MAP Forum

There are nepio people who have kids and breastfeed them, I'm sure they're gotten some sexual pleasure from the process and I don't see any reason why that's wrong. I agree that the kind of contact does matter more than age, as does education around nonverbal signals when you're dealing with anyone who's nonverbal (which includes infants and young toddlers). And I'm not invested in this issue personally, because I'm really not into super young kids and infants give me a bit of the 'ick' (though I'd never dehumanize or treat one badly).

Honestly the replies seem wrong to me, most people laugh when their tickled, because their body makes them, not because they 100% like it, I disagree with sexual contact with infants, although sex is natural, theyre sponges, and growing up on sex can be damaging to their brain. Breastfeeding and changing diapers is different from sex, without those the infant will die due to starvation/extremely bad hygiene. I'm open to hear other opinions.

Coyotehh wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2026 8:57 pm Honestly the replies seem wrong to me, most people laugh when their tickled, because their body makes them, not because they 100% like it, I disagree with sexual contact with infants, although sex is natural, theyre sponges, and growing up on sex can be damaging to their brain. Breastfeeding and changing diapers is different from sex, without those the infant will die due to starvation/extremely bad hygiene. I'm open to hear other opinions.

Look, I respect your opinions on the subject. I am not here to change your mind. Anyway, Jimmy Savile certainly surrounded himself with some sexy children.

DANAT4T wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2026 3:51 pm Look, I respect your opinions on the subject. I am not here to change your mind. Anyway, Jimmy Savile certainly surrounded himself with some sexy children.

Thank you, I respect yours too, I have thought about it and I guess it really depends heavily on context, so I take back a little bit of my opinion, as I was thinking about doing it only for the infants body, not because you love them.

I very rarely find infants attractive. I very rarely find elderly people attractive also but you seem to be advocating for an "age of consent", which is nonsense.

I think we need to be real with ourselves for a second. I believe consent is when someone has a general idea of what they’re getting into. As I think about things more and more I think 10 years old is the right age of consent. The age of consent is not nonsense especially if we’re talking about actual sex.

I guess that rules out breastfeeding. And diaper changes.

Better leave them in complete isolation until they can consent to 'something,' whenever that might be...

You are referring to things mothers and fathers do to keep their child alive. Sexual contact has nothing to do with individual survival. You have to really think about what you are advocating for because it opens the door for so many other things. I don’t know your sexual preference but I’ll assume you are heterosexual. At your current age, would you allow another man to come up to you and just touch on you whenever he wants to? You can’t even answer this question because if you say yes then you’d allow just anything to happen. If you say no, then you just proved my point.

msykm99 wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2026 4:27 am I am not here to judge nor am I the enemy, so please take what I’m about to say lightly.

I personally think contact with infants is wrong. I like ages 6 and up so who the hell am I to say anything. Anti’s are gonna look at us the same anyway, but I do think like everything in life there should be a limit (waiting for the wise guy to say “yea and it’s 18 years old” lol).

Seriously though, they can’t consent to anything. I think trying to justify your stance on contact with an infant is wild. I think those who are pro-c with infants are so frustrated that you’ll think of anything to justify it.

But infants without contact to other humans, will die. That is not what you want, right?
If it is consensual, it is ok. That does not depend on age. It may be more challenging for some to interpret consent. But that doesn't change the principle.

I think you can always understand whether he is pleased or not. The most important thing is to make it very pleasant, then the baby will remember the wonderful feelings)))

lovoy wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2026 6:07 pm

msykm99 wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2026 4:27 am I am not here to judge nor am I the enemy, so please take what I’m about to say lightly.

I personally think contact with infants is wrong. I like ages 6 and up so who the hell am I to say anything. Anti’s are gonna look at us the same anyway, but I do think like everything in life there should be a limit (waiting for the wise guy to say “yea and it’s 18 years old” lol).

Seriously though, they can’t consent to anything. I think trying to justify your stance on contact with an infant is wild. I think those who are pro-c with infants are so frustrated that you’ll think of anything to justify it.

But infants without contact to other humans, will die. That is not what you want, right?
If it is consensual, it is ok. That does not depend on age. It may be more challenging for some to interpret consent. But that doesn't change the principle.

