Question for female pedophiles

[PorcelainLark]

I already know you enough to be aware of that. It's partly why I offered to co-author, since I'm quite good at structuring my thoughts and producing well-organized writing. The fact that we have extremely different personalities could potentially make us complementary. I've often worked in tandem with others on essays with the general division of work being "they brainstorm, I organize".

I guess I was kind of trying not to be too "on the nose" here; the previous couple of times we've tried to work together haven't gone so smoothly. I don't mind trying again, however, I kind of wanted to be mindful of the potential personality conflicts if we do try again. It's not just a matter of division of labor. I want to remain on good terms if possible, however there are things which will lead to conflict if they aren't approached in the right way. I'm trying to gauge whether it was a matter of getting off on the wrong foot and we can find a way to work together/get along, or if we have personalities and beliefs that are too divergent.

That sounds a bit far-fetched! Something that complicates matters further is that while I've been described as "androgynous" because of my aesthetics (I love cute and pretty things) and my extreme sensitivity (especially sensory, but also emotional), I have high-functioning autism, and autism has been theorized to be a matter of an "extreme male brain" according to the empathising-systemising theory. While the theory is controversial, considering that the first three words I uttered were all about mechanisms and had nothing at all to do with people—no "mommy" or "daddy" here... those came much later—it's clear that I'm innately more on the "systemising" side.

Fair enough.

[WavesInEternity]

I guess I was kind of trying not to be too "on the nose" here; the previous couple of times we've tried to work together haven't gone so smoothly. I don't mind trying again, however, I kind of wanted to be mindful of the potential personality conflicts if we do try again. It's not just a matter of division of labor. I want to remain on good terms if possible, however there are things which will lead to conflict if they aren't approached in the right way. I'm trying to gauge whether it was a matter of getting off on the wrong foot and we can find a way to work together/get along, or if we have personalities and beliefs that are too divergent.

*Scratches head*
Am I missing something? To my knowledge, we've never tried actually working together. There's one time where I offered to proofread an essay for you. You told me you abandoned that project. I barely started that proofreading process and never sent you any comments. I can't think of anything else.

[PorcelainLark]

*Scratches head*
Am I missing something? To my knowledge, we've never tried actually working together. There's one time where I offered to proofread an essay for you. You told me you abandoned that project. I barely started that proofreading process and never sent you any comments. I can't think of anything else.

Besides the essay, there were the interactions in your two threads:

On the Oppression of Anti-Contact MAPs and Its Implications for Furthering the MAP Cause
A Simple Diagram to Explain the Difference Between CSA and AMSC

I'd see those as critiquing your work, as distinct from just debating or discussion. At least from my perspective, I saw those as attempts, on my part, at collaborating. However, whether you'd call it work or not, it does indicate an awkwardness in how we interact. For me, it's more the matter of how you think and write slightly rubbing me the wrong way; some people you read and you can easily relate to them, others alienate you. I don't think I've seen you say anything specifically that I thought was terribly wrong or anything, but usually I come away from what you write feeling more distant; like there's some sort of subtle framing that doesn't ring true to me.

I don't want to make that big of a deal out of it, though. There's no point in fighting about it. Better to try to let sleeping dogs lie, as they say. I should have politely declined, if I was being sensible.

[WavesInEternity]

I'd see those as critiquing your work, as distinct from just debating or discussion. At least from my perspective, I saw those as attempts, on my part, at collaborating. However, whether you'd call it work or not, it does indicate an awkwardness in how we interact. For me, it's more the matter of how you think and write slightly rubbing me the wrong way; some people you read and you can easily relate to them, others alienate you. I don't think I've seen you say anything specifically that I thought was terribly wrong or anything, but usually I come away from what you write feeling more distant; like there's some sort of subtle framing that doesn't ring true to me.

Interesting. I found your insight to be valuable in both cases you bring up, and I never felt any awkwardness on my end. I actually included your input in the diagram, and I feel that both versions are useful in their own way. I don't think you should have stayed silent.

Since you can't actually tell me anything in particular that I'm doing wrong, perhaps it really is a fundamental personality conflict. I want to emphasize, however, that I don't feel towards you the way you do towards me. I've never been "rubbed the wrong way" or felt "alienated" or "distant" regarding anything you wrote. Well, perhaps that one private comment about how philosophy makes you feel... that did highlight an immense gap between our respective experiences of reality.

