MAP Forum

It is interesting as someone who is fairly new to AAM/MAP issues, to see that both sides of the contact debate say that the other side are appeasing hatred of our people. Anti-contact say that pros are taking part in sexual culture that is practiced by our haters. Pro-contact say that antis agreeing with our prosecutors by supporting the view that intergenerational love is wrong. I am hoping to find out more from both sides to this 'civil war'.
Thank you and kind regards to both camps

DANAT4T wrote: Tue Dec 30, 2025 12:16 am It is interesting as someone who is fairly new to AAM/MAP issues, to see that both sides of the contact debate say that the other side are appeasing hatred of our people. Anti-contact say that pros are taking part in sexual culture that is practiced by our haters. Pro-contact say that antis agreeing with our prosecutors by supporting the view that intergenerational love is wrong. I am hoping to find out more from both sides to this 'civil war'.
Thank you and kind regards to both camps

Anti-MAPs practicing a sexual culture? Could you explain what you mean by that, please?

YES!
I have encountered antis say this. I do not personally believe in the concept of 'sexual culture' in the same way that I don't believe in 'childhood innocence'. I have no problems though when parents say think of the children. If they have girls there is a decent chance I am thinking of them.
I HOPE I HAVE CLEARED THINGS UP!

P.S.
WHAT IS THE FANTASY OF AN ADOLESCENT GAY BOY
CATHOLIC PRIEST

DANAT4T wrote: Tue Dec 30, 2025 12:16 am It is interesting as someone who is fairly new to AAM/MAP issues, to see that both sides of the contact debate say that the other side are appeasing hatred of our people. Anti-contact say that pros are taking part in sexual culture that is practiced by our haters. Pro-contact say that antis agreeing with our prosecutors by supporting the view that intergenerational love is wrong. I am hoping to find out more from both sides to this 'civil war'.
Thank you and kind regards to both camps

Do you really mean "appease"? I've seen anti-contact MAPs say we make it harder for MAPs, but I've never seen them say we are appeasing people who hate us.

In my experience pro-contacts tend to be more diplomatic and anti-contacts tend to be more exclusionary with how they interact with each other.

I support all sexual expressions from an infant boy wanting to be breastfed by a woman he has a crush on to an elderly man who wants to give all his inheritance to his sugar baby wife. I am a big fan of NAMBLA even though I do not share their interests. I believe that people normally hate the people they think are betraying them, e.g. trans feminists hating gender critical feminists, MAGA hating never Trumpers, etc.. I unfortunately believe that MAPS have fallen victim to divide and conquer.

PorcelainLark wrote: Sat Jan 03, 2026 10:24 pm In my experience pro-contacts tend to be more diplomatic and anti-contacts tend to be more exclusionary with how they interact with each other.

I once saw someone anti-contact call for pro-contact MAPs and allies to be forcibly reeducated unironically, so I'm inclined to believe you on that

I think context makes all the difference in this case. A pro-contact person is someone who, ultimately, is on the side of one of the most despised groups of people and is discussing topics that won’t involve other groups on which they could vent their basest instincts.

A pro-contact person doesn’t really have categories they can condemn to death—maybe only some political party they dislike, or some organization, or some nation. An anti-contact person, on the other hand, can simply draw on all anti-MAP rhetoric even if they belong to the category themselves, like a sort of self-racism, or take more nuanced positions while still condemning with the same intensity as a non-MAP person a sexual relationship.

Actually, I take back what I said—there is the category of rapists, whom a pro-contact person can condemn without appeal. But I think, for several reasons, it’s not exactly a pleasant topic in a pro-contact environment, since society treats them as part of the same category, even if they aren’t. Although I think there was already a post with the idea of going after rapists to legitimize oneself in the eyes of society, but I might be remembering wrong.

(I’m writing this in general, in relation to the whole discussion.)

To me, the standard anti-contact position is very naive.

People hate our deviance, even when it's only in our minds and never translated into action.

Protecting children from harm is merely an excuse for our detractors. It allows them to pretend they're not simply hateful and intolerant, even though they are.

Normalizing minor-attraction pulls the rug from under their feet, and deproblematizing AMSC attacks the 'justification'.

Having a pity party while decrying AMSC achieves little.

Scorchingwilde wrote: Sun Jan 04, 2026 5:05 am I once saw someone anti-contact call for pro-contact MAPs and allies to be forcibly reeducated unironically, so I'm inclined to believe you on that

It says a lot that pro-contact spaces tolerate anti-contacts, but anti-contact spaces don't allow pro-contacts. Most pro-contacts are willing to put differences aside to focus on common goals (e.g. opposition to discrimination; collaboration on research) but anti-contacts tend to be suspicious of anything which isn't purely anti-contact. I've seen MAPs who won't even talk about the idea of "MAP rights" because they think it just means abolishing the age of consent.

I wish there could be a reconciliation, that we could get along better but the ball is in their court at this point. The "civil war" is largely perpetuated by their purism. At least on my part, the door will always be open to pragmatic anti-contacts.