MAP Forum

mrlolicon93 wrote: Wed Jul 23, 2025 2:44 am[...] he just kept repeating the same answer over and over because it is illegal and that made me feel sad.

I expected him to engage in more substantive debate rather than immediately resorting to the question of illegality.

Not Forever wrote: Thu Jul 24, 2025 9:27 am

mrlolicon93 wrote: Wed Jul 23, 2025 2:44 am[...] he just kept repeating the same answer over and over because it is illegal and that made me feel sad.

I expected him to engage in more substantive debate rather than immediately resorting to the question of illegality.

I did too but unfortunately not.

Because kids have sexual needs as well,and they like exploring and trying new things what gives the state the right to take those choices away from them.
The age of consent is a modern term and was introduced during the 19th century and it was out of puritan ideas and fears against child prostitution among girls and people wanted to preserve their daughters for marriage.
And boys their age would get them pregnant and leave them.
It had nothing to do with adults and children having sex.
Now personally my view is they quite capable when they reach the age of puberty to make choices to have sex.
Now before puberty between six and ten any type of fondling and kissing with the mutual feeling and consent of the kid won’t have any traumatic effects.
I would recommend reading into what ayotollsh Khomeini views on child sexuality now that will definitely surprise you.
Now you recommend getting therapy but have you ever considered that people have tried in the past to get help but to be met with apathy instead and having their life possibly ruined or have been ruined.
There is very little help for minor attracted persons, and the ones that are available treat them like a lab rat and a rabid dog with a illness.

Kylelomaz wrote: Fri Jul 25, 2025 3:38 am Because kids have sexual needs as well,and they like exploring and trying new things what gives the state the right to take those choices away from them.
The age of consent is a modern term and was introduced during the 19th century and it was out of puritan ideas and fears against child prostitution among girls and people wanted to preserve their daughters for marriage.
And boys their age would get them pregnant and leave them.
It had nothing to do with adults and children having sex.
Now personally my view is they quite capable when they reach the age of puberty to make choices to have sex.
Now before puberty between six and ten any type of fondling and kissing with the mutual feeling and consent of the kid won’t have any traumatic effects.
I would recommend reading into what ayotollsh Khomeini views on child sexuality now that will definitely surprise you.
Now you recommend getting therapy but have you ever considered that people have tried in the past to get help but to be met with apathy instead and having their life possibly ruined or have been ruined.
There is very little help for minor attracted persons, and the ones that are available treat them like a lab rat and a rabid dog with a illness.

Yes I agree, from what I have heard, “therapy” for a MAP is less helping your process and deal with your emotions and more interrogating you ti see if you have broken the law

“i just feel so lonely as a MAP, we make up such a small percent of the population and we have to stay hidden on top of that”

“Yes but have you touched any kids?”

“And I feel such a burden having to carry such a huge life destroying secret, I wish I could just be honest about how I feel”

“Yeah thats great and whatever but you havent watched cp right?”

“And people are so violent towards MAPs, I heard a story about a guy getting stalked and jumped after he came out as a hebephile”

“Any kids at home? You havent touched them right?”

“Its just hard knowing the people you love and care about, who claim that they would die for you, would drop you without a second glance if they found out you were a pedo”

“Dont break the law, and tell me if you break the law so I can report you. You havent broken the law right? Because you know thats illegal right?”

They dont treat us like they would treat any other therapy patients, they dont care about our feelings and our problems, their only concern is making sure we dont break the law and finding out if we do. No other therapy session goes like that, for every other person, the persons mental heslth is their biggest concern, not the law, but for MAPs the biggest concern is the law, not our mental health. Im not paying for someone to spend an hour interrogating me and treating me like a rabid animal, thanks.

Imagine if it was a gay guy

“i just feel so lonely as a gay man, we make up such a small percent of the population and we have to stay hidden on top of that”

“Im sorry to hear that, are there any forums you can find online to make like minded friends?”

“And I feel such a burden having to carry such a huge life destroying secret, I wish I could just be honest about how I feel”

“I get that, that must be so difficult. If you want you can get a diary and open up there”

“And people are so violent towards homosexuals, I heard a story about a guy getting stalked and jumped after he came out as bisexual”

“Yes the world can be a very violent and dangerous place, its not fair but we need to find coping strategies to deal with the bigotry”

“Its just hard knowing the people you love and care about, who claim that they would die for you, would drop you without a second glance if they found out you were gay”

“Yes I can imagine, the bigotry is very persuasive, it doesnt mean they dont love or care about you, it is just a very difficult thing to accept for certain people. Try to give them some time and just know its not your fault”

See how drastically different the therapist treats the MAP vs the gay?

They even did a study on therapists reactions to pedos. Therapists are either extremely bigoted or straight up refuse to work with pedos. They would rather work with a psychopath who beats women and children and rapes the elderly than a pedo who has never broken the law.

RoosterDance wrote: Tue Jul 22, 2025 1:28 am Firstly, let me thank you for making the effort to reach understanding, as opposed to just blind condemnation.

