'The Science™' on 'Female Minor-Attracted Persons' = Pedophiles

If you thought that only men would be pedos, well, think again--here's 'the Science™' with 'lived experiences' about female pedophiles

While there’s a lot to be said about a good many things that are, well, going in the wrong direction, the massive deterioration of the status, welfare, and role of children in Western societies are certainly near, if not at the top of, any such listing.

From addictive internet-based ‘attractions’ to grooming on the web and in kindergartens and primary schools—via exposure to lewd indecency and grooming also known as ‘drag queen story hour’, it would seem that many in our societies don’t care much, if at-all, about the future.

For Norwegian examples, please see the documentation here:

Pride and Prejudice in Scandinavia, Pt. 1: Drag Queen Story Hour

As regards the fraudulent pretence of ‘medical services’ and ‘compassionate care’ for the so-called ‘transitioning’ of children—an Orwellian concept if there ever was one because we’re talking about the chemical and/or physical castration of children and teenagers— the reader is directed to the below piece:

Dr. Pirelli Benestad, Norway's Premier Transgender Cultist Lost His Licence in 2023

Today, however, we’ll look at ‘the Science™’ and yet another of the seemingly ‘final frontier’ of the transformation of our culture, norms, and customs: pedophilia, or, as it is known in polite society today, ‘minor-attracted person’.

With the powers-that-be working seemingly around the clock to normalise pedophilia via word-plays, obfuscation, and their ‘allies™’ (sic) in legacy media, ‘the Science™’ provides yet more cause for concern.

In what follows, I’m providing a few choice excerpts from a recent ‘study’ (sic), with emphases added and, every now and then, ‘translations’ from academese.

For the paper, entitled, ‘“We Do Exist”: The Experiences of Women Living with a Sexual Interest in Minors’, see Arch Sex Behav. 2022; 51(2): 879-896.

The piece itself was co-authored by one Rebecca Lievesley of the Nottingham Trent University (faculty profile), an Associate Professor in Psychology, and Course Leader for the MSc Forensic Psychology. According to her profile, she now has two main research interests, pedophilia (she calls it ‘Minor attracted persons (MAPs), wellbeing, and sexual abuse prevention’) and, believe it or not, 'sex dolls’. Needless to say, Dr. Lievesley is also engaged with British law enforcement agencies in a variety of roles and forms of ‘consulting’.

About her co-author, one Rhia Lapworth, much less is known online.

That said, let’s dive into the paper, shall we? (For readability, I have omitted the references.)

---

A Primer into Female Pedophilia

Abstract

The current body of the literature studying minor-attracted persons (MAPs) predominantly focuses on the experiences of men who experience sexual attractions to children. To shed more light on the experiences of women within this population, we conducted anonymous semi-structured interviews with six self-identified female MAPs, who were recruited through online support forums for individuals with sexual attractions to children. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to analyze the interview transcripts. Two superordinate themes were identified from the dataset that highlighted the uniqueness of the experience of being a woman within the MAP community (“A minority within a minority”) and themes of social isolation and the effects of this on identity (“A lonely secret existence”). The findings reported here highlight how the experiences of female MAPs both converge with and diverge from their male counterparts in important ways. We discuss the implications of these experiences in relation to more effective service provision for women who are sexually attracted to children.

Brief comment: what the two authors do, conceptually and methodologically speaking, is called ‘qualitative social research’. By this is meant a small sample (here: six people) who are a good many things but not representative.

Introduction

Interest in the area of sexual attractions to children or minors (referred to in this paper as “minor attraction”) is increasing in academic and social contexts [talk about normalisation]. This is largely due to the theoretical link between minor attraction and sexual offending against children [I’d argue that the criminal code isn’t but a ‘theory’, but then again, the authors are surely ‘experts™’ on this subject], but more recently has been driven by an acknowledgment that many minor-attracted persons (MAPs) live offense-free within the community [I have no clue what that means]…individuals who are sexually attracted to children often acknowledge that they would either like or need support to help them manage their sexual attractions, but fear doing so due to (1) being “outed” within society, (2) becoming the subject of community discrimination or hatred, or (3) a lack of understanding from healthcare professionals (or a combination of these things).

