MAP Forum

I think it's illegal as a way to exploit and incarcerate people.

Not all children are harmed, and not all is done through grooming or coercion. Kids such as myself took nude photos, posed erotically and flirted with the would-be viewer. No manipulation at all. just kids being curious and in my case, very slutty!

If this kind of thing were legal, prisons and therapists would lose untold amounts of money. Banning CP that depicts harm of a youth is good, but not good enough. If they can't apply it to ALL forms of CP even if it is consensual and no one is getting hurt, there's a huge missed opportunity to arrest and make money off of exploiting an entire demographic of individuals who are not harming anyone, so they make all of it illegal to make us easy targets. If we have no outlet we may even be more likely to offend, thus the cycle continues...

Plus it's been my experience that antis see MAPs as "adult" children, immature, childish and stupid. So if they also desire to control children, then adults who like children, and dare LOVE them and even understnad things the way they do should be lumped in with criminals for exploitation. However arresting children would also appear predatory so they go for the adults instead...yet imprisonment of kids does begin at home, and in schools, effectively setting them up for a lifetime of being easy to manipulate. Think about that for a while...

However if we look at it through historical lens there are other reasons. In many societies nudity around children or even with children was seen as natural and normal, even encouraged in some societies. This leads people to be more relaxed and docile, but since people who desire control thrive off of chaos, making these acts illegal and being punishable by torture and death creates distress and fear, dividing people and making them easier to manipulate because they're so burdened by helicopter parenting, shame society, body negativity, sexual suppression, etc.

It makes for people who do whatever they can to stave off their instincts but some break, and then they got em. Then they gradually introduce new rules, policies and laws to make it even more controlling, such as raising AoC from 7 to 10 to 15, then 18, and now even 21 to 25!

oolhlh2 wrote: Tue Feb 17, 2026 3:44 am

BLueRibbon wrote: Mon Feb 16, 2026 3:24 am No. That is wildly dangerous, not just gross.

With claims of harm from AMSC, it is difficult to distinguish between inherent harm and secondary harm (resulting from sociolegal responses).

Yeah I guess harm is subjective. I hate how subjective morals are. Most of the time, morals are decided based on how people feel. For example, while I don't do it myself, I don't think that necrophilia is morally wrong, yet it is illegal in a lot of countries and can get you on the sex offender registry I would imagine.

Another thing is that I feel like there are double standards when it comes to certain sexual acts. I remember there being a Reddit discussion about the objectification of women being immoral for celebrities. This involved demonizing private communities who goon over adults like K-pop idols on say 4chan or something. I understand the disgust, but targeting such communities feels like a witch hunt.

I personally think that AMSC is harmful as I believe that there are valid harms and I consider body fluid exchange to be valid enough for consent to be required, but arguing with you guys is like arguing with the religious as to why their religion is just just-world fallacy bullshit. Democracy fucking sucks.

The thing is, like with any other relationships, AMSC can be harmful, but not inherently harmful. That is just a fact and reality as per empirical evidence and studies the coincide with the empirical evidence.

Now, to address your main point about how kids should not engage in sexual activity with adults due to them not being able to consent. The truth of the matter is that kids of nearly all ages are capable of consenting to sexual activity with whom they desire. If a kid wanted to express/explore the feelings that he/she may have for the adult friend, and the adult reciprocates that back, that is by definition mutual consent.

However, in your case, you seem like you are arguing on the side of informed consent and due to their "underdeveloped" brains or for whatever reason you believe that makes them unable to give consent, to you, that is exploitive and thus abusive. There are a few problems with this common argument I here all the time in debates.

For one, let's address the "underdeveloped" brain part. This is by far the most flawed but the most used in debates against AMSC. The critical and core thing you have to understand about brain development is that it's not linear in terms of fixed biological stages of the brain other than the prenatal phase of brain development, it's mostly experienced driven and dependent on one's own experiences that shape their brain. Go refer to my post I made here: https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=3271. This saves me a lot of time trying to explain this.

