A Frightening Number of Pro-C People Infultrating Art Spaces

I think Baraag just limits everyone, lol. I got remotely limited there after someone reported me for being “pro-abuse,” citing such compelling evidence as:

  • me posting a meme that used a symbol created for anti-c MAPs
  • a petition I made against spanking being used as a punishment in schools

I decided to be cheeky and make an account on Baraag to repost the petition and they deleted the post entirely, so I’m not quite sure what the actual issue was

The petition, for context: Petition · Don't use abuse as a punishment · Change.org


I don’t have a Baraag account myself, but I genuinely think it sucks that symbols made for and by anti-c folk would be treated the same way as pro-c rhetoric. :slightly_frowning_face:

However, recently I have also seen some of those symbols co-opted by bad actors (the InkBunny’s journal comments, specifically mods discussions, is wild), so I could understand why Koi would be cautious. Still, that sucks.

Tangentially, I wonder how to combat the co-opting of anti-c symbols?

Personally, I’m not too concerned about that. In my experience, symbols for any subset of MAPs eventually become used by all MAPs. A lot of the existing symbols were created by pro-cs, so it probably works out in favor of anti-cs more than anyone else. As someone who is in a couple primarily/exclusively anti-c spaces where various symbols are used, focusing on any of them as a means of identifying certain types of rhetoric seems like a losing battle


As someone who is in a couple primarily/exclusively anti-c spaces where various symbols are used, focusing on any of them as a means of identifying certain types of rhetoric seems like a losing battle

I don’t disagree with that. Considering the fluidity of symbols today, it can be very hard to discern anything about a person from what they use (although there are contexts where certain terms and symbols are dog whistles or tells, and I do not intend to discount that). I would wonder, though, if completely writing it off is the right choice, either. I think some middle ground needs to be worked out, even if it ends up constantly in flux as new information comes through.

Everyone in the MAP community uses those symbols lol :gift_heart: We have several more than those you mentioned. The blue triangle means Boy Love :blue_heart: meaning you’re a MAP who is attracted to boys (Romantically and/or sexually), the Pink Heart :heartpulse: is for Girl Love and we have others for Bi and Pansexual maps and we even have one for trans & non binary child love and a MAP Flag etc. It’s just a way to show our identities, the same way the LGBTQ+ has the 1 rainbow flag :rainbow_flag: and then lots of other flags under it such as the trans flag :transgender_flag: thats all it is lol :blush:

In all my mappy artwork I include usually at least 1 of these symbols in there because it represents my identity (the blue triangle specifically) :innocent:

1 Like

Making an account to weigh in here since I am involved in some of this drama. In my experience, you are conflating different occurrences as being orchestrated by the same group of people. I’ve heard others mention this “well-known group of pro-c or “neutral-c” “advocates”” and I actually have no idea who they are or what they’re doing, despite being accused by certain instance admins of being groomed by them/fighting for them/what have you.

The dreamwidth and squidge thing was caused by a single person who posted nothing other than the MAP symbols (boylove, girllove, enbylove, and childlove) in an art piece. This person was told by DW staff that symbols and flags are “inherently advocacy for child abuse” and banned (same with squidge)

Aethy admin has been handling this repulsively, banning all MAP symbols and flags claiming they’re inherently pro-c, and lying about the people I know involved in this conflict while banning them for offsite behavior so they can’t even say their side.

Nnia.space is claimed by the admin to be “pro-c” because it allows pro-c people to make accounts. I was called to task for reblogging resource and meme posts on my baraag account (so not even on aethy) bc they came from nnia even tho the posts had nothing to do with contact stance.

I have no idea about what’s going on on inkbunny or anything else, just that you are incorrect in this one area.


Tldr baraag user posts map symbols (heart, triangle, etc) as part of a work of MAP positivity art on baraag, gets banned from aethy, dreamwidth, and squidge for alleged child abuse.


Oh yeah, this is NOT true, this is an extreme failure of reading comprehension by many people. The point being made was that contact labels alone do not signify if someone is an abusive person, as there was a well-known anti-c activist who wanted to decriminalize CSEM. So basically nobody uses contact stance to mean the same thing so it cannot be used to determine “good” and “bad” paraphiles like aethy admin wants.