Comment: see, esp. the latter sentence with the three notions is the logical outcome of the abolition of shame, the creeping (pun intended) normalisation of sexual deviance (mainly by the ‘QT+’ people attaching themselves to the ‘LBG’ part of the alphabet soup), and the ‘remnants’ of criminal law with respect to pedophilia.

I’m going out on a limb here, presumably, by stating that it’s not ‘discrimination’ or ‘hatred’ from ‘the community’ vs. pedophiles. Especially parents will understand, viscerally so, that this is about the protection of their children.

Defining “Minor Attraction”

The phrase “minor attraction” acts as an umbrella term to describe a range of chronophilic orientations. A chronophilia is a distinct type of sexual attraction pattern that varies as a function of the ages of preferred sexual targets. The most studied chronophilic category is pedophilia, which is defined as a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children, typically between the ages of 3 and 10 years. However, Seto’s (2017) model of chronophilias takes a much broader view and acknowledges that some people may have sexual preferences for younger infants (nepiophilia), pubescent children aged 11–14 years (hebephilia), or older minors who, depending on the legal code of a given jurisdiction, may be below the age of consent (ephebophilia) [esp. the latter are defined by law and custom mostly as ‘statutory rape’ (depending on the age of the adult involved, i.e., a 19 year-old with a 17 year-old intimate partner is quite ‘normal’) and/or ‘creepy’ (e.g., a 43 year-old and a 15 year-old is not)]. This latter category is controversial, in that some argue how some level of sexual attraction to post-pubescent minors who are approaching the age of consent is a normative form of sexuality [why am I thinking of Emmanuel Macron and his partner here?]. Seto’s (2017) chronophilias continue to encompass attractions to adults of traditional reproductive age (teleiophilia), middle age (mesophilia), and older age (gerontophilia). For the purposes of this paper, we consider “minor attraction” to encompass the nepiophilic, pedophilic, and hebephilic attraction categories.

Note that the term ‘chronophilia’ harks back to pedophile and serial child molester Dr. John Money (see Wikipedia); Google’s ngrams viewer is much more explicit about its rather recent vintage, which ‘even’ the use of a Greek-sounding term cannot obscure:

Researchers believe that most MAPs are males, which is consistent with work in relation to the prevalence of other forms of statistically atypical sexual interests. Exploring the prevalence of minor attraction, studies have stated that 5–10% of male college students reported having sexual fantasies involving young children. Furthermore, a large community-based study of almost 9000 German men found that 4.1% reported having sexual fantasies involving children. Depending on the study method, these estimates of the prevalence of some degree of minor attraction can reach around 25% among men when using chat-room transcripts, where this proportion of men continued to sexualize a conversation that involved an ostensibly 14-year-old minor [keep your children out of such ‘chat-rooms’, incl. seemingly harmless ‘educational’ apps, such as Minecraft or Roblox]. That is not to say that 25% of men are primarily or even regularly sexually attracted to children, but this proportion appears to demonstrate a willingness to engage in non-contact sexual behaviors (in this case, sexualized online conversations) with individuals that they know or suspect to be below the legal age of consent [this is BS, for the above notion clearly indicates that up to 1 in 4 people in chat-rooms may be after your child]. However, the more consistent prevalence estimates for minor attraction in a more clinical sense (i.e., involving directed masturbation to materials or fantasies involving children) congregate around 5% [which is bad enough].

However, there is less prevalence-related research that has been conducted with women; of the few that have, it has been stated that between 1 and 4% of women declare a sexual attraction to children. In Wurtele et al.’s work, the authors compared the prevalence of sexual attractions to children between men and women, finding that women expressed such sexual attractions at around one-quarter to one-third of the male prevalence rate (1–3% vs. 4–9%). However, a study of the prevalence of sexual fantasy use found that men and women do not statistically differ in their engagement with sexual fantasies that involve children under the age of 12 years. This suggests that differences in the prevalence rates of sexual attractions to children between men and women may reflect differences in the prevalence of sexual attractions to older children or teenagers (i.e., in hebephilia). This observation is supported in the work of Bártová et al. In their wide-ranging work comparing the prevalence of paraphilias in men (n = 5,023) and women (n = 5,021) it was reported that pedophilic interest was expressed by 1.7% of men and 0.4% of women. However, when exploring hebephilic interests, the prevalence rates were 13.7% in men and 1.3% in women, reflecting a much larger sex difference. These disparities were also observed in relation to self-reported anticipated arousal to these paraphilic themes, sexual fantasy engagement, and pornography use

Remember: ‘hebephilia’ refers to sexual attraction to, or interest in, ‘older’ or ‘mature’ teenagers (cue the many, many legacy news media items, such as this on in the LA Times, in The Independent, or in USA Today).

