MAP Forum

LABELLING CONSENSUAL ADULT-CHILD INTIMATE BODY CONTACT AS CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

Let us undertake a thorough, unbiased scientific inquiry into Adult Minor Sexual Contact a highly sensitive legal issue under the jurisdiction of Child Protection laws. This concerns a vital social aspect of a child’s growth and healthy developmental progress into adulthood. I refer it as “Adult-Child Intimate Consensual Body Contact”. Yet, this category of human behavior is frequently stigmatized as Child-grooming and criminalized under the label of Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) laws based on the presumption that it is inherently harmful to children due to the so-called “imbalance of power”. This labelling persists regardless of whether the contact involves the child’s own parents or other caring adults, mentors who have been genuinely concerned in the child’s well-being, all round development whom the child would offer unconditional love or affection.

Scientific research findings in the field of early childhood sexual development, converging into the stages of Adrenarche, progressing to Gonadarche culminating in Puberty around age 12 driven by adrenal glands and pituitary axis, reveals that children can naturally experience sexual pleasures and engage in its intimate body contact, behaviours that can be generally interpreted as sexual abuse activities by the CSA standards such as playing with the intimate part of their bodies, interest about natural body functions and most importantly their curiosity of secretly wanting to see and touch others forbidden bodies parts covered under the cloths, self-stimulation or mutual stimulation with others, all of which considered as normal part of child development observed across cultures from the ancient past also scientifically accepted today as the normal aspect of healthy childhood sexual development. Most important point is, young children fundamentally do not see a consensual, intimate body contact with adults as different or undesirable as suggested under the CAS laws. Children, naturally prefer to have older adults intimate body contact than of their same age. On the other hand children make their own decisions for allowing anyone getting closer to them or making their body contact, unlike the adults, they do not tolerate or protest loudly if anyone contact or touch their bodies unless they consent to it. However, the CAS laws blindly stigmatize all of it it as Child Grooming or child molestations to suit their law enforcement prosecution and conviction narratives.

Moreover, due to the prevailing pseudoscientific Child Sexual Abuse doctrines the laws completely ignore all these above-mentioned scientific facts, studies on child sexually, treating children as totally some sexless objects, which eventually leads to the prohibition and total control over the children sexuality. In my Preliminary research paper titled;” PEDOPHILIA CRIMINAL OFFENCE CSA LAWS BUILT ON MORALLY BANKRUPT WESTERN PSEDOSCEINCES”, published in my <anticorruptionfight.blogpost.com> and fully posted in this MAP forum, I explain this subject in extensive details to demonstrate Child Sexual Abuse laws founded on unscientific Pseudoscience.

Under the influence of these pseudoscientific doctrine’s children in modern societies in general have been taught it is wrong to engage in any kind of sexual activities and brainwashed to feel shameful and bad also guilty about their body parts, its natural sexual desires, including the thinking, fantasising and exploring and experiencing their intimate body sexual pleasures with others specially with adults that has been totally supressed. In the name of child protection sex education, they have been indoctrinated into believing sexual desires are wicked that they should not have none of it, the “bad body touching” only bad people do it. Therefore, it is their duty to point out anyone who latter made them to feel guilty about any such touch without understanding its law consequences. By the way, if you extent this pseudoscience doctrine to our human ancestors times, that we still see its remnants in today’s ancient indigenous tribal communities, people who live in remote places, the intimate adult child body contact remains an essential part of their child development into sexual maturity system. However, it can be viewed as a gross sexual violation under the CAS laws therefore labelled as child rape cultures.

The CSA criminal laws rooted in the Judeo-Christian sexual morality, considers any desires for intimate body contact between adults and children are basically wicked and inherently harmful for the minors. Under this doctrine, the younger the individual gets the more severe the sexual contact results in harming them. These laws basically ignore the objective reality of the young child’s natural desire and longing for compassionate and body contact with the adults. Consensual, intimate body contact is a basic need essential for healthy natural development of the child from the infant to the adolescents’ years. Instead, these CSA laws, grounded in the Age of Consent laws founded in the middle age Victorian era of sexual morality which have been upgraded in the modern age as CSA laws; declares anyone below the age of 18 is a child therefore incapable of having sexual consent. The main reason given for the criminalization is; “imbalance of power”, which does not stand critical scientific scrutiny since there exists number of adult-child intimate relations with child’s participation in adults activities in the life of adults and children that should also very much qualify under adult child “Imbalance of Power” dynamic but completely excused for the political convenience.

Meanwhile, the behavioural science medical academic research scholars incentivised by the lucrative research grants, come forward to testify in support political as well legal establishments CSA laws. They justify all these AoC related criminal laws by swearing that; even the compassionate, consensual sexual relations between adult with minor is inherently harmful, endorsing legal establishments fabricated doctrine that considers finally, even the viewing or having in possession of children’s nude body images, consensual sexual expression, activities known as CP is inherently harmful therefore criminal act under the CSA law. Declaring such act of viewing, ultimate results in what they describe as; “Neurodevelopmental Disruption, Distorted Sexual Development, Loss of Autonomy and Consent, Guilt and Shame, psychological trauma Social Dysfunction in the child”.

However, none of these inherent Neurological, psychological trauma irretrievable harm research evidences scientifically collected from the available hundreds of thousands of children involved in CP who have been pushed into underground due to its criminalization, nevertheless continue to participate in the performance of pornography having huge financial rewards or those who grown up and become adults at present. In a child sex decriminalized situation, they would prove no such “neurological” or “psychological” harm or trauma between child adult body sexual contact instead the participants will claim in general that these sexual experiences had rather enriched their lives. Therefore, most of the legal and academic clinical research turn to people who have been threatened or criminalization of the sexual offence, imprisoned or hospitalized thereby coerced into giving dishonest or unreliable statements with the promise of getting lighter sentences or other benefits forms todays legal establishments CSA foundational evidential documents.

