Argument for pro contact

[MAPallmylife66]

I'm new here, so I don't know if this has been discussed before here, but I was thinking yesterday. Antis are against MAP because they believe that we will willingly harm kids, right? Well what about Parents who willingly assault their own kids in the name of discipline? Spanking, smacking, kicking a child in the name of discipline, because the adult in the room can't deal with the fact that their child is desperately wanting attention, seems to be largely ignored in society, but giving a child a consensual loving kiss on the lips, or touching them in an intimate way, when the child wants the contact, is the most heinous crime imaginable.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Children desire attention, preferably loving attention. It's what they crave more than anything, but yet society denies them the attention they want, and replaces it with attention they don't want. If the powers that be want to make MAP/AAM contact illegal, then spanking, or even yelling angrily at a child, should also be equally illegal.

Kids look to adults for guidance in this world. They don't look to us for discipline. They look to us for love and protection, not spankings, and angry smacks across the face. These are things that a true MAP would never think of doing to a child, yet we're seen as the evil ones, because we actually, unconditionally love children, whether they're acting up because they're seeking guidance or not. We're the ones who can provide them with the good feelings they want.

Thoughts?

[FairBlueLove]

It doesn't make any sense to me too, and I fully agree with your analysis.

But let's try to imagine one thing an anti would say: Discipline is applied without self-interest, for the good of the kid, while trying to have sex with a kid is loaded with self interest.

I invite any anti present here to try to complete/correct/expand that assumption.

[weird.organisms]

I'm new here, so I don't know if this has been discussed before here, but I was thinking yesterday. Antis are against MAP because they believe that we will willingly harm kids, right? Well what about Parents who willingly assault their own kids in the name of discipline? Spanking, smacking, kicking a child in the name of discipline, because the adult in the room can't deal with the fact that their child is desperately wanting attention, seems to be largely ignored in society, but giving a child a consensual loving kiss on the lips, or touching them in an intimate way, when the child wants the contact, is the most heinous crime imaginable.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Children desire attention, preferably loving attention. It's what they crave more than anything, but yet society denies them the attention they want, and replaces it with attention they don't want. If the powers that be want to make MAP/AAM contact illegal, then spanking, or even yelling angrily at a child, should also be equally illegal.

Kids look to adults for guidance in this world. They don't look to us for discipline. They look to us for love and protection, not spankings, and angry smacks across the face. These are things that a true MAP would never think of doing to a child, yet we're seen as the evil ones, because we actually, unconditionally love children, whether they're acting up because they're seeking guidance or not. We're the ones who can provide them with the good feelings they want.

Thoughts?

THIS is why i think antis hate children. They only want to give them negative contact then blow it off later and act like they're sorry when they're not.

These people are full of hatred and enjoy hurting others, and no, i don't believe trauma or abuse is the cause. They clearly enjoy being cruel and hate seeing anyone being nice to their property. They. Are. Evil. I don't know why evolution would ever allow such a horrible thing to take root. don't even get started on god.

Then they'll just turn around and accuse us doing more harm to them because they cannot stand knowing their kid would be happier and loved by someone else. It completely takes away their ability to feel powerful as people who want to feel powerful hate people who are kind and love to hurt and dehumanize their victims.

Maybe this is why AAMs are becoming higher in numbers? They're turning to MAPs because they don't get the love they deserve?

[sovereign]

I'm new here, so I don't know if this has been discussed before here, but I was thinking yesterday. Antis are against MAP because they believe that we will willingly harm kids, right? Well what about Parents who willingly assault their own kids in the name of discipline? Spanking, smacking, kicking a child in the name of discipline, because the adult in the room can't deal with the fact that their child is desperately wanting attention, seems to be largely ignored in society, but giving a child a consensual loving kiss on the lips, or touching them in an intimate way, when the child wants the contact, is the most heinous crime imaginable.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Children desire attention, preferably loving attention. It's what they crave more than anything, but yet society denies them the attention they want, and replaces it with attention they don't want. If the powers that be want to make MAP/AAM contact illegal, then spanking, or even yelling angrily at a child, should also be equally illegal.

Kids look to adults for guidance in this world. They don't look to us for discipline. They look to us for love and protection, not spankings, and angry smacks across the face. These are things that a true MAP would never think of doing to a child, yet we're seen as the evil ones, because we actually, unconditionally love children, whether they're acting up because they're seeking guidance or not. We're the ones who can provide them with the good feelings they want.

Thoughts?

Above all, antis are disgusted by our sexual desire for children. Emotions are the main driver in all human motivation.

[Bookshelf]

If the powers that be want to make MAP/AAM contact illegal, then spanking, or even yelling angrily at a child, should also be equally illegal.

Of course it's laced with hypocrisy at every corner. You can't give a child an orgasm, but if you're their parent, you can do things such as... deny life-saving medical intervention in the form of refusing vaccines. You're allowed to raise them almost entirely on unhealthy foods that are practically guaranteed to result in irreversible long-term diseases.

As a MAP, you may not be legally allowed to make a child feel good, but if you decide to go and be a parent to one instead, you can prevent them from contacting essential services such as suicide prevention hotlines.

You'll notice that every time there's a "parental rights" issue circulating the media, or some family/child protection problem, it always comes down to the same outcome — a group of parents want the state to make a law that gives them even more control over some aspect of the child's life.

[John_Doe]

I don't know how many people would claim with a straight face, or at least with sincerity, that circumcising male infants for non-medical reasons is done for their benefit (maybe they'll double down and insist that it's more sanitary and will ward off infection etc. but that's been debunked for several decades now) and it's worth noting that even hitting one's own child in anger is not considered as morally heinous as gentle not-unwanted sexual contact with a child but people often suspend the 'the child must properly consent to it' rule when it comes to things that are presumed to benefit or ultimately benefit them (alternatively, and this seems to be more likely, it is only when it comes to sex that people pretend to care about children's autonomy or what they can properly consent to). Consent per se as a value has nothing to do with benefit so insofar as we care about children's welfare it doesn't ultimately matter whether or not they consent to something and insofar as we care about consent for its own sake (the whole point of consent is to minimize desire frustration, 'abstract' or actually felt, or gouge how likely it is that something will upset someone, so I think the need for ritualistic formal consent is misguided, and it doesn't follow that because a child can't meaningfully consent that they therefore have an active desire to avoid the thing that they supposedly can't consent to. I've said that a million times but it single-handedly dismantles the concept of statutory rape) it doesn't matter whether or not children benefit from or are harmed by a thing, only whether or not they've consented to it (or from the anti-desire frustration point of view, which any coherent argument for consent must be tied to, whether or not the child wants it).