The Current Study

As outlined above, there has been a relatively recent emergence of research into the MAP community, their experiences of minor attraction, and how to support them in terms of improving their wellbeing and assisting them to remain offense-free (Dymond & Duff, 2020; Elchuk et al., 2021; Grady et al., 2018; Levenson & Grady, 2019; Lievesley et al., 2020) [I kept the references here in case you wish to deepen your understanding of just how recent it is that these kinds of pedophile activities are about to ‘improving their wellbeing and to assist them to remain offense-free’] There is a general lack of data currently available that pertain to female MAPs [remember: this is qualitative social research; what the ‘study’ adds is—anecdotes, not data]. However, given that there are well-documented sex differences among adult-attracted individuals [oh, how ‘transphobic’] in sexual selection strategies, preferences for short- and long-term mating opportunities [i.e., serial child abuse], and sex-related emotions such as jealousy, regret, and disgust [see: shame is absent], it makes logical sense that such differences may also exist in the experiences of people with sexual attractions to children [irrelevant, sayeth the criminal code]. We also know that gay men and lesbian women differ in the extent to which their experience psychosocial adjustment issues, with lesbian women seemingly faring better than their gay male counterparts [we knew this since at least the 1967 movie ‘The Graduate’]…This may be particularly relevant to the MAP context, where negative social attitudes have been linked to stigma-related stress, the internalization of stigma, the suppression of sexual thoughts, and reduced wellbeing (Lievesley et al., 2020), and a reluctance to seek help when it is either wanted or needed (Dymond & Duff, 2020; Grady et al., 2018; Levenson & Grady, 2019). If this reduced level of stigma toward women from sexual minorities also applies to those with sexual attractions to children, this could highlight a difference in the needs of female MAPs that is currently hidden by the androcentric nature of existing MAP research [I kept the references here, too, for those who seek ‘more’ information and to highlight, once more, the very recent nature of these ‘research fields’].

There are currently two published studies that report data from women who identify as MAPs…Tozdan et al. (2020) compared a sample of 42 female MAPs to a control sample of 832 community-based women and found no differences between the groups in terms of self-reported sexual orientation (i.e., heterosexual vs. homosexual vs. bisexual), relationship status, or age. However, the MAP subsample was more likely to have engaged with child abuse imagery involving children and teenagers and had a significantly higher level of sexual fantasizing about children (with the largest between-groups difference being in relation to fantasies involving girls).

I’ll briefly interrupt the ‘flow’ here to highlight one core issue: it would appear, from that ‘study’ at least, that ‘female MAPs’ have significantly higher levels of fantasies of abuse of girls. Let that sink in for a moment.

Studying a smaller sample of female MAPs (n = 20, who were compared to 208 male MAPs), Stephens and McPhail (2021) reported how this group were less likely to be erotically attracted to girls (and more likely to be attracted to boys) than male MAPs [makes ‘sense’ in the way that what appears to be more attractive to female MAPs would be abusing girls, as per the above ‘paper’]. They were also more likely to report current adult-oriented sexual behaviors, which may correspond to a greater degree of sexual fluidity among female MAPs than men with sexual attractions to children (consistent with the broader sexuality literature that shows greater fluidity among women than men)…few other differences were found in relation to sexual attractions, such as in relation to age of onset and duration of sexual attractions to children, exclusivity of these attractions, or the chronophilic orientations of their attractions. In both of these papers, a comparatively very small number of female MAPs were compared to either male MAPs or non-MAP community-based women, and the focus was on sexological features of their attractions to children. However, the experiences of living with sexual interests in children, from a phenomenological perspective, have yet to be explored.

And this is where the paper by Lievesley and Lapworth comes in to which we now turn. Buckle up.

