Post a response:
|
Agreed! Although all three of those sexologists I mentioned HAVE used the term "MAP" without offering the criticisms John Holt had found, "pedophile" is almost certainly still their favored term. I'm not arguing that point, only that "MAP" is a whole lot less contentious, and therefore more socially acceptable, than "man-boy love" is. "MAP" is, at once, quasi-clinical sounding, i.e. strongly suggestive of a mental disorder and non-challenging in a way that any suggestion of a beneficial role to kids through our relationships could be. I suspect that they (Bailey, Blanchard and Cantor) have used "MAP" primarily when interacting WITH "MAPs." They are keen on destigmatizing pedophilia and distinguishing between the desire and the acting upon it ("molestation," according to all of them on VIRPED's website). They would almost certainly want, then, to use the terms being used by the "non-offending MAP's" themselves as a courtesy to those they see deserving of it, especially when engaging with people on social media, where I have encountered Bailey and Blanchard many times. Bailey's on Twitter a lot and we often exchange thoughts. He is peculiarly right-wing and inexplicably pro-Trump but he does hold the view that there's too much hysteria on the subject of "CSA." Even so, he recently pronounced Jon Benet Ramsey to have been murdered by a "pedophile" with, as far as I can tell, no evidence to substantiate it so we had an argument about that. I have now written to all three asking the following: "Do you find the term "MAP" to be an acceptable, and descriptive, identity? Please settle an argument :) Thanks!" We'll see what they say and I'll report back here when, or if, they respond. Probably more importantly, there has been some adoption of "MAP" on social media, in particular, by "normies," and only because "MAP" says nothing about "acting" upon it or suggesting that it's beneficial to kids. Just as B4U-Act! has operated within that plausibly deniable liminal space (and I'm not criticizing them for it - I understand the strategy) by using "MAP," its use by those not in this "attracted" community reflects its ambiguity, something "man-boy love" does not. They need this cover, too since no one wants to be seen to be "supporting pedophilia," such is the level of hysteria, today. Errant, yes, you're right, whether or not sexologists endorse the term "MAP" is not central to my thesis at all other than in establishing that, as with VIRPEDs, the more innocuous and unchallenging the language being offered, the more that the "normies" will find it acceptable. We must, however, as you say, get to the "relationship" part and not focus all of our attention on the adult's "condition." There is no getting around that this vaguely clinical-sounding term, "MAP" (which also manages to sound solipsistic) says NOTHING about relationships! And you're right, neither do "pedophile, hebephile," etc. say anything about relationships. "Relationships" and the clear implication of positive benefits that redound to both parties in a "relationship," are completely missing from these nouns, "MAP," included. Perhaps "MAP," especially as it is the only one of those designed BY "MAPs." Or, looked at perhaps from their perspective, "MAP" manages to sound like "a condition," one that was not chosen and one that should be treated humanely. Also, you really shouldn't "act" on it, either :) That comes through pretty strong through the context in which it is used. If one can use the term "MAP" or "pedophile" and not even think about actual relationships, as they clearly do not connote, as used, then they fail to provide us with a fully-functioning identity. I think that's a failure. "Gay," for example, certainly does somehow manage to connote relationships, even without saying anything in particular at all. I'm not sure how they did that except through the application of decades of association and the complete redefinition of a previously "perfectly good word." (: I strongly suspect that "MAP" was formulated to be a transitional and expedient concept that provided some limited cover and protection from the raging mob. I'm not sure how well it did that and, more importantly, see nothing to suggest that it advanced our liberty at all. But then, it has to be said, virtually nothing else has, either. Still, I understand the need for effort. ------ Not terribly important but here are some other researchers using the term "MAP" without criticizing it, as best as I can tell: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319559563_Comparison_of_Self-Identified_Minor-Attracted_Persons_Who_Have_and_Have_Not_Successfully_Refrained_From_Sexual_Activity_With_Children Just more playing to the "offending/non-offending" dividing line! |