>>16439
There is a legitimate argument for using destigmatized specific terms to refer to non-offending people attracted to minors, and that actually plays a role in normalizing treatment and protecting minors, but bad-faith abusers will just take advantage of any term as broad as "MAP" as cover for their garbage and tarnish it as they already have, so I'm against normalizing it. If they want any chance at the mental condition of attraction being accepted and treated by society, there has to be an unambiguous, clear denouncement of abuse built into the terminology - not even "anti-touch" that I heard pop up somewhere, because abuse isn't limited to physical. If they haven't already, anti-abuse pedos need to create their own concept akin to veganism - something with clear, unmovable goalposts of what constitutes abuse, and allow that term to enter the lexicon.