Two, kids can easily understand the consequences of sexual activity easily. Kids engage in activities that are more complex and dangerous than sexual activity such as riding on motorized vehicles such as dirtbikes and shooting firearms. Both of these things not only require great knowledge, foreknowledge, impulse control, but are very lethal. Yeah, you could say that the adult is the one supervising and teaching them, but that is with anything and everyone. Nobody knows all of the possible outcomes of what they're doing for the first time, we are all taught from the experiences we undergo either from something or someone. The thing is, kids can demonstrate engaging in activities that are far more dangerous and complex such as dirtbikes and firearms but can't consent to something that is less harmful and less complex such as sexual activity that is natural and innate in us from a very young age. That is by definition, hypocrisy.

Lastly, the power dynamic argument. Many people believe AMSC is inherently harmful because of the power dynamics or imbalances involved. A power imbalance can be in the form of social status, financial status, maturity/knowledge gap, physical capabilities, etc. While it is true that there tends to be a power imbalance between an adult and kid depending on how old or young the kid is mainly in terms of maturity/knowledge gap, power imbalances alone is not what makes such an interaction/relationship inherently exploitive/abusive, it's the abuse of that power that makes it abusive and thus, breaks the law of mutuality.

If we were to go by that same notion that power imbalances makes such interactions abusive, then a parent administrating medication to their child or a doctor performing surgery on a patient is exploitive since both the people in higher positions such as the parent and the doctor possess greater knowledge on what they're doing than the kid or patient that they could use to easily exploit them. Yes, you could say that the difference between that and a sexual interaction between a kid and adult is that the former is for the best interest of the patient or child and is more beneficial, and the latter is not beneficial and unnecessary, but that does not change the core logic being used; under that same notion, they are all exploitive/abusive as a result. Hence why this logic is flawed and the whole power dynamic argument as a whole is flawed.

Anyways, that is just a very summarized version of what I'm working on in my paper and my points.

Brain O'Conner wrote: Wed Feb 18, 2026 4:13 am The thing is, like with any other relationships, AMSC can be harmful, but not inherently harmful. That is just a fact and reality as per empirical evidence and studies the coincide with the empirical evidence.

Now, to address your main point about how kids should not engage in sexual activity with adults due to them not being able to consent. The truth of the matter is that kids of nearly all ages are capable of consenting to sexual activity with whom they desire. If a kid wanted to express/explore the feelings that he/she may have for the adult friend, and the adult reciprocates that back, that is by definition mutual consent.

However, in your case, you seem like you are arguing on the side of informed consent and due to their "underdeveloped" brains or for whatever reason you believe that makes them unable to give consent, to you, that is exploitive and thus abusive. There are a few problems with this common argument I here all the time in debates.

For one, let's address the "underdeveloped" brain part. This is by far the most flawed but the most used in debates against AMSC. The critical and core thing you have to understand about brain development is that it's not linear in terms of fixed biological stages of the brain other than the prenatal phase of brain development, it's mostly experienced driven and dependent on one's own experiences that shape their brain. Go refer to my post I made here: https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?t=3271. This saves me a lot of time trying to explain this.

Two, kids can easily understand the consequences of sexual activity easily. Kids engage in activities that are more complex and dangerous than sexual activity such as riding on motorized vehicles such as dirtbikes and shooting firearms. Both of these things not only require great knowledge, foreknowledge, impulse control, but are very lethal. Yeah, you could say that the adult is the one supervising and teaching them, but that is with anything and everyone. Nobody knows all of the possible outcomes of what they're doing for the first time, we are all taught from the experiences we undergo either from something or someone. The thing is, kids can demonstrate engaging in activities that are far more dangerous and complex such as dirtbikes and firearms but can't consent to something that is less harmful and less complex such as sexual activity that is natural and innate in us from a very young age. That is by definition, hypocrisy.

Lastly, the power dynamic argument. Many people believe AMSC is inherently harmful because of the power dynamics or imbalances involved. A power imbalance can be in the form of social status, financial status, maturity/knowledge gap, physical capabilities, etc. While it is true that there tends to be a power imbalance between an adult and kid depending on how old or young the kid is mainly in terms of maturity/knowledge gap, power imbalances alone is not what makes such an interaction/relationship inherently exploitive/abusive, it's the abuse of that power that makes it abusive and thus, breaks the law of mutuality.

