MAP Forum

Artaxerxes II wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2024 10:10 am It goes without saying that Tom O'Carroll was more of an exception in being a prominent girl lover within the broader first-wave MAP rights activism (or "youth sexual liberation", if you will), despite self-surveys by PiE and IPCE showing that most of its members then and now were heterosexual male pedophiles.

Interesting, I got the impression O'Carroll was a homosexual and the majority of PIE were boy lovers (like 70%). I wonder why I thought that?

WandersGlade wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2024 4:14 pm

Artaxerxes II wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2024 10:10 am It goes without saying that Tom O'Carroll was more of an exception in being a prominent girl lover within the broader first-wave MAP rights activism (or "youth sexual liberation", if you will), despite self-surveys by PiE and IPCE showing that most of its members then and now were heterosexual male pedophiles.

Interesting, I got the impression O'Carroll was a homosexual and the majority of PIE were boy lovers (like 70%). I wonder why I thought that?

O'Carroll is a GL.

That should not detract from the rest of the argument, to which I am very sympathetic despite being an exclusive BL.

Wow, there are some very intellectual discussions here well beyond my intellect. I can only write as I am. I am a bisexual man with a roughly 50/50 [adult] attraction but my MAP attraction is much more defined. I am very firmly attracted to young girls. I am a Nepio fo basically anything between 0 and 9 is in the bracket. By the time you get to the teens I am swinging back to 50/50. I cannot tell you why, just is. The only thing I can offer is that young boys have uninspiring genitalia whereas young girls are still attractive. Boys hitting puberty however, different matter. Then again, they all have nice bums irrespective of age. I haven't helped one bit!

Firstly, I'm going to note that I completely forgot about the fraternal birth order, sibling effects, so I'll have to update that later.

I think we'll have to see if we have common ground first. People who are interested in psychoanalysis can be very sectarian (for example I avoid anything to do with Jacques Lacan). Maybe a structured debate would be more interesting to an outside audience?

I'm not sure about that. Isn't the main objective of psychoanalysis to cure neurosis? I'm not sure that there's necessarily any relationship between homosexuality and neurosis. If homosexuality is caused by prenatal hormones (or is some sort of inborn trait), then homosexuality would come before neurosis could develop. Under those circumstances, unless you take away the factor of pleasure, I don't see why homosexuality would need to be explained as a maladaptive defense mechanism.

I have never read any actual philosophical works, I don't care for formally studying an entire set of one person's views, I prefer analysing stuff from anecdotes. The most I've read are the Wikipedia pages and a few short articles about Freud, Horney (I do intent to read her book one day though). The only book I've read about philosophy is the first half of R D Laing's The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise. One person once said my views feel "Hobbesian", but I have no idea who that is nor do I bother reading anything he wrote or anything about him. As for "psychoanalysis", what I see it as is really just "psychology, but instead of looking at the surface symptoms, it's more like theoretical physics, modelling the lower level mechanics". Apart from that, i don't really know what psychoanalysis specifically is tbh.

Could you link the papers showing that?

I've researched for a while, and found:
- Nothing that links coprophilia with (latent) toxoplasmosis
- Nothing that links coprophilia with homosexuality
- Nothing much linking toxoplasmosis with homosexuality, most relevant is a study on toxoplasmosis in homosexual men and pareteral drug abusers (focusing on immunodeficiency)
- Not much on, and no definitive conclusions for links between toxoplasmosis and sadomasochism, but correlations have been observed
- One study did find that cat urine triggers the sexual arousal pathways in rats with toxoplasmosis
- Some studies say the toxoplasmosis effects on mice are specific to cat odours, others say it's more of a general anxiety reduction
- All studies seem to focus on cat urine, not faeces
- The mental effects of latent toxoplasmosis on humans are still extremely worrying and vastly understudied
Therefore, I now see the "toxoplasmosis theory" as not having enough evidential basis, but theoretically, it still has potential to, if not actually, turn out to be at least partly true. So I wouldn't fully endorse it, but it's absolutely worth a mention if the topic ever came up.

I mean, couldn't it all just be explained by the motive of physical pleasure?

Yeah, you're right, I realise that I've hyperfocused too much without being aware of it. it should have only been a description of less-recognised "psychological reasons", instead of claiming to be the only reasons possible. Plus, I've mixed up aetiology and the categories of how it presents outwardly, like I did while trying to model transgenderism. I've left out stuff like: (fraternal) birth order effects; other family effects; the concept of "universal attraction" - anything that resembles primary (and secondary) sexual characteristics we can be turned on by, e.g. anything at all that resembles a hole (see https://old.reddit.com/r/dontputyourdickinthat/), and it's just a spectrum of how close it resembles actual human genitalia; and lastly the idea relevant to the previous concept, that it's all just preferences on a spectrum and we don't need to specify "-philias" for anything.

Technically, the DSM-V definitions does implement that last point by having the criterion "feels personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval, OR that the sexual desire or behavior involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death" for "paraphilic disorders" (including "paedophilic disorder". For the former, it's for the sort of unresolved cognitive dissonance. I don't really think that can happen if society didn't actually exist, most if not all so-called double-binds only are there because of humans other than oneself (or even just the outside reality itself) existing. As for the latter, it's probably like bringing it in line with ASPD, when the symptoms/behaviour is too externalising and harmful. This is where the problems come in, with stuff like iatrogenic harm, and the mainstream interpretation of the definition (the mix-up between M/YAPs and sexual abusers, let alone that point requiring innate distress about the attraction!).

