You would think that their argument would be to increase the distinction between someone who is a pedophile and someone who is a child molester, but instead, their bright idea is to blur the lines more and to normalize those behaviors
There's nothing wrong with the word pedophile. It describes an attraction to children. The term MAP does too, so why do we need an additional, redundant term?
You would think that their argument would be to increase the distinction between someone who is a pedophile and someone who is a child molester, but instead, their bright idea is to blur the lines more and to normalize those behaviors
There's nothing wrong with the word pedophile. It describes an attraction to children. The term MAP does too, so why do we need an additional, redundant term?