No Shame Zone

Minors DNI This is a place for me to talk about struggles with minor attraction Mostly expecting to be just screaming into the void to be honest

[majorly-abhorred-princess]

Introduction

If you didn't get the reference already, I'm a minor attracted person.

I'm making this blog because there's been a whole lot of shitty feelings building up keeping this vile little secret. I want to vent about stuff, and just generally talk about MAP issues. But I sure as shit am not talking about that somewhere I can be identified.

Plenty of people hate me for something that I don't let hurt other people. Plenty would hate me for trying to mitigate some of that hate out there. I'm a pretty socially acceptable target, and even people I would think of as allies for my other identities would throw my ass under the bus for this part of it.

Speaking of identities, idk, maybe this will humanize me somewhat. I'm autistic, ADHD, and OSDD-1. I'm non-binary and aspec. I'm a CSA survivor. I'm a TTRPG, science, and philosophy nerd.

And I'm attracted to minors. Which for many people erases every other bit of humanizing information about me, and makes me a disgusting monster who deserves to die.

So I'm going to vent here. I'm going to post about my experience. And maybe there's some amount of good I can do educating, being relatable, or contribute to community.

And if these need stated, here you go:

Minors DNI. Entirely for my own protection, I don't want to get stressed out over "what the neighbors will think" if I'm talking with a minor.

Anti-contact. More nuanced, but I know I'll get more hate if I don't make clear that I believe that adults should not have sexual contact with a minor.

Fiction is fiction. Fictional characters are not real people. Treating fictional content as CSAM does real damage to survivors and to preventing CSA.

[majorly-abhorred-princess]

It's always fucking shocking to me when I (someone who's attracted to children) am the only one in the room telling adults that they should not have unrestricted access to children's bodies.

Whether it's the person we were talking to last night who was lamenting her favorite teacher losing his job because she didn't think unwanted non-sexual physical contact was a big deal. Or when I was a preschool teacher and had to tell other staff members that no means no, even when it's "just a hug".

It fucking blows my mind that I'm supposedly the "threat" or "dangerous".

[babrieeee]

Did I read that right?????????? ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN?😧

[majorly-abhorred-princess]

Yes! You did read that right. I am in fact attracted to children.

It's treated as a much bigger deal I think than is warranted. And it's used to fear monger in ways that harm children (see what I said above). Like, if it got out in my personal/professional life that I had this attraction, it'd ruin my life. But the teachers and administrators back at my old work place, that think that they can put their hands on children whenever they want to, don't get a second glance.

Meanwhile I'm just over here going, "Oop, looks like I'd have to violate someone's consent to act on these feelings. Gonna have to not act on those feelings then." Y'know. Like most people.

[babrieeee]

Crazy how you think that their thoughts and opinions aren’t justified 💀

[majorly-abhorred-princess]

Wait? It's crazy that I think their thoughts and opinions of "It's perfectly fine if I touch a child without their consent" aren't justified?

No. I don't think that violating a child's boundaries in any circumstance is justified. I don't think it's justified to normalize touching children.

[proship-angelbunny]

Since I just saw a post about this I figured I’d remind everyone

THERES NO SUCH THING AS A INHERENTLY HARMFUL PARAPHILIA!! Yes even those ones. There only harmful ways of expressing these attractions

[moriphile]

Okay controversial thoughts time (even though they really shouldn't be controversial but what can you do).

The amount of people that think "MAP" is just pedophiles trying to sanitize their attraction is insane.

It's an umbrella term. That's literally all it is.

Because, spoiler alert, pedophiles aren't the only MAPs.

There are multiple chronophilias under the MAP umbrella: infantophilia (under 1, don't conflate with ABDL as they can use the same label), nepiophilia (~1-4), pedophilia (~5-10), hebephilia (~11-14), and ephebophilia (~15-18). Infantile, toddler age, prebubescent, early pubescent, and late pubescent. Anyone who identifies with any of these labels is a MAP. A MAP is not always a pedophile, but a pedophile is always a MAP. A rectangle is not always a square, but a square is always a rectangle.

It's not to sound cute or innocent or less scary. It's not to sanitize it. If it was, it wouldn't be used anymore. The wider world already demonizes the term MAP more than pedophile. Everyone knows what a MAP is, and nearly anyone who isn't one despises them. Because now if you call yourself a MAP you must be one of the "romanticizers." You must be secretly pro-contact. You must be trying to normalize child abuse. You must be hiding from your actions.

And that's stupid. I don't know how better to say it. It's just stupid.

MAP isn't used to sanitize ourselves. It's used to not make generalizations. To not make assumptions. The differences in the terms under the MAP umbrella is important, and so is acknowledging them. But that can't be done if everyone wants to label those who use the umbrella term or even the other chronophilic terms under the umbrella as disgusting child abusers because they didn't use pedophile. And they're trying to hide it by "dodging" calling themselves "what they really are."

Ignore the fact anyone who calls themselves a pedophile is already told they're a child rapist. That's not important for this point.