Does this mean heterosexual sex is also sadomasochistic, e.g. all heterosexual women are masochistic and self-effacing? Again, I think you could explain the sexually receptive role purely on the basis of pleasure.

I do partly believe the "male as top" and "female as bottom" roles are biologically inherent to an extent, for most people

parfait wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 3:42 pm As for "psychoanalysis", what I see it as is really just "psychology, but instead of looking at the surface symptoms, it's more like theoretical physics, modelling the lower level mechanics". Apart from that, i don't really know what psychoanalysis specifically is tbh.

Fair enough. There's an underlying associationist approach in psychoanalysis, which looks for early experiences to explain people's personality and behavior. I think you're using the concept in the correct way, for the most part, it's just that psychoanalysis focuses on the environment more than the biologically innate.

Therefore, I now see the "toxoplasmosis theory" as not having enough evidential basis, but theoretically, it still has potential to, if not actually, turn out to be at least partly true. So I wouldn't fully endorse it, but it's absolutely worth a mention if the topic ever came up.

Something to for you to research yourself, maybe?

Yeah, you're right, I realise that I've hyperfocused too much without being aware of it. it should have only been a description of less-recognised "psychological reasons", instead of claiming to be the only reasons possible. Plus, I've mixed up aetiology and the categories of how it presents outwardly, like I did while trying to model transgenderism. I've left out stuff like: (fraternal) birth order effects; other family effects; the concept of "universal attraction" - anything that resembles primary (and secondary) sexual characteristics we can be turned on by, e.g. anything at all that resembles a hole (see https://old.reddit.com/r/dontputyourdickinthat/), and it's just a spectrum of how close it resembles actual human genitalia; and lastly the idea relevant to the previous concept, that it's all just preferences on a spectrum and we don't need to specify "-philias" for anything.

Also, there's the existence of the prostate. Arguably, it's more pleasurable for a man to be penetrated than for a woman.

Technically, the DSM-V definitions does implement that last point by having the criterion "feels personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval, OR that the sexual desire or behavior involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death" for "paraphilic disorders" (including "paedophilic disorder". For the former, it's for the sort of unresolved cognitive dissonance. I don't really think that can happen if society didn't actually exist, most if not all so-called double-binds only are there because of humans other than oneself (or even just the outside reality itself) existing.

What about in the context of obsessive-compulsive disorder? Like say you felt no shame about a sexual thought, but it kept going around in your head even when you didn't want it too. I think that could still exist, even if society didn't. I might have misunderstood you though.

As for the latter, it's probably like bringing it in line with ASPD, when the symptoms/behaviour is too externalising and harmful. This is where the problems come in, with stuff like iatrogenic harm, and the mainstream interpretation of the definition (the mix-up between M/YAPs and sexual abusers, let alone that point requiring innate distress about the attraction!).

Even with that second part of the criterion, pedophilia feels out of place. With other extreme paraphilias, like rape fetishism, harm is desired. A pedophile isn't necessarily attracted to children because the idea of hurting a child is appealing. So even if you accept that AMSC is harmful, it doesn't follow that pedophilia is an extreme paraphilia. I expect if you got them to accept that there was an inconsistency, they would move the goalposts, so they could still categorize pedophilia as wrong in some way.

Does this mean heterosexual sex is also sadomasochistic, e.g. all heterosexual women are masochistic and self-effacing? Again, I think you could explain the sexually receptive role purely on the basis of pleasure.

I do partly believe the "male as top" and "female as bottom" roles are biologically inherent to an extent, for most people

But is the bottom really masochistic and self-effacing? I'm not so sure.

This picture sums it all up.

As a BL,, I'd say that boys have an attractiveness and charm that they lose as they get older. While there are cases of adult men who remain attractive in their late 20s and up, I'd say the ratio of that is lower than in women, and yet they're still not as attractive as they were during their teen years and younger.
Boys are really beautiful, the androgyny that youth gives them certainly helps, I think.

BLueRibbon wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2024 4:35 pm O'Carroll is a GL.

This is correct, but, just for sake of completeness, he started as mostly boylover (this can be deduced from the book "the radical case", where he describes a few early episodes).

Rin wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 7:24 am As a BL,, I'd say that boys have an attractiveness and charm that they lose as they get older. While there are cases of adult men who remain attractive in their late 20s and up, I'd say the ratio of that is lower than in women, and yet they're still not as attractive as they were during their teen years and younger.
Boys are really beautiful, the androgyny that youth gives them certainly helps, I think.

Also a BL I do have to agree with you. Boys are just so adorable and while I do find some of those things you mention in men boys are just so cute in a way that adult men are not. Like just everything about them is so great. I'm also a GL but women in general its different that attractiveness and being adorable is there regardless if they are a girl or an adult.

Because boys are hot as fuuuuuucccckkkkkk


But honestly I have no clue, I would guess its because boys look almost identical to girls before puberty, but adult men look completely different than adult women, so its easier to switch between both sexes before puberty