You can't really compare B4U-ACT (whose work I admire) to VirPed because they have completely different goals. B4U-ACT is primarily oriented towards bringing pedophiles and mental health professionals together, and there it makes more sense to have no stance on the contact issue. Whereas VirPed is oriented towards keeping pedos from hurting children (those who might be so inclined, I mean) and showing society that we are not all out to get into their kids' panties. It's important for society to recognize that there is a vast difference between pedophilia as a sexual orientation and child sexual abuse. Sorry to say, you guys are not helping to delineate that distinction. You might be paying lip service to it, but your anonymity and your goals renders it nonsensical in most people's eyes.

I disagree, Markie. The "trying to make sure that MAPs who are inclined towards hurting kids do not do hurt them" is, again, pandering to the general public in a very malicious and largely inaccurate way to the public. No, the org doesn't say that typical MAPs are like that, granted, but it does leave the strong implication that enough MAPs are "dangerous" that it plays into the sex abuse hysteria and thus serves to promote it. It highlights the idea of society taking a "necessary" adversarial role towards MAPs, and it pits a conceptual group of "good" MAPs against "bad" ones... and it clearly judges that "bad" aspect based on views they hold rather than actions. B4U-ACT doesn't condemn any MAPs for their views, and it insists on obeying all laws without making moralizing judgments or preaching. It's thus understandably offensive to large segments of the MAP community and plays into rather than alleviate media stereotypes.

In contrast, B4U-ACT does make that distinction in a very good way by making it clear that they make the safety of children a high priority. Did you not read that quote from their website? But more importantly, it promotes the positive stance that looking out for the best interests of children and MAPs is not a mutually exclusive goal, and thus does not promote a "self-policing" attitude within the MAP community that implies we need to be controlled. It doesn't set MAPs of this or that ideology against each other, and it assuages the concerns and feelings of the public without pandering to them at the expense of the MAP community. In other words, they serve the interests of MAPs, youths, and the public by bringing accurate info about adult attraction to minors to the attention of both MHPs and the public without setting up MAPs--or any portion thereof--as villains.

Being accurate and honest without pointing fingers is, IMO, far more honorable and conducive to all interested parties involved than the belief that attacking your own group to pander to public fears somehow helps your group, as if we're all status criminals of some sort, or that a prominent portion of us happens to be potentially so. Sacrificing nobody to foster understanding and dialogue is considerably more positive and ethically upright than the misguided belief that sacrificing your own group for some perceived "greater good" that scientific data doesn't back up is somehow coming off as noble in the eyes of anyone.

Further, and importantly, because B4U-ACT strongly supports full adherence to the law regardless of how any member or supporter may feel about it displays that the org stands behind responsible conduct which constitutes a major compromise with society that does not pass judgment or in any way promote the idea that MAPs are somehow potentially "dangerous."

Finally, promoting the idea that Virped is accomplishing things B4U-ACT is not, or implying they are the only game in town for MAPs who wish to engage the public in a positive manner, is incorrect. Paul Christiano and other members of B4U-ACT are well respected by the public and actively making interviews and appearing in documentaries, and many MHPs have attended their workshops and associate with the organization. Those few MHPs that do not have good relations with B4U-ACT are, not surprisingly I should add, those who are the most controversial and disliked by other minority groups and have a negative reputation for putting belief and moralism ahead of science. I'll be more than glad to provide a surfeit of links to the heavy criticism Drs. Blanchard and Cantor took from fellow members of the MHP profession for their intended work on the most recent edition of the DSM.

As I said before, if Virped ends up doing some good for MAPs in either the short or the long run, then great, more power to them. But it's totally incorrect that B4U-ACT's more inclusive and positive method of engaging the public is doing much to compromise with the public without pandering, and without casting the very group whom they are advocating for the acceptance and basic humanity of in the role of a villain. So I believe it's Virped, and not B4U-ACT, that presents a contradictory and ultimately nonsensical message to the public.

I agree with you that at this point in time, loudly pro-choice MAPs should not be leading the community as advocates to the public due to the prominence of current attitudes, but I strongly contend that neither should anti-choice MAPs. There is a better, more positive, and more MAP-friendly way of compromising with the public while establishing our humanity, and I believe B4U-ACT does by not favoring any specific ideological and moralistic agenda, and not playing into any aspect of the media-driven stereotypes.

With that being said, I still think it's important to have places like GC and other fora, as well as various books, where the pro-choice stance is discussed and promoted for legitimate consideration by those who are willing to listen. Our own Mr. Summer here proves there are more truly open-minded Nons around than you might think, and the belief that all Nons are insufferable antis who are unwilling to listen is itself a negative stereotype that our community should not promote. Hence, while I agree that MAPs with the pro-choice stance are not good advocates for widespread public engagement at this time, there are still places where the pro-choice ideology and the scientific evidence behind it should be collected and discussed, and shouldn't just go completely silent; if it does that, then it plays into another stereotype that the media has promoted, which is the too widespread belief that there is no alternative to the anti-choice stance.