MAP

A MAP is a person who has minor attraction. “MAP” stands for “Minor-Attracted Person.”

Pronunciation
There are two distinct ways to pronounce the word “MAP.” The most common one is constructed as an acronym, the word is pronounced just like “map,” the object of cartography. The second one, constructed as an initialism, requires reading it as [em ei pi]. In writing, they are differentiated by the choice of article: “a” or “an.” Historically, the second way to read and pronounce came first.

Derivatives
In popular usage, the word “MAP” has led the following derivatives:

ACMAP
“Anti-contact MAP,“ denoting a MAP who is ideologically anti-contact regarding youth age gap contact discourse.

ACNOMAP
“Anti-contact non-offending MAP,” usually utilized by the radicals and assimilationists of the anti-contact movement. Coined by a person named Rainbow in 2019.

NOMAP
A nomap is a non-offending MAP.

SOMAP
“Semi-offending MAP,” a troll term coined by a confirmed anti who ran the fake MAP blog pinkpetal-pedo. It was implied that the term denotes a MAP that has sex with consenting children, but actual pro-contact MAPs do not use this term.

Mapness
The state of being a MAP. The term differs from “minor attraction” by shifting the focus from the attraction itself onto the whole spectrum of social and psychological aspects of this identity.

Mapmisia
Mapmisia is prejudice and hate towards maps. Coined by Kamui in 2019. It is possible to also call mapmisiacs “antis” or “anti-MAPs.”

Criticism from anti-MAPs
Many antis subscribe to the belief that “MAP” was an attempt at “rebranding” to make pedophilia seem “cutesy,” “watered-down,” “less dangerous,” or otherwise more palatable to an anti-pedophile public, despite the fact that it clearly would not and did not work: nearly every anti-pedophile with access to social media now knows what “MAP” means; those who do not know and ask are quickly informed; those who are told of the existence of the term without further context never automatically accept it either, as they are against attraction to minors as a whole as well. Antis claim MAPs’ goal is to “normalize” pedophilia, despite the fact that many prominent pedophile and MAP activists are staunchly against the concept of compulsory normativity and believe acknowledging non-normativity deserves equal respect, rather than attempting to assimilate their traits into the social concept of “normal,” is necessary for MAP liberation. Even assimilationist MAPs who believe their attractions are normal and that “normal = good, abnormal = bad” do not believe rebranding as MAPs is conducive to their goal of normalization: in fact, many of them actively reject “MAP” as too pathologizing or abnormalizing, and prefer “pedophile,” “childlover,” or “youthlover” instead.

Non-MAP researchers such as Allyn Walker have claimed usage of the term “MAP” instead of “pedophile” is conducive to destigmatization. B4U-ACT has also made this claim. However, nearly every other MAP activist strongly disagrees with that proposal for its assimilationism, and supports the reclamation of and/or openly reclaims the label “pedophile” as part of their identities. They believe having the separate acronym “MAP” is only useful as an inclusive umbrella term for nepiophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, and sometimes ephebophiles, not as a political tool for assimilation.

There is also a widespread belief that the “MAP rebranding” was an attempt to “make pedophiles a part of the LGBTQ+.” However, MAP activists did not actually do this; queermisic antis from 4chan did, in attempt to “make the LGBTQ+ look bad.” Meanwhile, many MAPs do fall under the LGBTQ+ umbrella even by its current popular conceptualization because they are non-heterosexual or non-heteroromantic, because they are transgender or otherwise non-cisgender, because they are intersex, and/or sometimes (depending on their individual self-identification and the degree of inclusionism among LGBTQ+ activists ) because they are polyamorous. Several MAPs who technically fall under this definition of “LGBTQ+” nevertheless reject it, disliking its acronym or aesthetics or community or assimilationist implications, and prefer instead to simply identify as “queer.” A few queer MAPs have also argued for consistently principled radical inclusionism, including not forbidding monoperiallocishet MAPs from identifying as LGBTQ+ or queer, as they believe queerness should not be strictly defined or gatekept. Approximately one or two LGBTQ+ (by the above definition) MAPs claim their mapness is also LGBTQ+ and/or that mapness should be considered by default LGBTQ+, and a few more queer MAPs claim their mapness is also a part of their queerness and/or that mapness is inherently queer. Some queer MAP activists, such as Lecter, have expressed disagreement with the idea of mapness and other paraphilias being considered inherently queer, instead wanting the general policy to be that considering one’s mapness or other paraphilias as queer is opt-in rather than opt-out. Other queer MAP activists, such as chronic, believe the above should be opt-in if a sufficiently low percentage of MAPs want mapness to be opt-out as inherently queer, and should be opt-out if a sufficiently high percentage of MAPs want mapness to be opt-out as inherently queer.

Gay non-MAP researcher James Cantor has attempted to speak for pedophiles, claiming consistent application of the principles which “give” gay people their rights necessitates default inclusion of pedophilia as part of the LGBTQ+. His statement has been criticized by LGBTQ+ MAPs as well as numerous antis.

Criticism from MAPs
Anti-assimilationist MAPs have criticized the “MAP” acronym for defining their attractions by centering antis’ perspectives on whose attractions deem them worthy of stigmatization, oppression, or suffering, rather than by intrinsic traits of the attractions themselves (see: the discourse surrounding whether or not ephebophilia should be included or inherently included in mapness). Non-Western MAPs have criticized the term for being USA-centric because it contains the term “minor,” a legal construct which does not exist in every country. Youth liberationist MAPs have criticized the term for containing the term “minor,” as the construct of a “minor” is an oppressive one which they wish to abolish. Queer MAPs have criticized the term for resembling “same-sex attracted,” a term which originated from proponents of conversion therapy. “Youth-oriented” has been proposed as a potential alternative, but it has not gained any traction or actual individual usage apart from the adjacent “youthlover” common in amatonormative pro-contact circles, which was coined previously and separately.