MAP Forum

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2025 10:25 am B4U-ACT would not use the language "Destigmatize MAPs".

The title of your petition mirrored the language used to criticise MAP initiatives and draw the lines against violating community standards, literally the "glorification of pedophilia" as an "identity".

Because your petition violated these standards and used the wrong language, it was attacked.

Which words would B4U-ACT use?

Besides... Going from "destigmatizing" to "glorifying" to "violence" seems pretty much a big stretch.

FairBlueLove wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2025 10:02 pm

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2025 10:25 am B4U-ACT would not use the language "Destigmatize MAPs".

The title of your petition mirrored the language used to criticise MAP initiatives and draw the lines against violating community standards, literally the "glorification of pedophilia" as an "identity".

Because your petition violated these standards and used the wrong language, it was attacked.

Which words would B4U-ACT use?

Besides... Going from "destigmatizing" to "glorifying" to "violence" seems pretty much a big stretch.

If the proper definition of pedophilia is “child lover” then I don’t understand why it would be bad to glorify it as it not like its glorifying child abuse/rape and loving children and actually hurting children are two different things

Jim Burton wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2025 12:23 pm "Fight groomer libel and stigma against MAPs to improve the lives of young people".

This would be a far better title, but the only way of establishing what kind of language and norms might be deemed appropriate, is by reading the research literature and polling the high ranking members on one of these scientifically appropriate forums.

I would suggest mirroring the language and arguments used by B4U-ACT and mentioning the org. Virped's approach has proven far too provocative for mainstream venues since roughly the mid-10s.