1. Introduction
The terms "MAP" ("Minor-Attracted Person") and "MAPs" ("Minor-Attracted Persons") seem to pop up more and more frequently in social media and the likes. What really angers me is that there are actual mental-health professionals that take these terms seriously.
Critics argue that using a neutral-sounding acronyms like "MAP" and "MAPs" attempts to normalize or sanitize sexual attraction to children. Well, that point is well taken. However, here is the bigger picture. What the terms "MAP" and "MAPs" also get wrong is that they conflate any adult teleiophile who has fallen in love with a teenage minor with actual pedophiles who fantasize about sexually molesting prepubescent children.
I never thought that I would be making this statement, but self-proclaimed child advocates and pedophile activists have become strange bedfellows in promoting the MAP narrative in a dangerous way. Self-proclaimed child advocates want adult men who have non-Platonic feelings toward teenage girls to be lumped in with actual pedophiles, because these idiots insist that there is no difference between the two. Pedophile activists merely wish to latch onto the umbrella of chronoastiphilia so that society will accept pedophilia.
What is the umbrella of chronoastiphilia? It is the umbrella that contains hebephilia, ephebophilia, and teleiophilia. Pedophilia and nepiophilia have their own umbrella that identifies them as maladaptive paraphilias and psychiatric disorders.
Fact has it that there is a world of a difference between an adult teleiophile who falls in love with a teenager and an actual pedophile who fantasizes about sexually molesting children. The two should never be cross-polinnated in any way, shape, or form. Most unfortunately, the American culture is vulnerable to the imposition of these ludicrous terms and acronyms because of what can be best described as "Pedophile-Panic Derangement Syndrome" or what can be even better described as "Knee-Jerk Map Hysteria Crap."
Not too long ago I read a true story about a foster mother who allowed for her 14-year-old foster daughter to date a 24-year-old man provided that he followed the foster mother's strict rules. To make a long story short, the young man married the girl eight years later, and they lived happily ever after. He even put her through college. He fell in love with her when she was only 14 years old and he was a full-grown adult, but he never manipulated or groomed her.
My question is why would a decent man like that want to hang out and chill with some sicko who gets his rocks off by watching adult men sexually assault toddlers on camera? He wouldn't. Therefore, how does it make any sense for anyone to lump that young man in with someone as depraved and revolting as Peter Scully? It doesn't.
Well, promoting the terms "MAP" and "MAPs" misleads the public at large into believing that there is no difference between the two men. Fact has it that adult men who fall in love with teenage girls that are still minors do not wish to be forced under the same umbrella as adult men who get their holly jollies out of sexually fantasizing about little girls and boys under 11 years old.
These Don-Johnson-style men don't wish to be called MAPs any more than Japanese, Chinese, and Korean people wish to be called Orientals. It's offensive as it suggests that they are equally as psychologically deranged as actual pedophiles are.
For these reasons, the terms "TAP" (Teenage-Attracted Person) and "TAPs" (Teenage-Attracted Persons) don't exist. Adult men who fall in love with teenage minors simply don't want to be associated with child molesters and pedophiles any more than decent German-Americans and decent Austrian-Americans wish to be associated with Nazis.
Adult men who have a love interest in a teenage girl would prefer to hang out with normies rather than with pedophiles, to say the least. Most of us can agree that there is a big, big difference between a 23-year-old man who falls in love with a 17-year-old girl and a 45-year-old man who fantasizes about molesting a 7-year-old girl.
Most despicably, certain rogue psychiatrists are feeding into the preconceived notions that semi-illiterates have about this entire MAP narrative that both self-proclaimed child advocates and pedophile activists have been peddling to the public lately. The American Psychiatric Association ("A. P. A.") needs to crack down on this same professional misconduct among these shady shrinks.
2. A Dangerous Trajectory For The American People
Recently I came across a video of Dr. Lisa J. Cohen, who is a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Mount Sinai Beth Israel of the Icahn School of Medicine. In that same video, she gave a speech about the topic of pedophiles and "MAPs," so to speak. The video was titled "Pedophilia and Minor Attracted Persons: What Do We Know About This Critical Issue?" and it appeared on YouTube. Here is the video below.
