MAP Forum

Jim Burton wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 4:39 pm "Children can't consent" means any person below the UN-authorized age of 18, with some concessions given in some states, because they are enlightened. Even recently, a Police Chief in the US bragged about saving a "17 year old child" (his words) the very moment they were about to get molested, in a military-type operation. I shared it in the News room.

The lack of informed consent is a relative thing, because sexual contact between two individuals (children) who can not give informed consent may not be harmful in fact, despite the problematic consent. When they say "children can't consent", what they really mean is "children can not consent to the enormity of sexual contact with an adult".

If two people mutually want to engage with each other, then that's it

What would be your view as to a 13-year old autistic girl, and a 28 year old man who wants to convince her to self-harm online and eventually sacrifice herself to the devil?

in some you can even marry prepubescent girls

Isn't this part of the problem re. children's inability to consent, though? E.g. the fact that in these few remaining countries, they are considered chattel, very much not able to consent until they are "married off" and become the property of their husband according to religious norms?

I'm 100% pro contact, and if you're not, then you're part of the problem

If you are calling publicly for sex with prepubescent children, then are you not part of the problem? After all, very few people would be able to reason with that kind of thing, without first considering you insane and in need of permanent incarceration.

You're being incredibly disingenuous. I don't care what the UN says, and most countries don't. Even in the USA, the age of consent is 16 in most of the states. Furthermore, you're making a ridiculous comparison of harmless sex to being sacrificed to the devil, and implying that specifically a 13-year-old autistic girl would be vulnerable to that is incredibly offensive. People can make decisions regardless of their age, and to answer your ridiculous question, yes, i do believe she should be able to sacrifice herself if she wants to, people should be able to make decisions for themselves and whatever consequence follows, whether good or bad. I make bad decisions all the time, but that doesn’t mean that i want my freedom of choice taken away. People are allowed to make bad decisions, or rather, what you perceive to be "bad" could very much be good for them

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:14 pm I don't know if it's that simple for anyone; I think much of the horror at MAPs accumulate from tabloids and sensationalist TV shows rather than some innate sense that sexualizing children is wrong.

I completely agree. The way a MAP is often portrayed makes them come across as dirty, fat, ugly, old, and sick, and I think that’s what really triggers disgust. The concern about sexualization relates to what this almost-human being might do when seeing those images.

Maybe—but taking it lightly—the best thing that could happen in the MAP environment is that some attractive people get arrested, so someone could say: Oh, well, if I were in their place, maybe I wouldn’t have minded.

Learning to undeny wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:05 pmYes, but won't MAPs arguing against this rhetoric might actually reinforce it?

Do you mean the one about pornography? Most likely yes, which is why I wouldn’t approach this critique with a MAP flag, but rather from the perspective of youth rights.

Cunny Defender wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:32 pm You're being incredibly disingenuous. I don't care what the UN says, and most countries don't. Even in the USA, the age of consent is 16 in most of the states.

You asked if people who say "children can't consent" really mean biological childhood (before puberty) or the age of 18. None of this related to countries - you asked about people.

I answered that people who make that statement believe those under the legal age of adulthood (18) to be incapable of consenting. I added that local concessions are given per country, depending upon how "enlightened" they believe they are, i.e. the rights of young people are assumed not to exist under the Child Advocacy model, but given back as a privilege.

This is not disingenuous - it's called answering a question, or having an opinion.

Furthermore, you're making a ridiculous comparison of harmless sex to being sacrificed to the devil, and implying that specifically a 13-year-old autistic girl would be vulnerable to that is incredibly offensive.

It's not a comparison of anything. It's a direct challenge to a generalized statement you made, a statement that didn't even mention sex. You stated that "if two people mutually want to engage with each other, then that's it".

People can make decisions regardless of their age, and to answer your ridiculous question, yes, i do believe she should be able to sacrifice herself if she wants to, people should be able to make decisions for themselves and whatever consequence follows, whether good or bad.

This is an example of why Libertarians, while well-intentioned, will never be taken seriously.

Not Forever wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:36 pm

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:14 pm I don't know if it's that simple for anyone; I think much of the horror at MAPs accumulate from tabloids and sensationalist TV shows rather than some innate sense that sexualizing children is wrong.

I completely agree. The way a MAP is often portrayed makes them come across as dirty, fat, ugly, old, and sick, and I think that’s what really triggers disgust. The concern about sexualization relates to what this almost-human being might do when seeing those images.

By monstrous I was thinking of people like John Wayne Gacy. There have been people who are attracted to minors who were monsters. They're not representative of the majority of us or even a significant minority of us, but they're the kind of people who the public think of when they think "pedophile".

Maybe—but taking it lightly—the best thing that could happen in the MAP environment is that some attractive people get arrested, so someone could say: Oh, well, if I were in their place, maybe I wouldn’t have minded.

Sadly true.