Edit: You're far from alone in feeling that way about me. A whole lot of people dislike me without being able to really say why. Opinions about me tend to be very polarized, and mostly negative. (Though children and teens mostly like me.) I tend to blame my autism for that.

[PorcelainLark]

Interesting. I found your insight to be valuable in both cases you bring up, and I never felt any awkwardness on my end. I actually included your input in the diagram, and I feel that both versions are useful in their own way. I don't think you should have stayed silent.

I'll bear this in mind in the future.

Since you can't actually tell me anything in particular that I'm doing wrong, perhaps it really is a fundamental personality conflict. I want to emphasize, however, that I don't feel towards you the way you do towards me. I've never been "rubbed the wrong way" or felt "alienated" or "distant" regarding anything you wrote. Well, perhaps that one private comment about how philosophy makes you feel... that did highlight an immense gap between our respective experiences of reality.

It may be our respective attitudes towards modesty, philosophy, and picture of the inner mind of the other. To me, you come across as very certain of your beliefs and what you know, in addition to being proud of your achievements (in contrast, my instinct is to try not to make strong statements of what I believe, and I'm uneasy with anything that could be construed as boasting); with respect to philosophy I think it's that I've seen it as a way to identify the fundamental issues I have with the world (however it cuts both ways - if you expect others to be persuaded by a philosophical argument that they aren't going to like, I feel you should be to do the same yourself; hence why it can be difficult), in contrast I feel, for you, philosophy adds a layer but you feel above or free from it's conclusions; finally, with respect to interpreting what other people say, I tend to see omissions and repetitions as meaningful parts of communication (say for example, if a person seems to not have responded to part of what I say, the lack of response means something), in contrast, more than once you've implied I missed part of what you wrote when I had made a conscious choice to leave it aside (although I make mistakes, I only recall one context in which I felt had you pointed out something that I had genuinely missed in what you had written).

Edit: You're far from alone in feeling that way about me. A whole lot of people dislike me without being able to really say why. Opinions about me tend to be very polarized, and mostly negative. (Though children and teens mostly like me.) I tend to blame my autism for that.

I'm sorry, I do feel bad about it.

[WavesInEternity]

It may be our respective attitudes towards modesty, philosophy, and picture of the inner mind of the other. To me, you come across as very certain of your beliefs and what you know, in addition to being proud of your achievements (in contrast, my instinct is to try not to make strong statements of what I believe, and I'm uneasy with anything that could be construed as boasting); with respect to philosophy I think it's that I've seen it as a way to identify the fundamental issues I have with the world (however it cuts both ways - if you expect others to be persuaded by a philosophical argument that they aren't going to like, I feel you should be to do the same yourself; hence why it can be difficult), in contrast I feel, for you, philosophy adds a layer but you feel above or free from it's conclusions; finally, with respect to interpreting what other people say, I tend to see omissions and repetitions as meaningful parts of communication (say for example, if a person seems to not have responded to part of what I say, the lack of response means something), in contrast, more than once you've implied I missed part of what you wrote when I had made a conscious choice to leave it aside (although I make mistakes, I only recall one context in which I felt had you pointed out something that I had genuinely missed in what you had written).

I don't want to further derail this thread with this, so I'll just say a few things: I'm well aware that I come across as arrogant and boastful. That's the #1 thing that people say they dislike about me. I once tried to change, for many years, but it felt like I was going against my core personality for little benefit—unlike other aspects of agreeableness, the increase of which did yield significant benefits, without being as strongly opposed to my inner self—so I no longer make any efforts in that sense. That's just how I naturally am. (As a side note, I'd mention that I also talk a lot about my mistakes, not just my achievements.) I would point out that the "Modesty" part is one of the points where we differ the most on that personality test. I'm not actually so "certain" at all in the grand scheme of things, but when I am reasonably certain of something after a long deliberation, I tend to be vocal about it, so that's the side of me you tend to see. I really don't know what you mean by feeling "above or free from the conclusions" of philosophy; quite the opposite: I live according to my principles and my life is more consistent with my philosophical views than anyone else I know in person. As for implying that you miss something I say, I always try to make it clear that my message has been understood. I know that misinterpretation is common, and I generally find that ensuring proper understanding is worth the effort even if I run the risk of false negatives (thinking you misunderstood, but you didn't)—that's still by far preferable to me than false positives (thinking you understood, but you didn't).

