Your answer confirms again that the culprit is the abuse. Of course abuse renders things complicated. But it is separated from the concept of consent, which was the thing being discussed.WavesInEternity wrote: Thu Apr 10, 2025 9:46 pmI don't think that's an adequate response. The cases of the two women I described, from the perspective of the men who committed those acts, actually fit into the "simple" pattern Pegasus described previously: "she seems to like it" and "I'm not going too far". They were tragically wrong.FairBlueLove wrote: Thu Apr 10, 2025 5:42 pm I'll try to make it simple again. The culprit is the word "abuse". This is what makes it complicated. It applies to sex, opium and sweets alike.
The issue is that with some things, the risk of unintentional abuse is simply too high, and there's nothing simple about that (as a person who ended up unintentionally addicted to opioids despite being very knowledgeable about drugs, I know that all too well). Giving opiates or cocaine to children casually is one of them. According to available evidence, sexual contact with children below a certain age is another. Yes, there's a lot of disagreement regarding what that age is, and it's clearly not during adolescence, but I do think there's solid evidence for the notion that such an "absolute threshold" does exist.
The comparison with junk food was only insofar as it highlights that the morality of the situation goes much further than "the child seems to enjoy it".
I wanna understand a nepiophiles perspective
-
FairBlueLove
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2024 5:38 pm
Re: I wanna understand a nepiophiles perspective
When society judges without understanding, it silences hearts that yearn for connection.
-
WavesInEternity
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:40 pm
Re: I wanna understand a nepiophiles perspective
No, they were too young to understand what was happening. One was in her 2nd year of life when it started and the other in her 3rd. One of them was still babbling, the other couldn't yet speak full sentences. Both of those women say they can't really remember much from that time, but that those particular memories stand out in a completely abnormal way. That those experiences were traumatic in a way that wasn't painful. I've read other accounts from women that were abused at a very young age and they virtually all say very similar things (except for the ones that were, even more tragically and sometimes horrifyingly, actually physically hurt).Pegasus wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:41 am With regard to these two women, I don't know the ages at which they went through this experience, which seems to have caused them problems, but I believe that they already had a certain awareness to know that they were doing something. When I referred to sensations and reactions, I was only referring to babies. The reactions that go through them show how good or bad something can be, and this will visibly be noticed. If it's good, that moment, at that time, will be very good for her. Here comes a question: do you remember when you were a baby? What you went through, where you went, who held you so many times? Do you remember anything good or bad? But the “moment” can be good or bad.
Like giving them heroin, it might have been "good" in the moment, but it had terrible long-term consequences. The usual explanation is that it overused neural connections that weren't ready to be used yet, and it caused their brain to down-regulate so that those stimuli cease to be amazing and intense. They become ordinary and boring.
If the "thing being discussed" was consent, why are we talking about babies? It should be obvious that babies can't consent in any meaningful sense of the word, and that "he/she seems to like it" has literally nothing to do with consent. You're being very confusing.FairBlueLove wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:03 pm Your answer confirms again that the culprit is the abuse. Of course abuse renders things complicated. But it is separated from the concept of consent, which was the thing being discussed.
But yes, if we want to say things "simply", the problem with sex with babies is that it's necessarily abuse because we can't ascertain consent in any meaningful way (because "he/she appears to like it" is never such a way).
I mean, I've been in situations in BDSM, e.g. with my partner bound & gagged or drugged half-unconscious, where I had to rely entirely on external non-verbal cues to direct the activity. Those are considered hardcore edgeplay that requires deep mutual understanding between partners. That's essentially what you're describing with a baby, Pegasus. It's no wonder that those women felt it was so traumatic and that they were used in a completely unacceptable and immoral way.