Dr. Lisa J. Cohen Describes The Difference Between Pedophiles And MAPs
Dr. Cohen's educational credentials are quite impressive. Also, at the beginning of her speech, she appears to be unbiased. She does initially get the definitions of sex-related clinical terms right. The problem I have with her is that she appears to cater way too much to the hysteria and sexual insecurities of social-justice warriors and self-proclaimed child advocates who seek to conflate actual pedophiles with every man who has ever fallen in love with a teenage girl.
For that same reason, I cannot endorse her teachings despite that they may present themselves as mainstream in the public eye. There's a major difference between what is actually truthful and what may be popular, and she needs to realize it.
At the end of the day, an adult man who falls in love with a 13-, 14-, 15-, or 16-year-old girl doesn't need therapy. He needs understanding. In her video, Dr. Cohen fails to promote such understanding, even though she does show compassion in other areas of the topic.
An adult man's attraction to adolescents is most likely triggered by nostalgia over having missed out on the teenage dating scene back when he himself was in middle school and high school. It has nothing to do with abnormal sexuality. When he meets a teenage schoolgirl who falls in love with him, she becomes like the middle-school or high-school sweetheart he never had until now; and she becomes a part of his belated first-love experience.
Now if all goes well, such an adult man may become romantically involved with a teenage girl that young, will eventually marry her, start a family with her, and live happily ever after provided that outside social forces don't stand in the way. By the time such a man has been married to that young lady for so long, he's probably going to lose interest in pubescent and adolescent girls altogether inasmuch as he will be focused on being in love with his wife and only his wife.
A pedophile, on the other hand, will fantasize about prepubescent children. He may or may not sexually offend. However, say, if he sexually molests a 6-year-old girl and he gets caught, the court system could send him away to prison for decades and decades. However, once he gets released back out into society, he's still likely going to be the same person he was before he committed his crime. That is, he'll still pose a danger to little girls, because he has serious psychological problems.
Because Dr. Cohen fails to see the distinction between both of these scenarios, conventional wisdom holds that her research could never be one-hundred percent accurate, to say the least. Throughout her speech, she never really delves into the reasons why nations that have statutory ages of consent as low as 14 years old seem to get along much better in how they handle their juvenile-justice-related matters than the United States does.
It should be noted that many of these nations that have a statutory age of consent of 14 years are First-World nations. Austria, Albania, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Serbia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru all have statutory ages of consent at 14 years old.
The court system in the United States will lock a 15-year-old girl up for contempt of court if she refuses to testify against her 23-year-old boyfriend in a statutory-rape case against him. They may even go as far as hypocritically charging her as an adult for it. How does that make any sense?
It's as though the criminal justice system wants to have its cake and eat it too. Dr. Cohen never mentions anything about any of this.
Hebephilia and ebephilia (also known as ephebophilia) are social constructs that the American Psychiatric Association ("A. P. A.") doesn't recognize as maladaptive paraphilias or psychiatric disorders of any kind. In 2013, Dr. Ray Blanchard attempted to convince the A. P. A. that hebephilia needed to be included in the definition of pedophilia, but they rejected his proposal.
The A. P. A. felt that such a drastic change in the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ("DSM-5") in how it defined pedophilia would have caused too many problems for the law and society. Of course, social-justice warriors and self-proclaimed child advocates were very angry about it, because they wish to find inventive means to coerce others into becoming trapped in their make-believe world of age-appropriate perfection and wholesome purity.
Fact has it that most adults who fall in love with teenage minors are teleiophiles. That is, they get a clean bill of mental health from the A. P. A. Even if such adults could be viewed to be hebephiles or ephebophiles, the A. P. A. has determined that both of these sexual inclinations are normative.
For these same reasons, there is no legitimate reason that these individuals should be lumped in with pedophiles in the form of MAPs. Never mind what all these braindead YouTube influencers have to say about it. They don't know anything. They're only looking to bolster the number of views that they receive for their videos.
So, why would these same people need help except for legal help, that is, if they have a brush with the law? There is nothing mentally wrong with them.
