Mu FAQ

[Peace]

There are a lot of misogynistic teleios, but I don't think they're the majority. Most men, not all, feel an obligation to protect and support women. MAPs are the same, often putting children on pedestals where they're don't belong. It's a bit creepy, but it's better than the ridiculous mainstream belief that most MAPs get off on the idea of sadistic abuse.

While I agree, I still think that section of the FAQ misses the more common objection people have: that MAPs don't care about youth because "they use youth for their own sexual pleasure with no regard for the negative consequences." This, to me, seems to be a much more widely-held view than the view of MAPs as sadistic and hateful.

[WandersGlade]

Further thoughts.

Criminals like that do exist, but they do not represent the MAP community any more than John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer represent the gay community or Ted Bundy represents straight men.

I'd say "they are not representative of".

In fact, studies show that most of the sexual abuse against children is committed by people who prefer adults.

Might be a place you could introduce the term "teleiophile", although it might come across as blameshifting, to an outside perspective.

For MAPs, there is much more nuance to the discussion of AMSC (adult-minor sexual contact).

I'd mention the term "statutory rape" here. Like "MAPs are divided on their views of whether statutory rape laws should be abolished." If an outsider is reading it, it's best to mirror the language they would use before introducing new terms.


I think this:

There is also no clear evidence that pro-c MAPs are more inclined towards offending than anti-c's.

Should either replace or come directly after this:

Furthermore, the majority of "pro-c" MAPs recommend following local laws regarding sex with minors, even if they disagree with them.

Otherwise it would be easy to read it as "pro-C MAPs just haven't been caught yet".

Anti-c MAPs typically believe that sex between youth and adults is unethical, especially when involving minors under the age of consent. Some may have been sexually abused as children, and others might be concerned about perceived power imbalances, or the risk of secondary harm, i.e. minors being happy with the sexual contact at the time, but growing up with the pressure of being told that the relationship was wrong.

This seems off. Does it matter what causes people to be anti-c? It's an example of the genetic fallacy. Arguably, you could also be abused as a minor and become pro-c.

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.

As useful and important as this claim would be, isn't it potentially incriminating/bad PR if you can't refer it back to a source?

The MAP community, and even some non-MAPs, support making and using AI-generated sexual images of minors, or even realistic sex-dolls as a way to reduce the risk of contact offending without involving real minors in the process.

Again, I think the same issue is here as with the therapist. Are we saying without PIM and realistic sex-dolls, MAPs will offend? Wouldn't it be better to point to a lack of increase in number of offenses where these things have been legal?

We just think there are more realistic ways of protecting them that don't involve criminalizing their own harmless activities, or mindlessly punishing others.

Maybe add a footnote here: "If we accept sexual exploration is a normal part of children's behavior and sex between early adolescents can be harmless, then it isn't clear why AMSC would necessarily be harmful."

It's hard to pin down exactly how many MAPs there are because a lot of people hide their attraction due to the stigma and legal risks associated with coming out.

Maybe use the term "under-reported".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-reporting

It is general knowledge that girls used to marry in their early teens and that boys would have homosexual relationships with adult men in ancient civilizations as diverse as Greece, Persia, Japan and Rome.

For a historical example of true heterosexual pedophilia, you could mention or reference the following:
In ancient Egypt, also, the prostitution of young girls was a religious practice, so that, according to Strabo, some of the most beautiful and highest-born Egyptian maidens were forced into prostitution, and they continued as prostitutes until their first menstruation. P. 161, Prostitution and Morality, 1964

Next, we’re pushing for civic Equality for MAPs. We believe MAPs should have the same rights as everyone else and shouldn’t face legal or social discrimination just because of their sexuality. MAPs deserve the same rights associated with protected status that other minority groups get, including rights like free speech and freedom of association.

Maybe mention you are concerned by laws that disproportionately effect MAPs, regardless of whether they explicitly use the term "pedophile".

Why should I even care about MAP issues?

I might add to this section that its immoral to allow a prejudice against a group of people for something they don't choose. In order for society to function, people should be judged on their decisions rather than what they are, otherwise the social contract breaks down.

Lastly, I think it would be easier to read if the run-on sentences were broken up into smaller sentences.