Brian Ribbon

Much of my writing on MAP issues is focused outward, looking at how horribly the world treats us. Given the shocking extent of misunderstanding, oppression, murder, and all the other nastiness, this is hardly surprising. However, sometimes it's important to look inward. In a recent essay on Newgon Wiki, I asked MAPs why our community is so apathetic. In this relatively brief article, I will be discussing ways in which we need to chill.

Contact stances

One of the major divides in the MAP community is 'pro-choice' (or pro-contact) versus 'anti-contact'. Supporters of the pro-choice position typically argue that AMSC is not always harmful and advocate changes in the law. Supporters of the anti-contact position argue that AMSC is harmful and/or morally wrong, and do not advocate legal changes.

To many members of the pro-choice community, anti-contact advocates are traitors who would like to see them thrown in prison. Meanwhile, a lot of people in the anti-contact community view pro-choice supporters as dinosaurs with no regard for the well-being of children. On both sides, there is a great deal of attachment to pure ideals, and feelings of significant anger toward the other.

There are absolute extremes, such as VirPed which requires members to believe that AMSC is always inherently wrong. The group won't admit new members unless they subscribe fully to their mantra. This is unhelpful. However, for the most part the differences in contact ideology are overplayed. I recently introduced the pro-reform framework, which calls for cautious legal changes including a hybrid AoC of 16/12. This was met with support by people on either side of the supposedly huge divide, showing that it is possible to reach agreement.

The reality is that most pro-choice advocates don't want children to be harmed, and most anti-contact advocates don't want to see adult participants in AMSC going to prison for fifty years. Both 'sides' should seek to find common ground, and form a more united front against the real enemies of the MAP community.

Ideology and dogfights

Another point of contention, that reflects general social and political trends, is the polarization of positions on social issues in general. Although the MAP community overall leans left and liberal, there are certainly members that swing to one extreme or the other. In addition, there are many people who quickly label others extremists over trivial issues and minor disagreements. It's a confusing mess for a group of people that, given their stigmatized sexual orientation, at least ought to be somewhat liberal.

One site that has been a victim of quite extreme 'Nazi' allegations, essentially down to a silly spat over a flag that led to endless drama and mudslinging, is Newgon. Although the site is avoidant of political correctness, and there are some parts that could possibly be rewritten to reflect recent shifts in social thought since material was first added almost twenty years ago, I do not think the site comes across badly as a whole. As a longtime ally of Newgon's owner, and low-level contributor to the wiki, I can attest that while Jim is not the smoothest of socialites and no expert at treading on eggshells, he is very much not a Nazi, nor even 'right wing'. Allied site PCMA, which has faced similar accusations, has admittedly had issues with slurs and intolerance that have bothered me significantly as a moderate liberal. However, the administrators are working to deal with problematic users and improve the tone, and I encourage moderate MAPs to join and help shape it for the better. There are plenty of rational heads there among the problematic noise; its leader Jack is an intelligent person and not an extremist.

On the other side of the Newgon spat, we have groups like NNIA, which aim to form radical alliances between MAPs and other stigmatized sexual identities. They have many members with complex sexual and gender identities, and they push for the acceptance of sadists as well as other communities that are not normally allied with the MAP community. Allying too closely with sadists concerns me somewhat; it contradicts a key message that I endorse as the Mu strategist, that MAPs are not inherently sadistic, and feel the same range of loving emotions as non-MAPs. However, I do feel there is a need for a place that accepts people who do not feel accepted elsewhere. For those who feel they don't fit in well with MAP-specific spaces, or any kind of singular space for paraphiles, NNIA offers a place to call home. Other MAPs should support spaces like this, and accept that MAPs with sadistic feelings are very much worthy of support as long as they don't act on them unethically.

Newgon and NNIA are unfortunately engaged in an all-out war over what started as a disagreement about who created the MAP flag (a topic in which I have zero interest), and worsened over a clash in views over paraphilia inclusivity and contact stances. The war has escalated into alleged doxxing, claims of supporting the dissemination of illegal images (which I have never seen on either resource), and a long list of other complaints that are frankly silly and annoying to read through. The overall picture is of two community leaders, both of whom have the potential to lead the movement, wasting endless amounts of time and energy on thesis-length articles about why the other is the baddie. There are no winners, other than perhaps anti-MAPs, and I doubt that anyone except the two authors themselves have read their entire articles.

The 'left-right' debate - though it is much more than a binary disagreement in reality - is a waste of energy. It is a silly and childish drama that goes nowhere. Using more inclusive language and avoiding slurs isn't hard; MAPs of all people should be more understanding of how much hateful messages can cause harm. Likewise, it should not be expected for a major collection of information to immediately update its mass of articles every time there is a shift in how language is used, and writing not intended to insult should not be interpreted as an attack. Both 'sides' need to be cognizant of how they speak, and be more tolerant of the language the other uses barring intentional slurs.