--------------------------------------------------------------

To come back to the topic at hand, the main reason I offered to co-author that post with you in the first place is that your theory regarding male paedophilia being a form of "androgyny" shows significant overlap with a hypothesis of mine that I developed with my mother throughout our lengthy conversations on paedohebephilic desire—we've been talking about it for nearly two decades now, and especially frequently and in great depth since I came back to live with her last Fall.

As I described my feelings toward little girls to her, she described her own experience of what she calls "swooning" (the word she uses isn't in English, but that's the closest equivalent I found). Her maternal instinct is exceptionally strong, and when she sees cute children, especially some that resemble her own kids, she has a powerful emotional experience that closely resembles my own with the exception of the erotic/romantic aspect. In fact, she says that while there's nothing sexual about those feelings for her, they are quite similar to romantic feelings in that they involve a strong desire to be with the child, to get to know him or her, and to show love toward him or her. As a paedohebephile, I can relate to all those desires, of course. However, I called attention to the fact that I don't have such a powerful response to little girls that are too young for me to be sexually attracted to them (i.e. under 6-7), which means that for me, the sexual part is truly inseparable from the rest.

Thus, it does seem plausible that male paedohebephilia could be explained by the presence of a strong "caring/nurturing" instinct in a man, combined with typical male sexuality. On a neurological level, the same visual cues that elicit the protective feelings associated with the "nurturing" instinct become the cues that elicit sexual arousal, and the two become inextricable from one another. What complexifies this hypothesis, as I mentioned earlier, is that I'm definitely more on the "systemizing" than the "empathizing" side, and it's not immediately clear how "empathizing" relates to "caring/nurturing" feelings.

[Meiwaku_Mailing_Girl]

How did you find out you were attracted to kids?

Are you exclusive or non-exclusive and straight bi or gay?

Also, why do you think minor attraction is mostly a male thing and female maps don't get much attention?

I'll just preface this by saying I'm a cisgender woman.

I will copy and paste what I wrote on my blog. I plan to write more in depth later on my blog. “So I (re)discovered the map community when I was 21. I would lurk public forums for weeks. I noticed i agreed with the way many of the pedophiles felt about children emotionally. I already knew since I was 17 that I had a platonic preference for children. I even resonated with the term “childlover”. I thought maybe i could be an asexual childlover with a platonic preference. One day I was reading this erotica about a 5 year old boy that was written by a pedophile. I thought it was hot. From that point I started thinking about my past and started to connect the dots. At first I still wasn’t sure as to how pedophilic I truly was. I thought at first maybe it was mostly aesthetic attraction and that I wasn’t attracted to their genitals. I thought my attraction between adults and children was 50/50. As weeks went by I became more assured of my orientation.”

Nonexclusive

I'm not sure why that appears to be or if that even is actually the case. I think minor attraction in women gets less attention in society because female sexuality is viewed as less threatening.

Also I’m very happy to answer any questions anyone has! I’m a really open person!

Could I ask about a few questions relating to the body shape of children you find attractive? I have certain theories about this. I'll write the questions here, and feel free not to answer if you'd prefer not to. I'll put the purposes of the more awkward questions in at the bottom, I'd use spoilers but they don't seem to be working.

How do you feel about hebephilia versus pedophilia and nepophilia? Do early adolescents tend to appeal to you for the kinds of traits they have, or is it more when they retain traits from early stages (i.e. looking younger than they are)?

How do you feel about femininity and masculinity in terms of the appearance of youths? For example, do you find girls with waist-to-hip ratios closer to hourglass figures more attractive; likewise, do you prefer boys with broader shoulders? Do you tend to find taller minors more attractive or less attractive? Most importantly, for part of my theory, do you tend to prefer girls to boys*1?

These final two questions may sound perverted. I apologize for asking, but do any of your fantasies relate to breast feeding**2? Do you think your sex drive is higher than average compared to other women***3?


*1 My theory is that female pedophilia is related to homosexuality, since the traits that are typically associated with appealing to heterosexual women (and some homosexual men) are body hair, height, deep voices, and broad shoulders. All these traits are almost the polar opposite of the appearance of children, so it raises the question what a non-exclusive heterosexual female MAPs attraction would be primarily directed towards. With homosexual women there is still a difference, but it isn't a polarized as heterosexual women, if they turn out to be a MAP.

