It started with a TikTok. On a late-night doom scroll before bed, I stumbled across a creator warning viewers about a new term gaining traction on the platform: Minor Attracted Person.
That one video sent me down a rabbit hole, and for the past few months, I’ve lingered on the fringes of a movement that has sparked outrage online, and is made up of people who aren’t afraid to say they are attracted to children.
Shadowing forums and monitoring public commentary on social media, I decided to dig deeper and chose the very generic username domain123 to gain access. Those early weeks were marked by anxiety and constant clearing of my search history, an attempt to mentally scrub away some of the disturbing content I had encountered.
Members of this community spoke candidly about their deeply unsettling attraction to minors, and this sent me on an emotional rollercoaster lurching from outrage, pity, and sometimes uncomfortable clarity.
I saw people advocate for things like child sex dolls and the right to work in safeguarding positions with kids. I witnessed others condemn such actions, speaking vulnerably about their internal battles, describing their attraction as a disease that causes them great pain.
Sign up for all of the latest stories
Start your day informed with Metro’s News Updates newsletter or get Breaking News alerts the moment it happens.
Even more surprising was the degree of sympathy these voices occasionally received from outsiders.
The term minor-attracted person (MAP) has existed for nearly 30 years. While it originated in pro-paedophile circles in the late 1990s, it has started to gain wider use, with some advocating for a less stigmatising label.
Nadav Antebi-Gruszka is a therapist who works with people who have confessed to having a sexual attraction to children and has gained insight into the community.
‘We’re focusing on the attraction and reminding people that one could be attracted to minors and not act on it in any way, shape, or form,’ Nadav explains to Metro.
In a world where labels carry weight, the therapist argues that the term paedophile is too loaded. When the word is used, it’s typically met with disgust, fear, and condemnation, which, Nadav says, overshadows the fact that attraction isn’t always synonymous with harmful actions. The same applies to the action-based word predator, which can feel like a misattribution for non-offenders.
It is, understandably, a controversial take.
According to the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), paedophilic disorder is defined as a condition marked by a persistent and intense sexual attraction to prepubescent children, typically under the age of 11. The diagnosis only applies if the individual has acted on these urges or if they are experiencing significant psychological distress as a result of having them. WHO notes that not everyone with paedophilic interests meets the criteria for diagnosis.
Nadav tells Metro that there is a common misconception that all individuals attracted to minors will inevitably act on those feelings and commit abuse.
‘One of the minor-attracted people I know said: “I don’t understand people’s or society’s obsession with equating minor-attracted people with abusing or harming children. I love children. Why would I want to do anything that would harm them or cause trauma to them?”’
Online outrage
Unsurprisingly, the term minor-attracted person has been met with anger. Many argue that censoring the word paedophile is a calculated attempt to normalise unlawful behaviour. Critics say that diluting stigma in the name of empathy may unintentionally silence victims of child sexual abuse, and that neutral labels for non-offenders could be easily exploited by those who cross the line.
However, this hasn’t stopped a community from forming around the term MAP, which is deeply divisive online. Few topics ignite public fury like child protection, and therapists who engage with this movement have faced stigma by association, with some losing their jobs and reputations. Still, Nadav remains active and fiercely protective. They co-founded Heartspace Therapy in New York, which supports minor-attracted clients, and earlier this year, spoke at a conference aimed at training mental health professionals to provide affirmative MAP assistance.
Giving insight into their sessions with clients, Nadav says they begin by explicitly acknowledging that their urges cannot be acted upon. From there, they help them process and manage the emotions that come with this reality.
‘For those of us who are passionate about eradicating child sexual abuse, it’s in our interest to start promoting the health, well-being, dignity, and rights of MAPs,’ Nadav explains. Nadav believes that shutting people out entirely only increases the risk of offending.
‘We understand that when someone cannot engage sexually or romantically with children, it can bring a lot of frustration… even sadness.’
Support and scrutiny
Despite backlash, support for MAP-affirmative services appears to be growing. Several organisations now provide resources and advocate for destigmatisation.
The Prostasia Foundation is one such group, campaigning to reduce stigma and help MAPs have law-abiding lives. They argue that efforts to combat child sexual abuse are ‘driven by emotion rather than evidence’, which they believe undermines effective prevention.
Their peer-to-peer forum offers guidance, which is a resource where members can offer emotional support to others facing similar struggles, in an attempt to combat social isolation, but the framework has also raised concerns.
