MAP Forum

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:03 pm I meant regardless of whether they (the sadist) acts or just has the impulse or fantasy based on hurting someone. There is no behavioural test for being a sadist, outside of criminological categories, e.g. the idea that zoosadistic behaviour is a precursor to sadistic offending.

I can tell you that I am not a sadist since I don't derive pleasure for forcing or hurting someone thus I don't do it since I don't have that desire to begin with. No all Nepis are sadistic, no all Sadists are Acting-Sadists, so I don't see reason for unequal treatment for people who aren't doing anything wrong. And the ones who are being misunderstood.

I guess the notion of MAPs as Sadist follows from some MAPs to Nepis too.

Lightie Twinkle wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 6:49 pm

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:03 pm I meant regardless of whether they (the sadist) acts or just has the impulse or fantasy based on hurting someone. There is no behavioural test for being a sadist, outside of criminological categories, e.g. the idea that zoosadistic behaviour is a precursor to sadistic offending.

I can tell you that I am not a sadist since I don't derive pleasure for forcing or hurting someone thus I don't do it since I don't have that desire to begin with. No all Nepis are sadistic, no all Sadists are Acting-Sadists, so I don't see reason for unequal treatment for people who aren't doing anything wrong. And the ones who are being misunderstood.

I guess the notion of MAPs as Sadist follows from some MAPs to Nepis too.

Is it not necessary to treat the groups unequally in order to hold them to the same standard? You said it - not all sadists are practicing sadists, and it would be incredibly hard to argue that e.g. pro-c biastophiles can be granted the same choices, as, say teleiophiles. Since their choice would be a nonconsensual partner they could rape. For me, a mature and effective alliance accepts these basic facts instead of pandering to egalitarian delusions, such as pretending zoosadism is equivalent to hebephilia, as if both are kinks that exist on the same degree of abnormality with similar degrees of consent.

There are causes that I, as a gay man have in common with nepis, sadists and biastophiles. But it's better to be honest about what those are, and where I honestly believe I have privilege over many paraphiles (e.g. my partners can give verbal enthusiastic consent). Better than pandering a delusion.

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 11:35 pm

Lightie Twinkle wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 6:49 pm

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:03 pm I meant regardless of whether they (the sadist) acts or just has the impulse or fantasy based on hurting someone. There is no behavioural test for being a sadist, outside of criminological categories, e.g. the idea that zoosadistic behaviour is a precursor to sadistic offending.

I can tell you that I am not a sadist since I don't derive pleasure for forcing or hurting someone thus I don't do it since I don't have that desire to begin with. No all Nepis are sadistic, no all Sadists are Acting-Sadists, so I don't see reason for unequal treatment for people who aren't doing anything wrong. And the ones who are being misunderstood.

I guess the notion of MAPs as Sadist follows from some MAPs to Nepis too.

Is it not necessary to treat the groups unequally in order to hold them to the same standard? You said it - not all sadists are practicing sadists, and it would be incredibly hard to argue that e.g. pro-c biastophiles can be granted the same choices, as, say teleiophiles. Since their choice would be a nonconsensual partner they could rape. For me, a mature and effective alliance accepts these basic facts instead of pandering to egalitarian delusions, such as pretending zoosadism is equivalent to hebephilia, as if both are kinks that exist on the same degree of abnormality with similar degrees of consent.

There are causes that I, as a gay man have in common with nepis, sadists and biastophiles. But it's better to be honest about what those are, and where I honestly believe I have privilege over many paraphiles (e.g. my partners can give verbal enthusiastic consent). Better than pandering a delusion.

Is really sad for me to read things like this, I don't even know what to say.

I'm sorry to go a bit off topic here, focusing on the consent part, but reading Jim's "my partners can give verbal enthusiastic consent" sparked some thoughts in me.

First off, I consider myself a non-exclusive hebephile, so I have little erotic interest for small children, but I totally get the point of Lightie Twinkle and nepis in general.

Adults can fake "verbal enthusiastic consent" out of scare or because they think can gain something out of it (or whatever other reason). Small children, however, cannot fake non-verbal consent. So I guess I'm basically arguing that non-verbal consent from small children is even more valid than adult verbal consent.

(uhm, I think there was a topic on "understanding nepis" or something like that, so I might move this reply there if I find the thread, with a link to Jim's snippet for reference)

I happen to be a MAP (preferentially hebephilic) who has some sexually sadistic desires—although the younger the girl, the less sadistic I am. I find that BDSM is often misunderstood in the MAP community; in the past, I was ostracized from two MAP communities due to those aspects of my sexuality (I was also banned from a BDSM community and "reported to authorities" for being a MAP engaging in consensual age play with adults, but that's another story).

I must say that I'm not fundamentally different from any "average" Dominant BDSM practitioner except for the fact that I'm preferentially attracted to girls in early adolescence and seldom find adult women attractive. I also ought to point out that I've personally spoken to several AAMs, including a 13-year-old girl, who are already keenly aware of the submissive and masochistic elements of their own sexuality.

(In a saner world) I could very well see myself having an intimate relationship with a very young girl without any BDSM whatsoever, if I were to be truly in love with one who isn't into kink. In any case, I'd be very wary to explore any of the more intense practices with a very young partner—she'd have to be very convincing in expressing her desire. However, I'd have a much harder time having a relationship with an adult that doesn't involve kink, because the inclusion of BDSM compensates for the lower level of sexual attraction I feel.