‘Living with Sexual Interests in Children’

The participant sample compromised six adult women who had a self-identified sexual attraction to children [methodological flaw #1: self-reporting]. Participant ages ranged from late teens (inclusion criteria meant they had to be over 18) to mid-40s [i.e., they all fall into the reproductive range, but—methodological flaw #2—statutory rape and ‘older’ pedophiles were excluded]. Participants were recruited internationally, with three residing in the UK and three residing in USA [next flaw (#3, if you’re keeping score): this is what is meant by ‘international’ (sic); these findings pertain, first and foremost, to the Anglosphere, which isn’t to ]. Four participants were non-exclusively minor-attracted (i.e., they also reported having sexual attractions to adults), while two were exclusively attracted to prepubescent children. All participants reported that they had not engaged in any illegal behavior involving children [so they claim; methodological flaw #4: how do we know?].

Procedure

…an interview schedule was organized into three broad domains, exploring participants’ [1] sexual attractions, [2] methods and strategies used for managing their sexual attractions, and [3] their experiences of disclosure and seeking support. The semi-structured nature of the interview allowed us to remain on-topic while also affording us the flexibility to explore additional matters that might arise…To maximize replicability and transparency, we have made the full interview schedule available at https://osf.io/xeshn/?view_only=013ebee24ff749b1955b0a264140b4cb…

Participants were found in online forums and/or via adverts on Twitter. Informed consent was obtained and followed by one interview each of 76you -105 minutes (audio). Upon conclusion, a ‘debrief form’ was handed out and filled out by the participants.

As for the analysis, Lieveslay and Lapworth used interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to understand the ‘lived experiences’ (sic) of six individuals—‘female MAPs’—to enquire, and understand, about these fantasies. I’m not a qualitative social scientist, hence I don’t know how something designed to discern the factual (lived experiences) can, possibly, be used to assess (hopefully, remember the self-reporting) fictional aspects of pedophiles.

Since I’m an avid reader of, among others, Hegel’s dialectic, Marx’ inversion therefore, and a lot of BS that followed, I herewith declare my own reading of this paper: it’s a lot of BS, mixed with ‘dialectics’, by which I mean, in short: the unholy matrimony of a truth and a lie, with truth = thesis (‘lived experiences’), lie = antithesis (self-reported ‘sexual fantasies’), and normalisation of pedophilia = synthesis.

Read on, and change my mind.

‘Female MAPs’ Speak

Essentially, the paper discusses two superordinate themes (and a range of associated subthemes identified):

1. ‘A minority within a minority’

2. A lonely secret existence

We shall enquire about both in due course.

All participants discussed how many people do not recognize the existence of female MAPs, suggesting that they are hidden in social discussions about minor attraction:

Honestly I think it’s more expected from guys. Yeah I mean I mean most paedophiles are just depicted as being men. Yeah. When it comes to women I think there’s a lot of people that say you know female pedophiles don’t exist. (Participant 4)

I don’t think people are aware of the fact that females can be pedophiles too but we do exist…Women are not known to be pedophiles. If a woman is a pedophile, it’s rare for her to say so. The stigma is that “all pedophiles are men”. (Participant 3)

Note that ‘stigma’ isn’t pedophilia per se, but that it’s apparently not inclusive (enough) a category to be truly (sic) reflective of the ‘lived experiences’ of six people. Here’s what the study authors consider:

This observation of a lack of awareness about women within the MAP community [it’s not a community, other than a presumptive prison population] is reflective of both the existing literature on minor attraction [it’s pedophilia] on the one hand and social stereotypes about sexuality on the other. To our knowledge the work presented in this paper is the first formal examination of the lived experiences of women with sexual attractions to children…

[the] literature…suggests women demonstrate higher levels of sexual fluidity than men…Engaging in adult-adult sexual relationships may help female MAPs remain hidden within the community…increased rates of adult-directed sexual activity among female MAPs might also explain the apparent higher rates of minor attraction among men than women among community MAP samples, with the former viewing this as a dominant theme of their sexual identity and, subsequently, being more likely to seek support in online communities. This could indicate that there is potentially a higher rate of sexual attractions to children among women within the general community than currently known, with such individuals being able to hide this (or perhaps even not recognizing their minor attraction) due to their maintenance of sexual relationships with adult partners.

