MAP Forum

WavesInEternity wrote: Thu Apr 10, 2025 9:46 pm

FairBlueLove wrote: Thu Apr 10, 2025 5:42 pm I'll try to make it simple again. The culprit is the word "abuse". This is what makes it complicated. It applies to sex, opium and sweets alike.

I don't think that's an adequate response. The cases of the two women I described, from the perspective of the men who committed those acts, actually fit into the "simple" pattern Pegasus described previously: "she seems to like it" and "I'm not going too far". They were tragically wrong.

The issue is that with some things, the risk of unintentional abuse is simply too high, and there's nothing simple about that (as a person who ended up unintentionally addicted to opioids despite being very knowledgeable about drugs, I know that all too well). Giving opiates or cocaine to children casually is one of them. According to available evidence, sexual contact with children below a certain age is another. Yes, there's a lot of disagreement regarding what that age is, and it's clearly not during adolescence, but I do think there's solid evidence for the notion that such an "absolute threshold" does exist.

The comparison with junk food was only insofar as it highlights that the morality of the situation goes much further than "the child seems to enjoy it".

Your answer confirms again that the culprit is the abuse. Of course abuse renders things complicated. But it is separated from the concept of consent, which was the thing being discussed.

Pegasus wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:41 am With regard to these two women, I don't know the ages at which they went through this experience, which seems to have caused them problems, but I believe that they already had a certain awareness to know that they were doing something. When I referred to sensations and reactions, I was only referring to babies. The reactions that go through them show how good or bad something can be, and this will visibly be noticed. If it's good, that moment, at that time, will be very good for her. Here comes a question: do you remember when you were a baby? What you went through, where you went, who held you so many times? Do you remember anything good or bad? But the “moment” can be good or bad.

No, they were too young to understand what was happening. One was in her 2nd year of life when it started and the other in her 3rd. One of them was still babbling, the other couldn't yet speak full sentences. Both of those women say they can't really remember much from that time, but that those particular memories stand out in a completely abnormal way. That those experiences were traumatic in a way that wasn't painful. I've read other accounts from women that were abused at a very young age and they virtually all say very similar things (except for the ones that were, even more tragically and sometimes horrifyingly, actually physically hurt).

Like giving them heroin, it might have been "good" in the moment, but it had terrible long-term consequences. The usual explanation is that it overused neural connections that weren't ready to be used yet, and it caused their brain to down-regulate so that those stimuli cease to be amazing and intense. They become ordinary and boring.

FairBlueLove wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:03 pm Your answer confirms again that the culprit is the abuse. Of course abuse renders things complicated. But it is separated from the concept of consent, which was the thing being discussed.

If the "thing being discussed" was consent, why are we talking about babies? It should be obvious that babies can't consent in any meaningful sense of the word, and that "he/she seems to like it" has literally nothing to do with consent. You're being very confusing.

But yes, if we want to say things "simply", the problem with sex with babies is that it's necessarily abuse because we can't ascertain consent in any meaningful way (because "he/she appears to like it" is never such a way).

I mean, I've been in situations in BDSM, e.g. with my partner bound & gagged or drugged half-unconscious, where I had to rely entirely on external non-verbal cues to direct the activity. Those are considered hardcore edgeplay that requires deep mutual understanding between partners. That's essentially what you're describing with a baby, Pegasus. It's no wonder that those women felt it was so traumatic and that they were used in a completely unacceptable and immoral way.