MAP Forum

JGHeaven wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2026 11:13 am But in fact, when I've tested the water in the past the response I've received from other women isn't that girls aren't sexual, I think most mothers know only too well that their daughters are, it's that being too sexual too young is harmful because it's distracting from school and education and leads towards teenage pregnancies. I have a friend who told me how when she was young, 11 onwards, she was very sexual and slept around quite a bit, including with adults. She had a thing for soldiers and lived not far from a base and so even at 11 or 12 she was out having sex with guys from the base. She didn't do well at school and didn't go to university, she puts that down to spending her youth chasing guys. As a mother she is worried about her daughter doing the same, chasing guys. She isn't worried about pedophiles abusing her daughter, she's worried about her daughter chasing boys and men for sex because it feels good, guys being guys and taking advantage of what's on offer, and her daughter throwing her future away like she feels she did.

This is why I think sex-positive feminism is in the interests of MAPs. In both the sense that slut-shaming has a big understated role in how heterosexual intergenerational relationships are judged and in the sense that the idea MAPs can't interact with children without abusing them is part of rape culture. The answer isn't stop women and girls from being in situations where they might have sex, it's making contraceptives more accessible and not stigmatizing women and girls for enjoying sex. To be fair, I've never heard a feminist complain about sex education. Although feminists have been some of the harshest opponents of MAPs, our goals and values are ultimately more similar than different.

PorcelainLark wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2026 12:05 am This is why I think sex-positive feminism is in the interests of MAPs. In both the sense that slut-shaming has a big understated role in how heterosexual intergenerational relationships are judged and in the sense that the idea MAPs can't interact with children without abusing them is part of rape culture. The answer isn't stop women and girls from being in situations where they might have sex, it's making contraceptives more accessible and not stigmatizing women and girls for enjoying sex. To be fair, I've never heard a feminist complain about sex education. Although feminists have been some of the harshest opponents of MAPs, our goals and values are ultimately more similar than different.

Yes, I think this is right and it is possible to build bridges with feminism, but carefully.

Feminism as a movement isn't the same for everyone.
Feminism started from a place of not just injustice but from a position of having no voice. Women didn't have the same rights as men, but also had no voice to fix it. The Suffragette movement formed precisely because women had no voice and so the only way they felt they could be heard was through acts of violence and destruction of property. It wasn't popular but over time it was effective and as soon as women started to have a voice, they used it.

Feminism today means different things to different people.
There are some at the extreme end who have very deep distrust of men and see anything that comes from men as poison. A male map talking to such a feminist is only saying what they're saying so they can rape and abuse young females.
Most are not at the extreme end but many would still be suspicious of motives and frankly women have become so used to being very protective of other females, especially young females because the world has been patriarchal for so long.

But, the message that women and girls should have more rights, be-empowered, should be able to say no or yes, it's their bodies their choice, should not feel slut shamed or pressed into any mold, these are deeply understood and respected arguments by not only feminists but most women and girls. This isn't an argument to say maps should choose yes or no, it isn't an argument to give more power to any men, it's about removing stigma from females and empowering females.

I think it is possible to create a case that feminists and women can respect and support. If it's giving more choice, more rights, more self-care to females then it is a good thing.

I have multiple times had girls nights out where we've talked drunkenly about our younger days, who fancied who at school, that hunky teacher, our friend who "got off with such and such". I had one friend who claimed she slept with her friends dad because her friend was a bitch to her and one day she had the chance to sleep which she took. Not the right reason to do it and it and when we've been reminiscing about our school days and that has come out, not a single person has made any comment that he was at fault, the only negative comments was that she shouldn't have done that to her friend.

I do think people are smart enough to see beyond the silly anti-map hysteria. There are messages that can land, to feminists and other groups. It shouldn't be about pushing map agenda's all the time, it can be about pushing other agenda's that just happen to progress things for maps a a byproduct.

JGHeaven wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2026 10:39 am

PorcelainLark wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2026 12:05 am This is why I think sex-positive feminism is in the interests of MAPs. In both the sense that slut-shaming has a big understated role in how heterosexual intergenerational relationships are judged and in the sense that the idea MAPs can't interact with children without abusing them is part of rape culture. The answer isn't stop women and girls from being in situations where they might have sex, it's making contraceptives more accessible and not stigmatizing women and girls for enjoying sex. To be fair, I've never heard a feminist complain about sex education. Although feminists have been some of the harshest opponents of MAPs, our goals and values are ultimately more similar than different.