"There is a kink in my damned brain that prevents me from thinking as other people think." - Charles S. Peirce
Straight cis male —— Ideal AoA: 10-14 —— Broader AoA: 7-17 + rare adult autopedophiles with a child's heart & a petite body
Straight cis male —— Ideal AoA: 10-14 —— Broader AoA: 7-17 + rare adult autopedophiles with a child's heart & a petite body
Re: I wanna understand a nepiophiles perspective
WavesInEternity,
I swear that I have no fundamental desire to counter your claim because I'm committed to the opposite stance (if some kind of sexual contact with infants has a high-enough risk of leading to serious long-term trauma then we're justified in discouraging that and we can do so without stigmatizing the attraction to infants per se or claiming that adult-infant sexual contact in every hypothetical fantasy scenario would have to be intrinsically bad) but I'm not really convinced that the anecdotes you provided can support a general rule. Given how young those women were (I didn't think most people were even capable of remembering anything prior to age 3) how reliable do you think their memories might be or how much of their account is rooted in retrospective interpretation (it can be hard to confirm a-z connections when it comes to how much of our adult psychology is caused by some distant childhood experience. I won't deny their actual memories and it can be clear when certain stressors arise as a result of past experiences which involve a thing being an object of pain or maybe the stress only occurs after that thing and consistently with the memory of it or it in mind etc. but when you talk about burning off or overusing neural connections you're making a claim about the brain that can be physically/inter-subjectively tested). Is there any hard physiological evidence that sexually stimulating an infant overuses neural connections associated with sex that aren't developed enough for healthy activation? Although it might not be 'sexual' in nature (I've always assumed that children aren't capable of true sexual desire before andrenarche, which typically occurs at 6) infants, even fetuses in the womb, commonly self-stimulate (maybe just to play or out of curiosity) so I don't see what would be different about it if an adult was doing it (penetration seems like a bad idea to me but not necessarily fellatio/cunnilingus or tongue kissing). For example, a parent might have to touch a child's genitals when bathing them and from their perspective, in terms of their intention, it's completely non-sexual but regardless of their private arousal it has the exact same effect on the child (that kind of contact might not be anything near what those women experienced but hopefully you understand my point).
I think you make a thoughtful point about the appearance of emotional neutrality or not being harmed by something but that applies to other things as well (I'm assuming you take giggling and laughing when lifted in the air to mean happiness and again, without questioning what those women remember, other people might give some anecdote about enjoying or being neutral to sexual contact at a young age. I could be wrong, maybe it will generally be negative even prior to internalizing the cultural stigma of child-adult sex), I'm not even advocating for some kind of infant-adult sexual intimacy but I do think the apparent reaction is the most solid evidence you could have for an infant not being hurt by something (outside of maybe some physiological cues like raised cortisol, faster heartbeat, etc. which doesn't really 'prove' emotional stress since those things can also result from excitement, or even physical exertion, and I've always wondered if everyone's body has to release the same amount of cortisol in response to the same level of stress).
One of the problems that I have with preference utilitarianism, at least in practice, is that preference utilitarians will inevitably introduce some kind of objective standard to differentiate between the valid preferences we should care about and the invalid ones (which defeats the whole idea of rejecting intrinsic value and considering what people want only because they want it, because they place subjective value on that thing). It makes sense that you would focus on informed preferences (if I only want x under the belief that it will lead to y and it won't then I never truly wanted x, I wanted y) but how much of someone else's interpretation of the meaning of a thing goes into what they'll accept as an informed preference? For example (no, this isn't really an example of that but something to consider in itself), can there not be any genuinely short-sighted people who just don't care as much about their future self as they do their in-the-moment satisfaction? Who's to say, if you reject an objective standard, that they should care or care as much about the distant future? Even a child not being able to 'understand' what sex is (you said at one point that one of the women didn't know what was going on, or something like that) wouldn't have the implications that you think it would, in my view. I think that a p.u argument against infant or child-adult sex has to be rooted in a child's having an active desire to avoid it and that's not implied by not understanding what it is (you have to 'understand' what something is in order to perceive it as bad. If you've never tasted a certain food you can't know whether or not you would value the sensory experience of eating it in the absence of having had that experience but we normally wouldn't deny that someone can give informed consent to trying a new food or having some kind of novel experience that they have no personal reference for. You could argue that the child doesn't know whether or not it will be pleasurable but you're setting up an impossible standard because we can more or less never predict what the emotional consequences of something will be without any possible error). One of the things that differentiates p.u from hedonism (when it comes to animal equality or infant-adult equality to really drive the point home, for example) is that hedonism considers the value of distant future mental states even if a being with no capacity for mental time travel has no current desire to experience those states in the distant future but because abstract desire fulfillment isn't a specific thing to be maximized or minimized p.us can only consider what infants and most non-human animals want now, in 'the moment.'
I agree that infants, because they lack rational agency, can't meaningfully consent to sex but they can't consent to anything so we have no choice but to make decisions on their behalf. It seems to me that the most harmful thing (unless we're talking about penetrative sex or certain STDs) will probably be with how disgusted and traumatized they might be, as adults or older children, by the idea of having had some kind of sexual contact with a parent, or some other adult, in retrospect, but given that most people don't remember anything before 3 I think the risk of long-term harm, in a society where child-adult sex is as stigmatized as it is, will generally be higher with older children.
