History of pedosexuality and what it means to me

[CantChainTheSpirit]

I've never personally liked the term map which I've talked about elsewhere because the term is too one directional and focused on the adult attraction of men towards young people. Actually I prefer the idea of a term, if there is to be a term, for a two way relationship, a mutual attraction and interest between two people. In homosexual relationship it's understood that it's a relationship between two adults that are attracted to each other, the same for heterosexual relationships. Pedosexual relationships are often presented as a one way abusive relationship which isn't necessarily true. There will be heterosexual and homosexual adults engaged in abusive relationships together but there are many more that are mutual. When I think of pedosexual relationships I think of a mutual type of relationship between two consenting people. Abuse is abuse regardless of age and can never be tolerated, but relationships are not automatically abusive. I decided to look back through history to see if there are terms to describe such relationships and I found it to be an interesting journey of discovery for me.

In ancient cultures such as Greek, Roman and Abrahamic societies there was no word that specifically described relationships between adult's and young girls. Such relationships certainly happened and were quite common but they were generally managed through marriage rules. In Ancient Greece and Rome, adult men frequently married girls as young as 12 to 16 and the unions were legally and socially accepted as marriage. In Southern Africa, Basotho women in Lesotho took other women and young girls as "special friends", a term called Motsoalle, a long term and socially celebrated relationship. In some cultures, betrohals could happen as young as 7 years of age.

For boys it was similar except since marriage rules could not be applied then separate terminology was created to describe such relationships. There was the term paidika in Ancient Greece for "things having to do with children" or youths which primarily was used in the context of pederasty which was the socially accepted romantic relationship between an adult male and a young male, usually teens but could be younger. Similar relationships have existed across many cultures. In the Congo warriors would take boy-wives, in Tanzania tradition approved of pederastic relationships. In Australia before colonialisation, the Warlpiri people initiated boys as the boy-wife of the future father-in-law, and the various aboriginal tribes permitted sexual experimentation between children before marriage. In Central Asia, Bacha bāzī (boy play) was the practice of men buying and keeping adolescent boys for entertainment while in East Asia, Pederasty was socially accepted in China for much longer than in existed in Europe. Classical novels such as The Carnal Prayer Mat discuss relationships between adult men and young boys and scholars often engaged in pederastic relationships with boy actors. In Japan it existed in similar forms, there is plenty of history in Buddhist monasteries and samurai circles of such relationships. In Europe there are ancient cultures such as the Greeks and Roman's but even in the Victorian era there was a deep admiration of ancient Greek cultures including relationships between young men and adults, modern classics such as The Picture of Dorian Gray being written. I read that book, it's pretty boring, but it struck me when I read it that the story is built around a young man who appears to be a teenager that men just adore and lust after, and he uses is sex appeal skillfully. There's a history in the old boarding schools such as Eton and Harrow of pederasty between the older boys and young boys, not officially sanctioned but permitted and well documented. That's quite similar to similar practices in the British Navy in the 17th to 19th century.

In the Islamic World, pederasty was common especially in the upper classes. In Oceania, in New Guinea the Simbari people traditionally incorporated pederasty as part of the ritual initiation into manhood, Keraki people had similar customs as did other cultures. In the Solomon Islands, particularly the Nggela Islands, most men traditionally partook in sexual intercourse with multiple boys from the ages of seven to eleven years old. In Malakula, men men took boy-wives.

It isn't just old cultures, relationships between adult men and young boys was known during WW2 with local boys and young men and it certainly persists around the world even if it's forced to be less public.


So from this it can be viewed that such relationships have always existed and have been much more accepted. For young females, it was mostly treated the same as for adult females using marriage rules. You mostly stayed pure until marriage which was usually permitted from around 12. It's reasonably accepted that sexual relationships did happen sooner but wasn't encouraged in polite society since virginity for the husband was something treasured. That doesn't mean everyone was polite and stayed pure, there would have been sexual relationships that happened as has been the case throughout history, it just wasn't something usually public for young women being kept for marriage. For young males it was as common but since it wasn't for marriage purposes there were more often different terms used to describe these types of coupling.

