| |
Some people say the term MAP is synonymous with pedophile. Others act like choosing the map label means rejecting the pedophile label. Neither is actually true to our experience. I do not identify as a pedophile myself, because the youngest person I have ever been attracted to as an adult was 12. That makes me a hebephile at the lowest of my age of attraction, so I don’t feel like "pedophile" quite applies to me. But every time I am called a pedophile, I make sure to explain that I take no offense from it and only care about the difference for the sake of semantics.
Sometimes I wish I was a pedophile – it would have made navigating situations like that way simpler. The average person hears "I am not a pedophile" and understands it as "I am better than a pedophile", but that really is not what I am trying to say at all.
One of the most common misconceptions around the term 'map' that you can encounter online is the idea that it is used solely by people who reject being referred to as pedophiles. The top Urban Dictionary entry for 'Minor Attracted Person' features the following sample sentence: "im a minor attracted person, not a pedo".
So, do we hate the p word?
This is something I have never said, and I barely ever see anyone else put it that way, but it is true that 'pedophilia' has a much more narrow and precise definition within the map community than it does in most of the society.
Instead of referring to any attraction towards a person under 18, it specifically means attraction towards prepubescent traits, often even excluding very young ages (infantophilia and nepiophilia cover attractions towards babies and toddlers). So some maps choose to not identify as pedophiles simply because it does not adequately describe their specific preferences.
But the picture those who harbor an anti-map prejudice (we call them 'antis') want to paint—that this label is overwhelmingly rejected across the map community due to shame or desire to deceive—is simply not true.
Various surveys report high levels of acceptance towards the pedophile identity in map spaces. Professional-led surveys that asked MAPs about their preferred identities have found the term 'pedophilia' to be chosen by 48%, 51.0%, and 76.9%.
A map-led survey I conducted gathered that 73% of maps who fit the narrow definition of pedophilia had a positive attitude towards this label, while 23% were neutral and 4% were negative. Among maps who do not fit the definition these numbers were 42%, 45%, and 12% respectively.
So, why do we like the m word?
So why is the term 'map' favored slightly by members of the community? Partly for the wide range of ages it covers and for the unambiguousness of "attracted", which does not leave the room for speculation whether it refers to a feeling or an act of abuse. Shame or hate towards the pedophile label is not necessary for this preference and should not be assumed. After all, while it does carry a lot of stigma, this stigma can transfer onto any other term we use, because the society is opposed to our existence, not a specific word.
The word 'map' was put in use and propelled by B4U-ACT in the early 2000s partly with the intention of lowering stigma around the attractions, but the dual goal in coining the term was also to promote accuracy about the specifics.
But the context that the general society puts 'map' in is by itself remarkable. It is widely regarded as a politically correct word, placed in the 'annoying social justice words' category next to 'critical race theory' and 'cisgender'. So, when antis insist on calling us pedophiles, including when we actually do call ourselves pedophiles already, they think it offends us, like being called a slur.
Depending on the flavor of the anti, they may also think they are attacking the whole concept of social justice by attacking us, or they may think they are protecting this concept from being misused by us.
What difference do the words make?
A desire to replace a less polite word with a more polite word is not why 'map' is popular in contemporary map spaces. But it’s undeniable that maps do belong in social justice conversations and deserve more control over the language used to talk about our lives and experiences. Social justice, with all the negative reputation conservative media created for it, is just an umbrella term for marginalized people engaging in activism. All ofour terms, be that 'map', 'pedophile', 'hebephile', or something more rare and obscure, are inseparable from the wider conversation about our rights and place in the society.
This is something I feel strongly about as someone who is not only a map, but a transperson, a neurodivergent person, an abuse survivor, and many other things. I believe that soon a time will come when we can be regarded as the final authority on our terms, their significance, and definitions – if not yet by the general society, then at least by other marginalized minorities. We deserve to be able to tell our stories and not have them drowned out by narratives constructed without our input.
Our assumed rejection of the pedophile label is one of such narratives—but you can think of many more. A time will come when the most easily searchable resources on things related to us will be our own. | |