I am not remotely attracted to infants, personally. The idea of a woman being freaky enough to perform fellatio on her infant son (or I guess even gently rubbing his dick all over her clitoris, face, etc.) is kind of hot to me (in this scenario the infant appears to and actually does enjoy it; if not because it's sexual for him then because it's amusing or funny and he's giggling ad laughing) but if the risk of harm is high-enough then we should discourage that, I don't feel bad in saying that I find it somewhat 'hot' though since in the scenario I have in mind it wouldn't cause him pain. On the other hand, a woman having sexual contact with her cat/s would bother me; it would go against the image that I have/want to have of cats and the kind of purely non-sexual bond I'd want to have with one (it bothers me in a way that has nothing to do with moral anger though, there's no altruistic reason for me to necessarily oppose it. Her cat wouldn't suffer if she ate his/her body after a death from natural causes but that would bother me for reasons that are related to my altruistic love for non-human animals, it would signal to me that she probably didn't value her cat's happiness but if I'm wrong and she could, I definitely can't 'objectify' the dead body of someone I loved in that way which is why I couldn't eat synthetic meat even though I can't wait for it to become commercially available. Even eggs bother me because eating a fertilized one necessarily prevents a potential sentient being from coming into existence and possibly experiencing happiness and the unfertilized ones are indistinguishable from the fertilized ones. If she loves and cares about her cat then I have no complaints, morally, I just don't want to see it/be aware of it. I remember seeing this clip eons ago of some guy ejaculating on his golden retriever's face and it always rubbed me the wrong way because, even though the dog didn't seem to be bothered by it, it came off as though he didn't really care about him/her, as if it was a way to make fun of him/her or as if he had no non-sexual love for them).
I swear that I have no fundamental desire to counter your claim because I'm committed to the opposite stance (if some kind of sexual contact with infants has a high-enough risk of leading to serious long-term trauma then we're justified in discouraging that and we can do so without stigmatizing the attraction to infants per se or claiming that adult-infant sexual contact in every hypothetical fantasy scenario would have to be intrinsically bad) but I'm not really convinced that the anecdotes you provided can support a general rule. Given how young those women were (I didn't think most people were even capable of remembering anything prior to age 3) how reliable do you think their memories might be or how much of their account is rooted in retrospective interpretation (it can be hard to confirm a-z connections when it comes to how much of our adult psychology is caused by some distant childhood experience. I won't deny their actual memories and it can be clear when certain stressors arise as a result of past experiences which involve a thing being an object of pain or maybe the stress only occurs after that thing and consistently with the memory of it or it in mind etc. but when you talk about burning off or overusing neural connections you're making a claim about the brain that can be physically/inter-subjectively tested). Is there any hard physiological evidence that sexually stimulating an infant overuses neural connections associated with sex that aren't developed enough for healthy activation? Although it might not be 'sexual' in nature (I've always assumed that children aren't capable of true sexual desire before andrenarche, which typically occurs at 6) infants, even fetuses in the womb, commonly self-stimulate (maybe just to play or out of curiosity) so I don't see what would be different about it if an adult was doing it (penetration seems like a bad idea to me but not necessarily fellatio/cunnilingus or tongue kissing). For example, a parent might have to touch a child's genitals when bathing them and from their perspective, in terms of their intention, it's completely non-sexual but regardless of their private arousal it has the exact same effect on the child (that kind of contact might not be anything near what those women experienced but hopefully you understand my point).
I think you make a thoughtful point about the appearance of emotional neutrality or not being harmed by something but that applies to other things as well (I'm assuming you take giggling and laughing when lifted in the air to mean happiness and again, without questioning what those women remember, other people might give some anecdote about enjoying or being neutral to sexual contact at a young age. I could be wrong, maybe it will generally be negative even prior to internalizing the cultural stigma of child-adult sex), I'm not even advocating for some kind of infant-adult sexual intimacy but I do think the apparent reaction is the most solid evidence you could have for an infant not being hurt by something (outside of maybe some physiological cues like raised cortisol, faster heartbeat, etc. which doesn't really 'prove' emotional stress since those things can also result from excitement, or even physical exertion, and I've always wondered if everyone's body has to release the same amount of cortisol in response to the same level of stress).