Yes, I think this is right and it is possible to build bridges with feminism, but carefully.

Feminism as a movement isn't the same for everyone.
Feminism started from a place of not just injustice but from a position of having no voice. Women didn't have the same rights as men, but also had no voice to fix it. The Suffragette movement formed precisely because women had no voice and so the only way they felt they could be heard was through acts of violence and destruction of property. It wasn't popular but over time it was effective and as soon as women started to have a voice, they used it.

Feminism today means different things to different people.
There are some at the extreme end who have very deep distrust of men and see anything that comes from men as poison. A male map talking to such a feminist is only saying what they're saying so they can rape and abuse young females.
Most are not at the extreme end but many would still be suspicious of motives and frankly women have become so used to being very protective of other females, especially young females because the world has been patriarchal for so long.

But, the message that women and girls should have more rights, be-empowered, should be able to say no or yes, it's their bodies their choice, should not feel slut shamed or pressed into any mold, these are deeply understood and respected arguments by not only feminists but most women and girls. This isn't an argument to say maps should choose yes or no, it isn't an argument to give more power to any men, it's about removing stigma from females and empowering females.

I think it is possible to create a case that feminists and women can respect and support. If it's giving more choice, more rights, more self-care to females then it is a good thing.

I have multiple times had girls nights out where we've talked drunkenly about our younger days, who fancied who at school, that hunky teacher, our friend who "got off with such and such". I had one friend who claimed she slept with her friends dad because her friend was a bitch to her and one day she had the chance to sleep which she took. Not the right reason to do it and it and when we've been reminiscing about our school days and that has come out, not a single person has made any comment that he was at fault, the only negative comments was that she shouldn't have done that to her friend.

I do think people are smart enough to see beyond the silly anti-map hysteria. There are messages that can land, to feminists and other groups. It shouldn't be about pushing map agenda's all the time, it can be about pushing other agenda's that just happen to progress things for maps a a byproduct.

With you mentioning the Sufragettes, I wonder if some sort of sharing of personal experience from certain marginalized women MAPs might be helpful, a la the famous speech from Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I a Woman?"

Scorchingwilde wrote: Fri May 01, 2026 12:56 am With you mentioning the Sufragettes, I wonder if some sort of sharing of personal experience from certain marginalized women MAPs might be helpful, a la the famous speech from Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I a Woman?"

I think this is true. It can be very intimidating speaking out, I will think about how open and out there I want to be, and other female maps should to. I don't think we have to be subjected to total fear, even if it feels so repressive. Just think about how we can speak out, get support from our partners and friends. I will give it real thought.

Women having power is the reason why you're the shit on the boots of society and you low IQ pedophiles want to give them more power. Feminism raised the Aoc, look it up. Can't make this shit up.

Oliver23 wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 2:38 pm Women having power is the reason why you're the shit on the boots of society and you low IQ pedophiles want to give them more power. Feminism raised the Aoc, look it up. Can't make this shit up.

That's a very ham fisted perspective that ignores all the reasoning behind those early campaigns and the actual issues those and later feminists were raising. In the 19th century as women started to earn rights, feminist reformers did push to increase the age of consent which was between 7 and 12 following a scandal in the UK about young children being forced into prostitution, a campaign that was mirrored in the US.

So the reason for that early activism was to take young children out of forced prostitution, something that was common and widespread at the time.

After that, feminism slowed down and started to splinter and discuss what was really needed long term.

Rape Law reform pushed to focus on "consent" rather than prior sexual history. If a woman was raped and went to court, the court would look at her past behavior and if she had a promiscuous past then she must have been up for it this time, so no rape conviction. The actual campaign was to argue that consent shouldn't be assumed and so even a woman with a long sexual history could still say no. It wasn't about young girls, it was about women with histories but that's where consent starts to get discussed by men and women when it comes to younger people.

In the 1970s the debate around age and consent and protection picked up again. Some feminists argued that the age of consent should be lowered, some argued it should be increased, many men expressed that it should be increased and lowered also. The main feminist agenda though at that time was about protection against coercion rather than changing the age of consent. Most feminists at that time didn't think AoC was the issue, it was that men could use pressure against females and so they wanted the law to focus on empowering women to be able to say no, create legal safeguards against coercion rather than get caught up in AoC arguments.

Today, when discussing young girls, feminists focus on the power dynamics of consent. It isn't about specific AoC, it's about females being in control of their own consent. When it comes to young females, the concern is that they can be coerced and pressured into giving consent by adult males.

