MAP Forum

I hate the term non-offending pedophile because it implies that most pedophiles are molesters and offend against children and that non-offenders don't do that even though the reality is most pedophiles are non-offending and i hate that we have to make this distinction.

I hate the term, too.

The guy who started the concept needs to be suffocated by a million naked 11 year old boys!

We need to replace it with “chill pedophile”. A guy who may/may not have offended in the past but is trying to be better and not harm anyone.

I think the point he was trying to make was that all PEDOPHILES are not monsters. But if A PEDOPHILE harms A child we are all branded the same way. Which is not true.

Keith wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:02 pm I think the point he was trying to make was that all PEDOPHILES are not monsters. But if A PEDOPHILE harms A child we are all branded the same way. Which is not true.

You're right, but that doesn't make it any less strange. It's like an immigrant showing up to xenophobes declaring themselves "non-criminal immigrant", as if by default all immigrants were criminals.

BLueRibbon wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 10:57 am I hate the term, too.

The guy who started the concept needs to be suffocated by a million naked 11 year old boys!

D...damn...that fucked with my head. Time to come up with a new term for my pride flag...

mrlolicon93 wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 10:34 am I hate the term non-offending pedophile because it implies that most pedophiles are molesters and offend against children and that non-offenders don't do that even though the reality is most pedophiles are non-offending and i hate that we have to make this distinction.

I personally dislike the term because it's an admission that adult-child sex is wrong. You're submitting to the antis moral frame by regarding it as an "offence". ""Anti-contact" and pro-contact" are more appropriate. It may be referring to the actual legal "offence", but I think it's still better to avoid language that concedes to their moral framing.

Offending means striking, killing, just like during fencing. But in 65% of CSA cases it is the minor who starts sex with the adult. It means, in more than half of "offences" it is the "child" who offends, and the MAP is the victim. If we call offensive only non-wanted CSA, it gets less than 15% of cases.

MrJC1201 wrote: Mon Feb 16, 2026 1:26 pm "Anti-contact" and pro-contact" are more appropriate.

No way! A quarter of CSA incidents are non-contact; in the US ~10K, in the EU ~10K, and worldwide ~100K of people are imprisoned for nothing more than just watching CP; and 40% of CP criminal cases are for "fictional abuse".

The best is to speak about law-ambient MAPs and others. In continental languages exists a term pedocriminal, which can be distinguished from more general pedophile. In Russian one may use terms "растлитель" and "педофил" which have the same meanings.

Keith wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:02 pm I think the point he was trying to make was that all PEDOPHILES are not monsters. But if A PEDOPHILE harms A child we are all branded the same way. Which is not true.

Respectfully, I consider anyone harming a child not a MAP, not a pedophile, and certainly should not be embraced by this community.

The people who call themselves this non-offender a farce and facade.
Because they call themselves that in hopes to not share the same hate and ridicule that comes for those who do not call themselves self so safe place label.

It is a illusion to think that if there was no treat of prosecution that group would not seek the comforts of a young partner.

Simply one is a MAP; they are either for children's rights of choice or they are still attracted and have their own way to protecting children. Even if it goes against the pro-c members of the MAP community.
I think all groups in the MAP community is about the best interests of the freedoms and rights of children (to make their own choice).