Contact stances are the ideological views of consent, typically (but not always) held by paraphiles (particularly for big three: MAPs, zoos and necrophiliacs).
Stances are primarily used within the paraphilia community to convey beliefs. They also do a pretty poor job of that, which I’ll explain later.
I’m writing this in a way that can be understood by people inside and outside of the paraphile community, because contact stances are not just for paraphiles – We just coined them. Everyone technically has contact stances, they’re just underdeveloped and undefined.
I’ve broken this down into three parts:
- Contact stance definitions
- The various kinds of anti-cs/pro-cs
- Faulty consent arguments
- Division/unity of the paraphilia community
The last two points are my entire reason for writing this, but I thought I might as well compile all this information in a way that’s readable to the average person. If you’re a paraphile feel free to skip to point three.
Most of society doesn’t think about these topics, because due to their lack of relevant attraction they have no reason to question a widespread narrative that’s treated as a moral fact – Alongside the pressure to not be “problematic” and a fear of questioning laws.
This is why arguments about consent can be more advanced between paraphiles – It also makes it our job to lead by example. Make sure your arguments are strong and you convey them properly.
1 – A list of contact stances:
Anti-contact: Against adult/minor sexual contact (AMSC) and bestiality (variety of reasons)
Does not mean someone can’t communicate or exist around the subject of their attraction. That has roots in stigma which operates under the false assumption that attraction entails a lack of control. It’s no different from saying straight men should not be around women.
Pro-contact: Not against sexual/romantic contact (variety of reasons)
Also often called pro-consent. Very few people are pro-contact without also being pro-consent.
Pro-reform: Specific to adult/minor sexual contact. Similar to pro-c, except that it’s firmly against contact in current society and also specifically takes the stance of law reforms focused on 12 and up. Link.
Contact-neutral/Neutral-contact: Does not take a stance.
Contact-void: Similar to above, but with more distain of contact discourse itself. Also anti-harassment toward all contact stances.
Complex-contact: Based on the specifics of each situation. Can lean pro-c or anti-c or just generally be in the middle.
Harm-neutral/Noxiaqueer: Neutral to whether or not harm is involved in contact.
Pro-rape: Very rarely used in self-identified paraphile spaces. Mostly used and conveyed in sexually-focused supremacist circles. People who want to legalize rape, or at least state that rape is a natural right of being born male (or a certain race or ethnicity.) “Pro-patriarchy” is also used to convey the same beliefs.
When you call pro-contacts (pro-cs) pro-rape you confuse two very different groups, while also directing criticism to the much less concerning of the two. Please only use pro-rape for actual pro-rape individuals.
2 – Types of anti-cs and pro-cs:
One of the main problems in the paraphilia community (which is present in humanity in general) is that division leads to misunderstanding.
For example, some pro-cs think that all anti-cs believe minors or nonhumans can’t consent. That’s not true, there are anti-cs who don’t use consent as the basis of their stance.
Another example is anti-cs assuming all pro-cs are practicing and that they don’t consider the wellbeing of the beings they’re attracted to. Many times people are pro-c precisely because they do consider that wellbeing, they just come to a different conclusion. Additionally, not all pro-cs advocate for actually practicing in current society.
I’m going to focus on sexual contact, but I also want to point out someone can be pro-contact for romantic relations and anti-contact for sexual ones, and theoretically the opposite is also possible.
Reasons for both stances, which could be just one reason or multiple.
Reasons for being anti-c:
- Belief in the inability to consent (youth and nonhumans)
- Believing that even consensual contact is inherently abusive/harmful
- Believing the potential of harm is reason enough to ban contact
- Concern over power imbalances
- Youth oppression
- Lack of sex-education
- Communication limitations (both)
- Fawning behaviors (mainly nonhumans, but applies to both)
- Not wanting people to risk their own safety (legal, social, physical)
- Not wanting to encourage potentially harmful partnerships
- Personal negative childhood experiences
- Fear of judgement leading to an unwillingness to reconsider
- The belief that sexual contact is wrong as a way to keep oneself from sexually offending (a morally-based reason not to act)
Reasons for being pro-c:
- Belief that consensual sexual contact is not inherently harmful
- May believe this justifies removing blanket bans on contact
- Belief in secondary harm (argument specific to AMSC)
- Example 1: A child who doesn’t feel harmed being told by adults how to feel (gaslighting/manipulation) leading to an internalization of those feelings – or distress over their feelings being invalidated and denied.
- Example 2: A child who doesn’t feel harmed in the moment, but then upon learning about societal views (that it’s considered wrong) feeling as though there’s something wrong with them. It becomes a shameful secret, especially if how they feel goes against societal expectations.
- Believing in autonomous sexual freedom for all beings
- Strong belief in youth liberation/animal liberation
- Personal positive childhood experiences
Note: There are some pro-cs who focus on self satisfaction, for example: pro-c MAPs who are against youth liberation, and zoosadists who are pro-c for zoosadism itself.
Like I said before; Not all reasons need to be present, it can be just one but it will probably be multiple. Its also possible that someone will suppress some of their reasons – Like the nature of any biases, or the fear of rejection keeping them from re-evaluating arguments.
Complex-c and pro-reform include a heavy mix of all above points.
Neutral-c’s and contact-void’s may see validity in either or both sides, but choose to stay out of the discourse entirely.
Contact stances are only useful to a small extent, because they encompass a very wide range of opinions. There’s discourse even between individual anti-cs and pro-cs, not just between those two groups collectively.
3 – Faulty consent arguments
“X can’t consent” and “All (AMSC or bestiality) causes harm”
These arguments usually go together and are very surface level. They easily fall apart. You can be anti-contact without using these, and many anti-contacts recognize the problems of these arguments.