I must commend Dr. Cohen for acknowledging the existence of rogue psychiatrists who feed into all the misleading pedophile-panic propaganda out there. Then again, it doesn't surprise me, because many mental-health professionals should be stripped of their medical licenses.
A major problem that I am having with Dr. Cohen is that she uses the words "child sexual abuse" and "child molestation" loosely and indiscriminately in her speech. Medical science stipulates that once a minor hits puberty, they are no longer children.
Nonetheless, Dr. Cohen describes the late Jeffrey Epstein as being a child molester. My response to it is that he may have been a tyrant and a predator, but he falls short of the definition of "child sexual abuse" simply because all of his victims were teenagers.
If we were to call the late Mr. Epstein a child rapist, we'd also have to call the late Aubreigh Wyatt's assailant a child rapist as well inasmuch as she was only 12 years old when this punk raped her. Social-justice warriors would be up in arms about it and accusing anyone who called him a child rapist of being politically incorrect merely because he was the same age as her when he committed the crime against her.
Dr. Cohen went off the rails in her speech when she accused Prince Andrew of committing child sexual abuse. Yes, he had sex with a minor. However, she was 17 years old rather than 7 years old. Having sex with a 17-year-old girl is not the same thing as an adult man sexually molesting a 7-year-old girl.
Yes, there was a concern that this young girl he had sex with had fallen victim to human trafficking. That fact would make Prince Andrew a criminal, but it would not necessarily make him a child molester.
If we were to call Prince Andrew a pedophile for having sex with a 17-year-old girl even in an exploitative manner, then we'd have to accuse Levi Johnston of being a pedophile as well. Bristol Palin accused him of raping her back when she was 16 years old. It doesn't matter that he was the same age as her when he did it. She was drunk and unconscious when he forced himself upon her. That is rape.
I do admire the fact that Dr. Cohen recognizes that adult men who pursue relationships with mature teenage girls, even underage ones that fit that mold, should not be branded as MAPs. However, she goes off on a tangent about adults having a strong attraction to teenage minors. Then one has to question where she is taking this entire narrative of hers.
Because there are numerous industrialized nations where the statutory age of consent is 14 years old, I don't think that any adult man should be branded as a child molester for doing something that is perfectly legal for a 15-year-old boy to do. Of course, that's just my humble opinion. It still baffles me why Dr. Cohen never talks about these same nations in her speech.
The whole question about teleiophiles and even hebephiles and ephebophiles not wanting to identify themselves as MAPs should have been resolved once the A. P. A. rejected Dr. Blanchard's proposal to broaden the definition of pedophilia to include adolescents in a pedophile's age pole of attraction back in 2013. It's as though these self-righteous do-gooders want to continue to beat a dead horse.
Dr. Cohen cites the teachings of Kenneth Lanning regarding child molestation and the likes. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Lanning is another wolf in sheep's clothing à la Dr. Park Elliott Dietz. Therefore, I don't place very much stock in anything he says. The only difference between Mr. Lanning and Dr. Dietz is Mr. Lanning is a former Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), whereas Dr. Dietz is a forensic psychiatrist, so to speak.
Dr. Cohen insists that she is completely objective in her approach to the topic of pedophilia and "MAPs." However, she isn't so, because she cross-pollinates teenage sex of a cross-generational nature with child molestation way too many times in her speech. A good example of it is that she describes what she calls "MAP Actors," which she defines as Minor-Attracted Persons who violate the law with minors.
Dr. Cohen states that "MAP actors" answered "yes" to any question inquiring whether they had ever sexually engaged with either children or underage adolescents as an adult. Such a statement on her part is ambiguous at best.
The elephant in the room here is that whenever an adult sexually molests a small child, say 6 or 7 years old, such a crime should always be reported to the authorities. Otherwise, that adult is going to victimize that child again and again.
On the other hand, if a 14- or 15-year-old girl secretly has a 22-year-old boyfriend and they become intimate with each other by chance, it is better that nobody finds out about it, especially the authorities, so that everyone comes out of the situation a happy camper. Not even the girl's parents should know about it.
