say other than she’s super cool and I want to be her. 

Overall, I’d say I enjoyed the ending more than the journey leading up lmao. The first season just made me extremely uncomfortable. The ending was wrapped up well I think. Although I originally wanted the same fate as Stella did, which is for Paul to be able to go through the justice system, I don’t think it would have done him justice (ironic, yes). In prison, he would still have the capacity to do a lot of the things he does now. He could even receive visitors (like Olivia). When Paul got shot and was unconscious, he was in a dark tunnel. One end was his mother calling to him, and the other end was Olivia calling to him. He was called back to the world of the living by Olivia’s voice. But now, it’s clear that not only is the world of the living unwelcome to him, but Olivia also isn’t ready to see him. So for him, he might as well go to the land of the dead, where his mother is. I think if Paul was in prison, he would still be tormenting the lives of others. As we can see at the clinic, he can still exert significant influence on both patients and staff, and that is dangerous. From his interactions with Katie, it seems he enjoys corrupting others. And Stella would always have this monster lingering at the back of her mind. But now that he’s dead, hopefully the saga of the Belfast Strangler is put to rest once and for all. 

There are a bunch of things that went through my head as I watched but I don’t remember them all lol. I’m sorry this was just a jumble of words but it’s late at night right now and I want to get this down in words before I forget!