Contact with infants

[msykm99]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying but I don't want to spend much more time posting.

It just boils down to what type of contact we’re referring to. I don’t want to get too explicit, but I will say that not all contact is bad. Penetration is my only concern.

[Nopi B.]

wrong post, made with the other acc

[Nopi Balki]

Is difficult of course when you can't understand it and haven't found a way to understand simply. But no wonder that is why people attracted to adults find difficult to understand why some are attracted to preteens or teens. So no better person than someone with attraction to infants who understands it better to explain that.

When we hug someone they can feel we love them, words make it even clearer but they are just supplementary, some people prefer words to understand others which may be due low emotional understanding or not sufficient connection with the person in question but others are able too.

And this is the case for well parents with infants and many nepis, including myself as (some parents or nepis might have more or less connection than others).

So does the way each person communicates determines the importance of the meaning? I don't think so, each person does according to their abilities whether they are adults or infants, all falls on whether we can understand what they are okay with or what makes them happy including consent.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

This argument works as long as sexual contact is viewed as a potentially negative or harmful thing.

Does a toddler need to give consent to be tickled? hugged? kissed on the head by a family member? have raspberry's blown on their belly? be given greens to eat (yuck)? be taken to aunt Ethels house, the lady with the big mole on her chin that makes the little one ill? go to church to learn about an agry but loving god that demands personal sacrifice? No, because while these all either encroach on personal space or deeply impact the psychology of a child they're considered to have enough positive overall to not need consent. I used to hate being tickled but it would still happen and I did everything I could to get out of going to church, I used to smuggle my greens to my dog, I didn't like a lot of these things but they didnt' traumatise me, and I had a happy childhood overall.

Does a toddler need to give consent to be kissed on the lips? touched on their genitals? orally stimulated? yes. But why? I mean all of these things give pleasure, they're things adults enjoy, they don't cause physical harm, they're things that will have her/him giggling and laughing and often wanting more. Do you remember the time you were tickled as an infant or the time you were kissed by smelly aunt Ethel as an infant? I doubt it, you were too young and maybe you were sexually touched in some ways and don't remember that either, but you remember being happy and safe.

Actually, sexual contact when older is more impactful because you remember that and by then it has been given much more prominence, you've been told repeatedly about how sex is bad, about molestors roaming the streets looking for kids to snatch and rape, you've had sex painted as a nightmare scene by then. That leads to confusion for sure because on the one hand it is described as the most terrible act imaginable but on the other hand you're horny and your body wants contact. But as an infant you have been moulded through child psychological horror from those with "your best interests at heart" so you're still free to just enjoy something that feels good and causes no harm.

Of course I'm talking here abotu non-harmful contact, not penetration. Obviously that would be harmful but there needs to be a distinction for that. It's like a kiss on the head is fine but painful love bites is not. Any thinking person should be able to understand the distinction.