In addition, media representations of MAPs often evoke the stereotype of the “predatory male pedophile”…For some of our participants, this denial or uncertainty surrounding the existence of female MAPs had an impact on their own beliefs:

…we can’t really say how what proportion of paedophiles are female. It’s like I don’t think there’s ever, well there has not been a study on that and you can't really determine that from the forum but erm but even even in regards to that there have been times when I doubted my my own mind in that way because because I had been just doing so much research and had pretty much come across nothing on paedophilia in women. I doubted in my own mind if pedophilia exists in women and I had even came across researchers saying that it might not exist in women, which made me wonder for a bit of time whether it was all in my head. (Participant 5)

If, at this point, you’d surmise these ‘doubts’ (ahem) would trouble the intrepid researchers, fear not, they didn’t:

Joining an online forum and discovering other female MAPs were therefore an important point for all participants in confirming and validating their existence:

I had got to such a desperate position. I kind of didn't care anymore or I went on the Internet thought fuck it. If I die I die. But that was at the same time when I started thinking about therapy and everything. But that is after 26 years of keeping it secret…But yeh it helps seeing that there’s others. It really helps seeing that there is other women there and there is loads which I didn’t expect, I thought I was the only one so it’s a bit of reassurance that you’re not alone. (Participant 1)

Whenever there’s a new female member on the online forum, one of the first things they say is “wow there are other women here, I didn’t expect that. I thought I was pretty much the only one in the world”. (Participant 5)

Being friends with her online has helped enormously because she is really really clever and you can tell she is really intelligent… I have got her online and she is beautiful and she is successful and is clever and it made me think, wow ok people like us aren’t just hideous monsters and it has been extremely helpful and helped me keep positive for my future (Participant 1)

If, at this point, you’d feel like vomiting, well, I’ll restrict myself to quoting what Lievesley and Lapworth (what a name!) consider:

This internalization of social stigma is not a new phenomenon [do tell; it used to be called ‘shame’], having been observed in a range of marginalized sexuality groups, and recently among MAPs [who aren’t a ‘sexual’ or otherwise ‘oppressed minority’, by the way]…the narratives of the women in our sample suggest that having positive role models that show how a full life can be lived with minor attraction instills hope, which in turn is associated with greater levels of wellbeing among MAPs [remember: we’re already well down the path towards full normalisation of pedophila]. This observation is consistent with the narratives of male MAPs in previous work [see it yet?]…Although this consistency across the literature is encouraging, treating female MAPs in the same way as men within the MAP community risks ignoring some of the unique challenges facing this group [so, there’s biological differences between two sexes that are supposedly ‘social constructs’? Please tell me more…]

Here’s ‘more’, by the way, from two ‘female MAPs’:

I joined an online forum years ago… I was the only female on there and I was kind of always seen as the odd one out and there is definitely a feeling of being a minority within a minority and er…I have always felt kind of you know, like I am a double freak because of it…there was one or two users who doubted I was a woman…like a lot of them are a little bit suspicious if you mention that you’re a female and they don’t necessarily believe we exist, so that’s something that has been frustrating and alienating. (Participant 5)

There are quite a lot of women on the forums now but hardly any in comparison to men…we’re definitely outnumbered which is sometimes hard because they don’t always understand it from our perspective, or understand what it’s like to feel ignored or not have the same level of support or connection to others because there’s so many of them (Participant 6)

As regards the latter quotes, well, what can be said? I think that, at this point, we may need to consider the fact that most kindergarten and primary school teachers are women—and we may need to do so with a fresh set of eyes.

Sayeth participant 2:

I have noticed that the majority of women online are mainly attracted to young girls…So at times I can feel like an alien as my attractions are 80% younger boys, 15% girls and 5% adults, so when I am in a thread where no one is attracted to young boys I feel a bit of an outcast. So at times I can almost feel more alienated there than if it was all men who were attracted to younger boys, if that makes sense.

Back to what the authors consider about this:

Some participants discussed the positive aspects of being a woman with this attraction, with the view that it was in some way considered “a softer blow” (Participant 5) than for males with the same attraction.

I would say that the stigma is higher for men and I think this is because people believe that men are more aggressive or have a higher sex drive. But at the same time I don’t think I have really heard about like female pedophiles in the media or anything, it’s all males…I don’t think there can be a stigma towards something you don’t know exists, but if they did know then the hatred would be just as bad. (Participant 2)

I think there’s actually less stigma attached towards females and it is not quite as bad for some reason or they don’t realize that they exist (Participant 4)

As regards their ‘lonely secret existence’, a few more excerpts are in order:

Within their narratives, participants expressed how they felt that they were being secretive by not sharing what they thought to be a core aspect of their identity with others that they cared about. Despite this, some felt unable to reveal their sexual attraction.