PorcelainLark wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:14 pm

John_Doe wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 8:07 pm Even though I think we're somewhat similar (in terms of being ideally pro-contact but practically basically anti-contact) I don't really agree with the idea of supporting anti-contact views because it shifts the Overton window and leads to the kind of slippery slope that anti-MAP people fear will come with destigmatizing pedophilia itself or more compassion for MAPs.

Well, I feel like destigmatizing the attraction is more achievable than changing the age of consent, and that a part of the resistence to changing the age of consent is fear of MAPs. It's not the only reason, but this is because I think it's an issue which is overdetermined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdetermination
I think there's multiple sufficient causes for how we are treated by society, rather than just one.

Maybe I've completely misunderstood you but I can't really agree with a 'political' approach to whether or not to stand up for core values (I can't see a practical scenario in which I think I should publicly deny core values and ideals, if someone threatens to torture someone if I don't that's something else but as a general rule you have to stand up for what you think is good or the ethical standard you want mainstream society to adopt). I cannot tell people that I think child-adult sex is inherently bad, even if it would make them more sympathetic to various arguments I might make. Again, it's possible I've completely misunderstood you.

I think you don't have to pretend to agree with everything anti-c's believe, just work with them when they do align with your beliefs.

My problem with this is that part of what makes someone a monster, from a certain point of view, is that they see nothing wrong with the sexualization of children, so you can't diminish that by balancing out the scales in other ways.

I don't know if it's that simple for anyone; I think much of the horror at MAPs accumulate from tabloids and sensationalist TV shows rather than some innate sense that sexualizing children is wrong. If your picture of MAPs came from regular people you meet everyday, it could help undermine the stereotypes.

Someone politely telling you, in the friendliest tone, that they want to murder everyone you care about is advocating for something that you find inherently evil. I don't think people oppose AMSC because they view MAPS as monsters, I think they view MAPS as monsters because they see AMSC as inherently objectionable.

I don't think so. At various times and in various cultures AMSC has been accepted, I don't think we have an innate sense that AMSC is bad, I think it's something culturally relative. If you view AMSC as inherently evil, it's the outcome of a process, so the process is responsible for the stigmatization of MAPs.

This is a quick reply- I don't doubt that our general attitude ('our' being people in most, not all, human cultures) about child-adult sex being wrong is the result of culture, socialization and environment but I don't think that negates my position that most people actually do view AMSC itself as wrong. Whether that's genetically hardwired into us or learned is besides my point. The social forces that led to negative stereotyping of MAPS would themselves be learned and not something genetically wired into us. I don't think the stereotyping of MAPS is 'accidental' or the result of just natural processes/observations either (and why do we think that the negative stereotypes we have about MAPs are 'negative' to begin with, you wouldn't necessarily assume that we don't actually think they're negative but merely associate them with some other thing that we view as truly negative). At least some of the things that we consider to be wrong we see as wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with stereotyping perpetrators of those evils, on the contrary, we view perpetrators negatively because we view those things negatively. It doesn't matter how conventionally attractive, articulate, charismatic, brilliant, superficially friendly, etc. someone who actually rapes or kills people is, the fact that they rape or kill people outweighs their admirable qualities (or best case scenario, we still view raping and killing as bad even if we can divorce the sinner from the sin), that person isn't going to use their star power to convince us that rape or murder is ok. If you want to show that x is ok I think you have to make the argument for x, not to associate x with other things that we like or are ok with. After all, MAPs as MAPs (if we're talking about minor-attracted adults) are defined by minor-adult sex in the same way that basketball players as basketball players are defined by basketball.

I appreciate the point about overdetermination (or at least the general concept that one thing alone doesn't necessarily explain a phenomenon).

John_Doe wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 10:34 pm If you want to show that x is ok I think you have to make the argument for x, not to associate x with other things that we like or are ok with. After all, MAPs as MAPs (if we're talking about minor-attracted adults) are defined by minor-adult sex in the same way that basketball players as basketball players are defined by basketball.

I disagree, I think people are much more irrational. People know that smoking increases their risk of cancer, junk food causes obesity, and exercise is healthy, but knowing those things doesn't necessarily result in behavioral changes. I don't think things can be changed by just giving the perfect argument, because I don't think people are perfectly rational.

Jim Burton wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 10:26 pm

Cunny Defender wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:32 pm You're being incredibly disingenuous. I don't care what the UN says, and most countries don't. Even in the USA, the age of consent is 16 in most of the states.

You asked if people who say "children can't consent" really mean biological childhood (before puberty) or the age of 18. None of this related to countries - you asked about people.

I answered that people who make that statement believe those under the legal age of adulthood (18) to be incapable of consenting. I added that local concessions are given per country, depending upon how "enlightened" they believe they are, i.e. the rights of young people are assumed not to exist under the Child Advocacy model, but given back as a privilege.

