MAP Forum

Presenting the first 4 paragraphs (out of 10 )of my revised paper of the tile above. Anyone interested in continued reading the rest, they can Visit < https://anticorruptionfight.blogspot.com/> It has its important word emphasis highlighted in bold fonts, which I find difficult inserting in this post.

INTRODUCTION:
Pedophilia and incest are mostly seen as interrelated and are universally condemned as reprehensible human sexual behaviours especially in the western world today. However, historically, these two practices have played the most crucial or indispensable role as most important in the evolution of animal species, survival of the human race throughout their past history. However in our present day media reports, particularly in the academic literatures debates and the paper publications a fragrant disregard or absence of reliable, objective, scientific studies on this topic specially on the pubescent sexual attractions, desires and relations, is a significant obstacle, particularly in the Western world. In this present study I would like to mainly focus on this particular human sexual behaviour and practice branded as pedophilia in west, pertaining to the human sexual attraction and desires towards pubescent sexuality and practices particularly relating to the prepubescent girls.

STIGMA AND BIAS ON PEDOPHILIA RESEARCH:
The heavy stigma attached to so called “pedophilia” sex in modern societies has led to research on the subject, being tainted by biased moral judgment, rendering many of these academic studies pseudoscientific. Consequently, the only viable approach for an unbiased study of these phenomena is to apply Darwinian principles of evolution alongside contemporary game theory. By using these two frameworks combined with the historical records, we can attempt to impartially understand how such behaviours might have contributed to human survival and social development. This method allows us to bypass the moral overlays of modern Western thought, which often label pedophilia not just as a crime but as psychological disorder, deviance paraphilia, perversions etc., thereby creating a skewed perspective on this human sexual behavior. This prejudiced pedophilia research and classification has significantly shaped contemporary medical and legal frameworks, which criminalize pedophilia based on what can be argued as flawed moral, medical, and legal standards deeply rooted in Western culture.

A CRITIQUE OF WESTERN MEDICAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS:
The modern Western medical and legal frameworks that criminalize ‘pedophilia’ are largely built on what can be argued as fraudulent moral, medical, legal standards that are deeply rooted in the modern Western worldview. These corrupt academical standards, exemplified by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), have been highly influential in shaping global health doctrines throughout the 20th century. Their frameworks once used to pathologize behaviours like adultery, prostitution, and homosexuality, including incest even the masturbation, by broadly labelling them as mental disorders, sexual deviations, perversions, paraphilia’s and dysfunctions. Such moral and academical judgments were common throughout the first half of the 20th century, criminalizing a range of human sexual behaviours under the pretext of mental health and societal protection.

SHIFT IN MORAL STANDARDS TO CRIMINALISE PEDOPHILIA
It was during the second half of the 20th century the same academical institutions began to decriminalize and destigmatize practices like adultery, prostitution, and homosexuality, masturbation etc., recognizing these as matters of personal choice rather than moral or mental failings. However, in an ironic twist, they increasingly focused on the prosecution of pubescent sexual behaviours as pedophilia or paraphilia’s, rigorously criminalizing it with the same flowed subjective moral, psychological and medical rhetoric to broadly condemn, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, incest and masturbation etc., now turned it on, what was previously accepted pubescent sexual desires, attractions and relations that were sanctioned as morally good and beneficial to the society. Terms like sexual deviations, perversions, moral degradation, and family dysfunction now repurposed criminalize to enforce these modern prohibitions. This shift in moral standards reveals a hypocritical stance: behaviours once criminalized were gradually normalized, while newly coined terms, like pedophilia, became the focal points of extreme condemnation under similar medical and moral frameworks.

Thank you for sharing your article. You can use the following code to bold your text:
However, we're very happy for you to post links to your blog.

