Hi there,

Research on sexual attraction to children/minors is kind of a double edged sword in my opinion. Your general goal ("My end goal is to contribute research that helps us better understand MAPs.") is very commendable but your subsequent elaboration (specifically "As a psychologist I also want to ensure that MAPs who are interested in seeking treatment services are able to do so.") hearkens to the general assumption that MAP's have a disease that needs to be cured. I know, you're a psychologist and developing a vaccin that'll magically 'cure' MAP's of their sexual orientation is probably not your goal but residues of that assumption remain visible, even in your first survey.

The double edged sword also applies however to the answers that MAP's give you in response to your enquiry as to what they wish to see in a survey. Some suggestions will already hold some kind of answer in them. For instance, they might suggest you ask MAP's about meaningful relationships with children or their involvement in youth liberation. Suggestions like these tend to steer away from the main issue (IMHO) which is that the sexual attraction *to children* sets it apart from other sexual orientations. It's true that there is more to it in regards to how MAP's live their lives (or not) but 'we' do tend to indulge in cognitive dissonance at times. After all many a teacher will have many meaningful relationships with children but does that make him/her a MAP?

What I'm trying to say is that researching minor sexual attraction is very much dependent on the basic premise of the researcher. Is pedophilia a sexual orientation or a sexual disorder? What does "better understand" mean: a better grasp of how similar pedophilia is to other sexual orientations or better ways of how to contain the disease? And for 'us' it's a question of wether we are sexually attracted to children/minors or just have 'ein Herz für Kinder'?