MAP Forum

It's such a simple notion, but I had so much trouble getting my mother and a friend—both are not-quite-antis-but-close—to understand it that I decided to make a diagram for it.

It's worth noting that the blue section labelled "Consensual sexual intimacy between minors and MAPs" includes:
~ illegal but nevertheless consensual age-gap relationships;
~ legal age-gap relationships in jurisdictions where the age of consent is suitably low;
~ legal relationships involving MAPs who are minors or young adults themselves (allowed by close-in-age exceptions).

Another important fact is that the overlap between the two circles is only so large because the legal and social context prevents more consensual & positive AMSC from occurring, symmetrically pushing such contact toward secrecy and immorality.

https://freeimghost.net/images/2025/04/ ... iagram.png

Edit: Alternative version that's more accurate, but also more complex and less elegant: https://freeimghost.net/images/2025/04/ ... ram_v2.png

Pretty good, but should there be an explicit mention of consensual sexual relations between Non-MAPs and minors on the diagram?

PorcelainLark wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:28 am Pretty good, but should there be an explicit mention of consensual sexual relations between Non-MAPs and minors on the diagram?

That did cross my mind, but I don't know exactly where it'd fit, especially since it's not really relevant for the argument I'm making. Perhaps I should change "All Forms of Adult-Minor Sexual Contact" to something else, or remove it altogether?

Another option would be to add a third, smaller intersecting circle, but if only on aesthetic grounds, I don't really like that prospect!

WavesInEternity wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 1:25 pm That did cross my mind, but I don't know exactly where it'd fit, especially since it's not really relevant for the argument I'm making. Perhaps I should change "All Forms of Adult-Minor Sexual Contact" to something else, or remove it altogether?

Another option would be to add a third, smaller intersecting circle, but if only on aesthetic grounds, I don't really like that prospect!

I don't know, maybe it's because it's trying to do two different things at the same time? Like drawing the distinction between consensual and non-consensual AMSC doesn't need to also represent the fact that there are many opportunistic CS abusers at the same time. Maybe a table of two by two could capture both at the same time (MAPs/non-MAPs on one axis, CSA/consensual AMSC on the other)?

Maybe there's a different format other than a Venn diagram that's better at visually representing difference between CSA and consensual AMSC?

PorcelainLark wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 9:37 pm I don't know, maybe it's because it's trying to do two different things at the same time? Like drawing the distinction between consensual and non-consensual AMSC doesn't need to also represent the fact that there are many opportunistic CS abusers at the same time. Maybe a table of two by two could capture both at the same time (MAPs/non-MAPs on one axis, CSA/consensual AMSC on the other)?

Maybe there's a different format other than a Venn diagram that's better at visually representing difference between CSA and consensual AMSC?

The important fact that I'm trying to highlight and explain is that most CSA isn't committed by MAPs. Believe it or not, some people genuinely seem to be incapable of wrapping their heads around how that can be the case.

Here's an improved version (more accurate, but more complex and less elegant): https://freeimghost.net/images/2025/04/ ... ram_v2.png

What do you think?

WavesInEternity wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 11:20 pm The important fact that I'm trying to highlight and explain is that most CSA isn't committed by MAPs. Believe it or not, some people genuinely seem to be incapable of wrapping their heads around how that can be the case.

I think that's difficult too, because it's two counter-intuitive points in a row. 1) It counters using MAP/pedophile interchangeably with someone who has sexual contact with minors; 2) then it claims this category is more responsible for CSA than MAP/pedophiles. It might be easier to represent the two separately. Perhaps a tree diagram for the different types of people that engage with AMSC, and then a bar chart for the respective proportions of CSA committed? But then you might end up having to have a branch for MAPs that don't engage in AMSC. I can see scope creep happening easily.

Here's an improved version (more accurate, but more complex and less elegant): https://freeimghost.net/images/2025/04/ ... ram_v2.png

What do you think?

Not bad (although, you're right, the first is easier to follow).

To be honest I probably shouldn't have said anything. The perfect is the enemy of the good, after all. I don't really have solutions, so feel free to ignore me.