MAP Forum

Julia wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 11:22 pm

gingedu wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 5:23 pm If we find an example of an adult who is naive, easy to manipulate, and asexual

Literally me lmao. I can guarantee you all, though, that I can, in fact, consent. And also no more than I could twenty years ago. As a matter of fact, all the times I regretted consenting were during the past years, so if anything, my judgement has only gotten worse since childhood. But never to the point where I can't make my own decisions.

I would think of a foreigner that arrives to a country he doesn't know nothing about

I think the strongest reason a hebephile should support pedophilia can be summed up as — actually yes, they are pretty much the same. Every argument put forward to tell you that teens can't consent is the same argument put forward to say that pre-teens can't consent, and they're equally as flawed.

If you were to argue, for example, that a 10 year old can't consent because their brain isn't developed properly yet, you are citing the same pseudo-science that claims a 15 year old can't consent either. Almost every argument that can be used to justify sex with teens, or counter arguments made by antis, can be just as easily applied to younger ages too.

If a hebephile stands there and argues against pedophilia, chances are they're inadvertently supporting the same arguments that put them down as well.

Konatachan99 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:58 am On the topic of consent there is ofc many different types of consent, while consent to sex is usually what comes up it's a much bigger issue than that. Arguably an issue stretching beyond MAP discourse and into youth liberation since currently in society minors aren't seen as capable of many choices and are treated like drones. [...]

Yes, I think Youth Liberation work is very important to MAP activism, especially regarding consent. Why should minors' ability to consent be expanded? Just because MAPs want to sleep with them? Or because it acknowledges the rights and autonomy of minors? The focus needs to be on liberating minors, rather than on satisfying the sex-drive of MAPs.

Konatachan99 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:58 am It seems like a big misconception (one I've even had) that MAPs want an abolition of age of consent laws all together, that might be a viewpoint of some but it seems most agree to a reform usually to 12-13, which it is in a few places outside the west and was the age in many western countries historically.

There is so much focus on consent to 'sex.' You know what I'd like to see? Relationships. Romance. A 9 year old and a 24 year old, holding hands in the park... Going on playdates. Giving piggybacks at the beach. Some mutual cuddling, and a kiss. And not giving a damn what other people think. What I've just described is legal in most places. But to the masses, perhaps the notion of such romance is just as shocking as the most 'obscene' sex acts. But can you tell me, is there anything really wrong with the romance I've just described?

Personally, I would not push the 'sex' reform stuff too hard, until society can see that healthy relationships can exist between age gaps. That is what society needs to see right now. The 'physical contact' stuff will make more sense later, once more people start understanding/accepting the romantic components of adult-minor relationships.

OnionPetal wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 6:54 am There is so much focus on consent to 'sex.' You know what I'd like to see? Relationships. Romance. A 9 year old and a 24 year old, holding hands in the park... Going on playdates. Giving piggybacks at the beach. Some mutual cuddling, and a kiss. And not giving a damn what other people think. What I've just described is legal in most places. But to the masses, perhaps the notion of such romance is just as shocking as the most 'obscene' sex acts. But can you tell me, is there anything really wrong with the romance I've just described?

Personally, I would not push the 'sex' reform stuff too hard, until society can see that healthy relationships can exist between age gaps. That is what society needs to see right now. The 'physical contact' stuff will make more sense later, once more people start understanding/accepting the romantic components of adult-minor relationships.

With expanding definitions of "grooming" this may be harder, but surely the only way to accomplish this as a goal is to just do it?

Yet there is the dilemma in that if you want to keep a platonic YF it's better to hide your sexuality. But how's that going to change except by being open about it. People need to experience adult-minor relationships, to see them and how beautiful and harmless they can be. We won't be able to convince them with words and logic alone.

At least that's how I see it. What even is a "reform" agenda that pushes for stuff that is already legal? Non-sexual relationships are not a matter for activism so much as personal courage.

I think the reason to talk about the sex aspect, though, is that it's what people imagine anyway. "You're only being kind and tender because you want sex at the end of it", they'll project, because that is how their relationships work. Or even if it isn't, it's how they assume ours would.

Fragment wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 12:45 pm

OnionPetal wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 6:54 am There is so much focus on consent to 'sex.' You know what I'd like to see? Relationships. Romance. A 9 year old and a 24 year old, holding hands in the park... Going on playdates. Giving piggybacks at the beach. Some mutual cuddling, and a kiss. And not giving a damn what other people think. What I've just described is legal in most places. But to the masses, perhaps the notion of such romance is just as shocking as the most 'obscene' sex acts. But can you tell me, is there anything really wrong with the romance I've just described?

Personally, I would not push the 'sex' reform stuff too hard, until society can see that healthy relationships can exist between age gaps. That is what society needs to see right now. The 'physical contact' stuff will make more sense later, once more people start understanding/accepting the romantic components of adult-minor relationships.

With expanding definitions of "grooming" this may be harder, but surely the only way to accomplish this as a goal is to just do it?

Yet there is the dilemma in that if you want to keep a platonic YF it's better to hide your sexuality. But how's that going to change except by being open about it. People need to experience adult-minor relationships, to see them and how beautiful and harmless they can be. We won't be able to convince them with words and logic alone.

At least that's how I see it. What even is a "reform" agenda that pushes for stuff that is already legal? Non-sexual relationships are not a matter for activism so much as personal courage.

I think the reason to talk about the sex aspect, though, is that it's what people imagine anyway. "You're only being kind and tender because you want sex at the end of it", they'll project, because that is how their relationships work. Or even if it isn't, it's how they assume ours would.