BLueRibbon wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2025 1:48 pm Thank you for sharing your article. You can use the following code to bold your text:

Thank your for you kind and encouraging response.
I have written several other papers (which are completed by delaying it for varrious reasons) on this topic "pedophilia" MAP, but I like to call it as "Prepubescent sexuality."
English not my first language, so sometimes I find it difficult to write everyday conversational expressions or comments, However it seems that I can write papers on topic that interest me fairly which carry me forward in my work. I am of a grand fathers age and from India.
What I want to ask is. I have visited your site ' https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Essay:A_Ca ... _of_Apathy and find those articles very good and interesting. Is there any chance of getting my papers published on that forum? Because I some times I worry they may block or ban my bog that you know http://anticorruptionfight.blogspot.com/ for whatever may be the reason. I don't mind if you say No. Please pardon me If you find my response to the MAP posts delayed due to our diffrent time zone also for my poor memory and time problems.
You are free to ask any question about me.

I think the argument might be stronger if it focused on the stigmatization of pedophilia as an aspect of sex-negativity rather than something "Western".

Consequently, the only viable approach for an unbiased study of these phenomena is to apply Darwinian principles of evolution alongside contemporary game theory.

Both of these ideas are also Western.

In ancient Rome and Greece, girls married shortly after puberty, with examples like Julia the Elder in Rome and Spartan practices. Medieval Europe saw child marriages among nobility, such as Margaret Beaufort in England (1455) married at 12 and gave birth at the age of 13 to King Henry VII , while the Church set marriage ages at 12 for girls and 14 for boys.

These are Western examples.

In Islamic societies, early marriages were common, exemplified by Aisha’s marriage to Muhammad, and the Ottoman Empire used child marriages for political alliances. Hindu and South Asian traditions promoted child marriage to ensure purity and familial ties, while imperial China and feudal Japan married girls in their early teens for familial and social stability. Native American tribes and African societies also practiced early marriage as part of cultural rites. In Renaissance Europe and colonial America, girls often married in their mid-teens, reflecting societal norms.

I don't know if child marriage really says much about pedophilia itself. For example, if marriages are strategic they aren't primarily concerned with attraction. I think a stronger argument would concern the specific tolerance of AMSC itself (e.g. tolerance of child prostitution).

This historical context challenges the modern Western perspective, suggesting that the stigmatization of prepubescent sexual behaviors, labelling it as pedophilia offence, is not an eternal moral absolute but a relatively recent development influenced by changing cultural and ideological norms.

Is there evidence for this? As far as I'm aware hebephilia, both in the context of marriage and prostitution, was historically more acceptable, but I don't recall seeing much evidence for the tolerance of pedophilia.

To emphasize the previous point further, applying it to the modern holy family concerns protecting family members from the outside influence of deviant predatory sexuality.

The term familialism might be useful here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familialism

If a modern adherents of ethical family values thinks that the decriminalization of adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, masturbation, do not pose any threats to their mothers, sisters, wives, or children

I wouldn't say the majority of people support prostitution.

However views pedophilia as uniquely catastrophic to their children below 18, makes them truly hypocritic. The double standards of this selective moral outrage and condemnation reveals a prejudiced emotional reaction rather than a coherent ethical principle. True legal consistency demands either the uniform criminalization of all such behaviours or the recognition that societal perceptions, rather than inherent harm, dictate the unique demonization of prepubescent sexual behaviours as pedophilia.

I'll try to steelman and then provide a rebuttal to this argument.

1. Sexual exploitation, harassment, and coercion do exist. Adult women have to deal with the threat of sexual violence. Hence there is an issue with sexual predation in society.
2. Children are more vulnerable than adults. Being physically weaker, dependent on adults, and having less experience, they are more vulnerable to sexual predation than adults.
3. Therefore AMSC needs to be prevented in order to protect children.

While 1 and 2 are correct, 3 doesn't follow. While allowing AMSC may increase the risk of sexual predation, it doesn't mean AMSC is inherently harmful. The question is, is the trade off worth it? Consider an alternative world, one in where people could be open about AM relations. Communities and families could know when those relationships are happening and get a clearer picture of if things are going wrong.