If we were to go by that same notion that power imbalances makes such interactions abusive, then a parent administrating medication to their child or a doctor performing surgery on a patient is exploitive since both the people in higher positions such as the parent and the doctor possess greater knowledge on what they're doing than the kid or patient that they could use to easily exploit them. Yes, you could say that the difference between that and a sexual interaction between a kid and adult is that the former is for the best interest of the patient or child and is more beneficial, and the latter is not beneficial and unnecessary, but that does not change the core logic being used; under that same notion, they are all exploitive/abusive as a result. Hence why this logic is flawed and the whole power dynamic argument as a whole is flawed.

Anyways, that is just a very summarized version of what I'm working on in my paper and my points.

I consider sex to be more harmful than dirtbikes or child labor as there is the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and that it involves the exchange of body fluids. The other examples you mention are necessary evils and even that is debated. There are people who think that children shouldn't be allowed to have transgender surgery because they aren't mentally developed enough to understand the consequences.

As someone proudly attracted to very small female children. I already made my stance clear last time that prepubescents should not be having sex due to lack of hormones and their brain's sexual reward pathways being activated involuntarily while disregarding/debunking feminist power dynamics. I used my personal anecdote of prepubescent me being sexually attracted to Tales from Sonic the hedgehog, Spongebob characters and the fantasy of going back into my mummies tummy or the abstract concept of a vagina as holes, that is what I masturbated too before puberty. It wasn't till post puberty at 11 that I had a concrete libido for female body parts because of the hormones. If I was prepubescent I would have not understood much about attraciton, and would have in retrospect considered it abuse for someone to trick me into penis stimulation on them or me. Though I do admit post puberty I would have known what I want.

I insist we seperate 1) penis/sex toy/tongue contact prepubescent child porn from 2) non contact softcore prepubescent child porn which I see as a huge ethical difference. I don't even care that hardcore child porn is illegal. Like I said before I think softcore non nude prepubescent bikini/swimwear/lingerie modeling porn should be legal ages 2 and up, and starting at age 14-15 I think hardcore no restricitons sexual contact porn should be legal or maybe whenever hit tanner stage 5.

Regarding law if I had my absolute will.

Hardcore child porn under 14-13.5 should only be legal in private with distribution production and selling illegal

Softcore modeling child porn should be 100% legal and regulated for safety, no license but governments should just make sure kids are safe

I just wish that Russian and Asian swim shop wear bikini catalog websites were 100% legal without grey areas in the the US/UK/AU/Nordic countries. Because these anti CP laws are extremely broad and cover far more then just contact sex on little kids. Kids wearing bikinis trigger the same laws too if they pose in certain ways such as putting their butt in the camera. But over all I am happy with what I have. I really appreciate knowing I can exercise my libido towards very small girls ages 3-5 via using swim shopping websites where little children are in safe happy conditions playing in attractive swimwear. I have never felt the need to escalate to hardcore clearly illegal abuse content or anything with men interacting with them sexually. but I do admit I constantly need to seek out new girls to get reward of novelty, and the way it works is every year or so the swimwear websites update with several dozens of new girls so I am good bouncing between swimshop websites.

One thing I want to stress is that people who masturbate to aged 2.5 to 5 year old girls very frequently like me are not all the same and I'm tired of being lumped in with twisted individuals who need help. I hope I don't offend anyone (actually I don't) but people who masturbate to little children being sexually assaulted by men (defined as penis contact) seems deeply unethical to me, I am not using disgust and the feeling of yuck as an argument because normies often try to shut down conversations just by saying "THATS DISGUSTING" and disgust as an excuse to ban things they don't like. But rather I'm pointing out that the child's natural rights were violated by them not comprehending what is going on, and that they lack hormones to understand mutual sexual attraction back towards the adult using his penis or a sexual stimulation toy on the child. When I am masturbating to chinese little girls aged 3-5 on a swimwear catalog website, it isn't unethical because I'm just appreciating their bodies which my brain's reward pathways are fixed too. The content I watch are little girls in swimwear and they are playing and having fun with sometimes their mom present dolling them up and giving them toys to play with. That really turns me on seeing them in really cute circumstances. Is radically different then a mentally unwell individual masturbating to toddlers 2.5-5) being raped by empathy-less man on the darknet. It makes me very sad when LE brings up cases like that and I get lumped in with it.

