There are good reasons for not stigmatizing MAPs, but I don't think these give us reasons not to privately dislike them. You say murderers and thieves can control what they do, but this is only meaningfully true if you're a compatibilist. In my view they can't control what they do, and I still highly dislike murderers and find them disgusting. I don't see anything wrong with this, as long as we don't use these feelings to justify something horrible, like torturing them to get revenge. Or in the case of MAPs, publicly shaming them, making it harder for them to get treatment and leading to more child abuse.
I'm not sure how applicable the rape fantasy analogy is. In most of those cases, the fantasy was about being the victim. Presumably they're not at high risk of actually doing something evil. Also, the vast majority of people with that fantasy think actually being raped would be horrible. The same isn't true with MAPs - they want their fantasies realized. I don't think most people with rape fantasies need therapy. I do think MAPs need therapy. As such, while I don't think we should be labelling MAPs monsters in public, we shouldn't normalize it to the point where MAPs don't even think it's something they need treatment for, as if it was just another sexual fantasy or kink.
Also, I think there can be a significant difference between "X should be killed" and "X is better off dead."
Some percentage of MAPs will eventually become offending MAPs. If all MAPs were to drop dead, then all of that future child abuse would be prevented. To think 'MAPs are better off dead' you just have to believe that that reduction of child sexual abuse outweighs the loss of life of the MAPs, including the non-offending ones. It seems very plausible that all MAPs dropping dead would lead to a better world. But this is very different from claiming all MAPs should be actively murdered. Maybe this isn't what the people in the surveys meant. Maybe it didn't go deeper than 'pedos are disgusting, I want them dead.' But it's still true you could reasonably believe they are better off dead, and you could believe this without believing they should be murdered.
I think this issue would benefit from a basic feminist analysis that sees the social construction of sexuality in the context of patriarchy and male entitlement. So many of the sources you're quoting here are taking pedophiles directly at their word and treating their reactions to stigma as fixed and morally neutral, but that approach misses quite a bit. It's better to step back, away from an individual lens, and ask what sorts of social norms and practices contribute to sexual abuse more broadly and how we can create cultures that have robust protections against them. That isn't possible when the conversation starts and ends with, "This guy says he needs you to be nice to him or he's gonna abuse a child." There are plenty of approaches that might help an individual person avoid offending in the moment, but nonetheless contribute to a larger cultural trend towards sexual abuse and exploitation.
I mean, you're a vegan - I'm sure you believe that most meat eaters are dishonest about their reasons for eating meat, or are at least seriously deluded in some important respect. Why not have the same opinion towards pedophiles? I certainly can't think of a situation wherein there could possibly be more pressure for someone to construct a self-excusing narrative for themselves. And anyway, it's not like men are known for having deep insights when it comes to their own sexual desires!
Further, I'm sure you agree that "militant veganism" does sometimes lead to backlash. But if you sent out a survey to meat eaters and the majority said being criticized for eating meat just made them want to do it more, I think you would at least realize 1) that such a response was monstrous and worthy of condemnation by itself, and 2) that the harms of generating that backlash would need to be weighed against the harms of normalizing the "don't shame me or I'll just behave worse" attitude among meat eaters. I guess I just feel the same way here - I think MAP defenders are taking an individualist, one-on-one perspective that is seriously lacking when it comes to critically examining the larger set of assumptions and tropes that contribute to men's sexual violence.
> Both studies revealed that nearly all reactions to people with pedophilia were more negative than those to the other groups, including social distance. Fourteen percent (Study 1) and 28 % (Study 2) of the participants agreed that people with pedophilia should better be dead, even if they never had committed criminal acts.
Perhaps someone with a warped sense of morality would equate the statement "better off dead" with "I want to kill them". I doubt that anywhere close to 14% or 28% of the population would actually kill a non-offending pedophile if given the chance. I certainly wouldn't, regardless of my agreement with the statement.
