This piece presents a commonly accepted principle. First it describes application of the principle in two contexts. Then it describes nonapplication in a third context. Finally it argues for application in all three contexts.
The principle is that attraction does not equal action. Attraction and action are distinct and separate. Attraction does not eliminate one’s ability to make decisions. Regardless of attraction, one can decide whether to engage in action.
The first context is feminism, specifically sexual assault prevention and survivor advocacy. The second context is the gay rights movement.
In the first context, feminists apply the principle to rebut the view that men are just animals who can’t resist assaulting a sexy woman. This animalistic view coincides with blaming women for their assaults. The all-too-familiar “What were you wearing?” comes to mind. Many men repeat the drivel, “She was asking for it with that short skirt” or, “How could any man resist a body like hers?” In doing so, they misplace the responsibility for assault onto the survivor and insult themselves as men.
That view attempts to characterize men—chiefly cishet men—as dogs salivating over pieces of meat. In reality, a dog can be trained not to disturb a juicy steak when their master says “No.” Thus, it characterizes men as less responsible than dogs.
The principle that attraction does not equal action corrects that view. This principle can give men a higher view of themselves—both to avoid blaming women for their assaults and to avoid self-deprecation.
Women who are attracted to men can refrain from assaulting men. Men who are attracted to women can refrain from assaulting women. No difference whatsoever.
In the second context, gay people apply this principle to rebut the criticism that they are inherently more lascivious than straight people. Historically, straight people have characterized gay people as perverted or sex-crazed. One is not ‘addicted’ to sex simply for being bisexual, for example.
Also, many homophobic men fear gay men will make advances toward them. One may quip, “Homophobia is the fear that other men will treat you as you have treated women.” Gay people apply this principle to assuage such baseless fear.
Straight people can choose whether to refrain from, or engage in, sexual activity. Gay people can choose whether to refrain from, or engage in, sexual activity. No difference whatsoever.
I fully support and agree with the above applications of the principle. And with this piece, I support application in a third context.
The third context is minor attraction. In this context, many people conflate attraction and action. They assume sexual attraction to minors means sexual behavior toward minors. They consider anyone attracted to minors a ‘predator’ who will ‘strike’ at any chance. They believe minor-attracted persons (MAPs) inherently have a ‘propensity’ to molest children.
Having an attraction to children does not mean believing child molestation is acceptable. It does not impair one’s ability to understand sexual ethics. MAPs are not inherently more lascivious than anyone else.
Someone who is sexually attracted to adults can refrain from sexual behavior with adults. Someone who is sexually attracted to minors can refrain from sexual behavior with minors. No difference whatsoever.
The principle that attraction does not equal action is as applicable to minor attraction as to feminism and gayness. Condemning MAPs for our attractions doesn’t protect children. Acceptance of a person does not mean acceptance of an action. All I want as a MAP is my existence respected.
Mx. PDFphile 