I have friends who said “I can’t be involved in this discussion bc I have trauma and it triggers me” and were called “pro-c” in response. Which is a really abhorrent way to treat someone trying to take care of their mental health.

The aethy drama as long as I’ve been involved in it was never about pro-c rhetoric or advocacy, the only thing being banned was symbols and flags.

1 Like

Chiming in because the symbols and descriptions - child lover/girl lover/boy lover - all have pro-contact history and connotations. Just because anti-contact minor-attracted people have tried to turn them around doesn’t change that pro-contact is how they started, how those descriptions are interpreted by most non-MAPs, and that describing yourself as loving children in any capacity, to most people, means you want to hurt them.

Whether that’s the intent of the people using those symbols today doesn’t really matter, what matters is how it looks to the average person. The average person sees those symbols being on warning pages against child predators, and doesn’t know that there’s people attracted to children with no intent to hurt them.

If any member of the MAP community can’t see how that’s perceived and how it hurts minor-attracted people being treated fairly, then I wonder what the fight is for. Is it about minor-attracted people being treated well, or is it about the right to make others uncomfortable for little to no reason at the expense of the broader anti-stigma mission? That’s one of many reasons I’m not in MAP circles anymore.


The symbols I feel are widely used enough across different categories of MAPs that it doesn’t make sense to consider them pro-c except in origin. The terms, I can understand taking issue with, as the “love” part was likely designed to carry certain implications. It’s what I said earlier about things not being inherently bad because of their source unless they carry implications/meanings endowed by that source.

I recognize that the symbols were originally created to represent a relationship between an adult and a child, but I feel like in spaces where people who don’t support abuse regularly draw abusive situations, there should be a bit of leeway for people to recognize what someone actually means in their use of certain visuals.

Ultimately, I feel like the issue here is less the fact that the symbols and terms are being used and more the fact that people who claim to be anti-stigma and pro-prevention are refusing to listen to MAPs when it comes to issues and concerns involving their community. These are people who should be allies in both child protection and the protection of human rights. It worries me that they’re allowing preconceived notions to hold that back, as that’s literally what leads to the stigma that enables abuse and human rights violations in the first place


To you that might matter. To every other person, it doesn’t. To the average person, those symbols mean child lover/boy lover/girl lover, people who want to hurt kids. To the average person, pro-contact is a term that sounds like watering down being for abuse. They don’t care about the nuance. They don’t care about any MAP saying otherwise. To them, it sounds like trolling. Stick to substance and don’t use charged language or symbols.

Do the symbols matter as much as the fact that there are minor-attracted people who don’t want to hurt kids, who discover at age 14 in horror they have this attraction, and those people shouldn’t be shunned out of communities for it? One matters, the other doesn’t. You can argue one, the other sounds like trolling, and if it sounds that way, it sounds like it supports real abuse and will be shut down, even in fictional spaces.

It’s not about what people should or shouldn’t realize because you can’t change them, you can only change you, your tactics, and how you represent minor-attracted people to these communities and people. Not all of them are minor-attracted people, and even if they “should” get it, they’ll want to distance themselves from anything or anyone they think will confuse them with people who want to hurt kids, whether they like doing that or not. That’s the reality. They’re stigmatized too. They want to redirect that stigma too.

That’s why there’s the push against the symbols, any kind of rhetoric that sounds pro-abuse, and why they feel there should be a solid, clear line. Any attempt to undermine it will look bad. Any attempt to see nuance will look bad. That’s what hurts minor-attracted people, that’s what hurts Prostasia. You can’t change them. You can only change what you do about it. If what you do means you aren’t heard and aren’t listened to, then you need to change what you do. If people don’t like symbols or the phrase pro-contact and they can be co-opted, then don’t use them. People fear what they don’t understand. Don’t use what they won’t understand.

1 Like

TLDR, if you want them on your side, don’t fight against the communities and for nuance towards so-called pro-contacts and use pro/anti contact language, or post stuff that will piss them off. That sounds horrendous.

