MAP Forum

Peace wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:33 pm 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.

Original sentence replaced with:

"Pedophile" and more particularly the shortened form "pedo", are unpopular due to their constant misuse.

Peace wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:33 pm 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.

Original sentence replaced with:

There are also people who refer to themselves as **contact-neutral** (not holding a strong position), or **moderate** (supportive of mild reforms).

Peace wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:33 pm 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.

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.

Peace wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:33 pmAgreed 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.

Changed, as reported above.

Peace wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:33 pm 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.

Edited per your recommendation.

Peace wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:33 pm 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?

I'm not responsible for this odd stylistic choice, but I like it. It emphasizes the importance of these minority/vulnerable groups.

Peace wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:33 pm 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."

If they don't like this, they won't like my upcoming essays. There is a weird connection between homosexuality and minor-attraction, and it needs to be discussed.

Peace wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:33 pm 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.

I think that is a matter of stylistic preference, but please continue to proofread for us and point out any possible mistakes.

BLueRibbon wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:05 pm
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.

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.