I don't think use of the term "MAP" has been as effective as you say it is in changing public opinion about pedophiles or pedophilia. I also don't think "anti-contact" advocacy is a viable path to what I would consider actual worthwhile change, such as age-of-consent law reform. In all the instances of activism you refer to, I don't think using "pedophile" instead of "MAP" would have been any less effective in communicating with the public and convincing people. If anything, I think "MAP" comes across as trying to sugarcoat attraction to children and therefore might be viewed even more negatively by the majority of people than "pedophile". Just look at the comments of any of the youtube videos about MAPs, saying stuff like "I'm not a murderer, I'm a violence attracted person" and "I'm not a burglar, I'm an 'other people's property attracted person". The reaction the term MAP tends to illicit from the general public isn't acceptance - it's scorn and derision. the value-neutral language used is clearly effective from an advocacy perspective because even intelligent and open-minded people are swayed by the silly emotions to which they think they're immune. I don't think so. If someone is open-minded and willing to think critically about pedophiles, pedophilia, and child-adult sex, I don't think using the term "pedophile" instead of "MAP" would dissuade them from doing so. Likewise, if someone is too prejudiced and close-minded to be open-minded about these things, using "MAP" instead of "pedophile" isn't going to magically change that. I'd rather just use "pedophile" and address the negative connotations it carries head-on than try to sidestep them with a more fashionable term. That said, I do think there is some merit to the idea of value-neutral language, and I favor using "child-adult sex" or something similar instead of "child sexual abuse", since referring to all sex between adults and children as "abuse" is unfair and begging the question. |