I agree. People aren't concerned with a mother hugging her child because it's recognized as a different kind of relationship. It would be nice to have explicitly romantic relationships become socially acceptable, but can that happen without challenging the view that erotic relationships are intrinsically harmful to minors? The overwhelming majority people would want to stop even celibate romantic relationships between adults and minors because they see it as a gateway to erotic relationships. To them, it's just grooming with the goal of sexual exploitation.

The idea of grooming usually implies that children are blank slates, with no desires or agency of their own. Alternatively, it presents a picture of childhood as lacking the very ability to understand sex. However, the taboo is such that we can never know whether this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Consider an alternative reality, where sex education happens much earlier (say 5 years old); the child could recognize when something is sexual and say whether they like or dislike it. If you don't give children the terminology to describe something, then how can you know if they experience it? It's like hiding the term "red", and then saying the person can't see the color red. Just because you lack the language to describe an experience, that doesn't mean you don't experience it.

Another analogy, say you taught pool to a child because you enjoyed playing pool. Of course initially you would have an advantage in the game, but that doesn't mean the child wouldn't end up enjoying the game once they've understood the rules. The issue is whether the child, or for that matter the beginner in general, is treated fairly when they are introduced to the new activity.

In other words, the conception of grooming is implicitly sex negative. Now for a final analogy, imagine a person is born in a room and has no outside contact with humans but survives to sexual maturity. At which point they are reintroduced into society, having no concept of sexual norms. Under the current attitude, that person can never learn to enjoy sexuality because they are "innocent" of it, so teaching them would be exploitative. We are literally alienated from our own bodily functions by this taboo on sexuality. We can't self-possess our sexuality, it can only be "given" to us under specific circumstances.

PorcelainLark wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 3:58 pm
It would be nice to have explicitly romantic relationships become socially acceptable, but can that happen without challenging the view that erotic relationships are intrinsically harmful to minors? The overwhelming majority people would want to stop even celibate romantic relationships between adults and minors because they see it as a gateway to erotic relationships. To them, it's just grooming with the goal of sexual exploitation.

Maybe if we MAP somehow help in the fight against minor sexual explotation or in general could help to change that view, Personally I do not support sexual explotation in general so it comes naturally.

liliets wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 4:09 pm

PorcelainLark wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 3:58 pm
It would be nice to have explicitly romantic relationships become socially acceptable, but can that happen without challenging the view that erotic relationships are intrinsically harmful to minors? The overwhelming majority people would want to stop even celibate romantic relationships between adults and minors because they see it as a gateway to erotic relationships. To them, it's just grooming with the goal of sexual exploitation.

Maybe if we MAP somehow help in the fight against minor sexual explotation or in general could help to change that view, Personally I do not support sexual explotation in general so it comes naturally.

Members of NAMBLA always made it clear that they did not support rape and only supported consensual relationships with minors. They didn’t break through. We need a new style of engaging if we’re to make any ground. I’ve got a view ideas I’d like to try. I just need to get a good audience at some stage. There are a few potential interviews in the works, but who knows if they’ll pan out (especially since I’m on a deadline with prison pending.

Fragment wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 4:27 pm Members of NAMBLA always made it clear that they did not support rape and only supported consensual relationships with minors. They didn’t break through. We need a new style of engaging if we’re to make any ground. I’ve got a view ideas I’d like to try. I just need to get a good audience at some stage. There are a few potential interviews in the works, but who knows if they’ll pan out (especially since I’m on a deadline with prison pending.

If you share those ideas at some free time some would be willing to try

Fragment wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 12:45 pm I think the reason to talk about the sex aspect, though, is that it's what people imagine anyway. "You're only being kind and tender because you want sex at the end of it" [...]

When we are talking specifically about how/why activists should support paedophiles, we should be careful not to let our activism be guided by a false premise.

Fragment wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 12:45 pm [...] Non-sexual relationships are not a matter for activism so much as personal courage.

Hard disagree. If 'normies' see you in a legal romantic relationship with a child, the social ramifications could be devastating -- for the adult and for the child. It is not cowardice to avoid or conceal such relationships, to guard against such a high price.

Fragment wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 12:45 pm What even is a "reform" agenda that pushes for stuff that is already legal?

Yeah, what kind of activist would want to tackle insignificant things like prejudice, discrimination, and stigma, just for a silly little thing like social acceptance?

For those who recognize the necessity of social reform in our activism, one way to inspire social change is via media representation. If millions of viewers could see positive depictions of legal romantic relationships in mainstream media, that would probably have a much broader impact than some bloke committing social suicide by outing himself as a paedophile in some small town by openly having a 'legal' romantic relationship with a child. Real meaningful change (for those who want to see it) is more likely to come from lobbying media producers, publishers, and writers to challenge the biases around adult-child romantic relationships.

Fragment wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 12:45 pm With expanding definitions of "grooming" this may be harder [...]

I will never understand that vague, poorly-defined concept of 'grooming.' But if it means to turn legal activities in to 'forbidden' ones, then this is something else our activism should fight, too. With high priority.

OnionPetal wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:55 pm For those who recognize the necessity of social reform in our activism, one way to inspire social change is via media representation. If millions of viewers could see positive depictions of legal romantic relationships in mainstream media, that would probably have a much broader impact than some bloke committing social suicide by outing himself as a paedophile in some small town by openly having a 'legal' romantic relationship with a child. Real meaningful change (for those who want to see it) is more likely to come from lobbying media producers, publishers, and writers to challenge the biases around adult-child romantic relationships.

I totally agree about that, I have sometime thinking about exactly that.