Talk:minor-attracted person

Use in an EU report by Scottish police

Mentioned in a rather sensationalist tabloid yesterday: "Anger as EU project sees Police Scotland rebrand paedophiles as 'Minor-Attracted People'" [1]. However, if there is going to be formal use, maybe we should rethink the "nonstandard" gloss at some stage. Equinox ◑ 22:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed for intention in coining

After reading this fact check, I think a citation is in order for etymology. Some people seem to be putting out fake news saying MAP is a "rebrand" by pedophiles themselves. It's possible it was invented by an anti-pedophilia org like B4UAct (maybe we can actually find the author?) but if so it's ambiguous as to whether reducing stigma is part of the intention or if it's just an umbrella term (which seems to be stigmatized as soon as people learn what it means) with no particular intent. -- Beland (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Definition issue

The current definition of this term implies that hebephiles and ephebophiles are merely a subset of pedophiles, but this is inaccurate. Both are distinctly separate from pedophiles and the term "minor-attracted person" is meant to encompass people with any of the three paraphilias. It is stated accurately in the etymology section of the entry, so the definition is somewhat inconsistent. Additionally, I question the inclusion of nepiophiles, as those are merely a subset of pedophiles and thus extraneous. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources? I have frequently seen people argue over this term (often because they don't want to be called paedophiles) but I see little scientific evidence brought to the table. Equinox ◑ 21:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if most self-proclaimed "minor-attracted persons" are really just pedophiles, but it isn't really relevant to my point. The issue is the current definition treating hebephilia and ephebophilia as if they are merely subsets of pedophilia. Should you want sources highlighting the differences between the three paraphilias, then this should suffice. Snopes does provide a definition of minor-attracted person that notes them separately, if you feel it is necessary. All I am suggesting is making this entry's definition consistent as the etymology section of the entry already treats them separately and the entry for all three paraphilias clearly establish that they are distinct. Also not sure why nepiophilia is included here, given it actually is a subset of pedophilia and thus somewhat redundant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October–November 2023

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

minor-attracted person

We should delete this as it arguably fails WT:SOP. But perhaps even more importantly, it should go per the reasons raised in its first English Wikipedia article deletion nomination: "it is undisputed in this discussion that this term is an euphemism intended to help legitimize pedophilia and related practices, which is at best a very WP:FRINGE view, and needs to be treated with the appropriate caution by Wikipedians." You can also see the second deletion nomination, and our own entry on NOMAP for how concerning/weird this topic can get. (Note that I haven't placed a template on the page, as it's restricted to autopatrollers.) The ed17 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What follows your "perhaps even more importantly" isn't a valid rationale for deletion. I guess what Wikipedians are arguing against is the use of this term in the body of the encyclopedia as if it were a neutral synonym of "pedophile"; that doesn't mean its existence shouldn't be documented, on the contrary. PUC – 14:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The "perhaps more importantly" point appeals to the ideas around meta:Child protection and more generally basic human rights, but yes that's why I also said it fails WT:SOP—specifically the fried egg test. A pedophile is a pedophile, not a "minor-attracted person". The ed17 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17 Those tests can't be failed in the way you seem to think - a term only needs to pass one of them. Theknightwho (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep as a term that is (unfortunately) in use and thus needs to be documented. However, the page should have appropriate notes - the ones it currently has are inadequate. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep, the interest in the connotations and implications of this term show us that not even lacking idiomaticity beyond the sum of the term’s parts constitutes a sufficient argument to delete the entry. We give it as much exposure as it should have: while an entire encyclopaedia entry can create the impression that an idea is not fringe or marginal, this is not the case for a dictionary exposé. Fay Freak (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Some sexologists prefer the term minor-attracted person to avoid the stigma associated with a common abuse of the term pedophile. This abuse is also exemplified in the quotation above from the Wikipedia discussion: “intended to help legitimize pedophilia and related practices”.^[2] Pedophilia is a paraphilia, an experience and not by itself a “practice”. Among the people who experience sexual attraction primarily to adolescent under-age individuals the vast majority does not engage in “related practices”.  --Lambiam 18:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lambiam: If someone wants to use pedophile in the strict, psychiatric sense of the term, what would they call a person who doesn't merely experience sexual attraction towards children, but also engages in sexual relations with them, i.e. acts on their sexual instincts? (This is a genuine question, I'm not insinuating anything.) PUC – 13:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, your comment makes me wonder whether the "euphemistic" label should remain as is. In the eyes of sexologists and psychiatrists, it isn't a euphemism, right? Just a less loaded term for one paraphilia / psychiatric condition among many others. PUC – 13:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone who abuses children can be called a sexual child abuser^[3][4][5] or, depending on their acts, a child rapist. Whether the term minor-attracted person is euphemistic depends on who you ask. The term was introduced by B4U-ACT, an alliance of therapists, researchers, and minor-attracted persons who advocate for the provision of professional services, in particular mental health services, for individuals who are sexually attracted to children and adolescents. The term is used in the professional literature by both sexologists and psychiatrists, but some call B4U-ACT a "pedophilia advocacy group" and will say these authors, by not forthright condemning people with such perverse attractions, are thereby also part of the pedophilia advocacy crowd and are guilty of using the term as a euphemism.  --Lambiam 15:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be "the term" for the referent: I have not seen "child-attracted person" or "CAP", for example, but I've seen "MAP". So probably keep. Equinox ◑ 13:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep (per Surjection) as a term that's in use. To elaborate on what Equinox said, I also don't see that minor-attracted is used with any other noun ("minor-attracted man" for instance). PUC – 13:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep per Lambian and Equinox. Clearly the terms 'paedophile' and 'child molester' are not synonymous and MAP is a set phrase which isn't replacable with a possible synonym like CAP. A very obvious keep in fact. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep per everyone else. However, I could have sworn that this was a part of some trolling campaign, and not used outside of it. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

See the use by Scottish police that I mentioned on the talk page. Maybe you are thinking of 4chan's "clovergender". Equinox ◑ 11:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox I think it's like the ok sign: started off as a trolling campaign, but the attention it got meant some people started using it sincerely. Theknightwho (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it started from a trolling campaign. It was always real and in use in the scientific papers. But it has served as an element of the "LGBT+ SUPPORTS PEDOPHILIA" trolling. CitationsFreak (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep. It meets all the criteria for inclusion, and it would do so even if it is being used to promote paedophilia - which the evidence shows it isn't (at least exclusively). Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Kept per eeryone Seoovslfmo (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)