The crucial part is that my sexual dominance and sadism are absolutely secondary relative to the deep affection I feel towards my romantic/sexual partner. The consent and masochistic enjoyment of my partner is something I would never, ever want to do without. I love to enact non-consent with a willing partner; the fact that I could in theory enjoy the "real thing" is inconsequential considering the fact that I would never do it for reasons that have nothing to do with legality and everything to do with me being a reasonable, ethical, and loving human being.

Furthermore, my kink does not translate into some sort of overreaching desire to control my partner, even if that may sometimes appear to be the case in e.g. a 24/7 Master/slave relationship (I've briefly been in one with an adult). It really is exclusively an erotic matter, which is something that people outside of the BDSM community often don't understand. In fact, as such things are actually practiced, sexual dominance isn't about power (if anything, the submissive partner wields the most power), nor is sexual sadism about causing suffering (the sadist wants to make sure the masochistic partner enjoys the ride).

It happens when 99% of media towards us is negative.

Thank you for making me aware of PIE podcasts. I admit I did not know much about PIE before reading, I may listen but the reporter bias will probs make me mad

One of the myths I hate is that we are attracted to children not because children are sexy and hot, but because we are attracted to power, it makes ZERO sense because

0.Kids are literally hot asf. When I see a sexy 4 year old, I am not thinking “HAHA HE IS TINY AND WEAK AND SUBMISSIVE AND LESSER THAN ME- I WANT TO CONTROL AND DOMINATE HIM AND RUIN HIS LIFE-I THRIVE OFF HIS PAIN AND SUFFERING-I LIVE FOR VIOLENCE!!” no I am thinking “Damn that kid has a fat ass for a toddler and pretty blue eyes, he also has that little sexy toddler tummy that sticks out and drives me crazy, I bet his dick is cute too”

1. I am not attracted to the elderly, sick, or disabled, who I also have power over. In fact I have more power over a patient in a coma or a little old grandma with no support system and dementia than I would have over a healthy 9 year old with a stable life and safe and healthy family

2. Why is it so hard for these brain dead antis to realize that our attraction, much like literally every other sexuality and kink on planet earth, is based on AESTHETIC. Kids are AESTHETICALLY hotter than adults. They have perkier assess compared to their little body and small perky nipples, they dont have body hair or saggy tits, they have small cute bubble butts and soft skin and big pretty eyes and plumper lips and rosier cheeks and long eyelashes. Women also have some of these traits but they have boobs and are too curvy and tall, and I have a fetish for flatness and smolness.

They are also smol and cute and easy to snuggle and hug. They have tiny cute little pudgy wrinkle free hands that I want to smooch [Removed: rule 2]. They have tiny cute little smoochable feet. They also have cute little bellies that stick out a little as they walk which is equally adorable and sexy. Adults arent smol and cute and sexy. Kids are smol and cute and sexy. Therefore I am into kids. You can also nurture and take care of them, which isnt aesthetically appealing but mentally appealing and is fulfilling. They are also more fun and spontanous instead of boring adults who only care about work and taxes and mortages. They are more whimsical and carefree and fun loving and silly. You can also help them, like driving them to school and playing pretend with them and buying them toys, which makes me feel good inside to see them happy.

It is easier to please them but harder work to maintain the relationship, so there is a trade off, but it is worth it for those fun loving sexy beasts. A kid is always down to play and have fun, an adult is rarely down play and have fun. Kids are fascinated by the world around them and view everything ad magical. Adults have depression. Kids have small perky youthful bodies. Adults have tits that start sagging a couple years after they grow them and hairy wrinkled deformed looking balls. I dont understand teliophiles because why on earth would you choose someone wrinkly and old and depressed instead of someone cute and fun? The only exception is DILFS because they somehow make the hairness and wrinkleness look good, but other than the hot middle aged man with a dad bod I dont see the appeal in adults. I feel like people are lying to me when they claim to be anything but a nepiophile or pedophile or hebephile because whats so appealing about a fully sexually mature body? They are so boring to look at and hairy and oddly shaped.

And as far as I know, nuturing and lovingly taking care of someone isnt a “power kink” as non map parents do it to kids too. In my mind, as a nepipedophile myself, minor attraction is incredibley simple to understand, it is not “sadism” or about “power”, it is just parental love mixed with a fetish for flat and short body types. Thats it, its literally that simple. All this money spent on “research” to scan on our brains and analyze our childhoods-“where you dropped on the head as a kid? Did you have sex with an adult as a minor?” Nope, I am like this because I have a fetish for the prepubscent body type, just like people have a fetish for a fat body type or a skinny body type or a hairy body type or a tall body type or an elderly body type. Its not that deep, unless your a brain dead anti who would rather pull shit out of their ass about pedophillia instead of literally just asking us? Lol they are so stupid. If it was about power then just call us powerphiles or sadists instead of pedophiles, as it would be more accurate

Being a MAP is about love. The love of a child in an intimate and caring way. It's inherently logically fallacious for antis to try and paint us as being sadists when we are in fact the opposite.

Our mere existence seems to be enough for antis to think that dehumanizing us at every turn is somehow justifiable. We genuinely cannot win if we continue to subject ourselves to their terms. They do not care about morality, as their arguments are not based in morality. Rather, they are based in bigotry and the blind hatred of people with our sexuality.