MAP Forum

The title probably doesn't elude to the question I'm actually trying to ask, I'll try explain it better.

It's common to talk about 'exclusive' and 'non exclusive' in relation to being a MAP. The non exclusive referring to having usual adult to adult attractions (for what it's worth that includes all 'mainstream' adult attraction, as in, not just heterosexual).

Expanding on non exclusive, would anyone say their attraction (MAP) falls into a wider group of taboo or 'off-limit' attractions or fantasies? For want of a better description, would you say that being MAP is more of a fetish or kink that's one of several? I don't want to trivialise being a MAP for anyone and I apologise if that's how my question is received. Like most things, everyone is a bit different and I'm curious to understand where it fits in for others.

Possibly irrelevant, but If being MAP is only one part of the overall picture for you, do you feel that you're more in control or less in control, if presented with a scenario that could escalate as a MAP if it presented itself.

I hope I've worded that correctly and make some sort of sense.

In my case, I would not consider it a "kink" or similar. I had feelings for much younger people than me since I was a kid myself, so I consider it an integral part of myself.

In my romantic relationships with adults, with some exceptions, I always tended to be with much younger partners. The child I see in them is an important factor in making the relationship harmonious.

My attraction is romantic first and foremost

I don't think it's a kink. I think it's an immutable, unchosen characteristic of who I am, like whether you're left or right-handed. It's always there in the background, whether you're fully paying attention to it or not.

in my opinion it is not a kink, it is the way how person feels. to be honest I might do mistakes 'cause I'm not really MAP because I'm a minor. but I already said what I think about it

It feels more like a sexuality to me although I've never felt happy with the concept of sexuality as a real thing anyway.
I'm a biological human and I'm attracted to other biological humans, the same as most other biological humans. The characteristics of humans are very broad. Hair colour, height, eye colour, gender, shape, age, personality and so on. But we love to create categories so we say people who like people by gender are gay or straight and that's a sexuality, but that can change or be percentage based and for every other characteristic we say it isn't a sexuality but a preference.

That just feels artifical and meaningless to me, creating categories and adding more and more as we go through LGBTQ+ and straight and map and people only into Asian women and black men and so on.

I tend to think I'm attracted to young people because I am, I'm genetically predisposed to that and didn't choose it. So that's like a sexuality but then there are people only attracted to short Asian women and that could be as clearly defined as a sexuality.

Outis wrote: Sun Aug 17, 2025 7:01 pm That just feels artifical and meaningless to me, creating categories and adding more and more as we go through LGBTQ+ and straight and map and people only into Asian women and black men and so on.

I think you're on to something in that the language around sexuality is lacking. And I believe this is a direct result of the fact that education around sexuality is lacking.

The way I see it is this: In order to have sex, you need at least one other person. Your sexual orientation is all about describing who you prefer that other person to be. Currently we only describe this in terms of their gender. But in practice, people find that they have preferences for all sorts of physical characteristics. Including, gender, race, size, shape, hair color, and yes, age as well. Some people's orientation does not rely on the physical characteristics at all, but more like personality traits. Either way, I'm of the opinion that none of these preferences is more "valid" than the other, and the way we talk about it should reflect that.

RoosterDance wrote: Mon Aug 18, 2025 1:55 am The way I see it is this: In order to have sex, you need at least one other person. Your sexual orientation is all about describing who you prefer that other person to be. Currently we only describe this in terms of their gender. But in practice, people find that they have preferences for all sorts of physical characteristics. Including, gender, race, size, shape, hair color, and yes, age as well. Some people's orientation does not rely on the physical characteristics at all, but more like personality traits. Either way, I'm of the opinion that none of these preferences is more "valid" than the other, and the way we talk about it should reflect that.

I would like there to be a utilitarian approach.
Why does a person state that they are heterosexual? Simply to signal to people of the opposite sex that they are potentially available for an approach. Preferences can then be ethnic or age-based. Everything else, I find rather irrelevant unless it’s something absolutely essential. For example, if a masochist cannot have a relationship with someone else without that element, then it becomes important to state it.

So it’s no longer about an identity discourse tied to sexual orientation, but rather a public statement to let certain people know they don’t need to waste time approaching, since there’s no interest in them. Coming out as homosexual, then, is a way of telling the opposite sex to ignore them.

I would say my attraction to little girls is romantic in focus!

RoosterDance wrote: Mon Aug 18, 2025 1:55 am I think you're on to something in that the language around sexuality is lacking. And I believe this is a direct result of the fact that education around sexuality is lacking.

The way I see it is this: In order to have sex, you need at least one other person. Your sexual orientation is all about describing who you prefer that other person to be. Currently we only describe this in terms of their gender. But in practice, people find that they have preferences for all sorts of physical characteristics. Including, gender, race, size, shape, hair color, and yes, age as well. Some people's orientation does not rely on the physical characteristics at all, but more like personality traits. Either way, I'm of the opinion that none of these preferences is more "valid" than the other, and the way we talk about it should reflect that.

I think you are right, there's no reason why gender alone should be more important than any other characteristic. A gay man with an interest in another man would want to know if they are gay so that they know if their affection could be returned, if not then there's little point pursuing a relationship. But that's the same along other characteristics as well where it determines if a mutual attraction is possible. But we don't explicitly talk about other traits, only gender, we just leave it to body language and words to determine if there's mutual attraction on other traits. I had a friend who used to do speed dating but he had a thing for tall blonds and immediately rejected anyone who wasn't a tall blond, he just didn't feel attraction to others. It seemed a waste of everybodies time to me that he would go speed dating and skip through people until he found a tall blond, who usually rejected him because he wasn't her type either. If we had the language and weren't afraid to use it then we could more quickly and honestly find compatible mates, or we just drop the language completely and leave it to natural attraction to determine if two people click.