The name Prostasia comes from the Greek word for “protection”, signifying that we are a child protection organization. Taking the shape of a torch, the trunk of the tree represents enlightenment and rights. The trunk of rights holds up many branches: child protection (the right to body integrity), sex worker rights, digital rights, due process rights, and so on. The tree itself represents growth – both the natural growth from childhood into adulthood, and the growth in understanding between diverse stakeholders that we aim to promote. It also represents the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a sexual metaphor from the creation myths of the three major monotheistic faiths.
Prostasia is the first national child protection organization to promote evidence-based laws and policies for the prevention of child sexual abuse, while insisting that the human and civil rights of all are also upheld. We believe that children deserve to be protected by laws and policies that are effective, fair, and constitutionally sound. We promote an evidence-based, scientific approach that is informed by dialogue, outreach, and scholarly research. This results in us taking different positions than other groups on a number of key issues such as Internet freedom and the rights of sex workers.
Sex-positivity means that every human being has the right to express and enjoy their own sexuality, provided that they do so consensually. Sex-positivity underpins our opposition to child sexual abuse, since it is a consent violation by definition (children can’t consent to sex with adults). This contrasts with other organizations whose work is underpinned by society’s moral standards, which can be mutable and subjective. That’s why we oppose the criminalization of constitutionally protected speech that is considered “immoral” but which doesn’t directly harm real children – while also supporting research into whether or not such speech creates indirect harms that could be addressed in another way.
The common thread is that stigma drives popular misconceptions about how these areas relate to child sexual abuse and its prevention. By over-concentrating resources on harassing artists, prosecuting sex workers, shaming kinksters, and making life difficult for registered citizens, we may think we are combatting child sexual abuse—but evidence says otherwise, and bringing that evidence to light is the first step towards redirecting those resources to more effective avenues for prevention.
We support the current liability model that makes Internet platforms responsible for removing unlawful images of minors that come to their attention (using a “notice and takedown” approach), and we support the use of automated tools for the removal of the worst of these images, which is already an industry best practice. Changing the current liability model to make Internet platforms responsible for the actions of child sexual abusers will not help children, but will result in the censorship of constitutionally protected speech.
No. Protecting children from sexual abuse is a vital function of government, and this includes the criminalization of sex between adults and children under any circumstances, and of the possession of child sexual abuse material (child pornography). But a common mistake is to make laws that are broader than necessary to achieve those aims, so that they harm others (or even children themselves), and may be unconstitutional. Another mistake is that laws are often not evidence-based, which means that they are ineffective.
Our society’s current default response to child sexual abuse is based on the stereotype that most child sex offending is committed by known sex offenders and by those involved in an “industry” of child sex trafficking. But neither of those stereotypes is true:
• 95% of sexual offenses are committed by someone with no criminal history
• 90% of CSA is perpetrated by someone the child knows and trusts
• 77% of CSA is committed in a residence
• 73% of CSA is committed by those who are primarily attracted to adults
• 35% of CSA is committed by juveniles
No, not at all. There is a lot of value in working with groups that are statistically more likely to harbor future sex offenders against children (such as foster families, those who work with children, and MAPs). However, most members of these groups won’t go on to offend, and many who do offend won’t be members of these groups. Therefore it is also important to adopt a broader primary prevention approach that targets the entire population with the information and resources needed to reduce offending.
Pedophile refers to someone who experiences attractions to prepubescent children. While this term has its uses, it suffers from two major drawbacks:
1. It’s overly specific. Not all minors are prepubescent, so not everyone who experiences attractions to minors is a pedophile.
2. It’s misused. The public and the media often use pedophile interchangeably with child sexual abuser. This clouds the term’s scientific definition and leads to confusion regarding the relationship between attractions and abuse.
MAP, which stands for minor-attracted person, solves both issues. It refers to everyone who experiences attractions to minors without requiring clarification. Additionally, it is self-explanatory, and clearly refers to an attraction rather than any illegal activity. For these reasons, the term has become popular among child protection experts and minor-attracted people in recent years, and it has appeared in numerous studies published in reputable scientific journals. It’s important to note that MAP doesn’t replace pedophile, which is simply a subcategory of MAP, nor is it intended to be “politically correct.” Both “MAP” and “pedophile” are widely utilized within the scientific community, but when it comes to people who experience attractions to minors in general, minor-attracted person is both more accurate and easier for people to understand.
Prostasia is a CSA prevention organization focused on policy and advocacy, and does not directly provide support resources for any group. However, we partner with organizations that do, and individuals in need of support can find some of these groups on our resource page. We also work to support research that can be used by groups and agencies that work directly with these individuals. In addition, CSA survivors are represented on our board and we consider their interests when setting our policies.
No, but some of the sex educators that we work with do. If you are looking for a sex educator who is trained to work with children, we may be able to refer you to one.