Contact Ideology

Last updated 26 October 2021

'Contact ideology' refers to the beliefs of MAPs and allies about whether sexual activity or romantic relationships between children and adults are fundamentally abusive, whether social or legal reforms are necessary to prevent harm, whether the consumption or distribution of sexual imagery of children is abusive, and more.

Some readers may find this article uncomfortable. If you would rather not read about contact ideology, please exit this page. If you have any suggestions for this article, please contact us!

Table of contents


Definitions and Labels

Back to Table of Contents

Many communities use their own definitions and labels as they are highly debated within the MAP community.

Open MAP Community's Definitions

Pedophiles About Pedophilia's Ideological Spectrum

This is a quote of Pedophiles About Pedophilia's Ideological Spectrum posted on Pedophiles About Pedophilia that has been adapted to suit OMC's styling. The original work is hosted at https://aboutpedophilia.com/2019/12/21/ideological-spectrum-for-minor-attracted-people.

  1. Conditional-Contact – People who think that the morality of sexual contact with children depends on the circumstances of each situation and do not believe that the nuances/complexities of the discussion over morality or ideology can be concisely captured using labels but that generally each situation’s morality depends on the outcome and whether or not the child feels harm was done.
  2. Pro-Legalisation – People who do not believe the current circumstances are appropriate to be sexual with children – unless laws towards children change – and would not act on it even if given the opportunity because of those circumstances, and they want to change the associated laws in their jurisdiction or beyond.
  3. Pro-Social Reform – People who do not believe the current circumstances are appropriate to be sexual with children unless social attitudes towards children change and would not act on it even if given the opportunity because of those circumstances, and they want to change the associated social attitudes in their area or beyond. This is the most common 'pro-contact' stance.
  4. Undecided – People who see the merits of arguments on both sides but opt not to take a particular stance for any number of reasons (not the same as using no labels at all). This is essentially middle of the spectrum.
  5. General Reformist – People who believe that current legislation around age of consent or other laws on sex crime in their jurisdiction should be changed but do not believe that it should allow for sexual activity with young children (ie, Romeo/Juliet situations is okay, teen sexting is okay, sex offender registration laws are ridiculous, etc). They believe more should be done to protect children.
  6. Anti-Contact – People who believe that sexual contact with minors is generally harmful – and that changing laws/attitudes about it will not make contact less harmful – or the belief that such contact should not be sought because it is, or has the high potential to be, harmful to the child.
  7. Risk-Averse – People who are against 'acting on' attraction and think that friendship, employment around kids, sexual activity, fantasy, and sexual imagery are risks that can lead to a slippery slope. They may go even further to eschew any and all sexual thoughts/fantasies around children.

VirPed's Ideological Spectrum

This is a quote of VirPed's Ideological Spectrum posted on BoyChat that has been adapted to suit OMC's styling. Unfortunately, OMC was unable to recover an original link to this spectrum. If you are aware of a public place where this spectrum can be found, please contact us!

  1. Hands-on Offenders – People who actually have sexual contact with kids.
  2. Would like to but don't – People who think it's OK to have sexual contact with kids today, but don't – maybe no opportunities, can't find a kid they fancy or vice versa, don't think that the opportunities they find can be kept secret, etc.
  3. Pro-legalisation – Against adult-child sex today, until/unless laws and attitudes changed – but very much in favour of changing those laws. Typically it is expressed with anger at society – it's a big deal to them emotionally.
  4. Humble/Laid Back – Leaves it up to society to figure out appropriate ages of consent, realising that they have a selfish interest in lower ones, and maybe it actually does cloud their thinking, so they set that aside. Of course we all have our opinions and intuitions. To the extent they are for lower AoCs, they recognise that it's not helpful for them to advertise them publicly, and it's not helpful to dwell on them privately with anger or even intense focus.
  5. Anti-contact – Thinking that adult-child sex is wrong, with a risk of serious harm that cannot be eliminated by changes in laws or attitudes

Visions of Alice's Definitions

This is a quote of Visions of Alice's Alicelovers Magazine Issue 4 that has been adapted to suit OMC's styling. The original work is hosted at https://visionsofalice.net/ezine.htm.


Media and Articles

Back to Table of Contents

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014


Research and Resources

Back to Table of Contents


#Resources

CC0 Public Domain Work (only applies to pages under #Resources)


Open MAP Community is a chat-based community for minor-attracted persons (MAPs) aged 15 years and older to give and receive peer support. Join at https://mapcommunity.org or omchomelyytyjsfpbmfeumzuxbpd7svoktex5h4zcbuwrcmkfookhnqd.onion.