MAP Forum

Zmap wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:33 pm Oh 100% i am one that firmly believes in certain types of sexual contact with a minor (no penetration and no forcing) are healthy for the young mind and that they deserve the same pleasures we adults do. They have extremely hard lives and deserve to take the edge off as much as a hard office worker and at teenage they are even hornier than anything we can ever be at our most in the mood as older adults. I believe the research that says there is no connection to harm. I also know it's unwise to risk it in this world as children are raised to turn us in and that their mindset of "it'll be traumatizing" off the bat makes any sorta thing have massive odds of being traumatizing vs "this'll be fun" and we never want to cause trauma so it stops there in my brain.

CantChainTheSpirit wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 7:50 am I look at this from both sides and can see how both sides to have merit.

From one direction, it is factually true that children are sexual people the same as adults. They have the same sensory organs, touch feels as stimulating and exciting to a child as it does to an adult. Adults go around with sexual desires, well so do children. That shouldn't be controversial to anybody. When I became a parent, my wife and I panicked when our toddler would masturbate a lot, I mean at the dinner table, in the restaurant, watching TV, so we went to get advice and were told it's normal, kids touch themselves because it feels good and the right thing to do is to talk to her and explain basic rules such as no doing that in public, you can touch yourself but only alone in your room. When I was a kid I started to masturbate later but still as a preteen and I had an adult lover who taught me about my own body and I loved the attention and contact. There are loads of case studies of kids reporting positive experiences and everyone knows how kids chase their idols, have singers and other stars as pinups and have sexual fantasies about them. Kids are sexual just like adults, it's just ignorant to think they're not. Not all kids of course just like not all adults are sexual, different people have different drives and interests. So the idea of pro-contact maps makes a lot of sense, if there's mutual sexual attraction then the result could be close bonding, mutual fulfillment and something perfectly natural and beautiful.

From the other direction I think the argument is that while kids are sexual, the act itself somehow takes something away from a child, their innocence, their childhood and that adults can use their authority position to exploit a child who doesn't want a sexual relationship. I can understand that argument to, especially the risk of exploiting a child. That is a real risk, someone of authority over a child could exploit them and that could be very harmful and it does happen sometimes. The trouble I have with that argument is that it assumes exploitation and presents any contact automatically as exploitative. You could apply the same to adults, men are stronger than women so there is a risk of rape and exploitation, but we don't extrapolate and assume all sexual contact is exploitative. We apply one set of rules and logic to children, another to adults and we're able to maintain these opposing views in your heads as if they don't conflict.

As for the original question, I'd say of course it's possible to be pro-contract and non-offending. I'm pro and anti many things, from being pro renewables to anti racism and dozens of other things but I don't go around breaking the law for any of them. There is a big difference between a belief and an action. Not realising that distinction is where a lot of problems creep in when discussing pedophilia, people don't understand the difference between being a pedophile and an abuser. Most child abuse is by non-maps, that's proven in so many studies and even police data, most sexual abuse against children is by non-pedophiles. And yet, people still think that pedophile and child sexual abuse is the same thing. That ignorance of the difference means most people who do exploit kids get to do so without much attention because they're not pedophiles, while law abiding pedophiles are monitored and routinely treated as suspects.

weird.organisms wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 12:30 pm Magnificently said. I'm a pro-C NOMAP. It seems like the most radical backlash on MAPs from antis is aimed at NOMAPs instead of pro-c MAPs. That is to say that if you say you're a MAP who is unwilling ot offend, view cp, etc. they actually seem to get MORE aggressive as if their worldview of all MAPs being horrible predators who will exploit children in ANY way has been completely shattered and now they must to pick up the pieces. They want US to pick up the for them (hopefully dying by a thousand cuts in the process).

They'd rather a MAP do something incriminating that they can use to weaponize their cause for hatred and violecne rather than a MAP who abides by their rules of not harming children.