One of the problems that I have with preference utilitarianism, at least in practice, is that preference utilitarians will inevitably introduce some kind of objective standard to differentiate between the valid preferences we should care about and the invalid ones (which defeats the whole idea of rejecting intrinsic value and considering what people want only because they want it, because they place subjective value on that thing). It makes sense that you would focus on informed preferences (if I only want x under the belief that it will lead to y and it won't then I never truly wanted x, I wanted y) but how much of someone else's interpretation of the meaning of a thing goes into what they'll accept as an informed preference? For example (no, this isn't really an example of that but something to consider in itself), can there not be any genuinely short-sighted people who just don't care as much about their future self as they do their in-the-moment satisfaction? Who's to say, if you reject an objective standard, that they should care or care as much about the distant future? Even a child not being able to 'understand' what sex is (you said at one point that one of the women didn't know what was going on, or something like that) wouldn't have the implications that you think it would, in my view. I think that a p.u argument against infant or child-adult sex has to be rooted in a child's having an active desire to avoid it and that's not implied by not understanding what it is (you have to 'understand' what something is in order to perceive it as bad. If you've never tasted a certain food you can't know whether or not you would value the sensory experience of eating it in the absence of having had that experience but we normally wouldn't deny that someone can give informed consent to trying a new food or having some kind of novel experience that they have no personal reference for. You could argue that the child doesn't know whether or not it will be pleasurable but you're setting up an impossible standard because we can more or less never predict what the emotional consequences of something will be without any possible error). One of the things that differentiates p.u from hedonism (when it comes to animal equality or infant-adult equality to really drive the point home, for example) is that hedonism considers the value of distant future mental states even if a being with no capacity for mental time travel has no current desire to experience those states in the distant future but because abstract desire fulfillment isn't a specific thing to be maximized or minimized p.us can only consider what infants and most non-human animals want now, in 'the moment.'
I agree that infants, because they lack rational agency, can't meaningfully consent to sex but they can't consent to anything so we have no choice but to make decisions on their behalf. It seems to me that the most harmful thing (unless we're talking about penetrative sex or certain STDs) will probably be with how disgusted and traumatized they might be, as adults or older children, by the idea of having had some kind of sexual contact with a parent, or some other adult, in retrospect, but given that most people don't remember anything before 3 I think the risk of long-term harm, in a society where child-adult sex is as stigmatized as it is, will generally be higher with older children.
I am not remotely attracted to infants, personally. The idea of a woman being freaky enough to perform fellatio on her infant son (or I guess even gently rubbing his dick all over her clitoris, face, etc.) is kind of hot to me (in this scenario the infant appears to and actually does enjoy it; if not because it's sexual for him then because it's amusing or funny and he's giggling ad laughing) but if the risk of harm is high-enough then we should discourage that, I don't feel bad in saying that I find it somewhat 'hot' though since in the scenario I have in mind it wouldn't cause him pain. On the other hand, a woman having sexual contact with her cat/s would bother me; it would go against the image that I have/want to have of cats and the kind of purely non-sexual bond I'd want to have with one (it bothers me in a way that has nothing to do with moral anger though, there's no altruistic reason for me to necessarily oppose it. Her cat wouldn't suffer if she ate his/her body after a death from natural causes but that would bother me for reasons that are related to my altruistic love for non-human animals, it would signal to me that she probably didn't value her cat's happiness but if I'm wrong and she could, I definitely can't 'objectify' the dead body of someone I loved in that way which is why I couldn't eat synthetic meat even though I can't wait for it to become commercially available. Even eggs bother me because eating a fertilized one necessarily prevents a potential sentient being from coming into existence and possibly experiencing happiness and the unfertilized ones are indistinguishable from the fertilized ones. If she loves and cares about her cat then I have no complaints, morally, I just don't want to see it/be aware of it. I remember seeing this clip eons ago of some guy ejaculating on his golden retriever's face and it always rubbed me the wrong way because, even though the dog didn't seem to be bothered by it, it came off as though he didn't really care about him/her, as if it was a way to make fun of him/her or as if he had no non-sexual love for them).
Re: I wanna understand a nepiophiles perspective
hmmm... good question.
I know for a fact that some kiddies love engaging in sexual "play" but it must be recognized that it isn't being done for the purpose of lustful gratification. For them it is literally feel-good fun.
The real concern comes with certain adults taking advantage of that innocent play.
[Removed - Rule 1]
I know for a fact that some kiddies love engaging in sexual "play" but it must be recognized that it isn't being done for the purpose of lustful gratification. For them it is literally feel-good fun.
The real concern comes with certain adults taking advantage of that innocent play.
[Removed - Rule 1]