MAPs ≠ Caring for younglings.
Sexual tendencies ≠ Survival traits
So next time you see someone claiming themself to be a MAP.
Do them a favor and ask them.
> "are you sure you felt sexual? Or you just feel like they are powerless and you need to take care of them?"
Then say.
> "If it's case 2 you're very normal, it's a natural trait that comes from the need to survive. You shouldn't self identified yourself as a MAP since you aren't one and you shouldn't promote this group of people."
"If it's case 1, go seek help you weirdo!"
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
Some people deserve being criticized, and some others aren't.
In case of "MAP" and their "MAPs pride" or "MAPs positivity", they doesn't deserve your critics.
Just mock them for how "brain-dead" they are. :)
If you're looking on how to mock them.
This video would provide some dope insults for you to make use of.
https://youtu.be/0NJu7NXND2g
🇳🇱
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
@deesapoetra If we are talking about MAPs who recognize that attraction to minors is wrong and persue therapy not to act on it, then I'm not sure insulting MAPs is the best solution, many struggle to live with their condition. Now if we are talking about MAPs who promote attraction to minors as an ok thing or even act on it, then yea, I'd agree. But this distinction is very important
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
@freemo some of them are just confused Mr. Freemo.
i'm sure that most of the self-claiming MAPs meant that they just love children but not in sexual way.
My argument is that.
"By self potraiting yourself as a MAPs when you aren't, you really just making it difficult for everyone when there's literally a ton of pedophiles out there enjoying your bandwagon of movement."
"love" aren't equal to a "sex drive".
You're absolutely cabapble of having one without the other.
again i think they're just confused, they thinks that "love" is equivalent to "sex drive."
Loving (caring) children is a basic evolutionary traits thats demanded from the urge to survive as a colony, and that's always been okay since the dawn of our species, but it's just not when it's a sexual tendencies.
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
@deesapoetra I think you misunderstand.. what I'm saying is many people who are self described MAPs are people who are pedophiles (feel sexual attraction for underage people) but recognize that this attraction is wrong to act on and even seek therapy for it.
The reason they are vocal about being MAPs is mostly, in that case, to act as a support network for each other as it can be healthier to admit and talk about your mental disorders than to have to hide it from the public.
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
@freemo
but again Mr. Freemo.
Minority Attracted Person or a MAP is an umbrella term for a group of people who's consideres as "pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia"
and i'm sure all the "phelia" there means "sexual drive".
I'm afraid that most of those MAPs are taking the words literally. Which they shouldn't. Since it never meant to be that way, it's just a term that coined by psychiatrist so the patients wouldn't felt like crap about himself.
> The reason why they being vocal
We can't be sure about that.
Unless there's a selected psychiatrist moderating their group.
Talking about mental illness with another mentally ill person wouldn't help.
It only provide false hope, at least that's what my psychiatrist said.
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
@deesapoetra MAP implies attraction to minors sexual, it does not imply that attraction is a good thing or that one should act on it. So in and of itself it is not enough to assume ill will. The question to ask yourself is, has the MAP in question in any way said they are ok with or support acting on sexual attraction to minors.
If your goal is to help reduce the number of people who will act on their sexual attraction to minors then that starts with accepting it as a disorder, and judge them as anyone with a disorder that can lead to harmful actions, that is, judge them by their actions or those actions which they advocate for, not judging them for their disorder itself.
> We can’t be sure about that.
Unless there’s a selected psychiatrist moderating their group.
How so? If a group claims it is for a support group, and there is no evidence to the contrary then why would you need a psychiatrist monitoring the group to affirm this? Generally we judge people and groups by their actions.
In the end the point here is clear, there is and needs to be a separation between a rapist, and someone who feels sexual urges which they do not act on. If you treat a MAP as if they are a rapist by default, even when they claim otherwise you are effectively going to cause more rapists than otherwise would be the case.. If a person is trying hard to get help for their urges or not act on them to attack them anyway and exclude them from society will only set their therapy back and make it more likely they will become a rapist.
In short, a person can't help what they feel and shouldnt be judged for what they feel.. we judge people for their action.
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
@freemo
It's indeed morally correct to not judge people based on their feeling or urges alone Mr. Freemo and i'm all for it.
But i think In this case it just adding another layer to the problem.
Like.
"Okay. So i will not judge you for what you are. But how can we be sure about it? We just take your words and hope nothing bad would happen?"
We don't gave the benefit of the doubt for something we would doubt to.
That alone will set back the arguments.
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
@freemo > “How can we be sure about it?” let me ask you, obviously if i asked you “are you a murderer” you would say no… how can I be sure about it?
Well that's interesting take.
> The answer would be, because I have no evidence you are one, you never promoted murder, I have never seen you act on murder, and you claim not to be a murderer. So can I be 100% sure, no, but without evidence that is good enough.
>Why is a MAP any different?
"You had no evidence" is a good argument. But it doesn't mean it can't be true right?
I can be a murderer and still agree with this point since i will murder anyone anyway if they reveals my secret.
That's why murderer (the one who's guilty with the intentionally charge one) are always had some type mental illness.
It's a bit of a reach. But i hope you get the idea.
It basically correlate with how a person would act when they given no repercussion.
> You never promoted murder.
In this context MAPs. They trying to normalize being MAPs. That's enough promotion for me.
Aight i think that's enough for today Mr. Freemo.
We will continue this conversation tommorow morning if you don't mind.
It's 1:39 AM here.
Have a great day/evening!
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
> In this context MAPs. They trying to normalize being MAPs. That’s enough promotion for me.
They are trying to provide support for other MAPs and claiming to be a MAP themselves. Normalization doesnt appear to be so much the goal.
That said, that doesnt matter.. they arent promoting people rape children, which is the crime.. They are simply pushing for acceptance and compassion towards people who are born with sexual attraction towards minors but dont act on it.. how is that a bad thing? Should we not be compassionate towards people who are trying to do the right thing and not attack them for how they feel, something that is largely beyond their control?
Yes we can continue this tomorrow, have a good evening.
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
@freemo oh. I will drop this video here since it kinda inline with my thoughts on MAPs.
MAPs are *insert your best insults here*.
@deesapoetra "How can we be sure about it?" let me ask you, obviously if i asked you "are you a murderer" you would say no... how can I be sure about it?
The answer would be, because I have no evidence you are one, you never promoted murder, I have never seen you act on murder, and you claim not to be a murderer. So can I be 100% sure, no, but without evidence that is good enough.
Why is a MAP any different?