Use their language, their words, their behavior and tell your story entirely separate from what they’re fighting against: People who are pro-sex abuse. Don’t get drawn into big discussions/debates or try to nitpick nuance or do the well actually thing. Go to the leaders privately and have a civil conversation using their language of how you/we/Prostasia/etc can help them understand the issue and help with content moderation. Throw the so-called pro-contacts under the bus if you have to.

Example: “Hey, we’ve noticed an influx of trolls (however they identify them in posts) who want to promote child abuse (however they call it) in your spaces. We’re partnered with/on staff with/etc a child protection nonprofit named Prostasia Foundation and we’d love to help with that because we’re familiar with minor-attracted people who are against those same people and are against abuse. We can help you identify these troublemakers (disgusting people, whatever) for a calmer, safer community.”

1 Like

You’re talking about average people. The thread is about leaders in spaces where fiction about abuse is allowed and MAPs were also openly allowed until recently.

And I don’t think throwing anyone under the bus is an effective way to fight for prevention or human rights. Giving people the support they need is what accomplishes both of those.

This isn’t about advancing the interests of MAPs, this is about ensuring everyone has access to safe and healthy outlets. An interest of MAPs, sure, but also not specific to them.


If you have a problem with NNIA, say it directly. We have a problem with Aethy and Baraag because they direct bigoted harassment toward us and have bigoted moderation, including many anti-c’s, not because we’re secretly pro-c or neutral-c somehow. Our conflict with Aethy started when I found an old, happily endorsed post by a user slandering our admin with very bigoted and hurtful rhetoric. Some of us have community overlap with proship or problematic-fiction spaces but most of us don’t hang around those spaces because they don’t like us, many have harassed and abused and traumatized us for being MAPs.

We are currently reassessing internal issues and how we handle contact discourse but that is not antis’ business in any way whatsoever, and especially not for mapmisic conspiracy theorists (especially those claiming “well the FBI says” or “grooming”). Your post was not coherent at all, you are making huge connections between disparate rhetorical issues where there is none, several people on this forum are members of NNIA and similar. If you have specific and relevant Dreamwidth posts or InkBunny posts or whatever discussing the issue, link them so we can have some context.

If you were willing to have a civil discussion in good faith about us and combatting pro-contactism and CSEM apologia (which, I’m pretty sure that’s not even from anywhere near us?) then I would actually be down to talk, we can use any help we can get, except this isn’t that; this is nonsense, and you need to reassess your frameworks.

It’s true that the BL, GL, and CL symbols started out in pro-c MAP communities which didn’t even really know or consider that anti-c MAPs can exist in the first place, likewise for antimaps at the time who thought we didn’t exist. It’s also true that those communities faced a great deal of unjustified mapmisia that they would’ve faced even if they were an anti-c MAP community. There’s nothing special about those symbols; the issue is context.

Barely anyone (probably no one?) has talked in the mixed-contact NNIA Matrix server for about a year, it’s not as big of a deal as you think it was. And there were specific reasons for that formation (one of which being a choice of either pro-MAP and pro-c-tolerant or anti-MAP and strongly anti-c given by bigoted antimaps, as well as severe isolation and lack of allies, which of course is going to push some people toward suboptimal community building; and attacks like these just make that problem worse! instead of offering compassionate and productive solutions). And we’ve been involved in strong efforts to oust pro-c’s and combat pro-c groups who have been relentlessly attacking us over this past year and building power in many ways unchecked apart from our work (completely unappreciated, of course, because normies refuse to look at us and no one else gives a damn).

The biggest problem with your post is that you’re viewing anti-c MAPs / the NNIA moderation as active, malicious, deliberate, willing facilitators of pro-c entryism rather than victims of it too. You feel sorry for the MAP-hostile admins of normie proship/profic spaces but not our struggles (and likely you don’t/can’t see them in the first place). If you did then you would know that there was an atmosphere of severe pressure and centrist norms being enforced by local pro-c’s and apologists that prevented us from kicking us out. But we’ve still gotten a lot of (vicious, vitriolic) hate from pro-c’s and they’ve been leaving NNIA in droves because our policies were “too anti-c.”

If you really want to support MAPs and combat pro-contactism, stop getting your info from antimaps first.

