MAP Forum

I'm a hebephile and have been for ages but I still see a big difference in pedos, I don't want to judge or anything but could you explain the reasons why prepubescents can consent and why you're correct. It's always been a barrier to me

I'm an exclusive hebephile. I rarely find boys younger than 11 attractive in a sexual sense.

I'd say there's three main reasons you could/ should support pedophiles:
1) Solidarity. The average person doesn't give a fuck if you're a pedophile or hebephile. Why fracture our movement and isolate allies? The gay movement threw boylovers under the bus. Personally, I refuse to do the same to pedophiles, or even nepiophiles.

2) Supporting doesn't mean you need to be pro-c. "I think teens can consent, but pre-teens can't. However being attracted to preteens is just a feeling and feelings aren't illegal".

3) Regarding the ability to preteens to consent to or enjoy sex, including sex contact with adults there is a lot of research that implies it's not as bad as much of what society claims. It's the same "sexceptionalist" views that makes sex "bad for teens" that make sex "bad for kids".

If you want to go through the research https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research has a whole bunch of stuff including regarding prepubescent AMSC.

I personally believe moving to an age of consent of 12 would be a rational middle ground (an unfortunately self-interested stance), but I don't think the research that I'm familiar with absolutely excludes moving it lower.

Konatachan99 wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:14 am I'm a hebephile and have been for ages but I still see a big difference in pedos, I don't want to judge or anything but could you explain the reasons why prepubescents can consent and why you're correct. It's always been a barrier to me

To me, that's like asking "why should I support the LGBT"
cause like them we are born this way..you should love who you want point blank.

And by normie definition, if you're attracted to anything below 18yo, it doesn't matter if you like prepubescent or postpubescence....to them, you're a pedophile, no matter what you try to argue.

Konatachan99 wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:14 am ... could you explain the reasons why prepubescents can consent...

On YouTube, you can find videos of pre-pubescent children skydiving. Did they agree to this themselves, or were they forcibly dragged into a plane and dropped from a height ? They obviously don't mind, don't look scared, don't cry and no one tries to make them jump. If they could agree to a dangerous high jump, then why can't they agree to harmless masturbation ? There you can also find videos of pre-pubescent children playing chess much better than me. It turns out their brains are developed enough to understand ordinary things.

2) Supporting doesn't mean you need to be pro-c. "I think teens can consent, but pre-teens can't. However being attracted to preteens is just a feeling and feelings aren't illegal".

I'd say this has always been my stance, if we're going to keep the current status of pedophilia as part of the dsm then the current treatment makes no sense, it's basically like how we treated neurodivergent people when insane asylums where still a thing.

could you explain the reasons why prepubescents can consent and why you're correct. It's always been a barrier to me

Question for you: Do you believe children are people? If the answer is yes then the question becomes trivial. The only way a person cannot consent is if they are dead or incapacitated. Every person has the capacity to exercise control over their body and to express what they like or dislike. It's really that simple.

Many people say that children are naive, easy to manipulate, and have no sexual desires, and therefore their consent isn't valid. This argument is not consistently applied. If we find an example of an adult who is naive, easy to manipulate, and asexual, our first insitinct isn't to take away their ability to legally consent but to provide resources and find ways to support them towards making healthy choices and avoiding exploitation. What difference does it make what age they are? There are many people like this in the world who may not be the brightest or most mature, and even have the intelligence that puts them on par with a child, and yet even they have the freedom to have sex with who they want. So people are simply choosing to discredit the desires of people under an arbitrary age simply because of ageism and disgust.

If you think it's wrong to deny someone rights based on immutable properties like their sex or ethnicity or race, then you should think it's equally wrong to deny it based on age alone.

I agree that younger people are more vulnerable. The solution to this is to create nuanced laws that protect them against abuse and exploitation, just like there should be laws protecting any vulnerable population from abuse and exploitation. But to say that a person intrinsically does not have the capcacity to give consent - that they cannot express even a basic level of control over their own body - is to reduce them to an object. This is far more immoral than what these laws claim to protect them from. I believe that kids are people first and children second. However, the majority of the world believes that kids are children first and people second. That is how they're able to justify laws that deny their humanity and personhood.

I believe in the principal that if you can avoid the negative consequences of something by being pragmatic and responsible, then that thing should be legally permitted, and it should only be prohibited when responsible decison-making cannot avoid the negative consequences. This applies to everything including sex. Children have guardians, called parents, who are trusted to educate them and protect them from making irresponsible decisions, and to make sure the people around them are trusted individuals. Since sex can be done responsibly in a safe environment with the possible oversight of a guardian, it should be allowed.

I'm personally not a pedophile. I believe if there must be an age of consent, it should be puberty. Puberty is when the law can make a reasonable assumption that a person of that age may have a natural desire to seek out sex with other people. It's the only age that makes sense. But realistically there shouldn't be an age of consent. The concept itself is archaic and problematic.

Children or Adults we are all people, since the day we are born we all have our likes and dislikes, things we want to do and things we do not want to do. So what is the big difference that set them apart? Sexuality? They can not do sexual things because they are not "Sexually mature" or because of their age?

But what about Adult asexual people? Can they consent just because of their age? "They do not feel sexual attraction as Children" but because of the widely accepted age of consent they can consent even when they feel no sexual attraction, so yes they can only consent for their age.

Still Sexual people can start feeling their sexuality at a very young age even before puberty.

