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

Oh FFS. 14 year olds are CHILDREN. Any man who is finding a CHILD sexually attractive has something seriously wrong with them. It is NOT normal. What would they possibly have in common? It's vile, stomach churningly vile. Any sensible, decent human knows this instinctively.

People who have the urge to do this to children are NOT NORMAL. Whether the child is starting to develop a body more like a woman or not, they are clearly still a child. They behave like a child. Because they are a child. No mentally normal grown man would be remotely interested in sex with a child.

People who are are sick individuals who will always be a danger to children. The solution is to keep them well away from all children, forever.

How many grown women do you see trying to fuck young boys the moment their voice breaks and their balls drop?

Your argument does not stack up. It is apologism and it's insulting to those of us who have survived this kind of abuse.

Again, I haven't said that. No where have I said it's ok for adults to have sex with minors. "Normal" doesn't mean socially ok, or ethical, or kind.

I've been quite clear that sexual abuse is wrong, and criminal.

Like other posters here, I've been abused as a child, the fact that I don't particularly want to have to use that as some kind of credential in the discussion really shouldn't prevent me from being in the discussion. Which happens all the time in these kinds of threads, a few people claim that they are the only ones who can have a viewpoint because they have been abused and accuse everyone else of being a pervert. Anyone who says anything different, even having had similar experiences, apparently doesn't count - it is ignored.

I'd be interested to know - when do you think physical sexual attraction suddenly turns on in the brain and becomes normal? What do you think causes that kind of attraction? We know that it happens very fast, within a few moments typically, so what is it that prompts this? Is it different where the law is different? Or what about 10,000 years ago before we had civilization? We haven't really changed physically from when we lived like that.

That something is biologically normal doesn't mean it's ok to do, or ethical, I would hope that's pretty obvious to people. It's normal to feel aggression in certain circumstances, that doesn't mean it's ok to act on it, it may be profoundly anti-social, as well as criminal.

Thank you to the kind words from posters here. I'm nearly 50 now and I've had people say to me 'well it was different in the 70s/80s' that's even my own mother watering it down, she also (along with others) think that those poor famous men from that time period had girls throwing themselves at them so what was a red blooded male to do?! I've lived my life feeling guilty, feeling ashamed, quietly dealing with the sadness and the aftermath of abuse. I'm in a wonderful marriage now with a good life but seeing posts like this puts me back years. Let's not put children in categories. As a 6 year old I did what was asked of me and as a teenager I did what was asked because of abject fear of consequences worse than abuse. Men and women who prey on children should be named and shamed and put on a register for life. They won't change.

Why would you expect women and men to be looking for the same things in a sexual partner? They aren't among most social animals.

Please stop with this "those of us who have survived" stuff. You aren't the only one who has been ever been abused.

So many false equivalences attempted here I can't even respomd because I'm exhausted now and need to sleep.

There is an enormous difference as a PP pointed out between two 14 year olds having sex and a grown man grooming and abusing a 14 year old.

I don't know what is motivating your attempts to try to explain what is clearly abhorrent: and I don't just mean legally and morally. I mean that normal people would feel disgusted by the very idea of sex with a child. "Normal" people do not need it this explaining to them.

If you wish to go back to early history and live there with everything else that entailed then good luck, I hope you get a time machine as a new year gift. But for most of us, we're glad we live in less barbaric times and expect those around us to behave appropriately and want those who are a danger to children locked up far away from them all.

You aren't the only one who has been ever been abused.

Nice. Lots of us have been discussing our horrific experiences on this thread. I'm sorry this happened to you as well. That doesn't mean you get to soeak to other people in this way though, or to invalidate other people's experiences, or to tell them they have to accept the disgusting posts you made earlier about it being "normal" for grown men to want sex with any child who has grown breasts.

I think that what Mangy is saying is that we only have limited control over our thoughts and that seeing something we perceive as "attractive" does trigger thoughts about attraction. If that's where it ends then fine, no harm was done, they're only thoughts and they stayed in one's head.

What we are in full control of is how we act on those thoughts. If someone (and I'm talking about men in 97% of cases) acts on those thoughts, whether that is by 'only' leering down a girl's cleavage, accessing images of CSE, or going as far as personally harming a child themselves then a line has been crossed - definitely a criminal line for the latter two.

