MAP Forum

There seems to be a stereotype, even amongst “experts” that maps are more childlike than non maps, and thats how we build such good rapport with minors. I heavily disagree though, I think we build good rapport with minors because we are the only non parent/teacher adults willing to reciprocate a minors affections and not dismiss them as “unworthy” or “inappropriate”. As in, minors like us because we pay attention to them, listen to them, teach them things outside of their parents and teachers, and reciprocate their affections, not because we are kid friendly succubi and incubbi with secret pedo mind control powers. We arent more “charming” or “manipulative” than the general population, and we arent any better at understanding or connecting with kids than any other adults, kids just like us because we like them. Its literally that simple, at least in my opinion. Besides, being into men as a man doesnt make you more masculine. Being into women as a man doesnt make you more feminine, so why would being into minors as an adult make you more childlike? If being into woman as a man doesnt give you secret womanly connection powers then why would being into kids make you better at connecting with kids?

Not to mention how hypocritical the stereotypes are for maps in general.

Maps are “more childlike” yet more sexually deviant than non map adults, but children “dont have sexualities and are non deviant”.

Maps are gross, unkept, creepy, middle aged men who clearly stand out from the general population and make children uncomfortable but are also so charming and attractive and normal presenting and children enjoy our presence so much that we can not only easily groom children into liking us, but also their parents and any nearby adults.

Every stranger is a map and not to be trusted but also every non stranger is a map and not to be trusted.

Children should trust their gut instinct but also no they shouldnt but also yes they should but only when its to be scared and uncomfortable, if they feel happy and safe they shouldn't trust their gut instinct.

Believe all victims but only if they agree that their expiernce was traumatic and non consensual, if they divulge from this narrative in any way, shape, or form, dont believe them.

Innocent until proven guilty but not for sex crimes, if it is a sex crime, guilty until proven guilty.

Maps hate kids and dont love them at all because they want to abuse them but also yes they do because they love kids but also no they dont because they are just cognitively distorted and groom themselves into thinking they love kids and kids hate maps because they are abused by maps but also no they dont because they love maps but also yes they do because they are cognitively distorted and groomed into thinking that they do. We love kids which is why we make fun of maps for loving kids and shame any non parent who loves kids. Abuse is a form of hatred which is why maps love kids and their abuse is a form of love and not hate and therefore not abuse but also we hate them so its abuse.

Maps are mentally ill but unlike every other mental illness they arent actually mentally ill and are just evil monsters but mentally ill people arent evil monsters but maps are mentally ill.

It takes a village to raise a child but parents should be the only ones to raise children because what if p-p-pedos??? But also parents shoulnt raise their children because most AMSC comes from parents, but also yes they should. Kids need love and role models from as many adults as possible, and by “as many adults as possible” we mean their parents and sometimes their teachers

Most of the harm from AMSC comes from the shame so we should keep shaming AMSC to protect children from harm

Children hate maps and are always forced into sex with maps because they hate sex and hate adults. Oh wait? The children are willingly agreeing to sex on their own violation? Must be secret pedo mind control powers that only pedos have access to for some reason.

Children know whats best for themselves and should have the right to their own bodies unless they say yes to anything ever.

We care about children. Which is why we hate children and think they are gross sticky annoying and unlovable brats who should just do their homework and avoid making eye contact with us superior adults and any adult who prefers them over us superiors is clearly not only evil, but also ill.

We hate pedos and think they are inferior to us in every way, shape, and form, but also think they are attractive, charming, and super rich and elite, and basically superior to non maps in every way shape and form. Which is how they manage to groom everyone into liking them.

I identify as age-fluid so I may not be the average MAP :3

It’s a hard question to answer with a simple “yes” or “no”.

I think I’m more childlike than most adults, but not more childish.

I think that as a parent and when I worked as a teacher I was thinking more carefully about the benefit and welfare of minors than many other adults around me. I think that being able to be a superior caregiver is at odds with a label of “childish”.

But I do enjoy talking to kids about kid-like topics. I enjoy many kid hobbies more than adult hobbies. Until my arrest crushed my spirit entirely I had a fair dose of Peter Pan syndrome with a fair bit of childlike optimism and sense of adventure.

I don’t strongly consider myself transage simply because I feel so dysphoric if I dwelt on it in a society that would be so strongly against it. But if it was socially acceptable to transition back into a teen, and surgeries to ensure I could “pass” then I’d probably want to. And not for any sexual reasons. I’d just be more comfortable in myself if I could live at that age.

