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their names to some of the more important Mu Encyclopedia articles as reviewing editors, so they can be used to correct outdated information.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".

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

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