They who surrender will be toast

[Cunny Defender]

Surrendering and waving the white flag to people that want you dead won't work; by being anti-c, you're essentially "proving them right" in their hostility towards MAPs and admitting "wrong" and guilt instead of promoting compassion. This is being used as an example, and you'll see anti-c MAPs being harassed the most online because they are easy targets. They see us as "beasts," as "predators." A "lion" proclaiming to be "vegan" isn't going to gain any more sympathy; instead, we should stay strong and true to ourselves

[BLueRibbon]

Agreed.

[zarkle]

I would never surrender to the antis. I live to challenge them and prove that their deepest morals values about hating us pedos is nothing more then an instinct, and is not based on reason but rather aggressive us against them thinking. Once again I believe anti pedophilia is at least partially connected to parental instincts that all animals have to defend their young, the same neurocircuits parents have that once helped their ancestors protect their children from dangerous jaguars in the forest in prehistoric Earth are repurposed to defend against urban modern day threats, pedophiles happen to trigger those same brain pathways. This is why I say the hate is instinctual not logical - we are evolution's false positive alarm. But at the same time knowing this I'm not making a risky case that I want to harm toddlers, kindergarten girls and later elementary school age kids. I'm for kiss and cuddle and gentle touch contact but no penis contact or genitial stimulation with them ever until 13.5 Yes, I'm ok with 13.5+ consenting to full sex with guys who want that (I don't want that) but I don't think small children should be doing those things because without hormones they can't understand attraction. This isn't conceding to antis its showing nuance, deeper understanding, and celebrating the lovely joys of little girls and largely rejecting the feminist concept of power dymanics. Showing we can love prepubescent children without penis contact is a higher form of love. Though to give personal information I ejaculate to chinese toddlers from swimwear webpages all the time, but while relieving myself I think about the joy of how cute they are, I don't think about sex or penial contact with them ever. I just focus on the adorableness, the wholesome good they are to help obtain sensual relief. I think I tricked my brain into making sexuality 2.0. Perhaps sexuallity has multiple purposes in nature, for both reproductin and animal bonding.

I know 3-11 year old girls will grow up one day and have boyfriends and I'm perfectly fine with that, I just want to play the role of nuturing and loving them in their early phase of life. Like a mentor and lover to girls and absorb every ounce of their cuteness and have their beautify bodies erotocized through softcore pornographic media. I want a society where norms on sexuality are different without stupid concepts like infidelity, cheating, marriage or commitment unless strictly voluntary agreements not socially imposed. Lastly, this website has the pastel MAP colors with black instead of white. From what I understand white means purity (no contact) and black means full contact, gray stripes mean its complicated debate (like me). But this website is map flag with black instead of white. Which makes me kinda upset. My thinking is very far from heteronormality but it does not seem beneficial for a prepubescent to engage in penial contact/genitial stimulation. Ultimately, when it comes to contact I agree if we refuse to go below 13.5.

[John_Doe]

I would never surrender to the antis. I live to challenge them and prove that their deepest morals values about hating us pedos is nothing more then an instinct, and is not based on reason but rather aggressive us against them thinking. Once again I believe anti pedophilia is at least partially connected to parental instincts that all animals have to defend their young, the same neurocircuits parents have that once helped their ancestors protect their children from dangerous jaguars in the forest in prehistoric Earth are repurposed to defend against urban modern day threats, pedophiles happen to trigger those same brain pathways. This is why I say the hate is instinctual not logical - we are evolution's false positive alarm. But at the same time knowing this I'm not making a risky case that I want to harm toddlers, kindergarten girls and later elementary school age kids. I'm for kiss and cuddle and gentle touch contact but no penis contact or genitial stimulation with them ever until 13.5 Yes, I'm ok with 13.5+ consenting to full sex with guys who want that (I don't want that) but I don't think small children should be doing those things because without hormones they can't understand attraction. This isn't conceding to antis its showing nuance, deeper understanding, and celebrating the lovely joys of little girls and largely rejecting the feminist concept of power dymanics. Showing we can love prepubescent children without penis contact is a higher form of love. Though to give personal information I ejaculate to chinese toddlers from swimwear webpages all the time, but while relieving myself I think about the joy of how cute they are, I don't think about sex or penial contact with them ever. I just focus on the adorableness, the wholesome good they are to help obtain sensual relief. I think I tricked my brain into making sexuality 2.0. Perhaps sexuallity has multiple purposes in nature, for both reproductin and animal bonding.