All of this is a distraction though and adds little of relevance to the thread topic of "a committee almost used minimising language to describe predators". The police aren't interested in my first paragraph - even if we had thought crime laws there's no technology that could enforce them - they're interested in the second one. That's why minimising language is wrong, these men aren't just "attracted to minors" in the privacy of their own heads, they're funding, facilitating or even engaging in abuse of children.

Why would you expect women and men to be looking for the same things in a sexual partner?

You seem to have taken a rather large swig of the misogyny potion.

Puberty in girls starts at 9 - which is definitely paedophile territory. Are you saying it is ok to want to have sex with a nine year old girl because she has begun to menstruate? She isn't pre-pubescent, after all.

Are either stupid, deluded or one of them? Answer the question I asked earlier,

And also the earlier as to what you call my abuser.

You think it's OK to come on a thread full of child abuse victims and spout your rubbish?

If you are reading this and thinking it is directed at you and I've left the @ off then

Yes. Yes it is.

No they didn't. They released a statement today to say they don't use or condone that term and stopped other European Countries from using it

How would they stop other European countries from using it? 🤣

Did you read their statement? If not, do - that will answer your question.

I just mean they talked them into it - they didn't lay down some big law about it!!!! I'm not here for a debate as I haven't rtft and I see it has brought up many sensitive issues and I don't want to derail

I consented.

At least I thought I did.

He was good looking, funny, smelt nice, made me feel an equal. Told me secrets, cuddled and ticked me when I was upset or my mum had had a go at me.

He bought me presents, stuffed toys, chocolate, crisps and pop. He bought me rather cheaply don't you think.

I willingly, I thought, having never heard of grooming, oh and being 6, did anything he asked at the start. And by the time I stated to push back he made me feel I was in to deep, that it was as much my fault as his.

Of course now as seen through an adult perspective I see it for what it was a previously twice convicted child (both himself and his victims) rapist, convicted murderer, who groomed a vulnerable unloved barely fed regularly beaten and neglected child who was actually, literally shut in the Spence under the stairs sometimes as one of my mother's fun punishments, and with the full knowledge of the probation service, the social services, the police, the bloody Home Office (out on life licence) and my Fucking mother who all knew he intended to rape me.

But yeah I consented.

Maybe actually read the full thread first. Then come back and have your say.

I'm not familiar with Scottish law but English law already has subsets - there is rape 16 and over, rape of child under 16 and rape of child under 13.

@Boiledbeetle no that's all I have to contribute. Wishing you all the best for 2023

Exactly so why all the oh but but but brigade

It's really quite simple

Bad men who are attracted to children, (disclaimer I'm not accusing this guy of anything just needed his famous words) just like that lovely fragrant topless (wo)man in new York with his "these hands don't discriminate" demonstrated when push comes to shove and the opportunity presents itself and they thought they could guarantee they wouldn't get caught, no matter what age the child as long as it's illegal, because that's part of the thrill, they'd do what they wanted to that child. They won't be discerning or discriminate against a bit to old or young fantasy wankfest specification

So there should be no argument about what some academics have decided these age ranges are and there different fluffy names are.

Everyone knows a paedophile is a bad person who likes and does bad things to children. Everything past that is literally academic and should play no part outside a very carefully vetted academic staff.

The law acknowledges not the sexual preferences of the offender but the impact and long term implications in the sexually abused child victim.

So to those still trying to argue with a bunch of annoyed women either do the decent thing like @hiddeneverythin , thank you for that, did or do one because quite frankly we don't want to hear your warped thoughts on this.

I am 100% unapologetically unashamedly telling all that will listen that if you disagree with me on this. YOU ARE WRONG.

BoiledBeetle, not sure if that's aimed at me? I gave no opinion on these men.
But for the record, I put children first, and absolutely know that 'MAP' is minimising and normalising abuse.

Oh no I was just picking up on your response 're the laws and ages to the other poster.

Sorry it used to show all the response on a post so it was more obvious a poster was just continuing a line of the conversation and now it makes it look like people are having a go at the wrong people.I

As you were tea ? ☕some🍰?😶

Tea and cake would be lovely 😃

Excellent, I've got a spare cat looking for a lap as well, although he is rather soggy at the moment, he's just got in. I wouldn't mind but it's not my cat.