It does feel a little bit like I have to hide a part of myself from people and I’m usually a very very open person, so I found that a bit odd for me to hide something that I consider to be important that I’m not telling anybody and it sometimes feels that I am living a lie. (Participant 2)

The feeling of living deceitfully, because in a way it is a terrible deceit to be with someone you love so much and not tell them your deepest darkest secret is a worry. It is a deceit and that feels horrible, but at the same time I want a partner and I want to be relatively happy as I can be in life (Participant 1)

The extracts above highlight how both participants felt that they had to hide a part of their identity [wrong, pedophilia isn’t an ‘identity’], part of themselves, by withholding their sexual attraction to maintain relationships with others. This is similar to the experiences of individuals who have other marginalized sexual identities, including those who comprise the LGBT spectrum.

Remember: the ‘LGB’ people aren’t the same as the ‘TQ+’ people; this isn’t one big, happy ‘community’, but the latter are attaching themselves to the former to gain social acceptance and, perhaps, advantages.

LBG is based on the notion of the sex binary, which is vehemently denied by the TQ+ ‘community’, hence there cannot be anything that relates to a ‘LGBT spectrum’, which doesn’t exist.

Still, Lievesley and Lapworth write:

This concealment appears to have some negative impacts on psychosocial function within our sample. In describing herself as a “very very open person,” it is clear how Participant 2 contrasts this element of being secretive against the rest of her personality and life…men experiencing minor attraction have also reported that withholding their sexual identities as MAPs left them feeling inauthentic with others.

So, should we all ‘affirm’ (female) MAPs (more than males)? What an odd consideration, but it’s the logical ‘response’ to ‘feelings’ of ‘inauthenticity’. What a sick paper, but it gets worse.

Writing about ensuing ‘alienation and loneliness’, the paper gets even more problematic:

Throughout the narratives, participants expressed feelings of being alienated and isolated because of their attractions.

Well it’s very isolating for one thing. I’m not really not very social but when I do, sex is a big topic and it’s something that people in their late 20’s early 30s talk about a lot and it’s very hard for me to relate to those conversations. (Participant 5)

I can’t have the same discussions with them about like dating or about things because I don’t have any romantic interests in people my own age…I just can’t relate to like wanting to date people, having crushes on appropriately aged people so I can’t bond with my friends on those things. (Participant 2)

It’s hard for me to not resent them at times because all my friends who are straight, gay or bi seem to have so much fun but I will never have that sort of experience of life which makes me sad at times. (Participant 3)

It’s very frustrating like to know that I’m never going to be able to even so much as kiss on the lips somebody who I’m really attracted to and it’s kind of a frustrating, painful thing to think about and it’s something that people can’t really empathize with. (Participant 5)

While the authors’ commentary is…absurd (they merely summarise, in their own words, the above statements), the participants appear to be confusing ‘being attracted to someone’ to corporeal interactions (kissing, intercourse), which they claim to be missing out on.

And then there’s this kind of unwitting acknowledgement of all of the societal and moral objections to pedophilia we noted above:

When it comes to discussing my sexual attractions, I can tell strangers anonymously but even that is difficult sometimes. I most certainly would never reveal it to my family or people I know because they would hate me. My older sister was sexually abused as a kid, so I don’t think my family would take too kindly to the idea of me being a pedophile. There’s that common misconception to get through first, the one where all pedophiles are child molesters. (Participant 3) [I do see the point of this—technical—distinction, esp. once self-reporting and the whole history of child abuse comes in]

If people knew who I really was then people would just run a mile and they would hate me. My partner, my family, my friends, they all would…everybody would desert me, and you know I probably end up homeless and a druggie or something. Those feelings were becoming more and more impossible to er ignore the feelings of what would happen if the people knew the real me. (Participant 1)

I think if I went to a support group I just wouldn’t feel safe being around other people who would look at me and know what I was…I don’t want to lose my family, I don’t want to lose my job, I don’t want to lose my home, I don’t want to lose my friends. I would lose everything. I know I would if that information went into the outside world. (Participant 4)

Most health professionals have no experience with this and no decent understanding of mandatory reporting laws so you hear reports of people being investigated for just having these feelings and that’s not a risk that I will ever take. (Participant 6) [go figure; also, there’s a pretty rational reason these mandatory reporting obligations are there in the first place]

