On Bluesky, there are users who openly put “MAP” in their bios. Minor Attracted Person. Typed out proudly. Sometimes paired with long explanations about language, compassion, and how “labels hurt people”.
What they are really doing is laundering something vile.
“MAP” is a conscious effort to move the conversation away from what people instinctively understand and into territory where disgust is framed as cruelty. The reason people recoil at the word paedophile is not because society is ignorant. It’s because society understands exactly what it means.
Calling yourself a MAP instead of a paedophile does not make you safer. It does not make you enlightened. It does not make you part of some brave new conversation. It makes you someone trying to dodge moral judgement by playing word games.
This is not “stigma”. This is a boundary.
Children are not an orientation. They are not a preference. They are not an identity category for adults to build communities around. Any attempt to normalise attraction to children, even indirectly, is crossing a line that should never be blurred.
Click to view
What makes this especially disturbing is the environment that allows it to flourish. Platforms that pride themselves on being inclusive and progressive often lose the ability to say “no”. Everything becomes a matter of feelings. Everything becomes a matter of language. Everything becomes something that must be “understood”.
But some things do not need understanding. They need rejection.
When people call this out, they are not being hysterical. They are not being reactionary. They are responding the way normal humans do when faced with adults who admit attraction to kids and then demand empathy for it.
There is something profoundly broken about a culture that worries more about the feelings of people who label themselves MAPs than about the clear moral line that protects children.
If you are advertising that label publicly, you are not asking for help. You are asking for acceptance. That is exactly what should never be given.
Some lines exist for a reason. This is one of them. And anyone trying to erase it deserves to be confronted, not coddled.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
Some lines exist for a reason. This is one of them. And anyone trying to erase it deserves to be confronted, not coddled.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
We are not only talking about some rogue website here. Just look at the way the Msm rushed to the defense of Benjamin Doyle. Bussy was only humor they said. But nobody asked Doyle, Chloe or any of the other Greens or woke journalists what is funny about pedophilia.
The terms 'minor' and 'child' are not synonymous. The first is a legal term and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The second, if we are to get pedantic (which we have to), refers to pre-pubescent youngsters. A paedophile is someone sexually attracted to pre-pubescent kids. A useful term to know is 'hebephile' which refers to people sexually attracted to youngsters undergoing puberty - for convenience, usually defined as age 11-14. In most but not all jurisdictions, a 14-year-old is a 'minor' with reference to engaging in sexual activity.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.