Mu FAQ

[Fragment]

So while there isn't a lot of content on the main site yet, one thing we did spend a lot of effort was the FAQ

https://www.map-union.org/about/faq

What do you think of it? Can you understand Mu's basic position as an organization? Do you think we've done a good job of representing the variety of MAPs that are in the community?

[WandersGlade]

What do you think of it?
Overall, good. I have a few nitpicks though.

Many members of the public think that banning possession is necessary because of "market demand" principles that apply to financial transactions, but most MAPs who use PIM download leaked images and videos for free, kind of like how people download regular movies from torrent sites. Saying that this encourages a market for PIM just doesn't make sense.

A citation or citations for this would be useful, since it's such a common talking point.

A lot of the images labeled as 'Child Sexual Abuse Material' (CSAM) are fictional depictions or actually made by minors - who will frequently even be prosecuted themselves. Calling this abuse material when no primary harm is involved doesn't make sense, since it stigmatizes and undermines the autonomy and agency of minor producers. We think it's important to focus resources on real abuse and exploitation, not on consensual activities or fictional content.

I think this section could do with addressing the myth that minors have no interest in sex or that it's unhealthy/abnormal for minors to engage in this kind of behavior.

This

We also believe that providing support and resources for MAPs can help prevent harm to minors. Faced with stigma and potential social sanctions, many MAPs have no support in finding safe ways to manage their attractions, even if they desperately need it. Proper support and social integration is necessary to reduce the risk of anyone getting hurt.

Seems slightly rhetorically at odds with this

Just like adult-attracted people, virtually all MAPs are opposed to forced or unwanted sexual activity. Furthermore, the majority of "pro-c" MAPs recommend following local laws regarding sex with minors, even if they disagree with them.

I understand from a practical point of view, it's a good way of getting people to think about MAP issues by suggesting more openess would mean more MAPs go to therapy and therefore less children would be hurt. However, I think it might reproduce the misleading impression that MAPs are going to commit crimes unless they go to therapy. Might have to sacrifice that rhetorical strategy in the long run.

We don't know for sure, but studies suggest over 10% of men could be MAPs.

Opening that section with the most conservative estimate might strengthen the document. If you see a person is willing to admit information that is against their own agenda (in the this case that there may be less MAPs), then you are more likely to trust the other information you find yourself wanting to reject. It's potentially credibility boosting.

For a long time, the world has been fascinated by the question of whether there is a "gay gene" or if homosexuality is environmental. We still don't have a clear answer, but it seems there is a mix of factors. Similarly, minor attraction may have some factors that are biological and some that are environmental. We don't know the mix. We also don't know if there are any differences between people who have a heterosexual minor attraction and those who have a homosexual minor attraction.

Might be a good place to mention the false equivalence between the environmental and the products of nurture. If pre-natal hormones determined homosexuality, it could be environmental and at the same time a product of nature rather than nurture. In any case, it might be that neither being homosexual nor being a MAP is the product of up-bringing. TL;DR Nature vs. Nurture =/= Genetic vs. Environmental.

Unfortunately, the stigma and discrimination MAPs face make it extremely tough for them to seek help openly, even from these specialized organizations. Many mental health professionals aren't trained to handle MAP issues, and there is always the fear of being reported to authorities even if no crime has been committed, which can lead to severe ostracism within the community.

A citation of a study of unprofessionalism of therapists towards MAPs could strengthen this point.

The MAP community doesn't currently have a formal activist alliance with paraphile (e.g. objectophile) and zoophile groups, but this might be a possibility in the near future.

The language here seemed a bit strange to me. What does it mean to have "a formal activist alliance" between the MAP community and any group? It makes it sound a bit like the MAP community is some sort of corporation considering a merger with another corporation.

The freedom to speak openly about their sexual orientation.

Although it would sound repetitive, I think maybe adding "without fear of harassment" again would make more sense here, because arguably we do have the freedom to speak openly (but not safely).

Most people will have a loved one who is a MAP.

Is that actually true? Isn't it more like 1/100 people are MAPs?

Can you understand Mu's basic position as an organization?
A big tent organization for as many different stripes of MAPs as is feasible? I still feel like there's some tonal dissonance between this more sanitized vision and having a section labelled "Disruption" on the forum, since not all MAPs are going to be comfortable with raids. Even though there may be strong practical reasons for, it still feels a bit out of place to me.