One TikTok creator who monitored activity on these platforms shared a video on their findings: ‘These forums are massive echo chambers for paedophiles. They talk about the age of consent, whether it should be lowered and ways they can satisfy their fantasies without going over the legal limit.’
It can be difficult to distinguish offenders from non-offenders, and with the safeguarding of children at stake, there is no room for ambiguity.
Not everyone who advocates for the term minor-attracted person is affiliated with the MAP movement. However, I was repeatedly struck by the blatant nature of the community that has formed around the term.
Its messaging appeared to go beyond promoting destigmatisation for non-offenders, and seemed to be pushing for a space where individuals with a sexual attraction to children could celebrate the fact with a sense of pride.
For example, the site MEDAL is run by a group of activists within the community. The name stands for MAP Equality, Dignity and Liberation, and they state ‘the feelings MAPs experience are no more unhealthy, unnatural, or disordered than those of people attracted to adults.’
I noticed that these activists also operate a MAP Merch Shop, advertising their attraction through branded products. Items previously sold include mugs, T-shirts, and even car seat covers featuring community flags and symbols denoting sexual preference — something which has again drawn intense criticism.
While it’s understood that those with these thoughts may suffer from shame, shunning, and isolation — which can prevent them from seeking early intervention — this response felt deeply irresponsible and dangerous to endorse.
AI-generated abuse
Some MAP members advocate for access to so-called ethical sexual outlets, including AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM). This is something the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) strongly condemns.
Interim CEO Derek Ray-Hill tells Metro: ‘This can by no means be considered a victimless crime, as we know that children who have suffered sexual abuse in the past are now being made victims all over again through AI, with images of their abuse being used to create new, even more extreme imagery.’
Last year, the IWF recorded a 380% increase in webpages featuring AI-generated CSAM. They have called on the UK Government to pass urgent legislation to prevent misuse and have criticised delays to the UK AI Bill, warning it leaves a legal gap that results in more children being exploited.
Getting help
The UK-based Lucy Faithfull Foundation (LFF) aims to stop abuse before it occurs, working with individuals at risk of offending. They take an open yet direct approach, encouraging those concerned about their thoughts or behaviour to seek help.
While they don’t use the term minor-attracted person, the term paedophile is also notably absent from their messaging. Their language is deliberately neutral to encourage openness, but behaviours are not endorsed or excused.
Their high-impact campaign, Stop It Now!, works with individuals worried about their sexual thoughts or behaviour towards children. Since last year, their confidential, anonymous helpline has received more than 14,500 calls.
LFF said in their 2025 strategy: ‘We are unapologetically proud of our work with people who might cause harm and have an excellent track record of using our understanding of the behaviour of people who abuse to develop and deliver innovative services that keep children safe.’
Attraction vs action
Meanwhile, Nadav believes society should offer more ‘affirming, loving, supportive, competent services,’ to prevent offending. The therapist has noticed a shift in the last decade and predicts the phrase minor-attracted person will become more broadly used.
‘It’s an umbrella term,’ Nadav explains. ‘It’s easier to use that, but it’s not always representative of every single person in the broader community of people who are attracted to minors.’
Some accept the paedophile tag, while others reject the MAP community entirely but still refer to themselves as minor-attracted persons, seeking a less inflammatory label. Many are also keen to create a distinction by identifying as a NO-MAP (non-offending minor-attracted person), to highlight their commitment to never offending.
In some ways I feel more conflicted than when I began my dive into the MAP community
Back in the mainstream, I observe some cautious openness to using less stigmatising language — but only in the context of prevention for those who have never offended and are actively seeking appropriate support.
One Reddit user wrote: ‘If we keep lumping together paedophiles who haven’t offended with the ones who have, their fear of social stigma will prevent them from ever admitting what they are or seeking therapy.’
Others on TikTok weighed the cost of introducing softer language for non-offenders against the potential benefit of early intervention.
After researching it myself, I could certainly understand why. For the sentiment to gain wider acceptance, it seemed a new label would have to be introduced — one not already tainted by a disturbing past or associated with a troubling online community.
In some ways, I feel more conflicted than when I began. I can acknowledge that this approach could serve as effective prevention for some, but I can’t shake the fear that it could also be exploited by others to enable or perpetuate the most hideous crimes against children.