- “X can’t consent” is often based on a confusion of law and psychological development/capability. Laws shouldn’t be confused for psychology or morality. Laws are built on varying degrees of guesswork and research, and should change with new evidence. They shouldn’t be treated as a foundation for belief.
- By the nature of legality, laws change based on location.
- AoC laws have largely been influenced by fear-mongering, misinformation and disinformation. They’ve primarily been pushed by conservative feminists and the religious Right.
- Consent means “agreement” and only an individual can decide their own agreement, therefor “x can’t consent” is gaslighting and disregards the individual’s actual experience. It diminishes personhood, agency and autonomy.
- “Consent” is also different from “informed consent”
- People are considered able to consent to medical treatments at 11
- Ignores (and invalidates) positive childhood AMSC. Some people experience both positive AMSC as children and also (as children or adults) sexual abuse. Treating their consent and assault as equivalent is disrespectful and, in itself, diminishes their autonomy.
- Even in cases where someone only experiences positive AMSC, defining their experience for them based on your own outside perspective is disrespectful and gaslighting.
- Equating positive AMSC experiences to actual nonconsensual harm is saying actual abuse (including violence) is no different from positive sexual experiences. That diminishes abuse.
The reason these arguments are so common is because of conflating laws with morals, conformation (unconscious fear of being rejected if one questions the common narrative) and a lack of taught critical thinking skills. I blame this on both compulsory and reward/punishment education which teaches us as children to conform, follow, seek praise, approval and recognition, rather than how to think critically.
How to improve your argument: Remove the focus from a supposed “inability to consent” or the inevitability of harm, and focus instead on harm prevention and safety. The intended focus of the original argument is to highlight harm, you don’t have to diminish personhood and autonomy to do that.
You’re also more likely to sway someone to your way of thinking (such as a practicing pro-c) if you don’t invalidate and ignore the experiences of others. A weak argument is not convincing – Especially when it also ignores the perspective of the individuals involved. Nobody listens to someone calling them inherently abusive or evil.
Some alternative arguments:
1 – “If you practice it could be used against you someday, someone you trust could report you if they’re upset, and inmates aren’t friendly to sex offenders. It’s safer for you to not practice.” or “If information got out, you could become a target of harassment or violence”
2 – “Even if your intention is good, and it seems wanted in the moment, it’s possible for you to misinterpret someone who can’t communicate clearly (nonhuman or young child)” You can also bring up fawning behaviors, which happen for both humans and nonhumans, and is more likely to happen in uneven power dynamics (like provider/dependent)
4 – Division/Unity
1 – Division makes our community weaker
Both “sides” are guilty of creating more division. A fragmented community is a community focused more on infighting and moral posturing than actually addressing and creating change.
It’s ignoring the tug-of-war of our place in society and instead creating a smaller one in our own community. If you imagine the people who want our silence on one end, and us on the other – Half of our side has turned around and is directing their focus on their own allies, with the belief it will somehow make the people on the far end more sympathetic.
When has this tactic ever worked for marginalized groups? Does it work when the LGB’s push out the T’s? More judgement can’t (and will never) lead to more genuine acceptance of the persons casting that judgement. Any acceptance will be conditional to compliance, and can be revoked.
The result is more pull in the oppressive direction. Our community doesn’t benefit, it suffers as a result of more division.
Consider we all turn around and face the opposing side and we all pull in unison. How much more likely are we to succeed then?
First the people most similar will be convinced, but if we’re all working together then we spread our influence. We reach further and further, and we can sway the opponents on the far side to our thinking. This would be through education on the nature of stigma and internalized sex shame.
We would also look like a much nicer community to join. A community that fosters true acceptance and encourages actual discussion where disagreements can be civil and lead to intellectual growth will be much more appealing than one that’s no different from the rest of society.
We can’t do to others what they’ve been doing to us and expect change.
2 – Rejecting and avoiding the harmful does not prevent harm
DNI: Do not interact
Many anti-cs resort to “pro-cs dni.” Some ZETA’s (a specific group of zoophiles/zoosexuals) resort to “MAPs dni” and “zoosadists dni.”
These come from the same place, with two underlying reasons:
- “I don’t agree with them, they make me uncomfortable”
- “I want to separate myself from them so others will accept me”
Both groups claim it’s an entirely different reason:
- “We can’t allow people who are harmful in our community”
There are a few flaws with this.
- Attractions =/= actions
- Social rejection leads to the formation of echo chambers, and also leads to greater risk factors for committing sexual offences.
- If your actual goal is preventing harm, you can’t do this if you push people at risk for causing harm out of the community. Those people still exist, and if they’re cast out then they have to build their own spaces. Using zoosadists as an example, they will have to make zoosadist specific spaces. If you truly believe zoosadists are likely to act, then the formation of echo chambers increases that risk.
- Social rejection goes in hand with stigma which does not prevent harm and can actually lead to greater risk. Source, source, source, source, source, source
Note: Sources are focused on MAPs because there are no (that I’m aware of) studies of this nature done on zoos, but the overarching focus is the same. If you have zoo-specific sources please share them with me.
If harm prevention is the goal then more access to support for those groups also means more room for intervention and influence. You can’t influence someone you demonize and avoid.
If you want to keep your “x group dni” then that’s your choice, but you should be more self-aware and honest about your reasoning. You aren’t preventing harm by excluding others you deem at risk.
I’m willing to accept feedback, let me know if I overlooked anything. If you have decent arguments against points feel free to engage me on them. I’ve thought a lot about all of this but I’m open to new information.
Remember that even if criticism is upsetting, we can’t grow without it. Incorporate criticism and become stronger and more well informed.
Thank you for reading, have a nice day 💙