MAP Forum

The concept of 'non-offending pedophile' goes back to the 00s, when various people including myself were working hard to differentiate attraction from action. This work spawned the likes of VirPed (which was not so extreme in its earlier days) and the NOMAP movement. The ATC blog was a very early example of this concept, perhaps even the first.

However, I agree completely with FairBlueLove's concerns, and I have had similar thoughts when writing articles for Mu. But what is a better option?* 'MAPs who have engaged in criminalized behavior' is the most accurate description, but it's a hell of a mouthful.

* Not a rhetorical question. Any ideas?

BLueRibbon wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:17 am The concept of 'non-offending pedophile' goes back to the 00s, when various people including myself were working hard to differentiate attraction from action. This work spawned the likes of VirPed (which was not so extreme in its earlier days) and the NOMAP movement. The ATC blog was a very early example of this concept, perhaps even the first.

However, I agree completely with FairBlueLove's concerns, and I have had similar thoughts when writing articles for Mu. But what is a better option?* 'MAPs who have engaged in criminalized behavior' is the most accurate description, but it's a hell of a mouthful.

* Not a rhetorical question. Any ideas?

Acting MAP and No Acting MAP?

BLueRibbon wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:17 am The concept of 'non-offending pedophile' goes back to the 00s, when various people including myself were working hard to differentiate attraction from action. This work spawned the likes of VirPed (which was not so extreme in its earlier days) and the NOMAP movement. The ATC blog was a very early example of this concept, perhaps even the first.

However, I agree completely with FairBlueLove's concerns, and I have had similar thoughts when writing articles for Mu. But what is a better option?* 'MAPs who have engaged in criminalized behavior' is the most accurate description, but it's a hell of a mouthful.

* Not a rhetorical question. Any ideas?

Transgressing
transgression
A violation of a law, principle, or duty. synonym: breach.

Rebelling
rebel
to refuse to obey rules or people in authority

Defying
defy
to refuse to obey a person, decision, law, situation, etc.

Grunko wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2025 10:44 pm 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.

Being pro-contact does not mean doing something offensive, although antis believe that even such views are offensive, and this is how they justify censorship, which blocks any arguments against their beliefs.

I am pro-contact, but I have never had any relationships with minors (except when I was 5 years old, it was in kindergarten). I prefer the phrase "Pro-choice" because it doesn't seem selfish and emphasizes that the minor's decision and wishes are more important.

BLueRibbon wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:17 am * Not a rhetorical question. Any ideas?

Attraction is not action. But action is not identity.

The problem with any "~ing MAP" is that it automatically makes the action into an attribute.

I don't know if there's an easy way around that, though. "Who" clauses are inevitably a mouthful.

Lightie Twinkle wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:35 am

BLueRibbon wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:17 am The concept of 'non-offending pedophile' goes back to the 00s, when various people including myself were working hard to differentiate attraction from action. This work spawned the likes of VirPed (which was not so extreme in its earlier days) and the NOMAP movement. The ATC blog was a very early example of this concept, perhaps even the first.

However, I agree completely with FairBlueLove's concerns, and I have had similar thoughts when writing articles for Mu. But what is a better option?* 'MAPs who have engaged in criminalized behavior' is the most accurate description, but it's a hell of a mouthful.

* Not a rhetorical question. Any ideas?

Acting MAP and No Acting MAP?

This seems the most neutral and simple option in alternative to "offending". Also Julia's proposals make sense.

Fragment wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 4:46 am

BLueRibbon wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:17 am * Not a rhetorical question. Any ideas?

Attraction is not action. But action is not identity.

The problem with any "~ing MAP" is that it automatically makes the action into an attribute.

I don't know if there's an easy way around that, though. "Who" clauses are inevitably a mouthful.

I also agree with Fragment. The gerundive form itself is problematic. What if somebody only acted once in the past and will never do so in the future? Calling this person an "offending/acting MAP" is loaded with the biased assumption that this person is still acting and will do so in the future.

I think “MAPs with a record” works quite well. It’s simple.

It also recgonizes that some MAPs might be “offending but not caught” so they are still “MAPs without a record.”

It also takes the focus off what MAPs do and puts the focus on what the SYSTEM does. Which is where it should be.

“NOMAP” is still a fundamentally “defensive” position because you’re saying what you AREN’T, not what you ARE.

Fragment wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:26 am “NOMAP” is still a fundamentally “defensive” position because you’re saying what you AREN’T, not what you ARE.

NOMAP should be thrown in the trash.
If I'm pro-contact but don't act on it, it doesn't mean I'm being offensive. But "Pro-contact" sounds selfish; there is no expression of reciprocity in this term. Therefore, it would be much better to be "Pro-choice". This shows that the decision is made by the minor himself, because he has the right to choose, which is respected and accepted by the MAP. But current laws do NOT give minors the right to choose, and MAP advocate for the provision of these rights, not in order to satisfy their lust, as the antis believe, but because we respect minors and THEIR CHOICE.

I liked the proposed options "acting MAP" and "no acting MAP"

I think what may need to be emphasised is “being attracted to someone is not the same as abusing them.”

I thought Non-offending MAP’s is meant to make it clear that MAP’s are good people with no harmful intentions and respects laws (even if they don’t agree or find them unreasonable)

Grunko wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 8:56 am I think what may need to be emphasised is “being attracted to someone is not the same as abusing them.”

I thought Non-offending MAP’s is meant to make it clear that MAP’s are good people with no harmful intentions and respects laws (even if they don’t agree or find them unreasonable)

Right. I think the term "non-offender" for them sound like MAPs are bloody monsters that at the time aren't yet causing harm but could at any moment. I know some MAPS do think they were born the wrong way and their attractions are wrong but they don't want to offend.

But for someone who believes that being different doesn't mean wrong, and doesn't want to act or wants to act but still don't want to do things the wrong way. The term of doing and not doing sounds better than offend and not offend.