MAP Forum

Most discussions about how best to refer to ourselves place their focus solely on maps while leaving out AAMs. I feel that this semantic separation suggests that AAMs are only a peripheral part of our community; like allies, they support us and associate with us, but they are not one of us. I think this is a mistake, for MAAs and AAMs are two sides of the same coin. Intergen relationships are incomplete without both parts. If we want AAMs to join us and to campaign with us, then we really ought to show them that they are an integral part of our community. As we search for an ideal name for ourselves, let us find one that reflects this.

I suspect that many of you have read or are otherwise familiar with After The Fall: A Beginner's Guide to Destroying Pedophobia in the 21st Century and its proposition that we use the word "kind" to refer to ourselves. With its English connotations of warmth and love, and its German definition translating directly to "child," I think "kind" is an excellent candidate. The one issue, however, is that, although it does a great job of linking maps and AAMs together, it might just bring us a little too close together. Like yin and yang, we are indeed two parts of one whole, but those parts are distinct. How do we find a naming convention that respects this distinct-yet-connected dynamic?

Continuing to take inspiration from the yinyang, we find two options. One is to use a word family, where one word refers to maps (yang), another related word refers to AAMs (yin), and the two are married together by a third umbrella term (yinyang). Let's look at an example using flowers. "Buds" or "sprouts," full of potential, could refer to AAMs; while maps are beautiful "blossoms." The two would be joined together by the word "flower." Our relationships, then, would be described as "floral relationships" or "flower couples." The second of the two options is to use a compound word (yinyang) to describe the grouping of maps and AAMs together, then use the two parts to refer to maps (yang) and AAMs (yin), respectively. Since I liked the "kind" proposal so much, I'll use "kindhearted" as an example here. In this example, maps are "kind" and AAMs are our beating "heart." Together we are "kindhearted" or "kindhearts."

My apologies if these examples are unsatisfactory - I've never been good at naming things. My goal here is not to present a final draft but instead to reopen the conversation about what we call ourselves with a newfound focus on including AAMs in the discourse and in our movement. Thank you for reading, and feel free to join the conversation and share any feedback, especially if you're an AAM. What words would you use to describe yourself as an AAM? Would you consider yourself one of us or something separate? I look forward to seeing your perspectives.

I do think it would be nice if AAMs were a bigger part of our community and we were able to use more inclusive language. Unlike homosexual relationships, though, adult-minor relationships do have an inherent asymmetry to them. The yin and yang metaphor is nice. I'm not sure that changing the language would really accomplish much, though. I'm also not actually sure that MAPs necessarily even need their YFs to be attracted to them, either. Restricting discussion to AAMs feel limiting. A YF can have a satisfying relationship with a BL or GL without being attracted to them. BL/GL and YF relationships don't need to copy adult-adult relationship dynamics. Personally, I think it's better when they don't.

For one thing, AAMs face very different challenges to what MAPs face. AAMs (and minors generally) face the broader injustice of how youth are controlled by adults. But they don't get imprisoned if they look at porn of adults. They aren't seen as suspicious or creepy if they approach an adult. If they do have a relationship, they might lose their partner to prison but they themselves are not incarcerated. AAMs are basically invisible in pop culture, while MAPs are only represented as predatory.

I actually think AAMs need to make organizations independent of MAPs, too. And then we can work together in unison. Lesbians were not included in early gay rights organizations- they had their own.

So while your idea is interesting, I'm not sure personally that it has enough behind it to motivate a big change in how we operate as a community.