MAP Forum

I think most people are positive about them here, or at least not negative. I've seen supportive posts dotted around here and there.

As for why people might look down on them, I think it's just a pecking order thing. Everyone that feels the need to justify their existence needs an "At least I'm not them" group. Rapists get to say that hey, at least they didn't fuck a teen; the guy that fucked a teen gets to say hey, at least it wasn't a kid; that guy gets to say, hey at least it wasn't a baby.

Most of the MAPs here want society to be more accepting. The younger you try to get acceptance, the harder it gets.

For example, the easiest argument is to say 17 year olds can consent.

I think hebephilia is more common than pedophilia (consider all those memes about adolescents being more fertile than older women). A regular argument concerning the evolutionary origin of pedophilia that I've made in the past was that this theory doesn't account for those attracted to prepubescent youths*. There are blind spots depending on where your attraction lies, I think.

The inability of babies to speak or make choices, compared to older minors, makes it hard to imagine a sort of intimacy that most hebephiles and pedophiles strongly believe is possible with those within their age of attraction. Usually, the argument hinges on children or early adolescents having much more independence and/or competence than is usually recognized by society. You can't really argue the same for babies.

So, if it doesn't appeal to people and it's impractical, it's understandable why a lot of MAPs don't give nepiophilia much attention.

What do nepiophiles think about activism? Do they argue for the complete abolition of consent? Are they just looking to reduce stigma? I haven't really looked into what nepiophiles say.

*An alternative theory I've posted before, but deleted because I was disturbed by it at the time, had to do with filial cannibalism. Basically, prior to modern agriculture and globalized trade, famines were much more frequent, so families often cannibalized their own youths. Of course, from an evolutionary perspective, this is a trade off; the individuals of a species survive but don't produce another generation of offspring. I speculated that pedophilia is a kind of evolutionary counterweight against filial cannibalism; because we view prepubescents with the affection/concern most feel about mates, we increase the likelihood of infants/children reaching the age of fertility. Consider also prior to modern medicine mothers died frequently to childbirth, as did many children during childhood. Given all these factors, it's not a stretch of the imagination to think there must be something contributing to the well-being of children.

I think most MAPs, myself included, would be very open to being accepting of nepiophiles as fellow human beings, with a right to dignity and compassion. However, few of us would be willing to go as far as to say any sort of sexual intimacy with a baby is acceptable. Much like some MAP allies and anti-contact MAPs do with MAPs in general, we would be open to working on providing safe outlets for the nepiophiles' sexual desires, such as fictional pornography (or perhaps even eventually realistic sex robots, who knows ).

While there is plenty of evidence for harmless adult-baby genital contact in multiple cultures (Tom O'Carroll lists many in Paedophilia: the Radical Case, although he doesn't endorse it), including parents and nurses making use of it for its soothing effects, the issue is that accepting it as a rule undermines the critical importance of the basic line of argumentation typically used by pro-legalization paedophiles & hebephiles: "if no means no, yes ought to mean yes".

PorcelainLark wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 2:58 am A regular argument concerning the evolutionary origin of pedophilia that I've made in the past was that this theory doesn't account for those attracted to prepubescent youths*.

I can think of at least two more theories that are grounded in some empirical evidence:

1. That paedophiles had the social role of caring for neglected children, which is arguably evidenced by the fact that children under 12 who seek out sexual intimacy with adults tend to receive little affection in their family environment. The paedophile thus provides the affection they need, the sexual aspect being secondary to the child but serving as primary motivator for the adult.

2. That paedophiles were effectively tasked with initiating youths to sexuality, which is arguably evidenced by the fact that the very same acts that in sex-negative societies such as ours are characterized as "seduction", "manipulation", or "grooming" of a child by an adult, with an emphasis on the child's "vulnerability", are in sex-positive cultures construed in terms of "guidance", "showing-how", or "initiation".

Theory #1, the most controversial of the two, might apply to nepiophiles. Theory #2 wouldn't.

WavesInEternity wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 4:58 am
I can think of at least two more theories that are grounded in some empirical evidence:

1. That paedophiles had the social role of caring for neglected children, which is arguably evidenced by the fact that children under 12 who seek out sexual intimacy with adults tend to receive little affection in their family environment. The paedophile thus provides the affection they need, the sexual aspect being secondary to the child but serving as primary motivator for the adult.
[...]

Interesting argument. If you could expand on this, it would make an excellent guest blog.

BLueRibbon wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:24 am Interesting argument. If you could expand on this, it would make an excellent guest blog.

Sure. Give me a week or so. Where do I send my draft?

WavesInEternity wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 7:01 pm

BLueRibbon wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 10:24 am Interesting argument. If you could expand on this, it would make an excellent guest blog.

Sure. Give me a week or so. Where do I send my draft?

Awesome.

b.ribbon@map-union.org