MAP Forum

“My feelings are only valid because I don’t act on them” is not an affirming or supporting message.


It perpetuates Mapphobia by reinforcing the idea that we want to do something horrible. “You’re only one bad day away from acting” has much higher consequences if you accept that acting has disastrous consequences.


Contact skeptical MAPs should shift to language like “even actions done out of love can be harmful, so it’s better to be safe than sorry” instead of conceding that “offenders are monsters”.


Otherwise even non-offending MAPs will continue to be demonized.

Fragment wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 12:12 am Contact skeptical MAPs should shift to language like “even actions done out of love can be harmful, so it’s better to be safe than sorry” instead of conceding that “offenders are monsters”.


As a "contact skeptical MAP" I wholeheartedly agree. However, not all sexual encounters are motivated by love. Sexual exploitation does exist, and children are prime targets.

Red Rodent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 11:03 am As a "contact skeptical MAP" I wholeheartedly agree. However, not all sexual encounters are motivated by love. Sexual exploitation does exist, and children are prime targets.

Of course, but even "contact optimistic" MAPs never believe their proposals would lead to that. In theory exploitation and abuse would be just as illegal as they are now, even if age of consent laws were abolished.

I think that is actually a big different between optimistic and skeptic positions, though. The optimist can sometimes be naive to unintentional harm, while the skeptic can be overly fixated on it. I think that focusing on that as the area of difference between the positions makes them a whole lot more reconcilable that the "pro-c"/ "anti-c" divide. There's absolutely no reason for us to be as polarized as we are.

The next "pro-reform" article should be coming out shortly. Hopefully doing more to try and break down "contact stance" barriers.

Fragment, from what I read around the forum you are presenting very good and well reasoned points for bridging the gap between pro-c and anti-c. Kudos!

The next "pro-reform" article should be coming out shortly. Hopefully doing more to try and break down "contact stance" barriers.

I wish you the best of luck. I too prefer the words "pro reform ".

Touching a child, even if consensual, displays a lack of consideration, a lack of self-control, and possibly selfishness. Knowing what the consequences of committing this crime are and how they can affect the child and yet still doing it anyway shows you care more about your own satisfaction than about any kids, making you a monster.

In regard to sexual interactions having unintentional harm to children/minors, that is the same with any age group either due to a lack of communication, regretting the interaction due to societal/religious stigma despite enjoying the experience physically and emotionally, or finding out you were used as a toy after unknowingly getting pregnant or an std by someone that was more informed about sex despite you wanting to explore and enjoyed the sexual feelings you may have had.

I agree Fragment. I think some anti-contact / contact skeptical MAPs have a tendency to demonize MAPs who face legal charges, even if they don't deserve it.

In some cases this can be done unintentionally. News reporting on sexual offenses involving minors are rarely charitably framed, and some MAPs may not be ready or willing to question a specific story when they don't know anything about the real life situation themselves. This can lead to people assuming that those who are arrested must be the monsters the news frames them as. I would like to see more neutral language used when referring to those who face legal charges.

In some cases this is likely done out of self-preservation. When talking to non-MAPs the pressure to condemn all forms of AMSC is very strong. While I agree that this is not a good long term strategy, it may still be valuable as an interpersonal rhetorical tool.

Fragment wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 12:12 am “My feelings are only valid because I don’t act on them” is not an affirming or supporting message.


Typically the statement is "attraction is not action", which is distinct from a judgement on the validity of feelings. I consider feelings and attractions to be emotionally valid regardless of whether or not you act on them. I agree that it is important to emphasize that what most MAPs want is not a horrible thing and comes from a place of genuine love. However some people do in fact want to do horrible things, and these people deserve dignity as much as anyone else so long as they refrain from causing harm.

stropa wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 10:10 pm Touching a child, even if consensual, displays a lack of consideration, a lack of self-control, and possibly selfishness. Knowing what the consequences of committing this crime are and how they can affect the child and yet still doing it anyway shows you care more about your own satisfaction than about any kids, making you a monster.

You seem to be missing the point of the original post.

I'd also strongly disagree that selfish action inherently makes one a monster, especially when it is done while focusing on the feelings of the other.

I worked at a school where a lot of parents were pressuring their children into becoming doctors and lawyers. Some of those kids broke under the pressure. Some even stopped attending school entirely. The parents were motivated by love to a degree, but it was also their own selfish wish fulfilment driving them. And they ignored the damage they were causing.

I wouldn't call them monsters, though.

Nor would I call a thief who is acting out of their own self-interest without caring about their victim a monster.

Fragment wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 12:45 am I worked at a school where a lot of parents were pressuring their children into becoming doctors and lawyers. Some of those kids broke under the pressure. Some even stopped attending school entirely. The parents were motivated by love to a degree, but it was also their own selfish wish fulfilment driving them. And they ignored the damage they were causing.

I wouldn't call them monsters, though.

Nor would I call a thief who is acting out of their own self-interest without caring about their victim a monster.

The clear and obvious difference is that sex with a child is unnecessary unlike educational success. It provides no tangible benefit. You do not have to have sex with a child. In addition, sex with a child is highly illegal and taboo. The possible emotional ramifications of the child internalizing shame due to this taboo over time outweighs any benefit the child can get. It also outweighs any effort to attend to the child's feelings during and after sex. Moreover, if the crime is discovered or reported it can have even greater negative consequences. You are risking lifelong trauma to a child for 10 seconds of pleasure. That makes you a monster in my opinion.

Those overbearing parents with high expectations you talk about are doing what they believe is necessary. They believe the child's suffering is justified if it is the only path to success. Even in the West we allow children to suffer temporarily if it means they will benefit from it in the future (getting your shots, spanking, etc). If the parents don't understand that it is wrong then I wouldn't label them as monsters.