This is not disingenuous - it's called answering a question, or having an opinion.

Furthermore, you're making a ridiculous comparison of harmless sex to being sacrificed to the devil, and implying that specifically a 13-year-old autistic girl would be vulnerable to that is incredibly offensive.

It's not a comparison of anything. It's a direct challenge to a generalized statement you made, a statement that didn't even mention sex. You stated that "if two people mutually want to engage with each other, then that's it".

People can make decisions regardless of their age, and to answer your ridiculous question, yes, i do believe she should be able to sacrifice herself if she wants to, people should be able to make decisions for themselves and whatever consequence follows, whether good or bad.

This is an example of why Libertarians, while well-intentioned, will never be taken seriously.

Are you being deadass? Countries consist of people and have authority. If you want to be a self-hating MAP, then go ahead, but don't tell me or others what we can or can't do. I'm not telling you to stop being self-hating. This is really getting on my nerves in the same way that it would for you if some bigot lectured you about the "immorality" of homosexuality. We should work together, not against each other

I'm responding in turn to your statements, that is what I'm doing.

You are confusing "is" with "ought" statements - a classical error. Your argumentation is highly disorganized.

My personal standpoint is in my signature - so that's an assumption on your part.

I have absolutely zero interest in what you personally can or cannot do.

Jim Burton wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 11:20 pm I'm responding in turn to your statements, that is what I'm doing.

You are confusing "is" with "ought" statements - a classical error. Your argumentation is highly disorganized.

My personal standpoint is in my signature - so that's an assumption on your part.

I have absolutely zero interest in what you personally can or cannot do.

This is just ragebaiting at this point, but whatever, this back and forth doesn't seem very productive. We both seem to be misunderstanding each other and not really finding common ground, so I'm not going to argue further with you on this. I have said what i wanted to say, and i would hope you would one day reevaluate things

Jim Burton wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 6:06 pm There is ruffling feathers, then there is attempting to justify sex between prepubertal children and adults - something that even non-pedophiles have thus-far been unable to do, in any way that is sane, safe, sustainable.

I'm suggesting that if MAPs are facing a "problem", openly pro-c pedophiles can only be a massive roadblock preventing that problem ever being addressed. Unless they are to assume on behalf of other pedophiles that having no sexual access to prepubertal children is the problem itself.

Non pedophiles cant even justify pedophiles being human beings, so this doesnt mean much. The age of consent used to be 7, and I will remind you that this is a time period where childrwn where pre pubscent until well into their teens, not post pubscent, not pubsecent, but PRE PUBERTAL. So prepuberty kids having sexual contact with grownups has been legal and normalized, and is still legal and normalized in the few places that havent been touched by the Western view of youth sexuality(not all countries have an aoc as high as the average aoc in America or even have one AT ALL) so acting like its somehow impossible for sexual contact between pupubertal kids and adults to be legal/normalized when it has been legal/normal for a good portion of alot of society, and extremely recently too, AND is still legal/normalized in places today makes no sense.

The antis dont think ANYTHING we do is “sane, safe, or sustainable”. The very fact that we are alive is a gross crime against nature that needs to be “corrected” with woodchippers. The slogan isnt “kill all pro C pedos” its “kill all pedos”. And even if they DID make a distinction, which they dont, their hatred of us rest on the shitty notion that a boy getting his dick sucked will make his brain all but explode and leave him a twitching mess that cant even function, let alone have a decent life, which is easily disproven by all the so called “victims” who go on to live completely normal and even exceptional lives and report their expierence as enjoyable, even before puberty. All sex is is helping someone orgasm, and literal fetuses are capable of handling orgasms in the womb(human fetuses purposefully seek out orgasm in the womb), so why cant a prepubertal kid that is well past fetushood?

How come a prepuberty kid can handle an orgasm if its another prepuberty kid or their own hand playing with their dick, but if its a grown up hand, the grown up hand is just too scary to even comprehend and will leave the kid scarred, even if the kid reports enjoying it and is an active participant? What about grown up hands, compared to kiddie hands, leaves this so called life long trauma? Is it the shape thats traumatizing? The size? The non minorness? What specifically causes this trauma and how come in cases where there is no force or coercion and the kid is a willing participant, this “trauma” either doesnt show up at all or only shows up after years once the kid has been repeatedly told that they are destroyed and ruined by antis?

The “problem” is that antis think a kid getting their balls played with is a fate worse than death that justifies all forms of cruelty, torture, draconian punishments, social isolation, and even murder. Saying “yes I am a ticking time bomb and if I so much as slip up and play with your kids balls your kid will be worse off than a crippled war vet with severe brain damage but dont worry I am one of the good pedos not those evil pro C pedos and a pinky promise I wont play with your kids balls” wont do shit. However “your kids brain wont fucking explode if he gets his balls played with and murder isnt a valid response to kiddie dick sucking” will.