You are misrepresenting this as women increasing the Age of Consent without including all the surrounding context and what they're actually asking for. The AoC was raised from as low as 7, up to 16 (18 in some US states) as an immediate way to crack down on rampant forced prostitution. Was this the right approach? Ideally it wouldn't have increased, I don't think feminists wanted to increase it since it's a restriction on females, but the way the law worked at the time it was the quickest and most effective way to clamp down on a nationwide scandal. I think it would be better to reduce it back to 7 or remove AoC completely since they infringe on female rights, but that could only happen if better safeguards were in place.

After that initial emergency change, feminists moved away from AoC discussions and focused on the real issue at hand, consent and the right and power to say no. If men could be trusted to not coerce then there would be no need for those increased AoC laws. Today it's the same debate, females being empowered to own giving consent and being confident that it won't be exploited by some men.

Do I think feminists were right? Overall I think they were because they were trying to protect young girls from coercion. They weren't ever arguing against young girls having sex, they were arguing against young girls being forced into prostitution or being coerced into sex. From the feminists I've spoken to, if guys could be trusted not to coerce young girls into sex then there would be no issue with young girls being given back the right to consent.

So I go back to my original point in my earlier post. Feminists are not a group out to get pedophiles, they are a group out to protect women and young girls. The media portrays pedophiles as rapists and abusers which isn't true. One way to improve things for pedophiles is to build a bridge to women including feminists to show that maps are aligned, wanting to increase protection and rights for young girls, have strict rules against coercion, rape, pressure, while respecting the rights of women and young girls to consent. Empower women and young girls, stamp out coercion, have no tolerance for force and pressure, but don't take away the rights of women or young girls to consent.

For example, how many girls have underage sex and are punished for it? It's unfair to punish young girls and boys for doing something through choice, without coercion.

Just crying that it's all feminists when actually a lot of men supported those law changes and campaign is silly. Read the actual history, get educated, and if you have nothing of value to add to the actual fight for reform then don't attack people actually fighting the good fight. We need reform and that's what this is, reform to remove age of consent laws that were always a blunt instrument, have real protections for males and females equally, give young people their sexual rights back along with their partners whatever age they are.

JGHeaven wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 6:18 pm So I go back to my original point in my earlier post. Feminists are not a group out to get pedophiles, they are a group out to protect women and young girls. The media portrays pedophiles as rapists and abusers which isn't true. One way to improve things for pedophiles is to build a bridge to women including feminists to show that maps are aligned, wanting to increase protection and rights for young girls, have strict rules against coercion, rape, pressure, while respecting the rights of women and young girls to consent. Empower women and young girls, stamp out coercion, have no tolerance for force and pressure, but don't take away the rights of women or young girls to consent.

Yup, I couldn't have put it better myself. Some of my favorite memes featured on the yesmap wiki are actually those of GL men holding 'her body her choice' signs up against antis

I could be mistaken, but I think that female MAP activism may potentially be one of the most powerful tools in the MAP activist arsenal, largely because female MAPs garner significantly less scorn, and much more sympathy, from the general public, at least from males. If the MAP stereotype was more in line with the "hot teacher" trope rather than the "creepy old rapist" trope, it should be obvious that MAPs would have a much better public image than what we see today. The first time I even learned what a pedophile was, I thought that it specifically referred to women who wanted to have sex with young boys, and, having been a young boy myself, I got a pretty positive view of pedophilia as a result. It wasn't until years later that I learned the phrase to be mainly associated with perverted middle aged men who rape children, and it goes without saying that my initial view on the subject would have been very different had that been my first exposure to the whole concept.

I would even go as far as to say that it might actually be practically impossible for male MAPs to be socially accepted until female MAPs are accepted, due to how the male sexual role is almost always unconsciously tied to coercion, violence, and dominance. I could go on about this, and I'll likely make a thread on that in the future, since I rarely see discussed here how unconscious views on male sexual roles play heavily into anti-MAP hatred. But to cut a long story short, while I would prefer that this type of violent subtext around sex would disappear entirely, it is unfortunately too entrenched to go away any time soon, but because women are far less tied to it, they are in a much better position to bargain for acceptance of MAPs. Once female MAPs are more explicitly accepted, I don't think it is going to take long until male MAPs become accepted too, so long as the aforementioned view of male sexual roles weakens.

An insightful first post, fanta!

Lol.. last part is kind of erotic. But yeah i think women can contribute a lot.