Before 2012, there was no widespread identification with or discussion of contact stances. We were all just MAPs, and for the most part, we all got along. Then in 2012, a group of MAPs who were affiliated with B4U-ACT broke away from the organization, to start a new organization called Virtuous Pedophiles. This is often referred to as The Great Schism of the MAP community. VirPed broke away citing that B4U-ACT won’t take a position on the ethics of whether sex with children is inherently wrong. VirPed’s stance is that sex with children is inherently wrong, whether illegal or not. VirPed claimed publicly, that their stance is the only ethical one, while other MAPs were unethical. In essence, they stated, “we’re the good pedophiles,” while throwing others under the bus. This has caused so much infighting in the MAP community, that persists to this day. I have a theory that VirPed was started by government operatives, to sew the seeds of chaos, to keep us from organizing. And if that’s what happened, it certainly worked.
We all wish we could have a child for a partner, though most of us, regardless of contact stance, know it’s a bad idea, for whatever our individual reasons happen to be. Anti-contacts believe sexual relations with children are inherently wrong, regardless of the laws, while pro-contacts believe it’s wrong due to society’s customs and laws. But why do the reasons matter, if the result is the same? Whether it’s altruistic, self-preservation, or a combination of the two… if one isn’t having a sexual relationship with a child, wouldn’t both positions be considered ethical? It shouldn’t matter how we get to said position, rather that we arrive at the ethical position.
This argument on how we arrive at an ethical conclusion is an artificially manufactured dispute, designed by VirPed to cause in-fighting. It’s a form of whataboutism. “What about the pedophiles who believe we shouldn’t have sex with children only because it’s illegal?” Well, those pedophiles still believe we shouldn’t have sex with children. Those pedophiles are still making the ethical choice. I’ve seen arguments from anti-contacts that they don’t wish to associate with pro-contacts, because some of those pro-contacts advocate for changing laws to allow them to have sex with children. But if you look at the state of things realistically… those laws aren’t going to change anytime soon. Many things would have to happen before that even becomes a plausible scenario. So this is an artificial divide.
The argument about contact stances has hindered the productiveness of our movement, and caused so much unneeded infighting. We should move on from these arguments, and work toward our common goals.
