Permissible relationships

A place to talk about MAP/AAM-related issues in general. This includes the attraction itself, associated paraphilia/identities and AMSC/AMSR (Adult-Minor Sexual Contact and Relations).

What is the MINIMUM level required for a sexual relationship to be permitted

It must have consent (but may cause harm)
9
43%
It must not cause harm (but doesn't need consent)
0
No votes
It must not cause harm and must have consent
10
48%
It may cause harm and doesn't need consent (specify what limiting factor, if any, should be used instead)
1
5%
Other (explain as a reply)
1
5%
 
Total votes: 21

Pharmakon
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2024 3:58 pm

Re: Permissible relationships

Post by Pharmakon »

I chose #1. Even avoiding harm to myself is too nebulous a standard for making a sexual relationship impermissible. I don't feel I can reliably tell in advance. As for avoiding harm to the other person, best to leave that up to them to determine.
hugzu ;-p
Peter Caldwell
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:40 pm

Re: Permissible relationships

Post by Peter Caldwell »

When it comes to relationships, according to the latest psychological paradigm (ofc they make a special exception for minor/non-minor relationships), there are but two questions to ask:

Are you happy?
Are you functional?

If the answer is yes to both, intervention is unwarranted, even if other people see it as unhealthy; intervention will do more harm than good.
User avatar
FairBlueLove
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2024 5:38 pm

Re: Permissible relationships

Post by FairBlueLove »

Fragment wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2024 8:57 am
FairBlueLove wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2024 9:30 pm It's kind of funny... Choice n.2 didn't receive any vote, yet - assuming I understood it correctly - that reflects how we treat children in many accepted instances (school, religion...).
It's clear evidence that the personhood of minors is largely rejected by society.

To be honest, even outside of sex you can see the trend away from freedom and towards safety in parenting. Look at your local playground compared to a playground in the 80s for evidence.

I think part of the problem is the decline in fertility rates. When you have 1-3 kids instead of 5-8 kids you're going to be more inclined to take a "protection" mindset over a "liberation" mindset.

MAPs obviously have a vested interest, but I think more than that MAPs try to look at things through the viewpoint of minors. We want minors to have a rich range of experiences, even if there is some risk. A danger free life is basically impossible, the important thing is that the person involved WANTS to engage in a certain behavior. That's what the results so far seem to indicate.
I agree on every point.
User avatar
FairBlueLove
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2024 5:38 pm

Re: Permissible relationships

Post by FairBlueLove »

Joanne7315 wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2024 6:35 pm Many will jump in and say that Minors are unable to give informed consent to a relationship. Personally I disagree and I think they are fully capable. Minors more than adults are capable of sincere love. Physical connection is an extension of love. I believe they are capable of love.
I think "informed consent", meaning knowing the possible ramifications, is impossible even for adults, so it doesn't make sense to use it as an excuse to prohibit minors expressing their feelings freely.

For the rest, I fully agree with you. I still remember my feelings of love when I was in the elementary school, and I felt very clearly the physical attraction intertwined with those sentiments.
Joanne7315
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2024 9:19 pm
Location: UK

Re: Permissible relationships

Post by Joanne7315 »

I remember form school as a 12 yo being completely infatuated with one of the 6th formers (17).
Hi, Joanne is a cover for a M mid 50s Bi, Naturist, CD, ABDL, Nepio/Pedo. Non Excl 0-69 but pref is girls 0-9 with peak 8 months, 2yo or 6yo as pref; boys 9-14. Keen to support MAP cause. J7351@proton.me / Telegram @Joanne7315 (feel free to PM)
Post Reply