Honestly, the only reason I personally use MAP and pedophile interchangeably when referring to myself is because that's my primary identity under the umbrella.

But, hey, if you really want us to be hyper-honest about our chronophilic attractions like people seem to desire (because we're clearly hiding something if we're not baring every fiber of our being to the world), then I'd be a...

Pedohebepheboteleiomesogerontophile.

Does that make you happier? :)

Anyway, this has been a PSA. Because I'm so tired.

[moriphile]

It's sanist to say that paraphiles should kill themselves or should be killed.

It's sanist to say that paraphiles are predators or abusers.

It's sanist to say that paraphiles need to be institutionalized.

It's sanist to say that paraphiles can't control themselves.

It's sanist to say that paraphiles need to "cure" themselves of their attractions.

It's sanist to say that paraphiles are sick or are a sickness.

It's sanist to say that paraphiles should silence or quiet themselves.

Stop being sanist.

[aberrant-angel]

one of the challenges of discussing paraphile liberation is the fact that there is no real terminology to delineate who is and isn't a paraphile, a way to describe who belongs to the category that reinforces and benefits from the oppression of paraphiles. the reason for this is that non-paraphile is not a meaningful category to begin with. almost everyone has *some* sexual or romantic proclivity that doesn't fall within the established norm. sexual normality is a lie, and those marked as paraphiles are the sacrificial scapegoats put on the alter to uphold this falsehood.

the lines between kink, fetish, and paraphilia are extremely blurry and always has been, since they are subject to change depending on time and context. taboos change, attitudes change. the point is to reinforce control and punish deviation from an idealised baseline of normal attraction that never existed to begin with. "paraphile" as a category of person is more in line with the conservative religious concept of the "sinner" who must be redeemed in order to return to some ideal spiritual state that nobody truly exists in, and who failing that must be destroyed. look at how conservative zealots treat sinful sexuality and compare to how almost everyone treats paraphilia. it's the same. it's a recurrent ritualistic othering and exclusion of those within your own communities as to keep yourself "pure". it's also an excuse to indulge in a desire to inflict cruelty without repercussion.

when you engage in rooting out perverts and freaks from your communities/spaces you are carrying on the legacy of witch hunts and similar atrocities stretching far back into the bloody history of humanity. being queer does not absolve you from this.

remember how once it was transvestitic fetishism, an aberrant paraphilic mental pathology that needed to be cured. now it's just called being transgender and having a healthy sex life. once same-sex attraction was also a paraphilic mental illness spreading like a plague that you could be locked up for, now it's just called being gay. if you're queer but have no solidarity with paraphiles, especially the "weird" and "gross" ones, you are a traitor to yourself, your siblings, and our history. paraphilias are queer.

[firecrackerfemboy]

i dont think paraphiles deserve to die just for being paraphiles but apparently thats a "hot take"

[majorly-abhorred-princess]

How tf am I ace?

So I always feel a bit... lost when it comes to attraction. I identify as asexual in my day to day life. It's an identity that was confusing and complicated to get to. But it was so massively helpful for me. It lead to gender epiphanies and my syscovery.

But, how can I have little to no sexual attraction if I'm, y'know, attracted to minors?

Yeah I'm still sorting that out too!

But here's where I'm at with it:

Ive been searching for a label for quite a while now. I do feel sexual attraction and enjoy fictional sex from time to time (porn etc.) but

So, for as long as I've felt arousal and had fantasies, it's always been morally reprehensible to act on them. Except y'know, when I was that age too. Which throws this wrench into things right? For a time, in my adolescence, I was attracted to my peers. But as I grew up, that attraction didn't change.

So I kind of broke what attraction was to me. The thought of ever participating in sex disgusted me more and more as I grew older. The absolute harm of my fantasies ever being reality ground away any sense of desire. The years of guilt and shame made me so utterly repulsed by sex.

So I'm left in this weird spot. On the one hand, attraction being something that leads to actual desire or a "pulling" towards someone or thing in a sexual way isn't something I really experience. The repulsion to harming someone, or being in a non-consensual encounter or relationship feels very much like it overrides any other desires or pulls. On the other hand, the arousal, fantasy, and thoughts that I have definitely fall into this category of "minor attraction".

And of course, I also recognize the optics of it. If I proudly say I'm Ace and a MAP well... USian Conservatives are already spouting shit like "Asexuals are p*dos". I'd really like it if we in the queer community could split the difference between minor attraction and CSA (the majority of CSA is perpetrated by non-MAPs and the majority of MAPs don't perpetrate CSA). But I understand that's not yet the world we live in yet.

[majorly-abhorred-princess]

It's always fucking shocking to me when I (someone who's attracted to children) am the only one in the room telling adults that they should not have unrestricted access to children's bodies.

Whether it's the person we were talking to last night who was lamenting her favorite teacher losing his job because she didn't think unwanted non-sexual physical contact was a big deal. Or when I was a preschool teacher and had to tell other staff members that no means no, even when it's "just a hug".