Today the argument is made that sexual experiences at a young age can be traumatic and so while it's something that has happened naturally as long as humans have existed, it for some reason is traumatic. This seems odd to me, that something that we as a species have done forever would be traumatic. young girls and women forced into sex would I'm sure find it traumatic, rape isn't something women report positively, but mutual sexual play is reported positively in most cases. Why would this be different just because one person is under 18? WHy do so many people seek out and engage in underage sex? Keeping oneself pure until 18 is something many do, but many don't and the act of staying pure is a choice. Some people choose to wait until they are married or are in a long term relationship, many others don't. As soon as they are in university and away from their restrictive parents then many engage in drinking and sex and parties, all the things they've been repressed from and that all floods out when they gain that freedom.

So this raises some questions for me.

One, we shouldn't just accept the argument that sex at a young age is traumatic. There is a lot of evidence that it isn't. I myself was engaged sexually from a young age which I enjoyed so I know personally that sex isn't always traumatic. Considering the amount of underage sex, that many young people pursue older people and the way people embrace their sexual nature so much as soon as they are free to do so should make people question this argument. Also, the fact that we have throughout history engaged in sexual relationships from earlier ages would suggest that we are evolved for that and that the actual unnatural state is the current forced state of making what we have done naturally for so long, taboo.

Two, as I stated above, don't like the term MAP because it's it's focused on a one way attraction. Minor Attracted Adult, rather than a term expressing something more mutual. Pedophilia is quite a recent term that used Greek terms but not Greek language. Pedophilia wasn't a term in ancient Greece, you were a paidika for boys or just something attracted to females that often included young females, but it wasn't a separate term. I'm thinking more of a Motsoalle style dynamic where there's a special mutual attraction and relationship. Maybe a modern definition of pedophile is correct, a child lover in a romantic sense, but even then it's quite one way. I suppose I'm seeking a term that describes someone seeking a respectful, mutual relationship with someone who could be a child. Yes there would likely be a sexual dynamic to such a relationship but it's much more about a mutual attraction and respect just as it would be between an adult heterosexual couples. I don't have to define myself as someone seeking a loving relationship with an adult woman, the term heterosexual is sufficient. I am heterosexual but it just happens that for it to be a relationship then the female partner would be young. To be clear, I'm married to an adult lady around my own age so I'm talking hypothetically. We met when quite young and she is the only adult woman I feel such attraction towards. Ever since I was young myself I've only really felt attraction to young girls, that is still the case except with my wife who I formed a close bond to when younger and that love endured. That isn't the case for many.

Three, related to two, I feel there should be a movement that focuses on mutual respect and care between adults and children to break down the barriers that exist today in society. MAPs advocating for child protection from abuse, youth rights, the empowerment of youth. Youth rights means the right to say no, but it also means the right to say yes. Forcing a young person into a sexual relationship is abuse, but I would argue that denying a child the right to a sexual relationship is also abuse. They are equivalent extremes. Forcing someone to say no is an abuse as much as it is forcing someone to say yes. A basic human right is to choose. That shouldn't be a right reserved for the intellectual or any group, it should be a basic right such like access to food, water and shelter. Today, society is carrying out a terrible abuse against children by forcing a choice on them, a choice that is mainly for the benefit of parents. I understand that, I'm a protective parent to and would not consider anyone worthy to be with them, I doubt I would even when they reach 18. But that's my hangup, is it right that I should be putting my interest ahead of theirs? It is an important issue and I think such a movement should put as much emphasis on a childs right to say no, it should be framed entirely as youth rights while not shying away from the fact that we are people who feel attraction and would enjoy a world where loving and physical relationships would exist.

[zarkle]

First of all I agree adult male and post pubescent male relationships seem incredibly common throuh out history and today its reoccuring with the femboy craze, though 18+

I already looked at Bush and Ford's history of sexuality, its filled with post pubescents and teens having sex but rarely prepubescents, And I will say teen/post pubescent boy with man is extremely common in many cultures. This makes me think anti prepubescent pedophilia is innate but our current culture makes it extend to teens.

As I wrote on a girl lover forum elsewhere on the internet, defending teen boy lovers against an anti who said "only republican males are pedos"

I wrote
"
quit pretending it's just republicans. We see pedo busters on Youtube catching gay men all the time, and many of these gay men are going after 11-14 yo olds, and back in the 1950s-1970s gay men within the walls of private underground cultures (stonewall era and before) openly admitted they were attracted to early pubescent boys. This was common knowledge all the way up until the 70s-90s when NAMBLA and related orgs got kicked out of proto LGBT so the UN and others would support gay rights. Even a historical example of Oscar Wilde admitting he was attracted to males much younger then his 16 year old lover and John Mackay's 1920s writings on adult teen male gay love.