There are many counter-arguments I would like to make. HumanBeing covered some good ones.
But let me start here:

thecurious wrote: Mon Jul 21, 2025 9:51 pm How could a kid consent to sex when they don't even know what it is yet?

Why do you feel they are incapable of learning what it is?

They can learn in the science way, but that doesn't mean they should practice. why rushing the physical discovery? Plus a childs genitals is small and by definition not mature, so why forcing an activity on a an organ that's not fully formed yet? I think romance might be okay, maybe, but I'd call myself "anti contact" since that's what I understood on this site.

Harlan wrote: Tue Jul 22, 2025 8:14 pm

thecurious wrote: Mon Jul 21, 2025 9:51 pm ...
How could a kid consent to sex when they don't even know what it is yet ? If they don't even know what to expect, how is it consent? If so many people tell they were traumatized because of being abused as a child, it's that it does indeed hurts the kids. A child is innocent and puts its trust in adults, cause they know more stuff etc, they will let you do and trust you easily, so you know you do have an advantage on them.
...
It's even way worse when you say you like kids that can't even talk and don't have a big logic. Some kids you say you are attracted to, can't even talk, and that's just straight up direct using. Like an object.
...
You have to understand that this hurts children way more than it gives them any "experience" they will get later anyway when they will be ready.

Why do adults teach children to walk from the second year of life if they can run away and get lost or injured ? How can a child consent to learn to ride a bicycle / horse if he doesn't know what to expect and might lose his balance and get hurt ? A child may consent to play traumatic sports, but there is always a risk of serious injury. There are videos on YouTube of children aged 7-12 jumping with a parachute. How could they consent if they don't know what to expect ? Were they pushed into a plane against their will ?

If children cannot give consent then circumcision procedures should be recognized as violence act and be banned ? Why is it possible to cut the skin off the penis and it does not cause mental trauma, but stroking the penis suddenly causes it lol
_______________

The first consent is a exploration. A person evaluates his feelings, whether it is pleasant for him or not. If de If an activity causes disgust, severe pain or fear, he expresses a desire to stop it immediately. To avoid injury, there are safety rules or a mentor who guides.

The problem with stories about "abuse" is that firstly, stories about positive experiences are drowned out, censored, condemned. An "echo-chamber" effect occurs in which people only hear frightening negative stories. This brings up the second part of the problem, people become influenced by overwhelming negative narratives and can "reconceptualize" their originally neutral or positive experiences in accordance with these narratives because positive experience is excluded from the information field. This leads to mixing between victims of real violence and people who have been affected by iatrogenic and sociogenic influences.

Well yeah I also think genital mutilation is not okay and circumcision should be something we can or can not do once we can at least understand what it implies to lose this part and what it could also benefit.
And what you're comparing is not the same. Liking kids means you would probably get into a romantic relation, okay, why not, but then if you like children, does that also mean you will stop loving them when they'll grow up? A child is more likely to get very attached, and they grow up fast, so you'll lose interest fast, lose that attraction? Non Map people will grow up with the person they like, and continue being attracted most of the time so that's also a con ykwim? But that's not a big deal I guess there are bigger arguments in my last post. Once again I am not here to attack but to try to get each others points of views (in a friendly way). And until now I've read a lot of things in here, and yeah, I can understand your point of views, really, but I still think it's dangerous and not worth it and for now I'm still on the point of view of my last post.
(sorry if my writting is weird I'm European)

thecurious wrote: Fri Jul 25, 2025 2:40 pm They can learn in the science way, but that doesn't mean they should practice. why rushing the physical discovery? Plus a childs genitals is small and by definition not mature, so why forcing an activity on a an organ that's not fully formed yet? I think romance might be okay, maybe, but I'd call myself "anti contact" since that's what I understood on this site.

Just to be clear, how black and white is this issue for you? Do you feel sexual acts should never occur under any circumstances, and if they do occur, what do you think is the appropriate response should be? Or do you feel its something people should avoid, but isn't necessarily the end of the world?
Also, what do you think about the morality of non-penetrative sexual acts? For example, gently performing oral sex on a willing minor. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I imagine you would feel even if there was no risk of physical harm from a sexual act, there's still something wrong with it.

I'm saying this because it's easy for these debate to spiral away from what actually matters to the people making the arguments. If we can accurately represent our respective motivations, feelings, and consequent reasoning, it's more productive. For comparison, consider debates about immigration; many people will say they want to restrict immigration for economic reasons, when the real motives are about identity. The danger is mistaking the strategic position (the economic argument) for the core concern (identity).

thecurious wrote: Fri Jul 25, 2025 3:15 pm Well yeah I also think genital mutilation is not okay and circumcision should be something we can or can not do once we can at least understand what it implies to lose this part and what it could also benefit.
And what you're comparing is not the same. Liking kids means you would probably get into a romantic relation, okay, why not, but then if you like children, does that also mean you will stop loving them when they'll grow up? A child is more likely to get very attached, and they grow up fast, so you'll lose interest fast, lose that attraction? Non Map people will grow up with the person they like, and continue being attracted most of the time so that's also a con ykwim? But that's not a big deal I guess there are bigger arguments in my last post. Once again I am not here to attack but to try to get each others points of views (in a friendly way). And until now I've read a lot of things in here, and yeah, I can understand your point of views, really, but I still think it's dangerous and not worth it and for now I'm still on the point of view of my last post.
(sorry if my writting is weird I'm European)