Do you think we've done a good job of representing the variety of MAPs that are in the community?
Overall, yes.

Thanks for sharing, sorry for all the nitpicking!

[Peace]

I think overall it's a great overview of topics specifically related to MAPs, and does so in a way that both brings nuance to the table and doesn't turn off swathes of the community. I know y'all worked hard on it, and it shows. Like WG, I'll post some of my thoughts about certain parts of it.

"Pedophile" and more particularly the shortened form "pedo" are words often used as slurs, associated with sexual offenses against minors.

While I do think people can use the word "pedo" as a slur, I think it'd be more correct to say that the word is often used incorrectly to refer to someone who has committed a sexual offense against a minor. This misassociation, more than the word "pedo" being used out of malice, seems to be why MAPs prefer "MAP." See also people using the word "pedo" to refer to decidely non-pedo things like age-gap relationships or attraction to nineteen year olds, making it a linguistic deadweight. If the FAQ needs to emphasize that the word "pedophile" and "pedo" are used maliciously, I think it would be best to do so after explaining that "pedophile" is used incorrectly.

There are also people who refer to themselves as contact-neutral or moderate

It might be good to have a small paragraph, like the ones for anti-c and pro-c, to expand on what contact-neutral means. Many people, even MAPs, don't think that such a stance is possible.

Studies have even shown that MAPs show higher levels of empathy towards minors than non-MAPs

I've personally never found the argument that MAPs are inherently more caring toward youth than non-MAPs super helpful or compelling. I think to non-MAPs, it sounds self-serving (or delusional, at worst). Has there been any evidence that this argument works well for changing minds? Also, I think it's disingenuous to think that when people ask if MAPs care about youth, that they're referring to MAPs hating youth. "Do most people hate the adults to whom they are attracted?" No, but there are plenty of people who view the people they're sexually attracted to in less than caring ways; think of all the teliophilic misogynists and misandrists out there. I really like the tenor of the last paragraph of that entry, and I think some of its spirit should replace the sentence about most people not hating the adults they're attracted to.

Agreed with WG that the sentence "The MAP community doesn't currently have a formal activist alliance with paraphile[...] groups" feels odd, especially as elsewhere in the FAQ it's emphasized that MAPs aren't a monolithic group.

We also think the law should clearly distinguish between voluntary AMSC and violent child sexual abuse

I'd personally remove "violent" in the phrase "violent child sexual abuse," or replace it with something like "coercive," as plenty of sexual abuse isn't "violent" in the physical sense.

There's some words and phrases that are capitalized in ways I've never seen before (Child Porn, for instance, or LGBTQ+ Youth, or "Gay, Trans" in the section on politics). I'm guessing this was a stylistic choice?

Some non-MAPs might object to the multiple comparisons between homosexuality specifically and minor-attraction in the sections on causes and available help ("...just like homosexuality it can't be changed..."). Possibly you could change those to "other sexual orientations."

Most of my other nitpicks are more to do with proofreading (for example, "It is not uncommon even for parents[...]" doesn't flow as well as "It is not uncommon for even parents[...]," IMO), and I'm not sure if you were looking for anything like that.

[BLueRibbon]

We are listening to your feedback and will make adjustments. Please keep adding comments, everyone!

[BLueRibbon]

What do you think of it?
Overall, good. I have a few nitpicks though.

Many members of the public think that banning possession is necessary because of "market demand" principles that apply to financial transactions, but most MAPs who use PIM download leaked images and videos for free, kind of like how people download regular movies from torrent sites. Saying that this encourages a market for PIM just doesn't make sense.

A citation or citations for this would be useful, since it's such a common talking point.

Unfortunately, this is simply 'community knowledge', and I'm not aware of anything we can cite.

A lot of the images labeled as 'Child Sexual Abuse Material' (CSAM) are fictional depictions or actually made by minors - who will frequently even be prosecuted themselves. Calling this abuse material when no primary harm is involved doesn't make sense, since it stigmatizes and undermines the autonomy and agency of minor producers. We think it's important to focus resources on real abuse and exploitation, not on consensual activities or fictional content.