Why would a MAP be private about their attraction, if they could be public? And if they were public, wouldn't they be more accountable to society than they otherwise would be? In other words, decriminalizing AM relations could potentially make it easier to weed out people who do actually predate on children, just as the legalization of homosexuality made it easier to weed out men that would predate on other men.

PorcelainLark wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2025 10:18 pm I think the argument might be stronger if it focused on the stigmatization of pedophilia as an aspect of sex-negativity rather than something "Western".

Thank you, I would like to take your critical reviews positively. I wish I had people like you to help me in writing my papers.
Having said that, let me address your concerns within my limited capacity, in this writing.
In my opinion the term "pedophilia" has very negative connotations to stigmatize prepubescent/pubescent sexuality specially in the mainstream media. Therefore I like to prefer the first mentioned (prepuberscent sexuality) minor or child” centric view unlike the “adult” centric sexuality narratives used commonly as pedophilia. When you do so, I believe, it will change the entire conversations on this human sexual behavioural topic and make it more understandable in the society.

Your comment on my use of the word “Western” as not being applied appropriately. Many times I attach the adjective “modern” to make more sense in the given context. It does not mean that I denary any of the western scientific, technological and ideological contribution. Nevertheless, it has its own share of negative value contribution towards the world today.
---------Perhaps I use the term pedophilia broadly which also include the so called hebephilia. ------I did not say majority of people support pedophilia. My contentions is that they don’t see it as posing any real threat to their family members.----- in my entire paper I did not say AMSC is inherently harmful. On the contrary I personally agree with your argument provided the rule no 1&2 are followed.
I do not pretend that I addressed all your critique to my paper but I attempted to do my best.

Valerian wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 6:23 am Thank you, I would like to take your critical reviews positively. I wish I had people like you to help me in writing my papers.

No trouble, hopefully it's constructive.

In my opinion the term "pedophilia" has very negative connotations to stigmatize prepubescent/pubescent sexuality specially in the mainstream media. Therefore I like to prefer the first mentioned (prepuberscent sexuality) minor or child” centric view unlike the “adult” centric sexuality narratives used commonly as pedophilia. When you do so, I believe, it will change the entire conversations on this human sexual behavioural topic and make it more understandable in the society.

Ah, focusing on child liberation, if I understand you correctly?

Your comment on my use of the word “Western” as not being applied appropriately. Many times I attach the adjective “modern” to make more sense in the given context.

Initially, I had thought to suggest the issue was modernity rather than sex-negativity.

It does not mean that I denary any of the western scientific, technological and ideological contribution. Nevertheless, it has its own share of negative value contribution towards the world today.

Certainly, the West isn't beyond criticism, however it seems slightly contradictory to, on the one hand, use the term "Western" in a broad sense, and on the other, contrast it with other viewpoints which are arguably Western. Typically, the argument against the "Western" come either from a religious perspective (e.g. Western culture is godless, immoral) or from a communist perspective (e.g. Western culture is too individualistic, materialistic). The focus on evolution and game theory is often criticized by communists as being individualistic and biologically deterministic (although you can probably find exceptions). Evolutionary psychology tends to be associated with slightly more conservative views in Western culture (a good example is Steven Pinker).

I don't know if you're already familiar but you might be interested in John Maynard Smith, since he seems to be the major figure in applying game theory to evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Smith

---------Perhaps I use the term pedophilia broadly which also include the so called hebephilia. ------I did not say majority of people support pedophilia. My contentions is that they don’t see it as posing any real threat to their family members.----- in my entire paper I did not say AMSC is inherently harmful.

Fair enough, my main concern is that MAPs in general tend to conflate hebephilia with pedophilia, which can lead to a lack of clarity.

On the contrary I personally agree with your argument provided the rule no 1&2 are followed.

Sorry if there was ambiguity. When I said steelman, I meant I was trying to imagine the strongest version of the anti-contact position rather than express my own viewpoint.

I do not pretend that I addressed all your critique to my paper but I attempted to do my best.

That's OK, hopefully some of it was useful to you.