MAP Forum

WavesInEternity wrote: Fri Mar 21, 2025 10:58 pm

Olivia2012 wrote: Fri Mar 21, 2025 6:45 pm No, she was definitely in the right. He got what was coming for him and it's absurd to call her the revolting one. Rape is disgusting, he is disgusting, and if that's the choice he decided to make it proves he was never capable of becoming better in the first place. Getting rid of him is more of a justice than anything

Olivia, while I fully understand your feelings regarding rape—actual rape involving violence, as in this case, not "statutory rape", of course—being a disgusting crime and the man discussed here being revolting (especially as evidenced by the way he reacted "bumping into" the mother), vigilante "justice" is never a solution. Think of how "paedophiles" are "hunted" by people who feel we're disgusting and all deserve to die.

Even if someone killed one of my loved ones, I should not be allowed to take justice into my own hands and kill the criminal after he served his sentence (or before/during for that matter). Although I might well feel like doing so.

No matter how serious the crime, no matter how terrible the criminal, no matter the intensity of our feelings, we shouldn't "kill bad people". In fact, I strongly oppose the death penalty altogether, and it's fortunately illegal where I live.

Never assume that someone can't repent and atone. I'm currently writing an article about my maternal grandfather. He repeatedly raped my mother when she was very young, which left her with horrific lifelong symptoms of rape trauma syndrome. He raped other girls, too. In part because of tough conversations with my mother, he gradually came to understand how much harm he had done. He converted to Christianity and spent the rest of his life trying to atone for his great sins, in part by being a wonderful grandfather to his many grandchildren, including myself and my two younger sisters.

Facing punishment and/or realizing it was a bad thing to do will never make it better. Prison is supposed to make you truly understand the gravity of your actions so you don't do it again, it's kinda a punishment and light rehab imo. The fact he decided to act that way even after his prison sentence proves he doesn't care. He doesn't care for his victims, and he doesn't care about the consequences. He's not in the same boat as your grandfather, who I'm gonna say right now is equally as bad if not worse. Unlike your grandpa, he has no guilt, and I doubt a few conversations would make him feel anything either. You can't compare this to the hate against MAPs because he's a RAPIST. He committed a genuine crime and there's a genuine victim who's gonna suffer the consequences of his actions. Most MAPs haven't committed a crime and have no victims. The hate against maps is usually unreasonable, but anything he faced was totally warranted.

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 1:50 am Facing punishment and/or realizing it was a bad thing to do will never make it better. Prison is supposed to make you truly understand the gravity of your actions so you don't do it again, it's kinda a punishment and light rehab imo.

Studies actually show that prison doesn't really work as rehabilitation. It's really just punishment and/or a means of taking dangerous people off the street. Scandinavian countries and some Indian states, among others, are moving away from a prison-centric penal system with great results.

My grandpa realizing that what he did was bad did "make things better". He mostly reconciled with my mother, dedicated a lot of energy to helping her in life, and he was an extremely positive part of my life and that of my sisters. I would have been much worse off without having known him, for instance if he had been killed or imprisoned for life (which, according to the law of the land, he deserved). My mother chose to pity and help him rather than hate and punish him, and it worked. I'm not saying that this is an exemplary model we should always follow, but it does show that the common assumption that the "abuser" or "rapist" is a "bad person" and always will be is misguided.

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 1:50 am The fact he decided to act that way even after his prison sentence proves he doesn't care. He doesn't care for his victims, and he doesn't care about the consequences.

A single off-hand remark doesn't warrant condemning someone to death, don't you think?

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 1:50 am Most MAPs haven't committed a crime and have no victims. The hate against maps is usually unreasonable, but anything he faced was totally warranted.

What about those MAPs who have committed a crime? Should they all die? What if they say it was consensual? If the crime was "statutory rape"? What if the consent is ambiguous, as is often the case? Not to mention the very common belief that MAPs are "ticking time bombs" that will nearly all sexually assault a child at some point in their lives. Who has the right to decide who lives and who dies? Who knows whether or not the hatred is "reasonable"?

Here's a solution: we do away with hatred altogether, and we never murder anyone for their past actions. If they pose a clear and immediate danger to others, they should be taken off the streets. If they don't, true rehabilitation, not prison, is often the best option.