I know 3-11 year old girls will grow up one day and have boyfriends and I'm perfectly fine with that, I just want to play the role of nuturing and loving them in their early phase of life. Like a mentor and lover to girls and absorb every ounce of their cuteness and have their beautify bodies erotocized through softcore pornographic media. I want a society where norms on sexuality are different without stupid concepts like infidelity, cheating, marriage or commitment unless strictly voluntary agreements not socially imposed. Lastly, this website has the pastel MAP colors with black instead of white. From what I understand white means purity (no contact) and black means full contact, gray stripes mean its complicated debate (like me). But this website is map flag with black instead of white. Which makes me kinda upset. My thinking is very far from heteronormality but it does not seem beneficial for a prepubescent to engage in penial contact/genitial stimulation. Ultimately, when it comes to contact I agree if we refuse to go below 13.5.

Why 13.5? I understand 13 (or 14 for boys), since most 13-year-old girls menstruate (90% of those who are 13.75). I understand 15 (or 16 for boys) since menarche is considered delayed if it hasn't occurred by 15 or because most 15-year-old girls are fully sexually mature (assuming that puberty is completed within two years after menarche) and I understand 17 (or 18 for boys) since all 17-year-old girls are fully sexually mature in the absence of some kind of medical problem or abnormality.

Penile/vaginal contact doesn't have to mean full-blown vaginal intercourse. I'm not sure why you would necessarily oppose a man performing cunnilingus on a prepubescent girl in some hypothetical scenarios that aren't completely removed from reality. To play devil's advocate (as in, I don't want to stand by the idea that full-on vaginal intercourse with a prepubescent girl could be a good idea in practice. I'm just considering possibilities), adults never become physiologically ready for anal sex (biologically, anuses are not 'for' sex) but they can use artificial lubrication. A man can also stimulate a woman's clitoris without actual intercourse too.

I also think that it's a mistake to assume that children don't experience sexual attraction prior to puberty. It makes complete sense on paper but there's evidence of third trimester fetuses masturbating in the womb and it's on occasion observed in infants outside of the womb as well. Personally, I can remember having crushes and thinking about sex in the second grade at least even though I didn't masturbate to ejaculation until 12 (so I'm assuming I started puberty or the male equivalent of thelarche around 10).

Lastly, I agree that sexuality (like mouths) can have multiple purposes (even just from an evolutionary standpoint) but I believe it is reproductive at its core in that you cannot separate the two (obviously you can have sex without reproducing but sexual stimulation naturally engages the reproductive system; penile stimulation pushes sperm and semen into the urethra, orgasm causes men to ejaculate semen which only exists to nourish and protect sperm, apparently vaginal lubrication helps guide sperm along in addition to making intercourse easier, in species that reproduce through obligate parthenogenesis; they still descend from sexually reproducing species, females who copulate are more likely to lay eggs, etc.). 'Sex' couldn't have evolved without reproduction but (pretending that nature could realistically produce highly complicated organisms through asexual reproduction) there could be other ways to bond. You can bond without sex but you can't reproduce without it. 'Sex' isn't just physical touch that is pleasurable (because of the emotional intimacy it comes with or in terms of raw sensory perception), it's a very specific biological function and even if we're talking about non-reproductive sexual/erotic/'romantic' contact, the drive behind that is related to the drive to engage in vaginal intercourse.

I don't want to work out how I feel about your theory on the anti-pedophile instincts most people have. The most charitable interpretation of at least some of the anti-pedophilia mindset would be protective instincts toward the young but the interesting question, I think, is why is some form of erotic play considered inherently harmful to children to begin with? I said more than I planned to but I personally think that it's largely about maintaining an image of children that people with strong parental instincts toward them find gratifying; perhaps even need to sustain those parental feelings (but it's not about protecting them, necessarily, it's that a certain personality type tends to invoke those parental feelings and that personality is seen as asexual, it's hard for people to see children as cute/innocent and sexual simultaneously. I think I recognize some of this in myself when it comes to cats/some non-human animals. I care about children but I don't really have fatherly feelings toward them. I think the selective concern with consent and power dynamics is largely an afterthought to rationalize stigmatizing pedophilia in accordance with that need to maintain the image of children as 'innocent' in their presumed asexuality. But I'm sure there might be different motivations and the moral failing regardless lies in devaluing the happiness of children and pedophiles alike in service of some other value).

I also live to challenge conventional morality when I can. I truly despise it.