This is partially why i think the criminalization of fictional depictions of minors is gaining steam. It presents all MAPs, even NOMAPs as horrible people who'll break the law even if it means harming no real children to use as a justification of their projected hatred of us (and kids) in order keep up their public image and grandiose ego stroking.

While not all antis are narcissists I do believe there's a common trigger and perhaps even analogous pathways. Many are likely to suppress sexual urges of minors and antagonize MAPs with threats of violence or isolation and public shame. While it might seem like there's enough connection to suggest that ALL antis are narcissistic-like I have said in the past, I don't think narcissism is the root cause entirely upon further hindsight and interaction with antis.

it has enough overlapping characteristics that even if it's not narcissism it could be another antagonistic personality trait with similar mechanisms. It has been found that people with antagonistic personalities (cluster B) lack-or are severely reduced- in the number of oxytocin pathways which makes sesne given how much they loathe sexual deviance, lack love of children, don't have broadened empathy, and do not understand our positions no matter how we approach them.

I'm stating this because there are people who do not believe adults should have sexual contact with minors but they're not the kind to want NOMAPs to be publicly humiliated, shamed, beaten, tortured and killed over a mere thought crime, nor want MAPs who WOULD do anything sexual with a child-if allowed and fully consensual with no intent of doing harm or not harming the minor-to be subject to the same harsh, cruel treatment.

Not all who oppose minor/adult sexual contact are extreme antis out for our blood, but enough of them are-or at least enough are vocal about it-that in conjures up this connotation anyway. Much like many of the simply misinformed (but without the pathological personalities) who see us as all being horrible nasty perverts who only seek to exploit children, we must remember to not do the same in return and remember that just because someone sees adult/youth sexual contact as appalling it may not be rooted with the same vitriol mindset.

Zmap wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:33 pm Oh 100% i am one that firmly believes in certain types of sexual contact with a minor (no penetration and no forcing) are healthy for the young mind and that they deserve the same pleasures we adults do. They have extremely hard lives and deserve to take the edge off as much as a hard office worker and at teenage they are even hornier than anything we can ever be at our most in the mood as older adults. I believe the research that says there is no connection to harm. I also know it's unwise to risk it in this world as children are raised to turn us in and that their mindset of "it'll be traumatizing" off the bat makes any sorta thing have massive odds of being traumatizing vs "this'll be fun" and we never want to cause trauma so it stops there in my brain.

CantChainTheSpirit wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 7:50 am From the other direction I think the argument is that while kids are sexual, the act itself somehow takes something away from a child, their innocence, their childhood and that adults can use their authority position to exploit a child who doesn't want a sexual relationship. I can understand that argument to, especially the risk of exploiting a child. That is a real risk, someone of authority over a child could exploit them and that could be very harmful and it does happen sometimes. The trouble I have with that argument is that it assumes exploitation and presents any contact automatically as exploitative. You could apply the same to adults, men are stronger than women so there is a risk of rape and exploitation, but we don't extrapolate and assume all sexual contact is exploitative. We apply one set of rules and logic to children, another to adults and we're able to maintain these opposing views in your heads as if they don't conflict.

johnnydoe12345 wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 4:34 pm

Zmap wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:33 pm Oh 100% i am one that firmly believes in certain types of sexual contact with a minor (no penetration and no forcing) are healthy for the young mind and that they deserve the same pleasures we adults do. They have extremely hard lives and deserve to take the edge off as much as a hard office worker and at teenage they are even hornier than anything we can ever be at our most in the mood as older adults. I believe the research that says there is no connection to harm. I also know it's unwise to risk it in this world as children are raised to turn us in and that their mindset of "it'll be traumatizing" off the bat makes any sorta thing have massive odds of being traumatizing vs "this'll be fun" and we never want to cause trauma so it stops there in my brain.

Why no penetration? Such an arbitrary rule. Even a pre pubescent child could enjoy it if theres lots of preparation