WavesInEternity wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 2:16 am

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 1:50 am Facing punishment and/or realizing it was a bad thing to do will never make it better. Prison is supposed to make you truly understand the gravity of your actions so you don't do it again, it's kinda a punishment and light rehab imo.

Studies actually show that prison doesn't really work as rehabilitation. It's really just punishment and/or a means of taking dangerous people off the street. Scandinavian countries and some Indian states, among others, are moving away from a prison-centric penal system with great results.

My grandpa realizing that what he did was bad did "make things better". He mostly reconciled with my mother, dedicated a lot of energy to helping her in life, and he was an extremely positive part of my life and that of my sisters. I would have been much worse off without having known him, for instance if he had been killed or imprisoned for life (which, according to the law of the land, he deserved). My mother chose to pity and help him rather than hate and punish him, and it worked. I'm not saying that this is an exemplary model we should always follow, but it does show that the common assumption that the "abuser" or "rapist" is a "bad person" and always will be is misguided.

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 1:50 am The fact he decided to act that way even after his prison sentence proves he doesn't care. He doesn't care for his victims, and he doesn't care about the consequences.

A single off-hand remark doesn't warrant condemning someone to death, don't you think?

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 1:50 am Most MAPs haven't committed a crime and have no victims. The hate against maps is usually unreasonable, but anything he faced was totally warranted.

What about those MAPs who have committed a crime? Should they all die? What if they say it was consensual? If the crime was "statutory rape"? What if the consent is ambiguous, as is often the case? Not to mention the very common belief that MAPs are "ticking time bombs" that will nearly all sexually assault a child at some point in their lives. Who has the right to decide who lives and who dies? Who knows whether or not the hatred is "reasonable"?

Here's a solution: we do away with hatred altogether, and we never murder anyone for their past actions. If they pose a clear and immediate danger to others, they should be taken off the streets. If they don't, true rehabilitation, not prison, is often the best option.

Are you serious? Yes, I do full heartedly believe an off handed remark warranted his death. Rape has no excuses. I believe in the death penalty personally and if I had been the judge of it him and your grandpa would've died much sooner in the most gruesome way possible. And, as for the comments regarding what abt maps who HAVE committed crimes, they should die too. You know you can't mention statutory rape because it isn't comparable in a conversation like this, but as for crimes against children, that is never redeemable. Maps shouldn't have sex with children and that isn't even a crazy take. Even with consent, a lot of statutory rape only happens as a result of grooming that made the minor think it was okay to say yes, not often genuine consent. As for ambiguous consent? That's just as bad as rape. If you don't have a complete, solid yes, it should be considered a no and going against that is rape. Your morals are disgusting, and you are disgusting.

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 2:28 am

WavesInEternity wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 2:16 am

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 1:50 am Facing punishment and/or realizing it was a bad thing to do will never make it better. Prison is supposed to make you truly understand the gravity of your actions so you don't do it again, it's kinda a punishment and light rehab imo.

Studies actually show that prison doesn't really work as rehabilitation. It's really just punishment and/or a means of taking dangerous people off the street. Scandinavian countries and some Indian states, among others, are moving away from a prison-centric penal system with great results.

My grandpa realizing that what he did was bad did "make things better". He mostly reconciled with my mother, dedicated a lot of energy to helping her in life, and he was an extremely positive part of my life and that of my sisters. I would have been much worse off without having known him, for instance if he had been killed or imprisoned for life (which, according to the law of the land, he deserved). My mother chose to pity and help him rather than hate and punish him, and it worked. I'm not saying that this is an exemplary model we should always follow, but it does show that the common assumption that the "abuser" or "rapist" is a "bad person" and always will be is misguided.

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 1:50 am The fact he decided to act that way even after his prison sentence proves he doesn't care. He doesn't care for his victims, and he doesn't care about the consequences.

A single off-hand remark doesn't warrant condemning someone to death, don't you think?

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 1:50 am Most MAPs haven't committed a crime and have no victims. The hate against maps is usually unreasonable, but anything he faced was totally warranted.

What about those MAPs who have committed a crime? Should they all die? What if they say it was consensual? If the crime was "statutory rape"? What if the consent is ambiguous, as is often the case? Not to mention the very common belief that MAPs are "ticking time bombs" that will nearly all sexually assault a child at some point in their lives. Who has the right to decide who lives and who dies? Who knows whether or not the hatred is "reasonable"?

