Is it possible to be a Pro-Contact MAP and still be a non-offending MAP?

[Grunko]

I wanted to know if it is possible to be a Pro-contact MAP and still be a non-offending MAP at the same time. Because what if you are a non-offending MAP who has no harmful intentions but you are more pro-contact stance particularly towards intergenerational friendships/relationships between teenagers and adults of all ages. Is it true that all non-offending MAP’s are anti contact or is that a misconception. I know a lot of MAP groups like Virped.org, MAP-support club etc. are all Anti Contact, but are there any that support Pro-contact MAPs.

[Lightie Twinkle]

Yes it is.

[BLueRibbon]

There are many pro-contact and pro-reform MAPs who believe that AMSC is not always inherently harmful, but refrain from engaging in AMSC due to the risk of secondary harm and prosecution.

[Grunko]

There are many pro-contact and pro-reform MAPs who believe that AMSC is not always inherently harmful, but refrain from engaging in AMSC due to the risk of secondary harm and prosecution.

I don’t really know what a Pro-reform MAP is? Could you please explain.

[BLueRibbon]

There are many pro-contact and pro-reform MAPs who believe that AMSC is not always inherently harmful, but refrain from engaging in AMSC due to the risk of secondary harm and prosecution.

I don’t really know what a Pro-reform MAP is? Could you please explain.

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Essay:Pro- ... dle_Ground

[Fragment]

"Pro-c" and "anti-c" are political positions.

"Offending" and "non-offending" refer to criminal and sexual history.

There are anti-contact MAPs who have offended (and they think they did something morally wrong).

There are pro-contact MAPs who have never offended (but they don't think it would be a moral wrong if they did).

There is actually some evidence that offending is no more common amongst people that have pro-c views.

There was no link between attitudes towards adult-child sex and sexual offending, replicating the non-associations reported in previous community surveys.

Jahnke, S., & Marco, A. M. (2018). "How Pedohebephilic Think about Adult-Child Sex: Effects of Child Gender and Physical Maturity."

[FairBlueLove]

BlueRibbon and Fragment already gave great answers.

We all know what we are talking about, but I would like just to point out that "non-offending" is by itself an inherently biased term. "Offense" to/for who?

[Fragment]

MAPs who have been convicted and those who have not been convicted.

It’s more accurate, but so long…

[Lightie Twinkle]

MAPs who have been convicted and those who have not been convicted.

It’s more accurate, but so long…

I think that instead of calling it offense since it refers to legality, Acting MAP and No Acting MAP sounds better to me.

[Julia]

BlueRibbon and Fragment already gave great answers.

We all know what we are talking about, but I would like just to point out that "non-offending" is by itself an inherently biased term. "Offense" to/for who?

Yes, exactly. Plenty of laws are inherently immoral. I've never placed any value whatsoever on the law itself, but I do hold virtue in high regard. While I don't mind breaking the law, I could never engage in actions that causes harm to others. So, if we define "offending" as breaking the law, I suppose I might (though I want to clarify that I have never done so in the context of being a MAP). However, this term can be quite misleading, as it's not actually offensive. When "offending" is defined as "causing harm," then I would never do that.

There is actually some evidence that offending is no more common amongst people that have pro-c views.

This does not surprise me. If someone were inclined to or planning to offend while also viewing it as something malicious, they might be more likely to claim to be anti-c in order to avoid raising suspicion. Alternatively, it’s probably even more common for them not to openly identify as a MAP at all. Simultaneously, they may project their inner conflicts onto pro-c advocates as a way to compensate.