I think since MAP just means minor-attracted person, sexual attraction doesn’t mean they can’t be abusive. It’s a neutral term. Like, I would call Jeffrey Epstein a MAP. I wouldn’t call them “child-lovers” or “teen-lovers” though, since there is no love there.
Edit: Also, I think Epstein had a vested interest in minor attraction NOT being normalized because he used it to blackmail other people
I disagree with this, though. The data shows that the VAST majority of people who commit CSA aren’t MAPs, but rather get off on having power over others. The youngest person that Epstein trafficked was 14, and while it’s possible to argue that he was just an ehebophile (and therefore still a MAP), it seemed way more likely that he just targeted young girls because they were easier to control, adding to his lust for power.
I’m not saying that MAPs don’t start relationships with children (which is still counted as CSA, regardless of consent), but when I’m determining whether someone is a MAP or just an abuser with a power kink who targets the most vulnerable members of our society, I tend to guess the latter, as that’s just statistically more likely. Again, I’m not saying MAPs don’t commit heinous acts (especially given our positioning in society driving some of us to dark places), but I generally assume that if the child wasn’t consenting, then it wasn’t a MAP. I’m okay with being wrong 1%-2% of the time.
I think since MAP just means minor-attracted person, sexual attraction doesn’t mean they can’t be abusive. It’s a neutral term. Like, I would call Jeffrey Epstein a MAP. I wouldn’t call them “child-lovers” or “teen-lovers” though, since there is no love there. Edit: Also, I think Epstein had a vested interest in minor attraction NOT being normalized because he used it to blackmail other people
I disagree with this, though. The data shows that the VAST majority of people who commit CSA aren’t MAPs, but rather get off on having power over others. The youngest person that Epstein trafficked was 14, and while it’s possible to argue that he was just an ehebophile (and therefore still a MAP), it seemed way more likely that he just targeted young girls because they were easier to control, adding to his lust for power.
I’m not saying that MAPs don’t start relationships with children (which is still counted as CSA, regardless of consent), but when I’m determining whether someone is a MAP or just an abuser with a power kink who targets the most vulnerable members of our society, I tend to guess the latter, as that’s just statistically more likely. Again, I’m not saying MAPs don’t commit heinous acts (especially given our positioning in society driving some of us to dark places), but I generally assume that if the child wasn’t consenting, then it wasn’t a MAP. I’m okay with being wrong 1%-2% of the time.