Vets and next-gen

Another issue within the MAP community is that of meanness from its long-term members. For all that many of the online MAP forums were set up to be peer support sites, a lot of them have developed a mean streak that can be quite off-putting to all but the most seasoned of veteran trolls.

BoyChat, the original MAP site, is one of the worst offenders, where hostility is almost a given for posts that consider anti-contact stances, trans identities, pro-research positions, anti-violence, and so on. While the board is no doubt lurked by all the community veterans, and a useful reference point as such, the tone these days could hardly be further from what was intended at the point of its creation in the 90s. Despite the energy and effort that I and others contribute to building the community and its base of research and arguments, Mu's authors are frequently 'flamed' over trivial matters when our articles are posted on BC. I personally find it amusing when targeted, as the attacks are so childishly ridiculous and petty, but it would be enough to put a lot of people off, especially those in their late teens or their twenties. How are we going to form a real movement if we scare away the young activists?

Recently, Tom O'Carroll upset a lot of younger MAPs with his surprisingly intolerant and coarse take on the trans community. While he is certainly of an older generation, community legends and social reformists such as TOC should not be writing like Daily Mail journalists, especially about communities that are adjacent to ours. There are many people, identifying as both trans and MAP, who look up (or rather, used to look up) to TOC. These people are left feeling bitterly disappointed and demotivated by his casual disregard for what is a very significant part of their identity, as discussed at length in B4U-Act's B4um, where the article caused a lot of upset.

It seems that there is a schism between the older and younger generation, just as there are huge fractures over social issues. As a millennial-led group, Mu aims to bridge this gap, being somewhere in the middle both chronologically and socially.

How can we foster MAP unity?

• MAPs as one front, respecting each other's differences

The term 'MAP' was endorsed and widely propagated by B4U-Act for three major reasons. According to private correspondence with Richard Kramer, he originally adopted Heather Peterson's 'MAA' terminology because of the conflation of attraction and action inherent in the term 'pedophile'. Secondly, he felt that a term was needed to refer to all kinds of minor-attraction; 'pedophilia' technically only refers to an attraction to non-infant prepubescents. Thirdly, his organization moved onto using the term 'MAP' due to the significant number of older minors identifying as attracted to younger minors. Indeed, shortly before his decision, I had been using the term 'minor-attracted person' in public-facing material, having joined the community as a pedophilic minor myself and seeking less emotional language to use for advocacy.

The term MAP was supposed to be emotionally neutral and highly inclusive, but has now simply been replaced with many sub-identities, unfortunately leading to fights. To build up an activist base, we need to be united as MAPs in public, fighting behind a singular identity. The public won't care much for all the different paraphilias, not until they have grasped the basics. Meanwhile, 'vanilla' MAPs need to be more respectful and supportive of the sub-identities. If someone wants to identify as agefluid or a trans-zoomap in a private community, be nice to them and be willing to affirm their identity instead of finding a way to insult them. There is nothing to be gained by using slurs or being an asshole in any other way. Likewise, people with complex identities should not assume malicious intent when another community member, especially an older person, inadvertently uses language that is now considered outdated.

The wars and grudges, as seen between Newgon and NNIA, also need to stop. There are lesser examples; I have a 'fan' on BoyChat who has made a hobby of criticizing every project or article I'm involved in. I could waste endless hours arguing with him, but I simply don't respond, allowing him to make himself look like a moron while I focus on productive tasks. Arguing with your detractors all day means allowing them to control you and waste your time. Community leaders like Jim (Newgon), Lecter (NNIA) and TOC are valuable assets who should act as positive role models for others.

• Endorse the pro-reform framework as a moderate stance

My pro-reform framework is intended to balance the demands of pro-c and anti-c activists, be presentable to the public, and offer young people significant protections while respecting their agency. A key tenet is the argument that even if one is anti-c, it is better not to actively endorse the idea that AMSC is always wrong, for the simple reason that such a belief predicates almost every anti-MAP argument. That doesn't mean actively endorsing AMSC or any kind of major reform. In fact, the reforms proposed by the framework are quite balanced and not far removed from progressive thoughts that have been thrown around in Europe, making them at least remotely feasible.

My hope is that those endorsing the pro-reform framework will come across as balanced and thoughtful, concerned about the well-being of MAPs and young people, and ultimately pragmatic about their approach to MAP advocacy.

Please feel free to discuss this article on our forum thread.