These are potential problems that we talk about relatively often. It's often a source of sadness for MAPs. However, I'd say it goes beyond the scope of whether children can consent. For teleiophiles (people attracted to adults rather than minors) and non-exclusives (people who have both attraction to adults and minors), sex can occur without romantic attachment between adults. Casual sexual play between adults and minors could occur without a deep attachment developing.
Although, regarding non-exclusives, if there are people who could be attracted to a person from their childhood into adulthood, does that make you more comfortable about those romantic relationships developing? I'm trying to see if this is really getting at your underlying concern. There's no point in trying to cheat you, because if we MAPs can successfully address the underlying concerns of non-MAPs it's in our best interest. Winning a debate is meaningless unless the other side feels it was fair, imo.

thecurious wrote: Fri Jul 25, 2025 3:15 pm Liking kids means you would probably get into a romantic relation, okay, why not, but then if you like children, does that also mean you will stop loving them when they'll grow up?

You can have a look at this post for a couple of answers on this matter.

G@yWad69 wrote: Fri Jul 25, 2025 7:06 am

Kylelomaz wrote: Fri Jul 25, 2025 3:38 am Because kids have sexual needs as well,and they like exploring and trying new things what gives the state the right to take those choices away from them.
The age of consent is a modern term and was introduced during the 19th century and it was out of puritan ideas and fears against child prostitution among girls and people wanted to preserve their daughters for marriage.
And boys their age would get them pregnant and leave them.
It had nothing to do with adults and children having sex.
Now personally my view is they quite capable when they reach the age of puberty to make choices to have sex.
Now before puberty between six and ten any type of fondling and kissing with the mutual feeling and consent of the kid won’t have any traumatic effects.
I would recommend reading into what ayotollsh Khomeini views on child sexuality now that will definitely surprise you.
Now you recommend getting therapy but have you ever considered that people have tried in the past to get help but to be met with apathy instead and having their life possibly ruined or have been ruined.
There is very little help for minor attracted persons, and the ones that are available treat them like a lab rat and a rabid dog with a illness.

Yes I agree, from what I have heard, “therapy” for a MAP is less helping your process and deal with your emotions and more interrogating you ti see if you have broken the law

“i just feel so lonely as a MAP, we make up such a small percent of the population and we have to stay hidden on top of that”

“Yes but have you touched any kids?”

“And I feel such a burden having to carry such a huge life destroying secret, I wish I could just be honest about how I feel”

“Yeah thats great and whatever but you havent watched cp right?”

“And people are so violent towards MAPs, I heard a story about a guy getting stalked and jumped after he came out as a hebephile”

“Any kids at home? You havent touched them right?”

“Its just hard knowing the people you love and care about, who claim that they would die for you, would drop you without a second glance if they found out you were a pedo”

“Dont break the law, and tell me if you break the law so I can report you. You havent broken the law right? Because you know thats illegal right?”

They dont treat us like they would treat any other therapy patients, they dont care about our feelings and our problems, their only concern is making sure we dont break the law and finding out if we do. No other therapy session goes like that, for every other person, the persons mental heslth is their biggest concern, not the law, but for MAPs the biggest concern is the law, not our mental health. Im not paying for someone to spend an hour interrogating me and treating me like a rabid animal, thanks.

This.

Even “accepting” therapists act as non-deputized cops, dedicated to policing and asking “Have you done a crime yet? Huh?” instead of focusing on our feelings and emotions. Since “prevention” is the primary goal, our feelings are secondary or trivial and we’re treated like ticking time bombs.

That attitude reproduces the general public’s fear of us in a softer, nicer tone.

thecurious wrote: Fri Jul 25, 2025 2:40 pm They can learn in the science way, but that doesn't mean they should practice. why rushing the physical discovery? Plus a childs genitals is small and by definition not mature, so why forcing an activity on a an organ that's not fully formed yet? I think romance might be okay, maybe, but I'd call myself "anti contact" since that's what I understood on this site.

Why rush to physical discovery? Well, no one is rushing them to physical discovery, the thing is, kids have sexual feelings and desires and may explore that out of "curiosity". Although it's widely stated that kids, more so with younger kids, especially toddles, may explore their own body parts out of curiosity, that does not necessarily mean that they don't have or are incapable of having sexually motivated desires. In fact, a lot of kids who have not reached puberty have those kinds of feelings. Not just that but romantic and sexual attractions as well. Furthermore, the size of a kids genitals does not matter at all and using that as an argument of why they shouldn't engage in sexual contact is a very bad argument. The rule of thumb to always follow is for both the child and older person to do what is pleasurable for the both of them regardless of what kind of sexual activity they may engage in whether that is penetration, oral, hand, etc. That is not only common sense, but it avoids potential harm, say if someone is trying to fit something big in a small hole that hurts a lot.