Edit re: “so don’t take too-harsh measures against pro-c’s at all, that would just make it easier for them to gain a foothold”

I also disagree with that approach. I am actually in favor of full and complete bans, no having anything resembling the therapeutic-rehabilitation-industry’s “help to not be harmful” recommendations or reconciliation/giving ground. I believe that pro-c’s should be treated the way good leftist communities treat (other) rightwingers, which is deplatforming as much as possible, open hostility, and refusing to relativize. I believe that this route would be politically viable for us at this current stage we’re at in the community after what we’ve won over this past year.

(But I’m not in the leadership, of course. So who can say.)

Since this is a bit off-topic at this point (which is fine, just not necessarily helpful to the OP), I wanted to tie some of it back into @NoGoldHere’s original post.

In my experience, the current approaches to keeping pro-cs out of art spaces (mass bans and similar) aren’t effective. Pro-cs manage to last years on sites that don’t even really allow MAPs - I’ve seen this myself on Twitter - through the use of dogwhistles and other tactics like @Chie described.

If you want to disallow them, or even just stop them from promoting those views, look at the MAP spaces that actually do this effectively. They don’t implement broad and sweeping bans (though they will ban known pro-cs), but instead focus on ensuring those who are questioning their stance have a space where they can safely talk to leadership, and directing those who hold views that aren’t appropriate for those spaces to alternatives that aren’t the echochambers that @Ouros was warning about.

Both of the explicitly anti-c spaces I’m in also use technical measures to ensure new members who turn out to be pro-c have limited influence and give moderators more time to recognize dogwhistles. This includes limiting DMs for new members, reducing access to spaces and search functionality, and keeping strong records of malicious actors. Yes, these do force well-intentioned members to face the same restrictions for a bit, but it leaves you with a community where the people best suited to recognize malicious tactics are eventually allowed access, even if they use symbols that you assumed had a different meaning from how they use them.

In summary:

  • work alongside, not against, anti-c MAPs
  • have alternatives to isolating people with views you don’t allow
  • counter troll behavior with technical solutions

I’ve never seen spaces using this approach have any significant issues with pro-cs gaining influence, while I can easily find pro-cs with hundreds of followers on spaces that do the opposite, such as Twitter


Thank you for bringing things back on track.

If you want to disallow them, or even just stop them from promoting those views, look at the MAP spaces that actually do this effectively.

What MAP spaces do this most effectively? I am generally unfamiliar with the inner workings of MAP-specific spaces, as my primary work was always with fiction first.

I do still stand by the fact that a space which lacks the necessary moderation or resources should not be forced to moderate MAP or other paraphilic or paraphilic disorder discussion (or any content which it is not prepared for-- this can include people with severe suicidal ideation who post threats of harming themselves, eating disorder or “proani” discussion, etc.). I was in agreement that a sweeping ban on Aethy was not the best way to go about it at the time (since people continue to bring up Aethy, specifically).

Going to do my best to respond to this. I do genuinely mean good faith, but I am not “in” these groups and I do not understand all of the different kinds of nuance involved. What I witnessed, specifically with Aethy, was the banning of symbols due to a server issue (Aethy was told they needed to be removed or they would need to move servers, and other sources were already linking the FBI document and NAMBLA’s pages in warning). The first part of that seems lesser-known, and that frustrates me greatly.

If you have a problem with NNIA, say it directly.

I have a problem with NNIA. Lecter’s history and past does not give me good hope for NNIA. I am also unaware if any psychiatric professionals are involved, and this worries me because of the allowance of “pro-contact” (in Lecter’s MAP wiki’s words, this means sexual or romantic contact with children) members. I understand now that the intent seems to be to provide a space so that they don’t end up in an echo chamber, but as I do not know enough about NNIA, it’s members, and already have seen poorly of Lecter, I cannot make any assumptions. I wish I could take things in better faith than I do now, but I have personally seen a few things that makes me deeply hesitant of such spaces.

I am, of course, willing to learn. The point of making this thread was twofold-- to see what could be done about genuine harm being spread (I have, unfortunately, also dealt directly with people consuming CSAM and harming children IRL) and to see what the community response would be. Initially I was quite happy that I was not being treated with hostility, but it’s eeked into that ever so slightly, and I want to reiterate that I am not coming in bad faith. I made this post while I was very stressed because of another private incident involving harassment by users associated with contact stances and, specifically, NNIA.