Here's a solution: we do away with hatred altogether, and we never murder anyone for their past actions. If they pose a clear and immediate danger to others, they should be taken off the streets. If they don't, true rehabilitation, not prison, is often the best option.

Are you serious? Yes, I do full heartedly believe an off handed remark warranted his death. Rape has no excuses. I believe in the death penalty personally and if I had been the judge of it him and your grandpa would've died much sooner in the most gruesome way possible. And, as for the comments regarding what abt maps who HAVE committed crimes, they should die too. You know you can't mention statutory rape because it isn't comparable in a conversation like this, but as for crimes against children, that is never redeemable. Maps shouldn't have sex with children and that isn't even a crazy take. Even with consent, a lot of statutory rape only happens as a result of grooming that made the minor think it was okay to say yes, not often genuine consent. As for ambiguous consent? That's just as bad as rape. If you don't have a complete, solid yes, it should be considered a no and going against that is rape. Your morals are disgusting, and you are disgusting.

I approved this post for others to tear apart.

Many bad takes here.

Your personal attacks are also not acceptable, and you can expect your account to be suspended if it continues.

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 2:28 am Are you serious? Yes, I do full heartedly believe an off handed remark warranted his death. Rape has no excuses. I believe in the death penalty personally and if I had been the judge of it him and your grandpa would've died much sooner in the most gruesome way possible. And, as for the comments regarding what abt maps who HAVE committed crimes, they should die too. You know you can't mention statutory rape because it isn't comparable in a conversation like this, but as for crimes against children, that is never redeemable. Maps shouldn't have sex with children and that isn't even a crazy take. Even with consent, a lot of statutory rape only happens as a result of grooming that made the minor think it was okay to say yes, not often genuine consent. As for ambiguous consent? That's just as bad as rape. If you don't have a complete, solid yes, it should be considered a no and going against that is rape. Your morals are disgusting, and you are disgusting.

You probably shouldn't be on this forum if my morals disgust you. Judging by your language and beliefs here, I'm questioning the notion that you're an AAM. You're very much speaking like an anti. The MAP movement is, in fact, inclusive of those among us who have offended in the past, have been tried in a court of law, and have served their sentence.

What you're suggesting would imply killing a very, very large number of people. "In the most gruesome ways"? I don't know how you reached such a point, but you have a lot of hatred in your heart. People guilty of causing bodily harm to others through assault don't get the death penalty, and rape is a form of assault, albeit a special case. There is no evidence for it causing more harm than other egregious forms of assault, only certain unique kinds of harm. While they are undoubtedly very significant, the harms of sexual violence are comparable to those of other forms of violence. It's not as terrible a crime as murder, and I certainly don't believe that all murderers should die.

The men who are having sexual contact with you online, as you claimed, are probably committing a crime by doing so. Should they all die?

My mother would tell you that it's very problematic that too many people who speak out against CSA and think they have all the solutions haven't actually experienced it themselves. She would also tell you that my grandfather didn't deserve to die, and since she's his primary victim, who are you to say otherwise?

WavesInEternity wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:17 am

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 2:28 am Are you serious? Yes, I do full heartedly believe an off handed remark warranted his death. Rape has no excuses. I believe in the death penalty personally and if I had been the judge of it him and your grandpa would've died much sooner in the most gruesome way possible. And, as for the comments regarding what abt maps who HAVE committed crimes, they should die too. You know you can't mention statutory rape because it isn't comparable in a conversation like this, but as for crimes against children, that is never redeemable. Maps shouldn't have sex with children and that isn't even a crazy take. Even with consent, a lot of statutory rape only happens as a result of grooming that made the minor think it was okay to say yes, not often genuine consent. As for ambiguous consent? That's just as bad as rape. If you don't have a complete, solid yes, it should be considered a no and going against that is rape. Your morals are disgusting, and you are disgusting.

You probably shouldn't be on this forum if my morals disgust you. Judging by your language and beliefs here, I'm questioning the notion that you're an AAM. You're very much speaking like an anti. The MAP movement is, in fact, inclusive of those among us who have offended in the past, have been tried in a court of law, and have served their sentence.