There are good reasons for not stigmatizing MAPs, but I don't think these give us reasons not to privately dislike them. You say murderers and thieves can control what they do, but this is only meaningfully true if you're a compatibilist. In my view they can't control what they do, and I still highly dislike murderers and find them disgusting. I don't see anything wrong with this, as long as we don't use these feelings to justify something horrible, like torturing them to get revenge. Or in the case of MAPs, publicly shaming them, making it harder for them to get treatment and leading to more child abuse.
I'm not sure how applicable the rape fantasy analogy is. In most of those cases, the fantasy was about being the victim. Presumably they're not at high risk of actually doing something evil. Also, the vast majority of people with that fantasy think actually being raped would be horrible. The same isn't true with MAPs - they want their fantasies realized. I don't think most people with rape fantasies need therapy. I do think MAPs need therapy. As such, while I don't think we should be labelling MAPs monsters in public, we shouldn't normalize it to the point where MAPs don't even think it's something they need treatment for, as if it was just another sexual fantasy or kink.
Also, I think there can be a significant difference between "X should be killed" and "X is better off dead."
Some percentage of MAPs will eventually become offending MAPs. If all MAPs were to drop dead, then all of that future child abuse would be prevented. To think 'MAPs are better off dead' you just have to believe that that reduction of child sexual abuse outweighs the loss of life of the MAPs, including the non-offending ones. It seems very plausible that all MAPs dropping dead would lead to a better world. But this is very different from claiming all MAPs should be actively murdered. Maybe this isn't what the people in the surveys meant. Maybe it didn't go deeper than 'pedos are disgusting, I want them dead.' But it's still true you could reasonably believe they are better off dead, and you could believe this without believing they should be murdered.
I think this issue would benefit from a basic feminist analysis that sees the social construction of sexuality in the context of patriarchy and male entitlement. So many of the sources you're quoting here are taking pedophiles directly at their word and treating their reactions to stigma as fixed and morally neutral, but that approach misses quite a bit. It's better to step back, away from an individual lens, and ask what sorts of social norms and practices contribute to sexual abuse more broadly and how we can create cultures that have robust protections against them. That isn't possible when the conversation starts and ends with, "This guy says he needs you to be nice to him or he's gonna abuse a child." There are plenty of approaches that might help an individual person avoid offending in the moment, but nonetheless contribute to a larger cultural trend towards sexual abuse and exploitation.
I mean, you're a vegan - I'm sure you believe that most meat eaters are dishonest about their reasons for eating meat, or are at least seriously deluded in some important respect. Why not have the same opinion towards pedophiles? I certainly can't think of a situation wherein there could possibly be more pressure for someone to construct a self-excusing narrative for themselves. And anyway, it's not like men are known for having deep insights when it comes to their own sexual desires!
Further, I'm sure you agree that "militant veganism" does sometimes lead to backlash. But if you sent out a survey to meat eaters and the majority said being criticized for eating meat just made them want to do it more, I think you would at least realize 1) that such a response was monstrous and worthy of condemnation by itself, and 2) that the harms of generating that backlash would need to be weighed against the harms of normalizing the "don't shame me or I'll just behave worse" attitude among meat eaters. I guess I just feel the same way here - I think MAP defenders are taking an individualist, one-on-one perspective that is seriously lacking when it comes to critically examining the larger set of assumptions and tropes that contribute to men's sexual violence.
Cringe take.
> Both studies revealed that nearly all reactions to people with pedophilia were more negative than those to the other groups, including social distance. Fourteen percent (Study 1) and 28 % (Study 2) of the participants agreed that people with pedophilia should better be dead, even if they never had committed criminal acts.
Perhaps someone with a warped sense of morality would equate the statement "better off dead" with "I want to kill them". I doubt that anywhere close to 14% or 28% of the population would actually kill a non-offending pedophile if given the chance. I certainly wouldn't, regardless of my agreement with the statement.
Holy based
Isn't a minor (<18) and pedophiles like children (pre-puberty < 11/12/13/14)? I wonder if that ambiguity makes it not the best term.