I’d also note that freak.university and pedo.school are spaces which I have hesitance towards. I did not name all three, of course, because I am unawares as to whether or not I was allowed to. So, here’s my full transparency: I am hesitant of the pediverse as a whole because of poor experience.

[Removed by staff at user’s request]

If you have specific and relevant Dreamwidth posts or InkBunny posts or whatever discussing the issue, link them so we can have some context.

You already seem aware of the Dreamwidth post I’m discussing, but here’s the InkBunny’s news post (and subsequent comment from moderators 1, 2, there may be more instances but this is what I could grab quickly) that I was mentioning. A similar issue was happening on a JPN instance, in which it was co-opted by bad (ENG) actors and used to share illicit material. Those of us who were trying to deal with that also saw many MAP symbols used by the accounts as identifiers-- this is not meant to demonize all MAPs and symbols, but it can very quickly seem as if they are related to the trade of illicit material. This actively hurts NOMAPs and those recovering.

If you did then you would know that there was an atmosphere of severe pressure and centrist norms being enforced by local pro-c’s and apologists that prevented us from kicking us out. But we’ve still gotten a lot of (vicious, vitriolic) hate from pro-c’s and they’ve been leaving NNIA in droves because our policies were “too anti-c.”

You’re absolutely right. I don’t know any of this. I was, at no point, told anything. All I saw was vitriol (perhaps understandably so, as frustration is high and I can’t say that wasn’t for good reason) and harassment, not attempts to genuinely explain. The few attempts I did see were to scattered to be easily understood, which is also understandable, but with topics such as this, being as clear as possible is very important. I can’t say I know anything I obviously don’t know, and I can’t learn anything I don’t know without proper discussion, sources, and mediation. It’s very difficult to learn without some sort of direction, and many are to afraid to join these spaces for many reasons: ostracizationor guilt by association being the two I hear most.

The biggest problem with your post is that you’re viewing anti-c MAPs / the NNIA moderation as active, malicious, deliberate, willing facilitators of pro-c entryism rather than victims of it too.

You’re right, this is not something I considered. I suppose my assumption was “why be in a space like NNIA if it’s so terrible?” But people are desperate for community, especially those who are otherwise vitriolically cast aside at any given slight.

I don’t think “normie” spaces are equipped to deal with the unique issues among the MAP community. I don’t think they should have to be, either. I’d like very much for more spaces like Prostasia who, at minimum, have the clear time and energy to moderate such things, and have access to help and resources as well.

Those leaders are average people, just as susceptible to public opinion as anyone else is. “Fiction about abuse” is still fiction, removed from abuse.

I don’t think twisting people’s words is a productive means of conversation.

If you’re using language that people can’t identify with, using rhetoric that alienates and doesn’t let people see your viewpoint and allows people to throw people you want to give support to under the bus, then you’re accomplishing the very thing you’re throwing around as an accusation.

If you’re using language people can identify with so that you are listening and so that they will listen, you have a productive dialogue and future opportunities to hear and be heard and you have opportunity to establish better support. If you want that in blunt terms, you can’t get anywhere in this world without kissing someone’s ass first.

That starts with the terminology we use to describe positions for and against child sexual abuse and how we treat those who promote abuse. Softening that by calling it pro or anti contact and using contact as a euphemism for child sexual abuse is not productive.

In a room of sane well-adjusted folks for whom fantasy and fiction or even attraction to children is a small part of their weekly life, there is no room for ‘questioning’ your stance on whether child sexual abuse is okay. Literally nobody who cares about the well-being of children wants to listen to that or for there to be a space where that happens or to know that there is a space like that.

Do you know any psychiatric survivors?

I am one. I want reform.

Thank you for the time you gave with your first response. It’s given me a lot to think over.

The 2 spaces I’m aware of would be MAP Support Club (a partner of the Prostasia Foundation) and Virtuous Pedophiles (whose approach is supported by various experts in the prevention field).

And of course, I’m not advocating for any space to allow any specific discourse, especially one they can’t handle. Just saying people shouldn’t be banned simply for existing.

1 Like

I agree wholeheartedly.

1 Like