So don't even pretend gay men who vote democrat are 100% 18+ normie teliophiles. They show historical evidence of strong attraction to early pubescent males, and this cycle keeps repeating. and who cares. I don't see harm. As long as sex is consensual, coercion free and after puberty's vital stages I think consent is possible

"

So this leads to the big problem. Most of these olden cultural practices like Bachi Boys and the old slave boys of Rome, Greece and Athens are NOT VOLUNTARY they are mandatory cultural rituals you can't say no too, institutionalized by the state or tribe. That's a big problem, being pressured to have sex with a middle aged man at puberty is not the world I want, if post pubescent teen males who know they are gay want to voluntarily date and have sex with big burly men I am fine with that. Plenty of gay 14 year olds that probably want to do that and I think they should. and this is already challenging the status quo to an enormous degree but its doing it the right by by acknowledging earlier cultures were flawed.

One last example, Africa tribe leaders anally fucked post puberty boys in some ancient cultures as a right of passage ritual should not be viewed as positive to defend MAP rights, that is coercive and involuntary. That isn't the world we want. I Agree post puberty males and females should be allowed to have sex regardless of age gap but I want to rid any institutional coercion.

The goal is to build a new world free of sexual coercion, force, cultural pressure and exploitation - we can't just cite ancient cultures practicing Hebe-ebophilia alone as a defense. We have to call out the past for its ugliness if we want to advance. Sex below 18 is 100% safe and ok but NO sexual slavery can be tolerated.

[Scorchingwilde]

So this leads to the big problem. Most of these olden cultural practices like Bachi Boys and the old slave boys of Rome, Greece and Athens are NOT VOLUNTARY they are mandatory cultural rituals you can't say no too, institutionalized by the state or tribe. That's a big problem, being pressured to have sex with a middle aged man at puberty is not the world I want, if post pubescent teen males who know they are gay want to voluntarily date and have sex with big burly men I am fine with that. Plenty of gay 14 year olds that probably want to do that and I think they should. and this is already challenging the status quo to an enormous degree but its doing it the right by by acknowledging earlier cultures were flawed.

One last example, Africa tribe leaders anally fucked post puberty boys in some ancient cultures as a right of passage ritual should not be viewed as positive to defend MAP rights, that is coercive and involuntary. That isn't the world we want. I Agree post puberty males and females should be allowed to have sex regardless of age gap but I want to rid any institutional coercion.

The goal is to build a new world free of sexual coercion, force, cultural pressure and exploitation - we can't just cite ancient cultures practicing Hebe-ebophilia alone as a defense. We have to call out the past for its ugliness if we want to advance. Sex below 18 is 100% safe and ok but NO sexual slavery can be tolerated.

I agree in principle, though I would also note that marriages at the time were also not voluntary, regardless of age and gender. I feel like it's a bit of an unfair double standard for pro-c MAPs to have to constantly denounce rape and coercion while most teliophiles today still follow the aesthetics of an older tradition in their weddings, for example, without thinking about their cultural origin in treating the bride as property (for the father to 'give away' when walking down the aisle for example). I don't mean to suggest you're engaging in that double standard, but I think it's important to remember the history of our sexuality isn't uniquely bad like antis want everyone to think.

[JGHeaven]

This is why I believe the impulse for relationships between adults and minors is strongest in women and not men.

In the past, sexual attraction between adults and children has been characterised differently by gender.
Most cultures have been patriarchal so men make a choice between a female or male sexual partner at any one time.

If it's a female, including a child female then it's framed as a marriage right or a relationship building towards marriage and family.
If it's a male, including a child male then it has to be framed differently, so terminology starts to be created to describe such relationships. It's tutoring or a right of passage or a subservient role. It won't always be abusive, it's a giant leap to make such assumptions, it's overlaying modern day cultural beliefs over historically different cultures. To say that in Greece or Rome or Africa or Asia it's one way abusive relationships is just exploiting history to fit a modern political narrative. People would go and watch men and women fight to the death, good people kept slaves, people performed all kinds of ceremonies, believed all kinds of religions, had entirely different beliefs and norms than today. To say they were wrong because they don't match out current beliefs and systems is very short sighted and simplistic. In 1000 years people will look at our beliefs and norms and cultures today no differently to how we look at those beliefs and systems. It is almost certain that they will look at the things we consider good and normal today including inter-generational relationships and consider them as crude and barbaric in the same way as we do of past cultures. We may be back to gladiators in arena's or we may all be vegetarians or sex outside of a lab setting could be seen as something just for animals, we can't possibly guess right.