As I have seen in my environment people tend to see people who are below them as less incapable than them be it age, money or whatever things one can have more than others, so Adults may see Children less capable than them, but them older Adults may see young Adults less capable than them, but futher than them Eldery People may see Adult less capable than them, older Children may see young Children less capable than them, even a 8 year old may see a 5 year old less capable than them just because he is lower than him in age even they are both "Children", In schools a "Senior" may see a "Junior" less capable than them. But at the end youngest or oldest we are just one thing: A person. And this is one the problem that affects our community but this issue is wider than just sexuality.

I guess by now as a person attracted to the lowest age range there can be I can normally understand everything above, hope some day the understanding is backwards too.

Edit: I did not mention the romantic attraction because consent is often refered to sexual attraction but I think is easier for most to agree that everyone regardless of age can consent to love.

Konatachan99 wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:14 am Can someone educate me on why I should support pedos

Konatachan99 wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:14 am [...] could you explain the reasons why prepubescents can consent and why you're correct. [...]

You have conflated 'supporting paedosexuals' with 'supporting pro-contact.' Those two positions are totally distinct from each other.

You talk about consent... Consent to what? Penetrative intercourse? A kiss on the lips? A hug? The false presumption that all paedosexuals want 'sex' with children is misguided and rooted in prejudice. Many paedosexuals are anti-contact, or they do not even want adult-style 'sex,' realizing that children's bodies may be too small for that. Further, the constant suggestion that paedosexuals only want 'sex' is insulting. Is that all that hebes want? Just 'sex,' and that's all? You have no other issues or areas where you would like to see change??

The interests of minors should always come before the interests of MAPs, regardless of AoA. Contact and consent discourse -- in all its nuance -- naturally plays an important role in that consideration. But if you are motivated into activism primarily by your own sex drive, then I would suggest you're in it for the wrong reasons. (And I would say this to both paedosexuals and hebes).

To answer your question -- Why should you support paedosexuals? Because they want a lot of the same things that hebes do: Legal sexual outlets like fiction, AI images, and dolls. Access to mental health support without fear of being 'outed' by therapists bound by 'mandated reporting' laws. An end to the stigma painting all MAPs as monstrous predators who must be kept away from minors at all cost, etc. Any 'activist' who wants all these things for hebes, but not for paedosexuals, is a complete and utter hypocrite.

And worse still, any 'activist' who would restigmatize one 'classification' of non-offending MAPs in an effort to destigmatize their own preferred group, is a nefarious traitor, who will sow more division than unity for our cause. All non-offending MAPs are wrongly stigmatized, together. We should fight against that stigma together for a more just world, rather than fight against each other for selfish motives.

[

OnionPetal wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 10:18 pm

Konatachan99 wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:14 am Can someone educate me on why I should support pedos

Konatachan99 wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:14 am [...] could you explain the reasons why prepubescents can consent and why you're correct. [...]

You have conflated 'supporting paedosexuals' with 'supporting pro-contact.' Those two positions are totally distinct from each other.

You talk about consent... Consent to what? Penetrative intercourse? A kiss on the lips? A hug? The false presumption that all paedosexuals want 'sex' with children is misguided and rooted in prejudice. Many paedosexuals are anti-contact, or they do not even want adult-style 'sex,' realizing that children's bodies may be too small for that. Further, the constant suggestion that paedosexuals only want 'sex' is insulting. Is that all that hebes want? Just 'sex,' and that's all? You have no other issues or areas where you would like to see change??

The interests of minors should always come before the interests of MAPs, regardless of AoA. Contact and consent discourse -- in all its nuance -- naturally plays an important role in that consideration. But if you are motivated into activism primarily by your own sex drive, then I would suggest you're in it for the wrong reasons. (And I would say this to both paedosexuals and hebes).

To answer your question -- Why should you support paedosexuals? Because they want a lot of the same things that hebes do: Legal sexual outlets like fiction, AI images, and dolls. Access to mental health support without fear of being 'outed' by therapists bound by 'mandated reporting' laws. An end to the stigma painting all MAPs as monstrous predators who must be kept away from minors at all cost, etc. Any 'activist' who wants all these things for hebes, but not for paedosexuals, is a complete and utter hypocrite.

And worse still, any 'activist' who would restigmatize one 'classification' of non-offending MAPs in an effort to destigmatize their own preferred group, is a nefarious traitor, who will sow more division than unity for our cause. All non-offending MAPs are wrongly stigmatized, together. We should fight against that stigma together for a more just world, rather than fight against each other for selfish motives.

True it is really one struggle, society and the media paints us all as together group anyway, most of the time hebephiles will just be called pedo. Any chance at change would obviously be more likely with a bigger support group of all MAPs, AAMs and allies.

On the topic of consent there is ofc many different types of consent, while consent to sex is usually what comes up it's a much bigger issue than that. Arguably an issue stretching beyond MAP discourse and into youth liberation since currently in society minors aren't seen as capable of many choices and are treated like drones. It seems like a big misconception (one I've even had) that MAPs want an abolition of age of consent laws all together, that might be a viewpoint of some but it seems most agree to a reform usually to 12-13, which it is in a few places outside the west and was the age in many western countries historically.

gingedu wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2025 5:23 pm If we find an example of an adult who is naive, easy to manipulate, and asexual

Literally me lmao. I can guarantee you all, though, that I can, in fact, consent. And also no more than I could twenty years ago. As a matter of fact, all the times I regretted consenting were during the past years, so if anything, my judgement has only gotten worse since childhood. But never to the point where I can't make my own decisions.