What you're suggesting would imply killing a very, very large number of people. "In the most gruesome ways"? I don't know how you reached such a point, but you have a lot of hatred in your heart. People guilty of causing bodily harm to others through assault don't get the death penalty, and rape is a form of assault, albeit a special case. There is no evidence for it causing more harm than other egregious forms of assault, only certain unique kinds of harm. While they are undoubtedly very significant, the harms of sexual violence are comparable to those of other forms of violence. It's not as terrible a crime as murder, and I certainly don't believe that all murderers should die.

The men who are having sexual contact with you online, as you claimed, are probably committing a crime by doing so. Should they all die?

My mother would tell you that it's very problematic that too many people who speak out against CSA and think they have all the solutions haven't actually experienced it themselves. She would also tell you that my grandfather didn't deserve to die, and since she's his primary victim, who are you to say otherwise?

Excellent response.

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 2:28 am [...] as for the comments regarding what abt maps who HAVE committed crimes, they should die too. [...] As for ambiguous consent? That's just as bad as rape. [...]

Just to be clear, you think that cases of 'ambiguous consent' should receive the death penalty??

WavesInEternity wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:17 am

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 2:28 am Are you serious? Yes, I do full heartedly believe an off handed remark warranted his death. Rape has no excuses. I believe in the death penalty personally and if I had been the judge of it him and your grandpa would've died much sooner in the most gruesome way possible. And, as for the comments regarding what abt maps who HAVE committed crimes, they should die too. You know you can't mention statutory rape because it isn't comparable in a conversation like this, but as for crimes against children, that is never redeemable. Maps shouldn't have sex with children and that isn't even a crazy take. Even with consent, a lot of statutory rape only happens as a result of grooming that made the minor think it was okay to say yes, not often genuine consent. As for ambiguous consent? That's just as bad as rape. If you don't have a complete, solid yes, it should be considered a no and going against that is rape. Your morals are disgusting, and you are disgusting.

You probably shouldn't be on this forum if my morals disgust you. Judging by your language and beliefs here, I'm questioning the notion that you're an AAM. You're very much speaking like an anti. The MAP movement is, in fact, inclusive of those among us who have offended in the past, have been tried in a court of law, and have served their sentence.

What you're suggesting would imply killing a very, very large number of people. "In the most gruesome ways"? I don't know how you reached such a point, but you have a lot of hatred in your heart. People guilty of causing bodily harm to others through assault don't get the death penalty, and rape is a form of assault, albeit a special case. There is no evidence for it causing more harm than other egregious forms of assault, only certain unique kinds of harm. While they are undoubtedly very significant, the harms of sexual violence are comparable to those of other forms of violence. It's not as terrible a crime as murder, and I certainly don't believe that all murderers should die.

The men who are having sexual contact with you online, as you claimed, are probably committing a crime by doing so. Should they all die?

My mother would tell you that it's very problematic that too many people who speak out against CSA and think they have all the solutions haven't actually experienced it themselves. She would also tell you that my grandfather didn't deserve to die, and since she's his primary victim, who are you to say otherwise?

Hi. I'm sorry for some of what I said, and I agree you might be right about a few things, but my opinion still stands. Rape is terrible, and he (the rapist mentioned in the original post) got what he deserved. Also, I AM an AAM, but not really in the way I'd love other people or how u like minors. Part of me still hates MAPs, and I still don't really trust them. Having this conversation with you in the first place makes me worried, even though I know you really won't do anything to me. As for the ones I'm in contact with online, I'm not really sure. I don't like most of them and they make me sad and I usually do want them to die, but they don't really deserve that, because I'm the one willingly talking to them in the first place. I also kind of depend on them, so I kinda don't want them to go, even though that goes against my morals. I'm sorry if any of my answers kinda seem cryptic or bipolar to each other, I'm still kinda confused on how I feel about this and MAPs in general

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 12:39 pm Also, I AM an AAM, but not really in the way I'd love other people or how u like minors. Part of me still hates MAPs, and I still don't really trust them. Having this conversation with you in the first place makes me worried, even though I know you really won't do anything to me. As for the ones I'm in contact with online, I'm not really sure. I don't like most of them and they make me sad and I usually do want them to die, but they don't really deserve that, because I'm the one willingly talking to them in the first place. I also kind of depend on them, so I kinda don't want them to go, even though that goes against my morals. I'm sorry if any of my answers kinda seem cryptic or bipolar to each other, I'm still kinda confused on how I feel about this and MAPs in general

It’s interesting how the conflicted way you feel towards MAPs could be partly due to the very social stigma we're all trying to fight against here.

