Date: May 19, 2020
“With the recent banning of MAPs from the largest asexual forum, the hosts and guest Robert use the podcast to carve out a space to discuss asexuality and minor attraction. Peace and Robert recount their experiences as ace MAPs and the unique viewpoints they have concerning attraction, sexuality, and community.”
It’s always struck me as completely counter intuitive that asexual people would identify as MAP…because sexual attraction [orientation] is fundamental to the very definition of MAP…and attraction is a fundamental part of sexuality.
If you don’t have a sexual attraction to minors [children and teens]…then by definition, you are not actually a MAP.
…If you do have this sexual attraction…then how on earth are you asexual?…That makes absolutely no sense.
The roots of this term, “Minor Attracted Person”, literally came from a pedophile…who was using the term explicitly to define himself, and discuss the social and personal issues going on in his life…It was also used by a few people who were sympathetic, and trying to raise awareness to the struggles and needs of people who cannot legally act on their own sexual orientation.
It was later adopted much wider, by a group consisting of pedophiles, hebephiles, ephebophiles and allies, again, explicitly with the understanding that it was representing people sexually oriented towards children and teens.
If you, by your own admission, do not even have those orientations…then how does this even square up?
It seems to me…the term MAP is being stretched and contorted by this new sort of faction, to include things which aren’t really germane to the literal definition of “what it means to be MAP”.
I mean…don’t get me wrong…Even I have acknowledged in the past, that if we take the simple term “Minor Attracted Person”, and fail to recognize that it represents a small variety of sexual minorities…then it could be said, that likely the majority of people on this planet are MAPs…After all, children/youth tend to be cute and attractive in a general sense…and if simple attraction is the standard, well then…there you go, right?…
…But that’s not really what it means…and there’s not anything that stigmatizes finding children and teens to be cute. The majority are not going to stigmatize themselves, for merely finding children and teens to be cute.
Maybe it’s just this broad, ethereal expansion on the definition of “sexuality”, that I’m not understanding…asexuality being one form of sexual orientation?…despite that not having a sexuality [which is what “asexual” means] means that you wont have a sexual orientation…as you’ve got no biological drive or interest in sex.
It’s not that I doubt there are people out there who are like this…but I’m very suspicious that a lot of people who identify as “asexual”, are confusing the fact that they have never engaged physically in a sexual act with another person [or no longer do so], with having no sexual interest…and hence, no inborn sexual orientation.
A heterosexual is still a heterosexual, whether or not they’ve had sex or are still having sex…
A homosexual is still a homosexual, whether or not they’ve had sex or are still having sex…
A pedophile is still a pedophile, whether or not they’ve had sex or are still having sex…
…etc, etc, etc…
…It’s because they are inclined to have sexual relations with certain types of people, that they are identified with their sexual orientation.
So…what even is an “asexual”…if they are still having sexual attractions [and arousal?] towards others?…
…Because that is an irreconcilable contradiction.
I think a lot of you are not actually asexual…You’re just sexually abstinent, where it comes to engaging in sex acts with others.
I think you believe the “sexuality” is hinged on commission of the act, as opposed to being about the involuntary biological attraction.
This is the only way I can see anyone reconciling this, in their own mind.
Obviously…I find “sexuality” to be hinged on the involuntary biological attraction, which cares nothing over whether the commission of the act has ever taken place…It’s still there, regardless…It can still be identified.
|Sub-Blog Archive | M.A. Net