MAP Forum

Something I missed from Feb, 2024:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile_advocacy_groups

But now, the article is searchable. I welcome Frans Gieles and other authors to put their names to some of the more important Mu Encyclopedia articles as reviewing editors, so they can be used to correct outdated information. Frans himself agreed to this (he is part of groups such as JON/Ipce similar articles describe inaccurately as pro-c sex advocacy groups), but is getting old, so we should get something put together soon. Perhaps fast-track the publication of that encyclopedia article (MAP Organizations).

In the Characteristics chapter I read (italic and bold are mine):

"Such beliefs contradict the academic literature that asserts that sexual behaviors between adults and children are harmful."

and

"This belief is illustrated by the following except coming from their literature"

Why their literature is relative, while the academic literature is absolute? Shouldn't "the academic literature" be replaced by "some academic literature"?

Needs a mention of Mu.

The whole set, including the "list of..." article needs bringing up-to date. But imbeciles on wiki have made actual arguments defending the misuse of "pedophile" (completely contrary to Wikipedia's own page on Pedophilia) and the exclusion of Virped/B4U-ACT, who are apparently saintly harm-reduction organizations, with 100% supervision.

There MUST be material we can quote to include the NOMAP orgs in the paradigm, then push for expanding it to "pedophile and hebephile support groups".

Pedophile advocacy groups are organizations that advocate for the abolishment or lowering of the age of consent and the normalization of adult sexual relations with children.

What a narrow definition. It also includes various governmental organizations at various times. Especially since they are only talking about "lowering", rather than specifying what degree of lowering. Wasn't there a proposal in the UK to lower it from 16 to 15 a few years back? Proposals in California to reduce it from 18 to 16 would also count as "pedophile advocacy" while B4U-Act would not.

I didn't add, this follows the consecutive failed attempts over a decade ago to define "Pedophile activism", "Childlove movement", "Pro-pedophile activism" and "Pedophile movement" as something that stood apart from gay rights.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061013080 ... e_activism

https://web.archive.org/web/20071207141 ... e_movement

https://web.archive.org/web/20081218233 ... e_activism

I guess compared to the massive debate inducing

argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse children

advocate for the abolishment or lowering of the age of consent and the normalization of adult sexual relations with children

is substantially better. Those old articles were much more robust, though. Makes me realize how little the last 2+ decades have accomplished, though. Almost all the goals on the list could still be listed.

1. Adoption of value-neutral terminology.
2. Redefining the term child sexual abuse.
3. Promoting the idea that children can consent to sexual activity with adults.
4. Questioning the assumption of harm.
5. Promoting "objective" research.
6. Declassification of pedophilia as mental illness.

We seem to have made some small progress on 1 with the use of "MAP", but only in terms of identity, not in terms of expanding AMSC and CSA. We've also made some small progress on 6 with people like Seto putting forward age based sexual orientations.

The list seems to largely focus on perceptions of AMSC as CSA, though. With a lot of overlap and being explicitly pro-c. But it's an approach that doesn't seem to have worked, I agree with AMSC as a term, but the narrative needs to shift in a different direction. Rather than trying to convince people, perhaps we should just assert it. "If I had sex with a minor I'd make sure not to abuse them". A confident personal narrative approach rather than playing defensively.

This article improved since the last time i read it. Last time it was directly biased against maps by claiming that groups sanctioned child abuse, which is a loaded term.

Even if someone does not approve of maps, a neutral article will still help them understand our cause and perhaps make them less likely to think of us all as evil or abusive. Im happy Tom O'carroll gets a mention there too. His work is excellent. I highly recommend maps read his book the Radical Case