**2 My theory is that male pedophilia is a third kind of androgyny in biological males (along with being homosexual or being transgender). It relates to study concerning maternal behavior in male rats and their sexual behavior. I can't remember the exact details, but my take away was that maternal behavior in males manifested itself like pedophilia; for a woman there are more biological causes and social acceptance for bodily contact with a child. Giving birth and breastfeeding mean there is close physical contact to the erogenous zones of the female body. I think if you combine maternal instincts with a male sex drive, you get something which isn't as tender.

***3 My theory is that the reason you see less female pedophiles is because women tend to have a lower sex drive, or at least one that tends to manifest itself in different ways.

Even though you didn't direct to questions to me, I want to add my input.
I'm primarily a pedophile with secondary hebephilic and nepiophilic attractions. I prefer late bloomers when it comes to adolescent people.


I think secondary sexual characteristics make people less attractive, especially if they're female secondary sexual characteristics. I like boys to have small shoulders and be smaller than me. Even being the same height is unattractive to me. I'm only into boys.

I do occasionally have breast feeding fantasies. Sometimes I do feel like my sex drive is above average.


Your theory about female pedophilia being related to homosexuality is interesting. There have been times in which I've pondered about my attractions. Even though I consider myself to be 100% heterosexual, especially when it comes to romance, some of the features a boy has that I'm drawn to, many would consider feminine, like for example: a small petite frame, a smooth hairless body, a high pitch voice, big pretty eyes with long lashes, zero muscle definition, in need of protection, and emotionally sensitive at time. With all that being said, I am massively turned off by feminine girly traits. An effeminate boy is as unattractive as a typical girl. I may prefer a soft boy, but he's still has to be boyish. I couldn't muster a nibble of romantic feels for any female or effeminate boy. Now getting back to the point, I remember reading a news report of a woman TikTok influencer having a crush with on a 12 year old boy and kissing him. Someone in the comments of the news article said she was a lesbian. At the time of reading that comment I found it annoying. I always found it aggravating when people said boys look just like women and being with a tomboyish woman should satisfy a "boylover" but I do think there is some truth to that statement. Certain adolescent boys can resemble woman. However I don't think this appeals to prepubescent boys. They don't resemble women. Prepubescent children are facially distinct.

I don't think having a lower sex drive would make a woman less likely to be pedophilic. I agree that pedophilia in females probably often manifest differently.

[PorcelainLark]

Even though you didn't direct to questions to me, I want to add my input.

Thank you.

By the way, anyone else reading this who feels like answering those questions is welcome to.

I think secondary sexual characteristics make people less attractive, especially if they're female secondary sexual characteristics. I like boys to have small shoulders and be smaller than me. Even being the same height is unattractive to me. I'm only into boys.

Interesting. I take it boys are more attractive before the gonadarche for you?

Your theory about female pedophilia being related to homosexuality is interesting. There have been times in which I've pondered about my attractions. Even though I consider myself to be 100% heterosexual, especially when it comes to romance, some of the features a boy has that I'm drawn to, many would consider feminine, like for example: a small petite frame, a smooth hairless body, a high pitch voice, big pretty eyes with long lashes, zero muscle definition, in need of protection, and emotionally sensitive at time. With all that being said, I am massively turned off by feminine girly traits. An effeminate boy is as unattractive as a typical girl. I may prefer a soft boy, but he's still has to be boyish. I couldn't muster a nibble of romantic feels for any female or effeminate boy.

What would you say you are most attracted to? Boys after the adrenarche but before the gonadarche? I wonder sometimes about whether MA is subliminal.

Now getting back to the point, I remember reading a news report of a woman TikTok influencer having a crush with on a 12 year old boy and kissing him. Someone in the comments of the news article said she was a lesbian. At the time of reading that comment I found it annoying. I always found it aggravating when people said boys look just like women and being with a tomboyish woman should satisfy a "boylover" but I do think there is some truth to that statement. Certain adolescent boys can resemble woman. However I don't think this appeals to prepubescent boys. They don't resemble women. Prepubescent children are facially distinct.