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 12:39 pm Also, I AM an AAM, but not really in the way I'd love other people or how u like minors.

I'm curious: how is it that you think I "like minors"? How would you describe what you understand my feelings to be?

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 12:39 pm Part of me still hates MAPs, and I still don't really trust them. Having this conversation with you in the first place makes me worried, even though I know you really won't do anything to me.
[...]
I'm still kinda confused on how I feel about this and MAPs in general

I agree with FairBlueLove: it might well be that your conflicted feelings are in no small part due to the stigma we're fighting against. Although you should also keep in mind that, as Jim Burton and myself pointed out in your "Aam" thread, the MAAs who are willing to engage in sexually explicit activities with you are less likely to be "high-quality" individuals that genuinely care about you.

The inner conflict you feel seems to have a counterpart in the typical experience of young MAPs. Although I had realized that I was preferentially attracted to younger girls by age 12, I was in denial about being a MAP until age 15, and even then, I hated myself for it. I wanted that part of me to be gone at all costs. I tried to ignore it, to obsessively think about sex and intimacy with adults instead, to use various drugs to suppress my libido. Nothing worked of course. I was intermittently suicidal for years. It took me a long time to reach true self-acceptance and ego-syntonia. It only happened a few months ago, concomitantly with my rejection of the strict anti-contact stance I used to adhere to for a moderate pro-c stance.

Olivia2012 wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 12:39 pm Rape is terrible, and he (the rapist mentioned in the original post) got what he deserved.

This is, in my opinion, your biggest mistake.

The main reason why our society believes that rape is uniquely horrible is that our collective imagination has this idea of female "purity" as something transcendentally valuable, and "robbing" a woman of her "purity" is seen as unthinkably horrific (this is also why female-on-male rape isn't viewed with nearly the same horror, unless it involves an "innocent" boy). This is, however, an essentially religious sentiment, not a rational assessment of harm.

I am extremely familiar with rape trauma syndrome and its effects, considering that my mother has an exceptionally bad case of it. It's the paradigmatic syndrome that led to the understanding of what's now called complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD).

CPTSD is, by definition, a rather terrible and pernicious condition, but there is nothing particularly terrible about CPTSD resulting from rape compared to CPTSD from other causes, such as domestic abuse or war.

Most importantly, it's worth noting that not all cases of rape result in rape trauma syndrome (nor do all cases of domestic violence result in CPTSD for that matter). In fact, only a minority do. If you get beaten once as a child by an authority figure, even very badly, it will doubtless leave a traumatic memory, but it's unlikely to have a pervasive negative impact on your ability to function in everyday life. The same is true with rape. Cases where it results in CPTSD are typically ones where it occurs repeatedly over time and/or as part of broader traumatic circumstances such as an abusive relationship (in my mother's case, both). One-off opportunistic rape by a complete stranger is generally the form of sexual abuse that's easiest to recover from. The harm is comparable in intensity to getting assaulted by a stranger on the bus. Do all perpetrators of assault deserve to die?

In truth, if there's something that makes rape unique among forms of assault, it's not that it's especially harmful (it's not), it's that in some unusual cases, it can cause little or no harm.

What I'm going to tell you here is a very intimate fact about a person I once loved dearly, and I want to emphasize that it's not intended to undermine the legitimacy of the suffering of rape victims, nor condone the actions of the man (I would support putting him in prison).

My ex-girlfriend was once raped. She was 16 or 17, and the man towards the end of his 20s. However, she only realized quite some time after the fact that it had been rape, due to the way her pre-existing rape fetish coloured her interpretation of the experience. Although she said "no", and the man very literally forced himself upon her, it was a pleasant experience for her. She suffered no harm whatsoever, and the man had used a condom. No, she was never abused as a child nor anything of the like. She began having rape fantasies aged 13-14. I did around age 12. Our consensual sex life was, at times, very rapey. We didn't even have a safe word until the disintegration of our relationship in the last 2 years.

There you have it. I'm disgusting, my ex-girlfriend is disgusting. A lot of people are disgusting, in fact, considering that (in the US, but other Western countries show similar results) two-thirds of women and half the men admit to having rape fantasies. This is extremely widespread. In another US study, the proportion of women who have rape fantasies is 62%, with only 9% viewing them as completely aversive ("disgusting").