Anyway, my original point was that I believe that attraction between children and adults is strongest in women but it has a different term that's a result of that historical different perspective of females and males. In women, the term is nurture. In men, the same thing is termed minor attraction or pedophilia. Let me explain why I say this.

I'm a female map and I have many female friends, a few are openly maps while most aren't. However, whether they are maps or not, they describe many of the same feelings and experiences towards children.

I know non-maps who describe sexual arousal from breast feeding. This is very common and well known but it's not pedophilia, it's just the bodies natural reaction to the stimulation of breast feeding. Meanwhile, female maps talk of a desire to have children breast feed for the stimulation and erotic nature of the experience. Same thing, for non-maps it's pleasurable and natural but not wrong, for maps it's pleasurable and natural and wrong.

I know non-maps who often talk about young friends of their kids. They'll talk about them a lot, they'll spend time with them and sometimes I've even had them express this draw to them in terms that sounds very familiar, terms that are romantic or erotic. I've had non-maps talk about things they've felt or done. One lady told me how when drunk at a friends house, their son who was around 10 or 11 gave up his room for her, she snuck downstairs to join him on the couch since they'd been flirting and she was just not thinking straight, was drunk and horny. Actually her friend heard her moving about and followed her downstairs, pulled her up, said she was drunk and helped her back to bed. Nothing happened, it was harmless and she was surprised herself that she had been drawn sexually towards this young boy. It wasn't an issue, it was chalked up to being drunk, there was no suggestion she was a map. I know another woman who told me how her ex-husband was quite violent towards her and when he was out, sometimes the neighbours young boy who was around 7 would call round to play with her son and she developed a strong sexual interest in him. It was never suggested it was pedophilia, it was just a reaction to her violent husband and being lonely and it was a form of nurture she was misinterpreting.

So many women do have sexual and romantic feelings towards children at some point or other. For female maps like me I have come to accept that it's my sexuality, I can't help it but it's just that I'm primarily attracted to children, mostly female children. But I know so many non-maps who describe all the same feelings, usually dressed up as a nurturing relationship or feelings. Other female maps describe the same things but see it as their sexuality because they recognise that nurturing is at its heart, an attraction towards children, wanting to protect them and be close to them and that can lead to romantic and sexual feelings. That's true for female maps and non-maps.

So in females, it's nurturing, in males its pedophilia. Same thing, just different terminology. In females we don't need new terminology since we already have it with terms such as nurture, while in males we don't have terms so we create new terms such as pedophilia. We pretend they're different but I think most people are softer towards such things when it's wrapped in nurturing terminology. When a male teacher has a sexual relationship with a young female student we're outraged that it's abusive, when it's a female teacher with a young boy many people just say "lucky lad" or "I wish I had a teacher like that". Sure she'll get punished because there's a real danger that if women are not punished then the false wall separating nurture and pedophilia crashes down and we have a problem on our hands, that suddenly the terrible idea of pedophilia equates with the celebrated joyful term nurture. The thing we hate most equates to the thing we love most, try to square that in your head as a non-map. So when cases of women with children become known then they're separated quickly into the pedophile camp, to protect the nurture camp. It maintains the illusion and keeps society rolling forward. The idea of women and young boys and girls isn't a recent phenomena, it has always been there, but the language of females nurturing young people has always served to keep it as an acceptable thing we don't talk about. It's interesting in that list in the original post about the society that openly accepted special friendships between women and young girls. Today in the west that would be wrapped up in nurturing terms but it's interesting that when a society openly allows it that it's something positive. There will be people saying it must have been forced and abusive but there's no reason to assume that. In girls boarding schools, lesbian relationships are not uncommon and throughout my school days I had sexual feelings towards some male and female teachers. If either had wanted a relationship I would have pursued it. No matter how it happened it would be presented as abusive. I would try not to just use todays snapshot of beliefs and cultural norms to present different cultures or time periods as abusive, we have to expand our minds to see outside of our small western rooms.