What is exactly the origin of the minnor attracted person flag? There are a lot of conflitating stories about it. There are websites saying it was created on Tumbrl part of troll expirement, others saying it was created by the alt-right too attack the LGBT community and other saying it do was created to refer to pedophilies, but to clebrate non-offending minor-atrracted person"s. So, what do you guys think about it? Where does that flag came form in the first place? Another question I have is if this flag even existed in real life? Like a physical flag, like LGBT flags constantly used on Pride paredes, not just virtually. Does anyone here know?
For those who arenât familiar with it or donât remembre it , thatâs the falg Iâm talking about:
The flag was created by a MAP ally on Tumblr going by the name Stenna when I was still there so around 4-5 years ago, a lot of us liked it so we decided to adopt it and itâs become pretty widely accepted. Shortly after they deleted their blog and the name was taken by antis (this happened a lot on Tumblr) and thatâs where a lot of confusion came from. I know Lecter wrote a more in depth piece on the origin, Iâll look around for it.
I donât believe itâs ever existed as a physical flag, if it has thatâs only recent.
Its probably not a good idea to use the flag becuase of how its associated with the twitter map massacre, and that brought alot of hate towards the pedo support communities. I assume most of the people who attempt to troll our form come from youtube videos on the subject.
Ok, thanks! If you find please put it here, Iâm curious about it
I may be wrong about him writing something specifically about it, might just be mistaken because itâs something he brings up quite a lot. But his recollection of it is similar to mine, although he knew Stenna better than me.
I also read other sites also claiming that it was created by âThe Prevention Projectâ, there really is a lot of confusion about it
Yes, thatâs the first ever instance of the MAP flag.
I found this flag on an imageboard, but I figured Iâd post it here since itâs relevant to the discussion.
Iâm not against NOMAPs joining the LGBT, even if begrudgingly.
Itâs really disappointing to see that people think pedophilic persons can just âget helpâ or âseek therapyâ for their desires. Like I get it, theyâre concerned about the welfare of children, but to me, this seems like the wrong way to go about doing it. People told gay men to âseek helpâ for their homosexual desires during the HIV/AIDS scares of the 20th century, going so far as to evict gay men from neighborhoods or not let them use public facilities.
I think the LGBT community ought to consider accepting non-offending MAPs. There is a stark difference between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder, after all, so seeing people claim that itâs nothing more than a mental disorder or a disease is both disappointing and wrong.
Pedophilia, whether they like it or not, isnât going anywhere. It canât be âcuredâ. It canât be treated, nor can it be inhibited. The best they could do is provide safe, legal outlets for their desires while making it perfectly clear that sexual activity with REAL CHILDREN is NOT ALLOWED.
Ops ,just discoverd because of @Chie link, that there actually is at least one real physical flag arround there. But I have no idea, where did this person got thisâŚ
Nothing changes, society always just moves along to the next group they can stigmatise.
I think the community would decline overall anyway, I certainly would. A lot of us donât much like the LGBT community and think we can be served better by having our own.
Easy enough to get one custom made, just very few people whoâd risk it.
Very late to this but MAP Wiki has a summary of its origins written by someone who knew the original creator.
https://map-wiki.com/index.php/MAP_flag
Letâs just say that in 2009, following a 1-year search for a symbol on a now defunct forum, there was another visually similar submission with a rationale as follows:
âLike the tricolor concept, gradient stripes attempt to represent all aspects of the erotic. The color pink represents the feminine, blue for the masculine, and white both for the purity of these and for all those not included in the two categories of CL expression. [âŚ] A spectrum of gender and ageâ
It is called the âPhilist Flagâ and pre-dated the more famous âMAP Flagâ. The relationship is unknown, and perhaps unknowable, as the proposers have markedly different philosophies, one coming from the early 2nd-wave MAP Movement, and the other from Tumblr.
My post originally contained a link to an educational website deemed inappropriate on this forum, because other articles on that website advocate for reform of AoC laws.
NoooâŚ
Thatâs not why. Reform of AoC laws can be sensible if theyâre limited to protecting the interests of minors who engage in consensual sexual acts with other minors within the same age group, and not weakening penalties against adults who prey on minors for gratification.
Your post with that link was removed because the platform you cited is not one that @prostasia wishes to honor as an authority on matters of fact. There are irreconcilable differences in matters of opinion between ourselves (an evidence-based CSA prevention organization) and the admins over at NewGon, who have openly advocated pro-contact/pro-abuse policies and positions.
