Threaded index Date index FAQ
Eric T. is wrong on the big beasts of Sexolology.
Posted by JohnHolt on 2025-April-19 17:20:14, Saturday|
One of the common myths, or sleights of hand peddled about by NAMBLAns when attacking the use of "Minor Attracted Person", and its now largely deemphasized acronym, MAP, or Map as sometimes styled, is the idea that sexology's "big beasts" support its use. This is, I suppose done to make it look like the term has become trendy among pathologisers. It is their equivalent of QAnon claiming the "left" and "gay alphabet mafia" is "including the MAPs in the plus", to "normalise pedophilia". A more plausible answer to "pin it on the enemy". Before attempting to predict the future, and then chastising others for attempting exactly the same thing, Tazelaar claims in his recent post: Indeed, many sexologists, such as Mike Bailey, Ray Blanchard and James Cantor, have readily adopted the term "MAP"My emphasis. Knowing this not to be the case, I spent 5 minutes looking up what these figures have to say about the "MAP" term. Quoting Blanchard: For those not in the know, "MAPs" are "minor-attracted persons." This is basically equivalent, in my preferred clinical terminology, to pedophiles and hebephiles.https://x.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1099432574378741760 Quoting Bailey: "Minor attracted persons" (MAPs) hasn't worked out very well. Pedophilia is what it is. People need to learn to distinguish pedophilia from child molestationhttps://x.com/profjmb/status/1602122417987813377 Quoting Cantor: Here is a blog claiming I support the term "Minor Attracted Person." [...] Here is me saying I reject the term "Minor Attracted Person" (and why) [...] Who would have guessed that extremists would get basic facts wrong?https://x.com/JamesCantorPhD/status/1201938951847731200 Seto ("whether intentionally or not, I think MAP is too vague") has made similar statements, and similarly does not employ it in his copy. I have no idea why this myth persists, and can only offer the reasons at the start of this post, or some degree of confirmation bias.  |
Follow ups:
