![\"\"](\"https:\/\/aboutpedophiliahome.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/12\/age-of-consent.png?w=856\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nIn that same vein, throughout this project, I sought to maintain neutral terminology to represent the differing viewpoints because I do not believe that being needlessly inflammatory, even towards people I vehemently disagree with, contributes to meaningful solutions. That is why I chose to use “sexual contact” instead of child sexual abuse and “recordings” instead of “child sexual abuse material.” This neutrality is intended both to capture some of the aforementioned nuances, and the idea that sexual images of children are not, in fact, all abusive and exploitative in nature. Sometimes, teenagers send nudes to one another or share them on the internet and are never harmed by doing so. Sometimes, a child has an experience that the law would call abuse, but was likewise not harmful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I do not believe it is correct or moral to attempt to tell these children that what they experienced was harmful, and I believe that attempting to convince them that they were harmed can be more harmful to those people. Where there is harm, there must<\/strong> be an intervention so that the harm stops, though there are currently no clear legal processes to my knowledge beyond prosecutorial discretion that try to make that distinction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Before I get to the meat of this, I need to point something out. There is the stereotype of “pro-contact” to mean “people who think kids can consent.” However, this is inaccurate<\/em><\/strong>. Most who fall on the “pro-contact” end of the spectrum still<\/em><\/strong> believe it is harmful under current circumstances to be sexual with a child. In other words, no<\/strong>, they do not “promote child rape” or “think maps can be sexual with kids.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n What they do<\/em> believe is that society and law should change in a variety of ways (often specific to their jurisdiction) around things like age of consent and other topics, and there is a high degree of nuance to that. In other words, some might think the age of consent should be changed to 14 when in their jurisdiction, 14 year old teenagers have other rights at 14, or they simply believe society should be consistent in how it treats people with regard to age restrictions. Yet in the United States, 18 is our “magic number,” which goes back to why I do not wade into age of consent conversations. From one point of view, it could simply be said that “pro-contact” means people that do wade into those conversations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some views are understandably considered to be harmful, and many minor attracted people tend to hate anyone associated with them due to past experience with individuals (blaming a whole group is a bit rude there, I think, and reeks of logical fallacies around generalization), because they blame them for adding to the stigma against minor attracted people, or because they simply find their views too repulsive or triggering. By the same token, what do you think happens when you let minor attracted people, who largely struggle with mental health issues, discuss a heated topic that many people feel very strongly about? <\/p>\n\n\n\n There are reasons the stigma is there, but I question how rational all of it is. What I would say, having now reached out to people holding these views for the purposes of doing this project, is that these people are people who have ample reason to hate me and never speak to me again. I have rudely blocked many of them, slandered them, and both intentionally and unintentionally contributed to the stigma and hate that gets thrown their direction. I have been an asshole<\/em> to them. They deserve<\/em> to hate me and ignore what I say. Yet when I began reaching out to these very people to do this project, many of them<\/em> apologized to me<\/em>. Go figure that one out. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I personally think it is possible to accept someone as a person, warts and all, and disagree vehemently with what they believe. We see examples of this in many places. We see religious groups collaborating and acting for religious tolerance, we see political groups reaching across the aisle to sponsor and push bipartisan legislation, people tolerating each other in the workplace… the list of examples is rather long and I think you get the picture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As individual people in the MAP community, you can of course do whatever you like. However, after being treated with kindness by multiple people whose views I disagree with, and believing that interacting with them would be a mistake that would go nowhere when I most certainly did not deserve their kindness… I cannot in good conscience do what many on Twitter have done and shut them out. I can, of course, ask that they respect my views and respect that my views will not change, but to treat them with the same stigma and hatred that I have in the past to me seems unproductive and unnecessarily cruel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This continuum\/spectrum has the following official<\/em> contributors: Timothy N. Fury, Ethan Edwards, Frankie, Bly Rede, Schloss, Pride. There were others who contributed ideas as well, but were indifferent or against being named.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Special note:<\/strong> These are terms that DO NOT fall into either spectrum, but rather are separate ideas reached for different reasons than the “traditional” pro\/anti binary that the MAP community has largely used. These terms should not be confused with any particular position on the contact or imagery spectrums, but should be considered as falling outside of both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No Labels\/Labeless<\/strong>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n These are people who refuse to use contact\/imagery labels at all. Some refuse to use labels because they believe there should be more unity in MAP communities and feel that labels are inherently divisive. Some refuse because they do not want to be pre-judged or stereotyped. Some do not want people labeling them based on conversations. Some refuse for other reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Youth Rights Movement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n These are to be seen as separate from the contact labels. Youth rights are issues relating to the civil rights of those currently legally classified as “minors”. The problems that youth rights tackle are related to laws that unfairly discriminate against the age of young people and it believes that the protectionist\/paternalist attitude of these well-intending legislations can actually become more detrimental than beneficial for our youth. For a more broad explanation of what youth rights are, this article<\/a> might prove to be helpful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Young Friends<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Beliefs around friendships with kids and how much that applies to the non-sexual contact a minor attracted person has with children. There are varying views which largely have nothing to do with the contact or imagery spectrums, save that some do believe that friendships with children can be\/are risky and that they themselves wish to avoid it (most of this view do not go around sharing it or imposing it on others).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Active Offender<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The rarest of the rare for minor attracted people. People who are actively having sexual contact with a child\/children and believe they are consenting to the contact, and believe this to be acceptable morally\/ethically even if it is illegal. Disregards legal authority for some reason or another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Passive Seeker<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Very rare for minor attracted people: People who want to have sexual contact with a child\/children, looking for opportunity they may not have yet for any number of reasons. Examples: Because the context is not right, because they think the children they know would not appreciate it, because they think they would be caught, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This section describes how minor attracted people generally view the morality of sexual contact with children, from “procontact” at the beginning to “anticontact” at the end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Generally speaking, this section refers to the viewing of imagery and beliefs around viewing, not the production of real images of children (not<\/strong><\/em> fiction, as you cannot argue that “producing” fictional material harms anyone), which is beyond the scope of this section and more accurately falls into the contact spectrum.<\/p>\n\n\n\nA Note On “Pro-Contact” Stigma<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Spectrums<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nContributors<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Terms Separate From Both Spectrums<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Contact Spectrum<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>
<\/li>
<\/li>
<\/li>
<\/li>
<\/li>Imagery Spectrum<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/aboutpedophiliahome.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/12\/bayesian-2889576_1280.png?w=1024&resize=297%2C297\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n