As Iâve explained to @elliot via DMs when discussing this matter:
I wouldnât expect an LGBT-oriented non-profit that specializes in HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention to cite materials produced by the Family Research Council (an Evangelical conservative think-tank and shadow-PAC) for information about HIV/AIDS infection and mortality statistics, just as I wouldnât expect Prostasiaâs forum to allow its users to cite NewGon for articles about the history of the MAP movement.
I have no doubt in my mind that there might be some truth to such articles, but Iâm not at all willing to allow them to be legitimized, and neither are academic organizations looking to work with or perhaps involve themselves with Prostasia, or anti-contact MAPs, or their families, who may suspect Prostasiaâs anti-contact position would be compromised.
My main point is that NewGon is an agenda-driven platform, maintained by contributors whose ultimate goals and ideals are irreconcilable with that of ours.
Your attempt to downplay such an egregious and detestable matter of viewpoint fills me with great concern as to your intentions with partaking in this community.
You have admitted in the same post that both N*.net and Prostasia.org are âagenda driven*â, but merely have conflicting agendas in some regards. I donât see anything wrong with that assessment. But to be clear, you are now directing users to the former in more than one of your posts, not I. Maybe this is something you might like to address if moderating the link really is not simply a matter of optics.
Why not just admit that excluding the link is an optical consideration? Thereâs no shame in that; after all, you have your brand, so you are fully entitled to go about maintaining that in any way you see fit. The argument that a first-hand account relaying a matter of digital record (itâs in their own database, and was in the web archive until last month!) might not be reliable is rather silly. And if it isnât, then what is it exactly? An opinion, maybe, and forum.prostasia.org is a forum.
*Albeit conveniently, saving the term for only one of them.
Personally, I donât believe that thereâs anything wrong with 2 people being in a relationship provided that they can both give informed consent. If a person can provide informed consent (The ability to understand the benefits & consequences of what theyâre agreeing to) then it shouldnât be a problem if they are in the âsame age groupâ or not.
In the cases where there is a large age gap between them I think itâs very narrow-minded to call all of these types of legal relationships predatory and only for the older partyâs âgratificationâ because it also implies that all MAP attractions are inherently predatory regardless of the laws and culture of where they live. This all feels like a very American point of view in my opinion.
Regardless, Iâm not actually here to partake of that debate, and never linked to an article (yes, a website) that takes that extreme reformist pro-age-gap position. I have a view on that matter, but would rather watch people debate it than attempt to influence it either way.
I donât see how, as the author stated, I am âdownplayingâ any âmatter of viewpointâ, when that viewpoint was not the matter I brought up or alluded to in the first place.
I joined this forum, fully aware of its editorial line, to point out the omission of previous attempts at creating a MAP-type Flag, which did indeed result in a visually and conceptually very similar proposal that was never adopted.
My apologies for derailing the original topic, I just felt it necessary to make my point clear.
Adults have that agency to sustain high-age-gap relationships with other adults, while teenagers and younger adolescents do not, which was the crux of my statement.
My apologies for de-railing the thread and for acting emotional. I just felt it necessary to convey that point amongst users. Itâs not necessarily out of overconcern for optics, but rather the act of honoring that platform and its contributors as a source of truth which may be misconstrued to lend further credence down the road.
Back to the matter at hand.
I know that this is unrelated to the main topic, but letâs not forget that NewGon mocks people who say âlolicon isnât the same as CP/CSAM, because it involves fictional childrenâ. They argue that lolicons do this to cope and justify their âfetishâ and that liking lolis is the same as liking real children. NewGon suggests that the only resolution to the debate on âIs lolicon the same as pedophilia?â is that lolicons admit that theyâre MAPs as well, otherwise theyâre hypocrites.
That moment when even pro-contact MAPs say that lolicon is pedophilia.
What Iâd suggest for your org, is to produce some kind of unified guide:
âA definitive guide on activism by MAPs, and how Prostasia is not thatâ.
This could cover the history of MAPs as well as the flag design, development of the language used, online community, etc. Presently, readers are having to head off to sites like Newgon, Ipce, etc to learn about their history pre-internet, and in the gay rights movement. David Paternotte wrote an excellent paper on this early history, outlining most of the facts.
This would also be a good opportunity to juxtapose the charityâs values against those previous manifestations of activism by and not for MAPs, and also to provide an answer to the various falsehoods detailed in other threads here. A creative, but high-risk strategy might even be to seek and publish comments from various MAP-led initiatives, detailing how their approach differs from your own.
From there, you could possibly get an article on Wikipedia. The trade-off being that a Wikipedia articleâs premise is ânotabilityâ, and that as far as concrete sources go, notability will doubtless rest on controversies. Your own response to those controversies will be considered ânotableâ, and it is generally best to provide all the arguments in one piece.