MAP Forum

MapGuy45657 wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2026 10:41 pm

FairBlueLove wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2026 10:19 pm MapGuy45657, interesting! I also tend to have this evolutionary-first approach.

It's also interesting to notice that evolution, at least until now, is mostly selecting for people NOT to be conscious of the evolutionary origin of their behavior.

Yeah most people simply don't want or don't have the capacity to really accept okay, I'm literally a reverse engineerable sex computer from replicator logic, my theories of human behavior have to not violate these axioms. It's hard to find solid epistemology. I'm gald to see you see the coherence of my thought. Do you have a theory of your own?

With so many theories already out there, I don't formulate my own; instead, I weigh the existing ones to form an opinion. My initial epiphany came after reading "The Selfish Gene", leading me to believe that all human experience is driven by gene survival. But learning about the "Baldwin effect", a feedback loop where culture influences natural selection, shattered that simplicity. I now realize the reality is far more nuanced and complex...

To keep this thread focused, you're welcome to start a new thread to carry on this interesting conversation.

MapGuy45657 wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2026 4:21 pm You have to ask why do adults desire sex with juveniles, and why do they desire this every single generation, for many many many generations. It's not random, it has to be naturally selected. All stable recurring sexual preferences are caused by DNA encoding which evolved, there's no alternative way to explain them under materialism. Okay so if it's naturally selected it's encoded in sexual preference architecture, so adults evolved to do that. That means sexually engaging with them leads to higher probabilities of gene copied in the future for the adult. That implies gene copies for the juveniles into the future, so juveniles co-evolve to sexually engage with adults. Somehow by sexually engaging early you receive an evolutionary advantage, more gene copies. Now the contestation is kids can't consent. They can't consent, but they evolved to engage in the activity, that is to say they specifically have brains and neurologies that were specifically selected to do that. And here we see the incoherence of the lack of consent argument, it's in direct contradiction with Biological reality.
The whole they can't consent thing is just the way sexual taboo enforcement is manifesting currently. People evolved to detect taboo displays and deploy costs. Pedophilia/hebephilia taboo exists not because people are harmed, or we need to prevent harm, it's because blocking your sexual competetors (other people) from access to high fertility potential into the future advantages the odds of you replicating into the future, so humans evolve to block you from this sexual access. They need to justify this with a story, this is the modern version of that story. It's just a story, it's not even the cause of their actions against you.

What a wonderful post which shows deep thought, reflexion, maturity and intellectual sovereignty. It's a joy to read here.

Why do you have to penetrate? Love comes in many forms! you can do without it, especially if you love)

Mariamishka123 wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2026 4:41 pm Why do you have to penetrate? Love comes in many forms! you can do without it, especially if you love)

There is also non-penetrative sexual contact with nipples and genitalia, which is what I think many of the nepios and their advocates in this thread are referring to by sexual contact here. Love can also be intimacy with other body parts and just cuddling too, of course, but that also includes nonsexual love.

Scorchingwilde wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2026 11:10 pm

Mariamishka123 wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2026 4:41 pm Why do you have to penetrate? Love comes in many forms! you can do without it, especially if you love)

There is also non-penetrative sexual contact with nipples and genitalia, which is what I think many of the nepios and their advocates in this thread are referring to by sexual contact here. Love can also be intimacy with other body parts and just cuddling too, of course, but that also includes nonsexual love.

Agree)

That's kind of obvious for me to say buy i have said many times, if someone tries to get a rubber band from head down to the torso it will inevitably break, there are things that just have limits, and the more difference there is between two people body proportions they are things that won't be compatible but there are others that can be.

Okay....so some of you MAPS come up with the MOST wild shit ever...no baby can consent IDFC what anyone says.....

I mean their are arguments that "why should sexual play be any different than any other sort of touch except one has to do with genitals and the other doesn't so why do we stigmatize any genital contact in the name of learned trauma" And I do admit I have some of that learned disgust as well but....

Theendoftheline wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2026 8:35 am Okay....so some of you MAPS come up with the MOST wild shit ever...no baby can consent IDFC what anyone says.....

I mean their are arguments that "why should sexual play be any different than any other sort of touch except one has to do with genitals and the other doesn't so why do we stigmatize any genital contact in the name of learned trauma" And I do admit I have some of that learned disgust as well but....

If the absence of consent doesn't necessarily mean an active desire to avoid something, I don't see why it ultimately matters whether or not infants can consent. I don't want to become attached to a position in terms of applied ethics (you're not going to convince me that infant-adult sexual contact is inherently bad or, by extension, that the desire for it is inherently appropriate but I wouldn't want to minimize any suffering-centered reason to discourage it in practice. The 'problem,' in terms of conventional morality, is that a thing isn't inherently bad just because it circumstantially causes harm). If infants don't suffer from it, it's fine, to the extent that they enjoy it it should be encouraged (if we can make cost-effective trade-offs between risks and costs). If you can define 'consent' in a way that implies someone can want something that they can't consent to and show that probable openness or lack of aversion through their body language, again, what does it matter whether or not they can formally or properly consent (people don't seem swayed by my point about the mere lack of consent not implying what people think it does in terms of 'rape' ; which I see as requiring a disregard for someone's will or desires they might actually have, but would anyone claim that infants, or children, have to want to avoid some kind of erotic intimacy with adults?)?

Regret is something to consider but that's a feelings concern, not an autonomy one, and not really relevant if one isn't aware of sexual contact they had with an adult as a child. I think that adults retain implicit memory of their time as infants but it's not clear to me why some form of sexual contact would have to be damaging (there is already some contact between adults and infants that would be considered 'sexual' when paired with certain intentions or private feelings).