MAP Forum

EOF wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:17 am And unlike in our case, none of these women say that the experience was terrible because the partner was an adult. Besides, how many of these terrible experiences have traumatic consequences? Adult-minor sexual relationships are seemingly regarded as uniquely traumatizing.

If you actually talk to those women who were traumatized by AMSC (and I have!), you'll quickly realize that saying the trauma was "because the men were adults" is just shorthand for other aspects of the adult-child dynamic, most crucially the infamous "power dynamics" that characterize such interactions, as well as the closely related notion that the adult's sexual experience "pressures" the younger partner into "fast-tracking" their sexual development. As for how many of the terrible adult-adult experiences had traumatic consequences: a lot. Like, a whole lot. Again, just look at #MeToo.

EOF wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:17 am If it had been a 13-year-old boy friend who had masturbated your lesbian relative to orgasm, would she regard what happened to be just as horrible? Or would she have acknowledge her agency in what happened and be proud of her generosity?

In that case, she most likely would have been able to say a clear and loud "no". If for whatever reason she had found herself unable to, especially if those reasons involved anything about the boy being in a position of power and trust over her, yes, she would have found it essentially just as traumatic.

A partial counter-example is one of that aunt's ex-girlfriends. She had a near-coercive sexual experience with a woman in her 40s when she was 14, and she loved it. She says it was "negative" not in and of itself, but because it made her have some sexually predatory thoughts later on, i.e. thinking that girls were straight because they didn't know how good lesbian sex could be, so she had to "show them" even against their stated wishes. There's nothing about that unfortunate "side-effect" that's intrinsic to AMSC, though.

EOF wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:17 am Curious. But will this be enough to convince those who claim to be victims of AMSC, the non-violent and non-coercive kind of it, that their partner being an adult is not to be blamed for their distress?

To repeat: if you talk to those women, you'll realize that the majority readily admit that the trauma wasn't inherently because their partner "was an adult", that it was because of the power dynamics, because they weren't ready, because they felt pressured, etc. All things that are, to various extents, associated with their 'abuser' being an adult, but that aren't necessarily due to that fact.

EOF wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:17 am How much does the general androphobia contribute to the predicament that we, the male GLs, find ourselves in?

I'm increasingly convinced that it's a big part of it. I believe that the crux of the issue, in that respect (although there other aspects, like the idea of children's "purity"), is the increasing pathologization of normal male sexuality, in particular its hardwired visual and "objectifying" nature.

EOF wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:17 am You may reply by saying that the laws that serve to limit the exposure simply do not work, but are there studies to back that up? The option to make the laws even more draconian will still remain in our opponents mind even if they don't disregard such studies. Then you may mention "the push", but coming from us, doesn't it sound like terrorism? Some antis have enough spirit to set us on fire (and go to jail for it). Do we?

Of course there's abundant data to back it up. Yes, the option to keep disregarding the data and make the laws ever more draconian is always there. That's what the UK is doing with drug policy, for instance. But that's exactly why our activism matters.

I strongly dislike your comparison of "the push" with terrorism. Nothing about the theory implies that the violent actions of hopeless MAPs are intentional in the sense of deliberate political action. They are suicidal acts of desperation by people who feel they've got nothing left to lose. Whether or not we have that "spirit" is irrelevant: I don't think we should be setting anyone on fire. We know all too well what it feels like to be the target of hatred. Let's not add more hatred into this broken world.

EOF wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:17 am So, why should we expose our beloved (pure, innocent) children to all this poison? That would be the antis' question.

I've got so many answers, here are just a few:

1) The "poison" isn't an intrinsic part of sexual relationships, but rather an unfortunate consequence of the inherent difficulties of interpersonal communication, the collective neuroses of our erotophobic culture, and the serious problems in how children—especially girls—are raised. See also: the dose makes the poison (nothing is "inherently toxic"; although some things are useless, love is surely not among them). Love is a drug, very much like MDMA: it can be toxic, even lethal, but it can also be an incredibly powerful force for good.

2) All the pain that may be involved isn't only for the women/children, it's also for the men/adults. We do have a responsibility to prevent causing pain to others if we can, but in this case, it means having better relationships, not avoiding relationships altogether, nor even avoiding a particular kind of relationship. The alternative tends toward the moralistic position that sexual activity should only occur within a monogamous teleionormative marriage for the purpose of procreation, and I certainly don't believe that's the solution.

3) Children are neither "pure" nor "innocent" in any meaningful sense. This ideology of "protection" is really about enforcing a certain restrictive idea of what "childhood" should be, which keeps them away from a great deal of potentially meaningful and life-affirming experiences.

EOF wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:17 am Let alone arguing against something like "better kill yourself anyway, cuz' your 13-year-old loli won't stay a loli forever. Or what? Do you only need her for a couple years and then that's it, you dump her into the trash?".

Considering that my romantic ideal would actually be lifelong monogamy, and that I'm only barely non-exclusive but that the few neotenous adult women I'm attracted to won't stay physically attractive to me for long even in a best-case scenario, this is definitely something I've grappled with.

The key solution I've found is deceptively simple: before starting any intimate relationship, I talk to my potential partners about it. At length. And I see how they react.

This is perhaps what has been the most encouraging of all for me: the girls who have loved me back, regardless of age, have always been truly understanding. They've made efforts to prolong their attractiveness that exceeded my expectations (up to cosmetic surgery), and they've made it clear that they didn't blame me for things I couldn't control about my sexuality; they really understood that my pedohebephilia was a sexual orientation, like being straight or gay. That being condemned to never find any girl sexually attractive for very long was tragic for me. And that love could overcome that obstacle in two distinct but closely interconnected ways: both partners, by accepting the time-bound nature of the erotic attraction, and enjoying it like a sunrise or a flower; me, by promising to keep on loving her platonically forever if she so desires.

There is something inherently tragic, wistful, and heart-wrenching in pedohebephilic desire. The girls who loved me felt it too, sometimes just as deeply as I do myself. They never hated me for it, quite the opposite for one girlfriend in particular, an autopedophile. More than anyone else, she gave me hope. And when she left me (not the opposite!), I did want to die. Yet, in hindsight today, I don't regret it at all. I'm happy to have loved her while it lasted. I'll forever hang on to my memories of those moments to remind me that life has meaning, that love can prevail over doubt and hatred.

I'm reminded of the lyrics to "Flamme Jumelle" by Alcest, a song which has been in heavy rotation in my playlists since last summer (the whole album, really). Or perhaps this pretty song by Idan Raichel, with lyrics of universal relevance.

EOF wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:17 am But a 7-year-old girl is the Sun, which I will miss even if I am attached to her enough or care for her enough to not break up with her by the time her beauty completely withers in my eyes.

To be fair, I'd be very wary of having any sort of sexual relationship with a 7-year-old. As things stand, given the serious issues with how girls are raised in our culture, my pro-c stance is very moderate: even though I find girls to be physically cutest between 8 and 12, I wouldn't personally have any sexual contact with a girl below 12, perhaps 10 if she were extraordinarily mature and intellectually gifted (like Queen Silver, whom I know about thanks to the excellent Alice Lovers Magazine, Issue #4). I would wait for more evidence to go any lower. The problem here is that the current system precludes the gathering of adequate data on consensual AMSC.