What is everyone's stance on Epstein?

A place to talk about Minor-Attracted People and MAP/AAM-related issues.
User avatar
PorcelainLark
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2024 9:13 pm

Re: What is everyone's stance on Epstein?

Post by PorcelainLark »

DANAT4T wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:42 pm Anyway, working with victims is doomed to fail. MAP attractions will be seen as a result of trauma. Which is not a good idea.
I disagree with this. I don't think MA is the result of trauma, and I don't think non-coercive statutory rape is necessarily harmful, however, denying sexual abuse occurs and pitting yourself against victims is a bad idea. Put yourself in the position of a person sexually abused by a priest or uncle, your community/family doesn't want to know and would prefer to sweep it under the rug a lot of the time, because it makes them uncomfortable. That makes victims want to expose "pedophiles" (being equivocal about MAPs and sexual predators); we MAPs want to be able to live openly too. I'd argue if we could live more openly, we'd be more accountable to the communities and families we belong to, so there would be less sexual abuse. We don't necessarily have to be enemies with victims.
bnkywuv
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2026 2:54 am

Re: What is everyone's stance on Epstein?

Post by bnkywuv »

I'm not a fan of the trafficking at all, but the people who are freaking out over the cannibalism and such sounds like highly neurotic and mentally unstable people desperate to "protect" children. Extreme antis like this are clearly unwell and very likely highly dangerous to children and MAPs alike.
37, female. Writer, mediocre artist.
Pro-c, though has intrusive rape fantasies and nightmares involving minors.
AoA is usually 2 but can go younger, oldest AoA is around 12-14.
Can like adults if they appear young, but fades with time.
Into zoo too!
oolhlh2
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2026 2:06 pm

Re: What is everyone's stance on Epstein?

Post by oolhlh2 »

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2026 4:50 pm
DANAT4T wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:42 pm Anyway, working with victims is doomed to fail. MAP attractions will be seen as a result of trauma. Which is not a good idea.
I disagree with this. I don't think MA is the result of trauma, and I don't think non-coercive statutory rape is necessarily harmful, however, denying sexual abuse occurs and pitting yourself against victims is a bad idea. Put yourself in the position of a person sexually abused by a priest or uncle, your community/family doesn't want to know and would prefer to sweep it under the rug a lot of the time, because it makes them uncomfortable. That makes victims want to expose "pedophiles" (being equivocal about MAPs and sexual predators); we MAPs want to be able to live openly too. I'd argue if we could live more openly, we'd be more accountable to the communities and families we belong to, so there would be less sexual abuse. We don't necessarily have to be enemies with victims.
The main factor that drives the trauma is that the abuse is unwanted. If a toddler were to have sex then there is a high chance that they will get trauma from it as they weren't mentally aware enough to even know that they were having sex.

Our ability to be more accountable won't change the status quo, that children will in most cases be harmed by having sex with adults.
Post Reply