Conclusions by Lievesly and Lapworth:

In this paper we have presented what we believe to be the first in-depth analysis of the lived experiences of female MAPs. The themes emerging from participant narratives highlight a number of important consistencies between the experiences of our participants and the male MAPs recruited in previous work…

[as regards female MAPs] there is a tacit assumption that this group may experience less stigma from society than males who are sexually attracted to children. However, our participants suggested that this lesser stigma only exists because of the lack of knowledge that female MAPs exist. This lack of knowledge extends to the MAP community [there’s no such thing] too, meaning that the women in our sample felt like a minority within a minority, which further exacerbates their feelings of isolation. Even where our participants shared the experiences of their male counterparts, known sex differences in peer support styles (which relate to themes of alienation and identity concealment) may exacerbate these in women with sexual attractions to children…

Despite this feeling of intersectional alienation, it should be noted that participants felt that there were few gender-related differences between their experiences and those of male MAPs in the broadest sense. As emphasized by Participant 1 “there is not a lot of difference between men and women, we are all experiencing the same sort of distress and hatred from society.”

Limitations [my header]

One limitation of this present study was its reliance upon self-reported experiences. That is, participant narratives could have been influenced by a social desirability bias, such as a wish to avoid negative evaluations. This may influence the extent to which behavior-related difficulties were discussed in comparison with wellbeing or emotion-related concerns. It should also be noted that no participants were visible during the interview process as these were conducted via Skype audio (n = 5) and email (n = 1) which could present some limitations. For example, verification of their status as a female MAP was not possible [i.e., it could very well be all made up BS]. Although this lack of verification is an issue for any study wherein participants are not directly observable by the researchers as they provide data, it may be particularly important to note here in light of the small sample size and the importance placed in IPA on the analysis of participant narratives. Additionally, it could be argued that the loss of the non-verbal cues that are obtained in face-to-face data collection could impact the quality of the data [there’s no data in qualitative social research] collection and analysis. However, this is not considered essential for IPA where richness of the data [see the prior comment] relating to the participants experiences is a priority…

Future Research [my header]

[T]here is a need to more comprehensively study women with such sexual attractions, exploring how known sex differences in social styles, relationship preferences, and sexuality interact with their sexual attractions to children. Methods of coping with sexual celibacy and a lack of intimate partners (or how adult–adult intimate relationships are managed within the context of their attractions to children) would be useful starting points…

Reaching such a large sample to assess both paraphilic interests and behaviors should be considered a priority in this area of work [feel the grift]. In doing so, more accurate prevalence estimates may be possible to calculate, and the extent to which minor attraction plays a role in women’s sexualities can be factored into analyses. In addition, although we recruited self-selecting women in this study, a recent informal investigation suggested that approximately 7% of the MAP population could have trans or non-binary gender identities [here we go: BINGO, this is the gold mine]…

[W]e hope that this work inspires more targeted work to improve the design and implementation of effective services for assisting all MAPs in their pursuit of greater wellbeing and assists professionals in their goal of sexual abuse prevention.

Bottom Lines

Apologies for ruining your weekend with this. ‘The Science™’, very hard at work, to further the normalisation of what all human societies since time immemorial have considered anathema.

Why ‘the West™’ is pioneering the main-streaming of pedophilia is anyone’s guess, but if I had to venture one, I’d go for this:

It’s about blackmail, because imagine you’re a weak man (or woman, apparently) running for, or in, public office (sic), and your handlers are telling you that you, and you alone, could engage in this or that ‘dark phantasy’ without repercussions.

It’s very tempting for strong(er) characters, but imagine, if you will, what such opportunities will do to weaker characters…

As I said, no discussion of ‘the Science™’ would be complete without noting the grift: the reference to ‘trans’ and ‘non-binary’ people is there, for everyone to observe. Although the paper insisted on the sex binary until that point, there’s no problem for them, apparently, when it comes to appealing for funds to conduct ‘further research’.

Finally, mention shall be made of the very recent issue of this entire ‘minor attracted person’ sham, which wasn’t a thing until 10-15 years ago. So, why would ‘they’ change the nomenclature? Easy, because that’s how these sick people seek to take over first discourse and later reality.

Protect your children. Our future depends on them.