When I look at little asian toddlers (or any race) I realize they are very small developing human beigns with rights and dignity. Finding them extremely attractive and wanting to kiss and cuddle them is just how my brain's pleasure system works and giving into it ethically feels so much better then fighting it.

oolhlh2 wrote: Wed Feb 18, 2026 12:32 pm I consider sex to be more harmful than dirtbikes or child labor as there is the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and that it involves the exchange of body fluids. The other examples you mention are necessary evils and even that is debated. There are people who think that children shouldn't be allowed to have transgender surgery because they aren't mentally developed enough to understand the consequences.

That literally makes no sense what's so ever. Do you understand how dangerous a firearm is or a motorized vehicle? The reason why they can be very dangerous because with a dirtbike you can easily get injured and die by busting your head open or damaging other vital parts of the body. It can be very life changing and threatening. With a firearm, which is a lot more dangerous than sex can ever be, you can easily blow your or someone else's brains out. It's that simple. Yes, STD's can be dangerous and life threatening, but they are not only treatable, but easily preventable by pulling out, doing a non-penetrative sexual activity, or simply wearing protection. Like I said before, kids can easily understand the consequences of sex since they understand far more complex things than that which I clearly already demonstrated in my previous post. It's nice to debate someone with an opposing view though, but what you said just makes no sense. Your argument just doesn't hold up well and you haven't refuted anything I've said. And what do you mean by necessary evils in my previous examples? That makes no sense as that has nothing to do with an evils being lesser. I'm not sure what your referring to.

Brain O'Conner wrote: Wed Feb 18, 2026 7:51 pm That literally makes no sense what's so ever. Do you understand how dangerous a firearm is or a motorized vehicle? The reason why they can be very dangerous because with a dirtbike you can easily get injured and die by busting your head open or damaging other vital parts of the body. It can be very life changing and threatening. With a firearm, which is a lot more dangerous than sex can ever be, you can easily blow your or someone else's brains out. It's that simple. Yes, STD's can be dangerous and life threatening, but they are not only treatable, but easily preventable by pulling out, doing a non-penetrative sexual activity, or simply wearing protection. Like I said before, kids can easily understand the consequences of sex since they understand far more complex things than that which I clearly already demonstrated in my previous post. It's nice to debate someone with an opposing view though, but what you said just makes no sense. Your argument just doesn't hold up well and you haven't refuted anything I've said. And what do you mean by necessary evils in my previous examples? That makes no sense as that has nothing to do with an evils being lesser. I'm not sure what your referring to.

Sex is still disgusting. Raping someone is like injecting someone's vomit in your veins. Most people wouldn't be very happy if someone did that to them without them being fully aware of it, hence why fucking toddlers is fucked up.

oolhlh2 wrote: Wed Feb 18, 2026 11:50 pm Sex is still disgusting. Raping someone is like injecting someone's vomit in your veins. Most people wouldn't be very happy if someone did that to them without them being fully aware of it, hence why fucking toddlers is fucked up.

I wasn't really referring to toddlers, but okay. Even if a toddler, say, 3 years old was involved, if he/she had sexual feelings that they wanted to explore/express, or simply just curiosity, and the adult reciprocating that back with pleasurable stimuli, then that is mutual consent. It seems as though nothing I said went through your head and didn't bother reading my previous post that I linked to you about brain development. Anyways, my main point wasn't really about toddlers in general, but nearly all ages of minors, especially ones that have sexual feelings and desires starting around middle childhood between 6-10 years old on average. But oh well. It seems as though nothing is getting through with you. You think sex is disgusting and having mutual contact between an adult and minor of nearly any age is rape, then that is your prerogative I guess.

Brain O'Conner wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 12:34 am But oh well. It seems as though nothing is getting through with you. You think sex is disgusting and having mutual contact between an adult and minor of nearly any age is rape, then that is your prerogative I guess.

I'm sorry that I don't support your desire to stick your gross genitals in a child lol

oolhlh2 wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 1:38 am I'm sorry that I don't support your desire to stick your gross genitals in a child lol

Who ever said anything about sticking genitals in a child? Who ever said sexual contact between an adult and minor of nearly any age has to be penetration? The rule of thumb to follow to do what both parties find pleasurable regardless of type of sexual contact they may engage in. But anyway, I addressed your point about AMSC being inherently harmful and you not once refuted anything I've said; you just relied on emotional response. But then again, that's your prerogative. If you think I'm gross or a bad person, I could care less. Your flawed opinion means nothing to me.