Scottish police use Minor Attracted Person instead of 'paedophile' in report

[pattihews]

Chief Constable Iain Livingstone has used the acronym MAP (minor attracted Person) in an annual assessment of the force's work with a European project.

We've all wondered what the + is in LGB and TQIA+ haven't we? Well perhaps now we know. As the Telegraph says:

The term MAP is contentious because child abusers are trying to escape the stigma attached to paedophilia and maintain they should be regarded as a niche group alongside the LGBT community.

As a member of the LGB community I object. Archived link from the Telegraph:
archive.today/e9DCa

That to @Onnabugeisha

I’ve checked out ‘MAPS’ on Twitter when I first heard the term.

Very clearly men who are attracted to very young children, not younger teenagers. They are desperate to get away from what they see as a negative label (some even seem to have deluded themselves into believing that it isn’t the act people are horrified by, but the name). They really, really want MAP to become synonymous with Ephebophilia in peoples minds, and for it to be seen as a branch of sexuality and under the protection of the LGBTQ+ umbrella (usually in the Q)

They physically disgusted me so much I deleted Twitter, the Twitter mods at the time wouldn’t touch them and said they weren’t breaking any rules (despite having in their bio’s what ages they are are attracted to, including newborns).

Check out the ‘Prostasia foundation’ if you want to see ‘in plain sight’ being acted out infront of your eyes.

Yes. And that to me is the huge problem here. By framing it as ‘attracted to’ they are trying to put it in the same space as same sex attraction.

Anyway, can we call them filthy fucking nonces and be done with?

A statement from Police Scotland.

twitter.com/PoliceScotland/status/1609184736508887043

Thanks for sharing that @TimBoothseyes

Under 16 = child.

They are paedophiles no matter how they try to rebrand their particular age perversion.

The post of mine that was deleted didn’t accuse you of that, but nice try. It pretty much says the same thing yours does to me that wasn’t deleted. I haven’t reported any of your posts, can you say the same?

Sorry, but you specifically stated you were ‘not prepubescent’ in your now deleted post. It is burned into my memory. So while it may technically have been during your “childhood” you are appropriating a term which does not apply to the abuse you suffered. I find that very hurtful tbh as I was a prepubescent child abused for years. It’s not a competition, it’s a case of being honest and using actual definitions. It’s no surprise to me you think it’s a competition, only someone who thinks that way would dare appropriate such a thing..and for what, victim status? I even said they are both horrible crimes, just not the same.

As for MAP, currently the word that is used, paedophilia, is quite literally “love”…so hardly better than “attraction.” By denotation, I think love is actually worse than attraction to describe it. Our associations are 100% governed by connotation which society constantly influences and modifies. So your argument is spurious.

PS disagree with you, obviously - as do the majority on here.
PS don’t disagree with me on the definition of paedophilia, they don’t like MAP is all. Which I’m not fussed about as I don’t see it as an offensive term.

You trying to get one up on another survivor of CSA, is sick beyond belief!!

Correct

The expression when I was young was “child molester”. I have taken to using it again because it is simple, clear and accurate. And it does not placate those who try not to offend sex offenders.

Technically they aren't paedophiles, that's my point. Hence there will be confusion.

There needs to be a term that encompasses all who abuse minors. I agree MAP doesn't sit right but neither does listing all the other types.

When it comes to legal matters language is very important.

Splitting hairs over the age of a CHILD that a PAEDOPHILE is “attracted to” 🤮🤮🤮 and giving said PAEDOPHILES different labels according to the age of the CHILD (labels that the vast majority of people won’t understand), as per the post upthread, then “re-branding” the whole fucking lot of them under whatever fucking fancy acronym someone somewhere has come up with, as if they were a supermarket product about to be re-launched under a shiny new name, strikes me as beyond sick.

These people are PAEDOPHILES.

As far as I’m aware in ‘legal matters’ they already use the correct terms.

And as far as the general population goes, pedophile is the widely accepted term for anyone who is attracted to children (I.e. under 16). There are many terms that are in general use that aren’t exactly/legally correct, but function perfectly well as everyone understands what they mean.

I don’t see why matters need to be confused by coming up with a whole new term, when we have one that works perfectly well already.

Oh wait… I guess I see why some malicious
people would want that.

Yep.

@Onnabugeisha I am no longer going to respond to your posts for that reason.

We must be of an age. It's the term I am most familiar with as well. It's a very descriptive one.

I am horrified how many of my friends have been victims and never spoken of it. I didn't the first time but did the second. But none of my schoolfriends knew.

It's only on reaching adulthood and having discussions with friends I've know for years that I realise how all too common it was and still must be.

is a term needed to replace MAPS? Why not get rid of MAPS and just use the most appropriate term. The existing terms, although they don’t encompass all child ages, are at least more accurate. Isn’t it better to be specific about who is at risk from a person.

I’d prefer sexual deviancy related to children or something like that if a all encompassing word is needed.

Playing devils advocate here but I suppose someone could be a peadophile but not actually have molested a child.

Hi everyone,
we've had a few reports about posts on this thread and thought to quickly check in and remind everyone of our talkguidelines. If you have any concerns, please report them to us - we will have a look. Any posts breaking our talk guidleines or quoting deleted posts will be deleted.

Not sure what you mean. Does this make it okay? Does leching over children but not touching them make it okay? Or as many sex offenders try and claim- they were only watching videos of abuse but not directly participating so that is okay?

Just not sure of your point tbh.

I think you can be put on the sexual offenders registry for looking at images of child abuse, even, in this country at least, if those images are drawn or computer generated.

And one more thing, (green grass fluffy cloud, green grass fluffy clouds)

Firstly, I'm probably glad I didn't see the deleted postsI

Secondly, did those still pondering and arguing the merits of certain age groups I'd be interested to know how you catergorise/identify the following man

when he was 12 he got his first rape conviction for raping a child (age unknown)

When he was 15 he got his second rape conviction for raping a child (age unknown)

When he was 18 he bludgeoned a woman in here 80s to death

in his 30s he attempted to get himself into a position to rape two girls who had gone through puberty

in his 30s he rapes a prepubescent child

in his 60sin prison he attempts to groom the youngest prisoners on his block

dying in hospital he is kept handcuffed to a prisoner officer so he gets his kicks from distressing the nurse forced to give him a bedbath

What do you call that man? Because I call him Steve.

Oh stop with the drama. Of course it doesn’t make it ok.

my point is, if it wasn’t obvious enough, that they mean 2 different things. One is a person who has abused a child and another is someone who has internal feeling but hasn’t acted on it. Neither is ok, but they are different.

Because looking at and making images of child sex abuse is abusive and an offence.