“MAP contact labels.

Here’s a guide about MAP sexual contact labels. This post pertains to informative purposes only, I’m not condoning all of these labels.

‘Anti-contactism’ or ‘Anti-c’:

• The stance that child-adult sexual contact is never acceptable under any circumstances and conditions. This may be because of the belief that children cannot consent to adults, or that child-adult sexual contact is inherently traumatic and harmful, etc.

‘Pro-contactism’ or ‘Pro-c’:

• It’s the stance that under certain or no conditions, in some way or another, baby/toddler/child-adult sexual contact is acceptable. This includes a wide range of positions, from baby/toddler/child-adult sexual contact being always acceptable, to baby/toddler/child-adult sexual contact being acceptable only under very precisive and restrictive conditions and circumstances.
• As such, the label “pro-contactism” or “pro-c” is not only a generic philosophical stance, but also an umbrella term encompassing a variety of positions on the matter of pro child-adult sex.

— A quick reminder before diving further into the subject —

Anti-Contact MAP (or “ACMAP”) doesn’t equal with NOMAP. NOMAP means non-offending MAP, and a MAP not acting into their attraction can be due for a variety of reasons, such as fearing social and legal consequences, or believing that in the current climate engaging in such behaviours not only it’s dangerous because of the possible social and legal repercussions but it is unethical since the child could be potentially negatively affected by secondary victimisation induced by the enormous stigma around child-adult sex.

(/!/ Some of the positions can overlap or be combined with each other /!/)

If you have any new labels to suggest, feel free to let me know. Let’s go —

“Strict pro-contactism”, “S pro-c”:

• Toddler/child-adult sexual contact is acceptable only under the conditions of:
  • a non-adultist society that in addition, does not stigmatizes toddler/child-adult sex
  • the toddler/child is educated about sex
  • the toddler/child is willing to engage in ‘intimate’ acts and explicit consent has to be expressed

“Yellow pro-contactism” or “Y pro-c”:

• Baby/toddler/child-adult sex is acceptable when the baby/toddler/child express willingness, regardless of the societal or situational context in which the act might happen.
• Being educated (before the act) about sex and sexuality or not, doesn’t matter for sexual contact in this stance.

“Nonconsensual harmless pro-contactism” or “Nocoha pro-c”:

• It’s the stance in which even though a sexual contact might be initiated without the consent or refusal of the child, toddler, or baby, as long as it results into positive or neutral impacts (aka, the child/toddler/baby likes/liked it or is indifferent about it) it’s acceptable.
• This stance takes also into account the reactions of the child, toddler or baby throughout the act. If the child, toddler or baby at some point communicates refusal in some way or another, the partner stops.
• Being educated (before the act) about sex and sexuality or not, doesn’t matter for sexual contact in this stance.

“Hard pro-contactism” or “H pro-c”:

• It’s the stance that baby/toddler/child-adult sexual contact is always acceptable under any circumstances and conditions; even when the baby/toddler/child communicates refusal at the beginning or during the act.
• Being educated (before the act) about sex and sexuality or not, doesn’t matter for sexual contact in this stance.”

Archive of Post: https://archive.md/hRLUK#selection-2019.0-2019.15

Context:

The person who originally posted this is thought of by at least one person as possibly being the coiner of radqueer (reasoning being that the writing/visual styles in posts are similar and they were probably one of the first people to identify as a xenosatanist).