It fucking blows my mind that I'm supposedly the "threat" or "dangerous".

[babrieeee]

Did I read that right?????????? ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN?😧

[majorly-abhorred-princess]

Yes! You did read that right. I am in fact attracted to children.

It's treated as a much bigger deal I think than is warranted. And it's used to fear monger in ways that harm children (see what I said above). Like, if it got out in my personal/professional life that I had this attraction, it'd ruin my life. But the teachers and administrators back at my old work place, that think that they can put their hands on children whenever they want to, don't get a second glance.

Meanwhile I'm just over here going, "Oop, looks like I'd have to violate someone's consent to act on these feelings. Gonna have to not act on those feelings then." Y'know. Like most people.

[ghost-in-the-graveyard]

guys i think im a questioning map is anyone open to sharing their experience with it?

[majorly-abhorred-princess]

Hi! I'd be happy to share my experience.

When I was growing up (or whoever the hell was around at the time) I noticed that my peers were attracted to different things than me. At the time it wasn't really obvious, but looking back it was the post-pubescent stuff everyone else was saying made people hot.

I expected my attraction would change as I grew up; that the age band I was attracted to would get older as I did. But sometime after college I realized that wasn't happening.

I spent idk how much time in denial about it. We went back and forth on "I'm just into this body type" and "jfc I'm a monster". Eventually I just accepted what my attraction was. I had never crossed that line, so why would I be a monster? Thought crimes aren't real and non-offending is a sustainable state of being. Idk which is the chicken and which is the egg there (DID makes the memory a touch not good).

Lmk if you have any questions, or like, want me to talk about something more specific. Hope this helps!

[mineys-world]

what is your stance on maps

I support *all* paraphilias

[proparashipxx]

[proparashipxx]

Paraphilia Education Time!

Just seen a blog spreading just a tiny bit of misinformation and I’m going to correct it.

When paraphiles say that they are proud of their attraction(s) most of what the community is talking about being proud of themselves for surviving in a world that hates us.

Paraphilias are sexualities (or sexual orientation) and not illnesses because if there’s no distress, guilty feelings towards it, shameful of it or anxious about it then it’s not an illness. Proof? The DSM-5 on page 697 (there’s more proof but that’s the biggest one to this point)

The term MAP was actually coined by B4U-ACT since there’s 4 different minor attractions.

Paraphilia therapists will advise that paraphiles find a community that spreads positivity and is anti contact and non offending.

Professionals say that it’s important for paraphiles to feel neutral about their attraction(s) because feeling negative about it will actually put them more at risk to offend so feeling neutral is the best thing for us.

[hexiphilia]

did u know that a 42yo and a 16yo can be twin sisters and best friends and lovers and live in the same body together

[toonimal]

paraphilias are beautiful. if you are a paraphile you should not only be unashamed of your attractions but you should love yourself for them. to be able to see beauties that others cannot — or that others perhaps just refuse to acknowledge — is a very admirable thing. to be bold enough to admit it to a world that is quick to shun you for it is even more admirable. you are brave and good and beautiful, not in spite of but because of your attractions

[majorly-abhorred-princess]

I'm annoyed by caveats.

I see caveats all of the time. I know why they're useful. I know that a lot of time they're completely true.

But I'm annoyed by them.

Someone will say that it's wrong to ban fiction of a certain kind.

And they'll list all of the ways that it can be helpful. It can help us cope to read. It can help us process trauma to write. It can help people avoid harmful ways of satisfying urges.

But it's wrong to ban fiction because fiction isn't harming anyone. That manga or fan art or bit of text involves no real people so it involves no real harm.

Or someone will say that you shouldn't judge people for their intrusive thoughts.

Because those thoughts are distressing. Because those thoughts repulse and sicken. Because those thoughts are unwanted.

But you shouldn't judge people's thoughts because those aren't actions. Only your actions can be harmful.

Similarly someone will defend paraphiles.

Because those disgusting thoughts cause distress. Because they're struggling. Because they're trying to get help.

And again, paraphiles should be defended because thoughts don't cause harm. Actions do.

I am annoyed by all of these caveats. None of these caveats should be needed.

These caveats aren't always true for me. Some of them are never true. Some of them haven't been true for years. So there's always this implicit feeling I get when I see a caveat that the support is conditional. My thoughts are only acceptable if those things are true. When I'm reading fiction for fun or to feel good, I'm hurting someone. If my thoughts don't bother me, then judge away. If I don't need or want help for the feelings and fantasies in my head, then I'm indefensible.

None of this is a dig at people who do struggle with their thoughts. These caveats are true for many people. Hell, those first two caveats apply to me. I read fiction to feel safe. I accepted my own assault from that safety. I get that all of these caveats can be true.

But I'm still annoyed.

[only-knives]

little reminder that minor attracted people aren't inherently predators and people with pedophilic intrusive thoughts aren't morally superior to actual MAPs... because your actions and values determine your morality, not thoughts/feelings you can't control.