I have known many aspergers virgin type guys who are strangely sort of childish who thought themselves maps, are they?
i have become very childlike myself over the years but thru sheer force of will, not brain damage
but it's true, i've never matured, i'm a total mama's boy crybaby
i thought it was because of all the pot but maybe I am mappy?

That was my personal view. If we turn to the literature we find that “emotional congruence with children” is much higher in carceral populations of MAPs than non-MAPs. Unfortunately it’s sometimes used as one of the criteria for finding out if someone is at risk of reoffending.

ECWC isn’t just about being childish/ childlike, nor just having empathy for children. But it captures elements of them.

Emotional congruence with children is typically defined as an exaggerated emotional and cognitive affiliation with children, and is evidenced by indicators such as enjoying spending leisure time with children, engaging in children’s activities, possessing children’s recreational equipment, feeling childlike, and perceiving relationships with children as intimate and reciprocal.

People convicted of sexual crimes with minors, especially BLs, are shown to have higher ECWC.

Emotional congruence with children is a psychologically meaningful risk factor for sexual offending against children and is important in the assessment, management, and treatment of sexual offenders.

It's such bullshit, though. Because it's obvious that people who are intimate with minors are more likely to be able to relate to them.

Fragment wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2025 1:05 pm People convicted of sexual crimes with minors, especially BLs, are shown to have higher Emotional Congruence With Children.

Very interesting, I did not know that.
What do you think makes BLs show higher ECWC than GLs?

Xuxa Nuit wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2025 8:59 pm

Fragment wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2025 1:05 pm People convicted of sexual crimes with minors, especially BLs, are shown to have higher Emotional Congruence With Children.

Very interesting, I did not know that.
What do you think makes BLs show higher ECWC than GLs?

I'm actually not sure of the cause, but it could be something different in the way attraction operates towards boys and girls. A relationship with a girl can mimic a relationship with an adult woman more easily than a relationship with a boy. The dynamics are just bound to be different.

Another, very obvious answer, is that the results are skewed. The studies are based on people who have committed sex crimes with children. It's possible that most people who have sex with boys are BLs, but many people who have sex with girls are opportunistic teleiophiles. If you limited the analysis to "preferential offenders" (BLs and GLs) you might find the difference disappears. Incest cases, especially step-father/ step-daughter, are reasonably common and quite often those men aren't exclusively interested in girls.

I really hate how it's framed, though. It's like "Men who have sex with women are more likely to have an emotional connection with women. The men with a high level of emotional connection are also more likely to repeat sex with women, too." Well, duh...

I think it's possible that the perception that MAPs are childlike comes less from us actually being childlike, and more from how we're less likely to care about arbitrary barriers in socialized age restrictions.

For example; a non-MAP might be reluctant to buy themselves a chocolate product with packaging that suggests it's "for kids" while MAPs are already more resistant to that sort of divide, and buy it anyway because it's cheaper than the "mature" packaged chocolate.

Outside of sex, there are thousands of things that are arbitrarily divided between minors and adults. There are people that won't eat bubblegum flavored ice cream because they see it as too childish for them, not because they dislike it. Most of us are already beyond caring about those lines so in the end we're more likely to watch movies, play video games, eat certain foods, etc that "regular" adults wouldn't do on the principle that they're too mature for it now — giving the impression that we're more childlike, when in reality it's just that we don't acknowledge as many arbitrary social age restrictions.

Bookshelf wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 3:53 am I think it's possible that the perception that MAPs are childlike comes less from us actually being childlike, and more from how we're less likely to care about arbitrary barriers in socialized age restrictions.

For example; a non-MAP might be reluctant to buy themselves a chocolate product with packaging that suggests it's "for kids" while MAPs are already more resistant to that sort of divide, and buy it anyway because it's cheaper than the "mature" packaged chocolate.

Outside of sex, there are thousands of things that are arbitrarily divided between minors and adults. There are people that won't eat bubblegum flavored ice cream because they see it as too childish for them, not because they dislike it. Most of us are already beyond caring about those lines so in the end we're more likely to watch movies, play video games, eat certain foods, etc that "regular" adults wouldn't do on the principle that they're too mature for it now — giving the impression that we're more childlike, when in reality it's just that we don't acknowledge as many arbitrary social age restrictions.

Great insight, thank you for that.
I can feel it, my mind opening!

Personally, I've always willfully just tried to cross that line, to get the pink bubblegum ice cream, just to be weird that way.
I'm abnormal. I figure someone's got to do it, might as well be me.