Otherwise, once the police get involved in the matter, they're not going to act in the young girl's best interest. Their only goal from that point on will be to arrest the 22-year-old boyfriend and seek a conviction against him for "statutory rape." The parents will be out for a chunk of the boyfriend's flesh. Ultimately, the young girl's relationship with her parents will be destroyed once the court system sticks its poisoned tentacles into them.
At the end of the day, the American statutory-rape laws are the most upside-down sex laws in the world. Law-enforcement officials and court officials in our nation are only out to see what they can get out of them rather than to protect any minor from actual harm. Below is a video in which Norman Michael Achin reads a letter from a friend of his who criticizes the American statutory-rape laws for being nonsensical.
Norman Michael Achin's Friend Questions The Integrity Of American Statutory-Rape Laws
American statutory-rape laws are in dire need of reform. For starters, "statutory rape" needs to be downgraded from a strict-liability offense to an intent offense everywhere in the United States. The bar for a prosecutor meeting their burden of proof in statutory-rape cases needs to be raised higher than it is now in a manner in which the prosecution would have to prove that actual harm has been done to an alleged victim before a conviction can be secured.
At one point in Dr. Cohen's speech, she cites a sex-related study that involved rats. Seriously? Oh, brother.
In contrary to Dr. Cohen's statements, Maxwell Ghislaine was the late Jeffrey Epstein's partner in crime. However, she wasn't truly a child molester, because there were no prepubescent children involved in their sex ring.
Dr. Cohen? If you're reading this article here of mine, I have one pressing question for you. If an underage boy rapes an adult woman and she gets an unwanted orgasm from it, would that make her a MAP? I honestly don't think that a woman who went through such a tragedy would want to be associated with MAP communities, especially if she gets wrongfully charged with statutory rape.
Dr. Cohen did admit that this study she was using for her speech was biased in certain respects. Of course, it was, because, in figurative language, it lumped oranges in with apples.
In her speech, Dr. Cohen delivers the following quote:
Children cannot consent. They don't drive, get married, hold jobs, buy real estate, enter into legal contracts, go to war, or are held legally accountable for their actions. They cannot consent with an adult.
I happen to agree with this quote, but, at the same time, I must stress that it only really applies to prepubescent children under the age of 11. A minor can drive a car when they are 16 years old, and, in some states, they can legally do so when they are 14 or 15 years old. A minor can hold a job when they are as young as 12 years old in certain state jurisdictions of our nation.
American lawmakers are constantly trying to pass laws to have minors tried as adults as young as 12 years of age, and, interestingly enough, law-enforcement officials and even judges welcome such laws with open arms. Minors can get married in certain state jurisdictions of our nation as young as 12 years of age if they go through the proper legal channels.
For all these same reasons, the above standard that Dr. Cohen quoted cannot be applied equally to underage adolescents as it can be to prepubescent children. The American statutory-rape laws that pertain to teenagers are an aberration in our criminal justice system at best.
The whole rhetoric that Dr. Cohen delivers about "consent" applies to a 7-year-old child but would not apply to a 17-year-old minor. Unfortunately, rogue psychiatrists absolutely love the infantilization of teenagers with society and the law, because it sends more business their way.
The MAP narrative promotes Pedophile-Panic Derangement Syndrome. It's exactly as misleading as saying that a female impersonator is no different from a gay prison rapist. It places the misconception in people's heads that if a middle-aged man has his 43-year-old wife dress up like a middle-school cheerleader, he's going to get the sudden driving desire to kidnap, rape, and kill a 3-year-old toddler that he happens to encounter.
If an adult man has such a strong void in his life from missing out on the teenage dating scene during his own adolescence that he finds himself gravitating toward girls in the 12-to-17-year-old age range in search of tenderness and affection, perhaps the best advice that a therapist can give him is for him to immigrate to a nation that has a statutory age of consent of 14 years old or younger and renounce his U.S. citizenship so that the U.S. extraterritorial sex laws cannot be used against him.
Of course, we both know that Dr. Cohen would never give this type of advice, because it would be financial suicide for her. Even though she tries to fool her audience that she is open-minded about this topic, she cannot deny that she still wishes to be on what she perceives to be the winning side. She's not going to see any flaws in the entire MAP narrative for that same reason.