I think part of the issue is that sexual perception hasn't been studied sufficiently scientifically. There's a lot of discussion about sexualization as something socially constructed, but seemingly less about what makes us perceive certain things as sexual and other thing as not. We have some rudimentary ideas about things like the waist-to-hip ratio, but not a more general theory of sexual perception (that gives an idea of what heterosexual male teleiophiles are attracted to, but it doesn't explain how that process of sexual perception is occurring; presumably there's something different happening for heterosexual female teleiophiles, homosexual teleiophiles, etc.).
I was speculating about different configurations like men being directed towards neoteny by one component and indicators of sexual maturity by another component; or that's there's something in teleiophile women that is attracted towards a shared characteristic between adult men and to children. I'm thinking of it in quite simplistic terms, like how a compass points North or how certain atoms bond and not others.

I don't think having a lower sex drive would make a woman less likely to be pedophilic. I agree that pedophilia in females probably often manifest differently.

Fair enough.

[hugs]

**2 My theory is that male pedophilia is a third kind of androgyny in biological males (along with being homosexual or being transgender). It relates to study concerning maternal behavior in male rats and their sexual behavior. I can't remember the exact details, but my take away was that maternal behavior in males manifested itself like pedophilia; for a woman there are more biological causes and social acceptance for bodily contact with a child. Giving birth and breastfeeding mean there is close physical contact to the erogenous zones of the female body. I think if you combine maternal instincts with a male sex drive, you get something which isn't as tender.

I know this thread is about afab maps, which I certainly am not, but I thought I'd comment on this interesting theory of yours.

Your theory describes me to a terrifying degree of accuracy. I love androgyny, and my efforts to become as androgynous as I can have landed me somewhere between femboy and pretty boy: not so femme that I wear mini-skirts and thigh-highs, yet still a touch more effeminate than an obviously heterosexual man with a pretty face and good fashion sense. It's a kind of androgyny that's distinct from that of gay men - you won't hear any 'yass queens' from me - so it's hard to place, even for myself. As a bi man, I've always wondered if this is just a bisexual thing. I've noticed that bi men are typically more comfortable with androgyny than straight men, for obvious reasons. I hadn't considered that it may also be a map thing as well. My personal favorite example is Micheal Jackson. He too had a certain air of androgyny that has always resonated with me.

In addition to an androgynous style, I also feel that I have a strong maternal instinct. My approach with children - and, to a degree, most social situations - is gentle and didactic, like a mother or an elementary school teacher. Fittingly, I've been described by friends and family as a "mom." It's in large part due to my interest in androgyny and my maternal instincts that I've struggled in the past to identify my gender, only to end up right back where I had started. It would be quite a relief to learn that even half of these experiences are shared among amab maps.

I think it will become much easier to test this theory when maps start meeting in person. If your "gaydar but for maps" truly exists, then you'll have me clocked in half-a-second.

[WavesInEternity]

It would be quite a relief to learn that even half of these experiences are shared among amab maps.

As a young boy, I very much looked like a little girl. I was often bullied for it, but I didn't understand why being "girly" or "a girl" was supposed to be an insult. If anything, I was rather proud of it, as I already was rather fond of little girls' looks and personalities, although our interests tended to diverge (I was very nerdy from a very early age).

As a teenager, I reveled in my eccentricity, which included androgyny: waist-long blonde hair, flowery shirts, colourful pareos, djellabas... a lot of people thought I was gay. However, while my aesthetics were/are rather feminine, I also had/have very masculine interests, liking computers, engineering, logic and philosophy, etc. (But I hated, and still hate, sports.) My group of friends in high school was all-male, a bunch of nerds who got together to play Magic: the Gathering and video games. However, when I got involved in activism for drug liberalization, I started diversifying my circle of friends. I introduced my first serious crush to MDMA, which was really wonderful; she introduced me to kissing (as an intimate friend, not a lover). Psychedelic experimentation always felt more natural and pleasant with girls (cis or trans), and I bonded with my next two girlfriends that way. Many people find that I'm naturally kind and caring, especially toward children, and most people who've seen me interact with kids have commented on the ease with which I connect with them.

As I started to be more dedicated to my goal of having romantic relationships with girls—adults only, as I was strictly anti-c back then—and considering how "picky" I am (I mean, I'm not that picky in my preferred age range, but I very much am with adults), I knew I had to make a special kind of effort to seduce the very few heterosexual women aged 18+ that I could fall for. For that reason, I deliberately became more masculine in my personal style—more assertive, dominant, rugged, dark—as it was what my partners found attractive. This change is purely cosmetic, as I still love cute and pretty things, have cooking and flower arrangement as hobbies, am very caring and nurturing toward children, and enjoy wearing men's dresses & skirts.