...and this includes you, Andrew, since you are entirely new to these boards, and are just learning how to talk to MAPs without accidentally coming off as condemning of either their feelings, or even their ideology if the latter does not correspond to your own or that of society at large.

Please note that many people, including MHPs and journalists, are frequently accusing MAPs/MAAs of "rationalizing" their opinions that people under 18 can ever have a mutually consensual relationship with adults. The public consensus is that younger people cannot be judged on a case-by-case basis, let alone given the benefit of the doubt, if they engage in intergenerational relationships and claim they did so consensually. MAPs are used to being told that the girl (or boy) in question must have been "manipulated" into thinking it was consensual when it actually wasn't; or the younger person was likely threatened or bribed into complying; that the adult, and only the adult, could ever be the true initiator of such a relationship; that the adult is always supposed to "know better" simply because they are an adult; that the adult could only be involved in such a relationship for purely selfish reasons; or that what the younger participant really wanted was a surrogate parent figure in their life, and they only pretended to have a more than platonic interest in the adult so as to retain their adult lover's friendship and surrogate parenting role.

In other words, MAPs and even their younger lovers (in cases where an illegal relationship occurred, which I strongly discourage) are always buffeted with a set of assumptions that conveniently are almost impossible to prove under even the most stringent forms of investigation, but which they can easily be indicted for sans any type of investigation to prove those assumptions whatsoever simply because they had the relationship. There is no forensic science behind these indictments, just a set of assumptions that must always follow the proof that an intergenerational relationship occurred for the indictment to be justified according to the present penal code. The justification for that is always a close variation of, "Well, if these assumptions had the slightest possibility of being true, then we must, as responsible people, assume that it was true just in case it was." In short, MAPs are constantly subjected to laws that go against the very foundation of American jurisprudence, where evidence must trump any type of assumption, with accused terrorists being the only other class of people subject to similar violations of basic democratic law. Moreover, their younger lovers will be labeled a "victim" no matter how much they may insist they weren't, and in fact will be considered to be suffering from extreme emotional problems--even Stockholm Syndrome--and often forced into behavior modifying therapy until they are compelled to believe--or pretend to come to believe--what the common cultural narrative demands they do.

This is the reason why some MAPs may be quick to act defensive, or feel you are reacting in a confrontational or adversarial manner, if you frequently play devil's advocate in the way you did. The fact remains, we are not used to being treated fairly, and this can sometimes cause members of this community to respond with great trepidation or discourtesy when asked what they feel are loaded questions. This doesn't make their behavior right, but it does make it understandable, IMO.

As you can see, I too got a bad taste in my mouth when I saw those questions you asked under the "devil's advocate" pretext, despite being one of your most fervent supporters on the board.

One of the things that no one ever keeps in mind when discussing matters like this is: If a certain minor is having intergenerational relations with an adult whom they do not live with; who has no direct degree of power or authority over them; and whom they have no reason to spend any time with unless they wanted to--then why would such youths continue to go over to that house, or get into the car with that adult, etc., et al., if they were constantly being forced to do something they didn't want to do by that adult? Yes, it's possible this adult was threatening or blackmailing them, but as others have asked, how often do younger people do anything they don't want to do even under duress? Even though we routinely see them capitulating to such things when faced with superior physical power, they almost never do so without a good degree of resistance. I think it is entirely justifiable to question how or why (for instance) a 12-year-old girl could repeatedly go off alone and have relations with a guy who was threatening or blackmailing her into doing so without ever showing the slightest signs of emotional distress both before and after her scheduled meetings with such a person, so that neither of her parents, nor any of her close friends, or other close relatives, ever picked up on it and started asking questions. Hence, is it justified to ever assume such things without first conducting a good investigation to see if actual coercion was being used? But the general consensus is that it's "irresponsible" to even ask such questions, or call for such an investigation.

There is very good reason why even the FBI admits that the great majority of adults who inflict genuine abuse of all sorts--including but not limited to sexual--upon minors are those who are parents or other older relatives, who have the most direct authority and power over these young people, and who either live with them or spend a great amount of time at the home in a position of authority that is similar to that possessed by the parents, stepparents, or older siblings. And these are individuals who most often target the underager in question for opportunistic reasons, not for reasons related to a simple sexual attraction. Friends of the family are also often put on this list, but I would be willing to bet that those types of relationships are less often abusive, depending upon what type of person that family friend is, and how much power or authority he/she is given over the youth in question.

I think it would be important to consider these things should you have MAP patients in the future who are pro-choice in their ideology, especially since the majority of the community has that opinion (to sometimes varying degrees). That doesn't mean they are more likely to offend than a MAP patient of the anti-choice viewpoint, or that they are unable to manage their attractions in a way that is entirely lawful and ethical. But it does mean that regardless of your personal opinion in these matters, you should try to act as neutral as possible on that particular topic when dealing with patients, as it's not your responsibility to give them lectures based on consensus morality, but simply to take care of their mental health, and to give them all the practical reasons why they should obey the laws and try to find lawful and ethical alternatives to their romantic needs and desires.