MAP Forum

Kierkegaard wrote: Sat Dec 06, 2025 10:19 am The modern ideal of the innocent, pure, naive child is a harmful social construct. Sex shouldn't be seen as a corrupting influence which children need to be shielded from.

I completely agree with this.

Pedos who are into this kind of thing seem more like they have a fetish for the idea of the child than an actual sexual orientation towards children. Same as people with a trans sissy fetish or racial fetishes. It's off-putting when I read BL erotica and it centers on despoiling a clueless child who doesn't know what a penis is or whatever.

I'm not a childhood fetishist. I don't have a paraphilia for "innocence" or whatever. I have a sexual and romantic orientation towards boys. Actual boys, not the ideal or stereotype of a boy.

Someone being more attracted to a certain trait in children doesn't mean they think all or even most children possess that trait. It doesn't mean you're not attracted to other aspects of children as well. It doesn't mean you support the idea that children are all just these innocent, pure and naive beings just because you find one of those traits to be more sexually arousing or attractive romantically. A teleio could have a preference for a more 'pure' or 'provocative' partner the same way a pedophile can have a preference for a more 'pure' or 'provocative' child, without that necessarily making their attraction just a fetish. It also doesn't mean that by virtue of you liking one trait in a child you somehow must be solely attracted to that one specific aspect and nothing else and are thus not even actually attracted to the child themselves. That would be like saying a lesbian or bisexual woman who finds themselves more attracted to a more stereotypical feminine girly woman doesn't actually have a sexual orientation related to women, but instead just has a 'femininity fetish'.

Just because you find a sexual preferences someone has to be off-putting doesn't mean their identity as a pedophile is any less valid or is somehow just a 'childhood fetish'. And even if for some people that is the case, there would be nothing wrong with that. It's not like they choose what their body is going to feel arousal from.

For me I am primarily more of a nepiophile and personality/behavioral wise what like most is just a typical toddler personality. Not what I would call 'pure' per say, but just in general more unaware of the world around them and more cute and 'baby-like'. I felt that that was closer an 'innocent' or 'pure' type of child, so that was how I first answered the question. But I also see how a more 'toddler like personality' doesn't necessarily mean they are more 'pure or innocent', so really I don't think I have much of a preference between a 'pure' or 'provocative' child as long as they are not just straight up acting like an adult would. Not that I think that would be wrong in any way, but just that that would be less arousing to me personally. And of course a child's personality is not some sort of sole deciding factor of my attraction to them, so I am into many other aspects of a child as well. That being said though my understanding of your post was that it was more about children who are a bit older, so maybe my experience as a nepiophile who is primarily attracted to toddlers is less relevant to that.

Definitely prefer a little coyness, that budding self-awareness in a little girl that she has power and can make men ache. When they start to explore and practise their 'feminine wiles' is the most exciting time for me. Boys that age have no clue, so it's hilarious (and frustrating) to see young girls testing their skills on same-age boys who don't have a clue what's going on. Of course the minute they succumb to an older, aggressive and more experienced male they revert to little girl behaviour -- which is extremely exciting. And when they (soon) learn that they are arousing to older men, they become coquettes and wrap us hapless fools around their perfectly formed little fingers.

'Pure' can get provocative for me.