“The story you’re about to see is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.”
That tag line from the 60’s detective TV drama “Dragnet” is even more well known than where it actually came from. It speaks to how law enforcement shielded the vulnerability of those seeking to aid in bringing criminals to justice. Those ‘innocent’ referred to a select group that sought to do the ‘right thing.’
These days, however, those considered “innocent’ have drastically broadened. They’ve become part of new protected classes seeking the same protection with the original intent. One was the “bonus hole” group we addressed last week. This week, we consider the latest group that most of us never imagined would receive such a distinction- pedophiles, or “MAPs (Minor Attracted Persons).”
There are two central binding ties in cases where the current names are “being changed to protect the innocent”.
First: they are rarely, if ever, innocent. Second, this ‘protection’ merely allows predators to continue stalking their prey with these criminal, civil and moral transgressions.
In an article entitled, ‘Minor-Attracted Person’: Inside The Growing Effort To Destigmatize Pedophilia,’ there is this from the Daily Wire:
“Earlier this month, an Old Dominion University (ODU) professor of sociology and criminal justice, Allyn Walker, brought global attention to a newer term, “Minor-Attracted Persons” or “MAPs” for short, within a greater argument that pedophiles shouldn’t be ostracized for their urges. Although ODU seemingly initially defended the comments, they eventually placed Walker on administrative leave. Walker, a transgender male, goes by they/them pronouns.
In the controversial interview with the Prostasia Foundation, an activist group seeking to destigmatize pedophilia, Walker discussed her book. “A Long Dark Shadow: Minor Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity,” claimed that the stigma associated with attraction to minors was harmful — not just to the pedophile, but potentially to children.
“I’ve definitely heard the idea(states Walker) that you brought up
though that the use of the term minor attracted person suggests that
it’s okay to be attracted to children. But using a term that
communicates who someone is attracted to doesn’t indicate anything
about the morality of that attraction. From my perspective, there is no
morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no
one can control who they’re attracted to at all.”
What’s in a Name?
According to the site Horowitz Law, a firm specializing in the representation for victims of abuse, using terms to minimize the seriousness of child abuse isn’t new:
“Some years ago, US Catholic bishops started calling various types of child abuse and child sexual abuse “boundary violations.” Some of us here at Horowitz Law laughed out loud when we heard this phrase.
One staffer said, “I thought a ‘boundary violation’ was when a stranger stood too close to me in an elevator.”
But of course, that was the goal of the new term minor attracted person is to use the term in media and public relations campaigns to suggest that someone was made to feel slightly annoyed or uncomfortable by a pervert priest’s actions, rather than suggesting an innocent child was (or was made to feel) severely violated and deeply harmed.
The same bishops often make a distinction between ‘pedophilia’ and ‘ephebophilia’ for the exact same reasons – as if the sexual abuse of older children is not as serious as it is for younger children. Wikipedia tells us that ephebophilia is “the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.” So it’s an actual word. In clinical settings, it’s probably helpful, because it’s precise. But in regular settings, with the general public, bishops, their lawyers, and their public relations staffers clearly believe that ‘rape’ rightly generates anger and disgust, while ‘boundary violations’ provokes less anger and disgust.”
This is sometimes referred to putting lipstick on a pig.
∙As part and parcel of this blatant effort to delude the public, there is also a simultaneous attempt to further pacify the ruse by claiming a distinction between MAPs and pedophiles. The Global Prevention Project offers no such distinction, but rather lays out the term MAPs as an umbrella term including:
∙Pedophile: an individual attracted to a pre-pubescent child;
∙Hebephile: an individual attracted to a pubescent child (11-14) and;
∙Ephebophile: an individual attracted to a post-pubescent child (i.e., a teen, 15-19).
Can they be rehabilitated?
Is there a cure? Is there a reprogramming process?
The answers to these questions remain undetermined, after decades of studying the subject matter. However, organizations such as the Global Prevention Project exist for such a purpose.
Regardless, such terms are a gift to those looking for normalization of these abhorrent behaviors. For them, being a MAP is no different than those groups represented by the LGBTQIA+ acronym. For them, they deserve to be accepted as well as understood. Basically, these criminals are who they are. And because they are how they were born and how God made them, it begs to postulate that these particular sex offenders just can’t help who they love.
With that in mind, the final appropriate quote concerning the road ahead from Horowitz Law goes like this:
“We understand a desire to make sure no one demonizes those with enough control not to offend – at least not yet. But to call murderers “life takers” or calling purse-snatchers “others’ property preferers” is bad. And calling adults who are sexually attracted to kids “minor- attracted persons” seems to be on the edge of a slippery slope that leads to downplaying the horrors of child sex crimes, particularly since there is no guarantee that a “MAP” won’t eventually offend.”
Its a warning worth heeding, especially if you’re sending children out into this world.