I think this section could do with addressing the myth that minors have no interest in sex or that it's unhealthy/abnormal for minors to engage in this kind of behavior.

Edited:

"Calling this abuse material when no primary harm is involved doesn't make sense, since it stigmatizes and undermines the autonomy and agency of minor producers who are simply expressing their natural sexuality using methods that weren't available to older generations."

This

We also believe that providing support and resources for MAPs can help prevent harm to minors. Faced with stigma and potential social sanctions, many MAPs have no support in finding safe ways to manage their attractions, even if they desperately need it. Proper support and social integration is necessary to reduce the risk of anyone getting hurt.

Seems slightly rhetorically at odds with this

Just like adult-attracted people, virtually all MAPs are opposed to forced or unwanted sexual activity. Furthermore, the majority of "pro-c" MAPs recommend following local laws regarding sex with minors, even if they disagree with them.

I understand from a practical point of view, it's a good way of getting people to think about MAP issues by suggesting more openess would mean more MAPs go to therapy and therefore less children would be hurt. However, I think it might reproduce the misleading impression that MAPs are going to commit crimes unless they go to therapy. Might have to sacrifice that rhetorical strategy in the long run.

We also believe that providing support and resources for MAPs can help prevent harm to minors. Faced with stigma and potential social sanctions, many MAPs have no support in finding safe ways to manage their attractions, even if they desperately need it. Proper support and social integration is necessary to reduce the risk of anyone getting hurt. - Paragraph removed. It was a little out of place anyway.

We don't know for sure, but studies suggest over 10% of men could be MAPs.

Opening that section with the most conservative estimate might strengthen the document. If you see a person is willing to admit information that is against their own agenda (in the this case that there may be less MAPs), then you are more likely to trust the other information you find yourself wanting to reject. It's potentially credibility boosting.

I know what you mean, but I don't think we should downplay just how many MAPs there are when we're focusing on normalization.

For a long time, the world has been fascinated by the question of whether there is a "gay gene" or if homosexuality is environmental. We still don't have a clear answer, but it seems there is a mix of factors. Similarly, minor attraction may have some factors that are biological and some that are environmental. We don't know the mix. We also don't know if there are any differences between people who have a heterosexual minor attraction and those who have a homosexual minor attraction.

Might be a good place to mention the false equivalence between the environmental and the products of nurture. If pre-natal hormones determined homosexuality, it could be environmental and at the same time a product of nature rather than nurture. In any case, it might be that neither being homosexual nor being a MAP is the product of up-bringing. TL;DR Nature vs. Nurture =/= Genetic vs. Environmental.

You seem very interested in this topic. If you can write a better (and reasonably succinct) replacement, we can replace our entry with yours.

Unfortunately, the stigma and discrimination MAPs face make it extremely tough for them to seek help openly, even from these specialized organizations. Many mental health professionals aren't trained to handle MAP issues, and there is always the fear of being reported to authorities even if no crime has been committed, which can lead to severe ostracism within the community.

A citation of a study of unprofessionalism of therapists towards MAPs could strengthen this point.

Can B4U-Act help us with some citations here?

The MAP community doesn't currently have a formal activist alliance with paraphile (e.g. objectophile) and zoophile groups, but this might be a possibility in the near future.

The language here seemed a bit strange to me. What does it mean to have "a formal activist alliance" between the MAP community and any group? It makes it sound a bit like the MAP community is some sort of corporation considering a merger with another corporation.

Edited:

"We're not aware of any MAP group alliances with paraphile (e.g. objectophile) and zoophile groups, but Mu is always willing to consider them in the future. "

The freedom to speak openly about their sexual orientation.

Although it would sound repetitive, I think maybe adding "without fear of harassment" again would make more sense here, because arguably we do have the freedom to speak openly (but not safely).

"Speak openly" has been changed to "speak openly and safely".

Most people will have a loved one who is a MAP.

Is that actually true? Isn't it more like 1/100 people are MAPs?

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Prevalence

Maybe only 1/100 are exclusive MAPs, but having a degree of attraction to minors (including prepubescent children) is surprisingly common.

Can you understand Mu's basic position as an organization?
A big tent organization for as many different stripes of MAPs as is feasible? I still feel like there's some tonal dissonance between this more sanitized vision and having a section labelled "Disruption" on the forum, since not all MAPs are going to be comfortable with raids. Even though there may be strong practical reasons for, it still feels a bit out of place to me.