In some parts of her speech, Dr. Cohen loses sight of the actual definition of pedophilia that appears in the DSM-5. Fact has it that nations that have statutory ages of consent of 14 years old or lower have fewer sociological problems than the United States has.
Teenage-attracted adults don't want to be placed in the same category as real pedophiles, because they hate them and want nothing to do with them. They shouldn't be equated to them. That's why the terms "TAP" ("Teenage-Attracted Person) and "TAPs" ("Teenage-Attracted Persons) don't exist.
Lenore Skenazy would likely have an interesting discussion with Dr. Cohen on this same topic. Dr. Judith Levine and Heather Corinna would probably disagree with Dr. Cohen also on a number of her points.
I'd be interested in knowing what Dr. Cohen's opinion is about the online publication titled The Paradox of Statutory Rape by Russell L. Christopher and Kathryn Hope Christopher. After reading it, I'm optimistic that she would likely agree with me that the terms "MAP" and "MAPs" should never have been coined in the first place and should be thrown out of the English language.
Dr. Cohen's mere mention of pubescent and adolescent teenagers synonymously with prepubescent children at times throughout her speech constitutes a red flag on its own. She mixes the apples in with the oranges in making her comparisons.
The forced categorization and cross-pollination of adult men who have non-Platonic interests in teenage girls with actual pedophiles in the form of the MAP narrative is a product of a neo-Fascist system here in the United States that cheers on former prom kings who will brag at their high-school reunions about all the 12- and 13-year-old girls they banged when they were that young themselves and who will mendaciously pedo-shame any adult man who even slightly compliments Brooke Shields' performance in Calvin-Klein jeans advertisements from way back when.
It's a caste system disguised as a genuine effort to rescue all the minors of the world. It's a deception done at the expense and detriment of those who may have not been as lucky to have that first-love experience back when they were in middle school or high school.
When Dr. Cohen calls these same above-described adult men MAPs and psychoanalyzes them in her research as though they are psychiatrically challenged individuals instead of recommending that they immigrate to a nation where the statutory age of consent is 13 or 14 years old, then she is the cause of a problem rather than a solution to it. Of course, she'll never admit to it, because she wants everyone to think of her as one of the good guys who understand everyone's situation and, at the same time, she can maintain her mainstream image in the public eye.
I notice that the comments section of Dr. Cohen's video are turned off. What's wrong, Dr. Cohen? Don't you want anyone to send a little bit of constructive criticism your way?
3. Final Thoughts
Let's get out of our puritanical bubble that holds us hostage to stereotypes and misconceptions about people who may be nonconformists regarding age-related relationships at worst. Adult men have been falling in love with teenage girls since the beginning of time. Most men are attracted to pubescent and adolescent girls, but American men won't admit to it in fear of their peers ostracizing them. Take a look at the video below.
The Weiss Girls Go Christmas Shopping Out In California
Gwyneth Weiss is 15 years old, and Gracelynn Weiss is 17 years old; and both of these girls are absolutely stunningly beautiful. You don't have to be a teenage boy to notice them. Older men probably notice them when they pass them on the street or in the shopping mall.
Gretchen Weiss may only be 12 years old, but she's turning into a lady creature. She's taking after her older sisters' genetic gifts. No adult man needs to beat himself up if he finds any of these three girls to be attractive. These girls want to be noticed by the opposite sex, and that's perfectly fine. No harm is being done.
Dr. Lisa J. Cohen simply doesn't provide the full picture in her speech. She allows her speech to turn into propaganda instead.
To those of you who still don't see the wisdom of my words herein, let me make this one point. If you were a hard-working Salvadorian who resided in the United States and treated everyone with decency and respect, would you attend a Hispanic cultural event that the MS-13 gang was conducting merely because they were also Salvadorians? Of course, you wouldn't. So, why would any adult man who has fallen in love with a teenage girl want to be associated with pedophiles in the form of the MAP narrative? They wouldn't. You get my drift.
This article is copyright-protected.