Here I agree with lovoy. Even if the challenge means even non-penetrative contact isn't wise even in a liberated MAP society, the principle makes sense. Social contact and physical touch is also necessary for infants, even if you wanted to argue sexual contact specifically is unnecessary or harmful. An old psychology experiment on monkeys revealed that even when given a choice to either access to milk from a wire-frame mother or cuddle a plush monkey that couldn't provide food, they would almost always go to the comforting parental figure rather than meeting basic needs alone (the experiment is definitely inhumane though and the results disturbing https://www.psychologicalscience.org/pu ... ntact.html). In humans, skin-to-skin contact during infant feeding is also important, even for bottle feeding, and the gender of the parental figure doesn't matter.

msykm99 wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2026 4:27 am I am not here to judge nor am I the enemy, so please take what I’m about to say lightly.

I personally think contact with infants is wrong. I like ages 6 and up so who the hell am I to say anything. Anti’s are gonna look at us the same anyway, but I do think like everything in life there should be a limit (waiting for the wise guy to say “yea and it’s 18 years old” lol).

Seriously though, they can’t consent to anything. I think trying to justify your stance on contact with an infant is wild. I think those who are pro-c with infants are so frustrated that you’ll think of anything to justify it.

I agree that infants can't properly consent to sex, but they can't consent to anything. They presumably lack rational agency. The whole idea behind parenting is largely making choices on children's behalf on the rationale that they can't consent (make choices) or wisely consent.

The question in my mind is will they suffer from it? With infants, it seems the adult would have to be the initiator (unless maybe) we're talking about toddlers who can crawl or walk and might feel inclined to explore an adult's body) so to gouge whether or not it would be unwanted or upsetting you'd have to risk causing them stress. On the other hand, it doesn't really seem likely to me that most would be bothered by some gentle genital contact, a lot of that might already be unavoidable with, say, bathing. I'd hope it would go without saying that I'm against full-on penetration with infants in real life. The desire itself is not fundamentally evil but I can't see that not causing extreme pain and being medically dangerous/damaging outside of fantasy.

I'm not invested in this one way or the other, beyond rejecting the idea that the attraction to infants or actual sexual contact between adults and infants is inherently bad. If the infant enjoys it, that's great. If it causes them pain, I don't want anyone to do it.

You are referring to things mothers and fathers do to keep their child alive. Sexual contact has nothing to do with individual survival. You have to really think about what you are advocating for because it opens the door for so many other things. I don’t know your sexual preference but I’ll assume you are heterosexual. At your current age, would you allow another man to come up to you and just touch on you whenever he wants to? You can’t even answer this question because if you say yes then you’d allow just anything to happen. If you say no, then you just proved my point.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying but I don't want to spend much more time posting. I wouldn't want some random man coming up and touching me because it would be upsetting (it probably comes down to disgust, I'd be ok with some random attractive woman kissing me without my permission, although I could justifiably resent her not considering how that would affect me). If sexual contact with infants is emotionally distressing for them then it is bad, for that reason, but I'm not sure it would have to be. Not only do we typically not explicitly remember anything before 3 (although I do think that we implicitly remember events from as soon as we start to develop consciousness in our mother's womb, so I'm not trying to suggest that we are unaffected, as adults, by what we experienced as infants/toddlers). I'd also like to add that a concern with regret (which I think "if it were me, I wouldn't want to be taken advantage of like that at that age" comes down to, or it's just 'projection' on to a being for whom an adult preoccupation with autonomy and abstract desire-fulfillment couldn't apply even if those were coherent values to begin with) doesn't justify an argument that centers around autonomy (the fact that an infant will, as an adult, regret something done to him as an infant doesn't mean that his autonomy was violated. Likewise, the fact that someone can regret having been brought into existence to begin with doesn't mean that their parents violated their autonomy. Let's ignore that sperm cells voluntarily fertilize egg cells for the sake of my point. If the issue is with regret, it's about feelings. From a property rights standpoint we have no obligation toward infants as beings who aren't rational agents and what they might want in future is irrelevant to what they want now or the desires that have already been formed, abstract desire fulfillment is an 'idea,' not a specific concrete thing. I should elaborate on/clarify/better word this point but I'm tired and I've somehow wasted the whole day).