'Disruption' is primarily for organizing attention-grabbing stunts on social media. We don't want members to put themselves in danger.

[BLueRibbon]

Peace, I will handle your proposed edits tomorrow.

[WandersGlade]

Edited:

"Calling this abuse material when no primary harm is involved doesn't make sense, since it stigmatizes and undermines the autonomy and agency of minor producers who are simply expressing their natural sexuality using methods that weren't available to older generations."

I hadn't thought of it like that. Well-put.

For a long time, the world has been fascinated by the question of whether there is a "gay gene" or if homosexuality is environmental. We still don't have a clear answer, but it seems there is a mix of factors. Similarly, minor attraction may have some factors that are biological and some that are environmental. We don't know the mix. We also don't know if there are any differences between people who have a heterosexual minor attraction and those who have a homosexual minor attraction.

Might be a good place to mention the false equivalence between the environmental and the products of nurture. If pre-natal hormones determined homosexuality, it could be environmental and at the same time a product of nature rather than nurture. In any case, it might be that neither being homosexual nor being a MAP is the product of up-bringing. TL;DR Nature vs. Nurture =/= Genetic vs. Environmental.

You seem very interested in this topic. If you can write a better (and reasonably succinct) replacement, we can replace our entry with yours.

Maybe something like: Despite lack of evidence of a "gay gene", according to our currently available knowledge, homosexuality is nevertheless an unchangeable feature due to the influence of pre-natal hormones. This means there doesn't need to be a genetic basis in order for a trait to be "hard-wired". The view that MA is the result of trauma isn't scientifically grounded, in fact, according to the research of James Cantor, it currently looks like people are "born pedophiles" in the same way that people are "born homosexuals".
Feel free to change it or not use it, if it's too clunky.

Unfortunately, the stigma and discrimination MAPs face make it extremely tough for them to seek help openly, even from these specialized organizations. Many mental health professionals aren't trained to handle MAP issues, and there is always the fear of being reported to authorities even if no crime has been committed, which can lead to severe ostracism within the community.

A citation of a study of unprofessionalism of therapists towards MAPs could strengthen this point.

Can B4U-Act help us with some citations here?

I'll ask on the b4um.

Other than that, most of the changes are good. Thanks for listening!

[Pegasus]

A while ago, I got a referral for a therapist from one of the organizations that support maps; she was the only therapist on this list in my country. I contacted her at first, but there was no reply. After months, I decided to contact her. She told me that she didn't have time to help me and asked me what I wanted. I replied, but there was no reply. Because this therapist then gave his name to be included in the list of those who could help. There was no empathy. Of course, he could have been busy, or had other issues to deal with, but if only he had paid a little attention to me, I would have been satisfied and would have understood. I was saddened by this service.

[BLueRibbon]

A while ago, I got a referral for a therapist from one of the organizations that support maps; she was the only therapist on this list in my country. I contacted her at first, but there was no reply. After months, I decided to contact her. She told me that she didn't have time to help me and asked me what I wanted. I replied, but there was no reply. Because this therapist then gave his name to be included in the list of those who could help. There was no empathy. Of course, he could have been busy, or had other issues to deal with, but if only he had paid a little attention to me, I would have been satisfied and would have understood. I was saddened by this service.

Sorry to hear this. Please feel free to ask for help in our Member Support section here, or at https://lifeline.chat (the latter is only available when a vol is able to open). I know it's not the same as a professional, but at least you know we care!

[Pegasus]

A while ago, I got a referral for a therapist from one of the organizations that support maps; she was the only therapist on this list in my country. I contacted her at first, but there was no reply. After months, I decided to contact her. She told me that she didn't have time to help me and asked me what I wanted. I replied, but there was no reply. Because this therapist then gave his name to be included in the list of those who could help. There was no empathy. Of course, he could have been busy, or had other issues to deal with, but if only he had paid a little attention to me, I would have been satisfied and would have understood. I was saddened by this service.

Sorry to hear this. Please feel free to ask for help in our Member Support section here, or at https://lifeline.chat (the latter is only available when a vol is able to open). I know it's not the same as a professional, but at least you know we care!