Let me apply CSA laws in a Nudist family situation which is legal in most Western societies today. Children raised in nudist families provide testimonies that growing up nudist given them enormous advantage and benefits in thier life. However, imagine a hypothetical reverse situation a society, where the social or cultural movement of nudist family declared illegal due to its so called “imbalance of power” factor between adult and children and making claims that it causes various kinds of neurological and psychological change that damages their brain development. Also incentivise testimonies including giving publicities that support the establishments views. All of a sudden there will be many will come forward with testimonies, specially those adults who have been raised in nudist families, narrating how they have been sexually abused by their parent and other adults which they have come to realize now. It is like the ME-TOO movement visited again.

Scrutinizing the human’s childhood years of longing and intense sexual desires for intimate body contact that many if not most adults still remember being supressed and repressed in their childhood years, is nevertheless critical for advancing unbiased, objective research in human sexual behavior and child development. Scientific frameworks for the child’s wholesome physical and mental yearning for intimate sexual body contact, go far beyond simplistic categorizations of CSA based solely on adult child imbalance of power dynamics. Children do not fundamentally differentiate between Adult Minor Intimate Body Contact from Adult Minor Sexual Contact much as long as it remains within the affectionate compassionate, consensual boundaries. Therefore, one should incorporate physical violence harm pain injury or threat fear of humiliation resulting in trauma of as the necessary criteria in determining the CSA and not to interpret the child’s natural willingness to participate in consensual adult-child intimate body contact as Child Sexual Abuse. Developing such nuanced, evidence-based criteria is essential for protecting children while enabling a truthful, respectful understanding of the complex realities of adult-child intimate relationships.

Valerian wrote: Thu May 15, 2025 12:58 pm I refer it as “Adult-Child Intimate Consensual Body Contact”.

I'd recommend using the term "willing" instead of "consensual." Unfortunately, people equivocate between the legal definition of consent (which is tautological), and moral general sense of consent relating to agency. So, if you argue that minors can willingly participate in sexual acts, they retreat behind definitions of consent that involve being informed (despite the fact that sex education and knowledge of STDs aren't taken as necessary conditions for a legal right to enter sexual relations, for legally defined "adults"), being "of age," and so on.

Children, naturally prefer to have older adults intimate body contact than of their same age.

This seems strange. Could you elaborate?

Moreover, due to the prevailing pseudoscientific Child Sexual Abuse doctrines the laws completely ignore all these above-mentioned scientific facts, studies on child sexually, treating children as totally some sexless objects, which eventually leads to the prohibition and total control over the children sexuality.

Isn't it the other way around? The authorities turn a blind eye to the evidence because they don't want the public backlash of supporting a reduction of the age of consent? As opposed to ignoring the evidence leading to the backlash.

In my Preliminary research paper titled;” PEDOPHILIA CRIMINAL OFFENCE CSA LAWS BUILT ON MORALLY BANKRUPT WESTERN PSEDOSCEINCES”, published in my <anticorruptionfight.blogpost.com> and fully posted in this MAP forum, I explain this subject in extensive details to demonstrate Child Sexual Abuse laws founded on unscientific Pseudoscience.

Would you consider correcting the word "pseudosciences" in the title? Also, "unscientific Pseudoscience" is redundant.

Under the influence of these pseudoscientific doctrine’s children in modern societies in general have been taught it is wrong to engage in any kind of sexual activities and brainwashed to feel shameful and bad also guilty about their body parts, its natural sexual desires, including the thinking, fantasising and exploring and experiencing their intimate body sexual pleasures with others specially with adults that has been totally supressed.

This feels anachronistic. I think most pediatricians and developmental psychologists, at least in Western countries, will tell you that children "playing doctors" or touching their own genitals is perfectly normal and healthy. Yet there is a double bind, on the one hand sexuality is treated as healthy in the abstract, while on the other hand the inherent tendencies towards intergenerational sexual interest has to be strictly prevented. The bulk of the people you're attracted to, growing up, are going to include people older and younger than you. You are supposed to be able to be comfortable with your sexuality, yet a large portion of your sexuality is completely unacceptable.

The main reason given for the criminalization is; “imbalance of power”, which does not stand critical scientific scrutiny since there exists number of adult-child intimate relations with child’s participation in adults activities in the life of adults and children that should also very much qualify under adult child “Imbalance of Power” dynamic but completely excused for the political convenience.

To play devil's advocate, you can say, just because there may be sexual relationships between adults and children where the adult respects the will of the child, it doesn't follow that all or even the majority would respect the will of the child. The difference is, education or parenting can be argued to be for the good of the child, while sexual relations are at least in part for the pleasure of the adult. Finally, sexual relations are usually private matters, so accountability is more difficult than in the context of teaching.

In a child sex decriminalized situation, they would prove no such “neurological” or “psychological” harm or trauma between child adult body sexual contact instead the participants will claim in general that these sexual experiences had rather enriched their lives.

You can't prove a negative.

Therefore, most of the legal and academic clinical research turn to people who have been threatened or criminalization of the sexual offence, imprisoned or hospitalized thereby coerced into giving dishonest or unreliable statements with the promise of getting lighter sentences or other benefits forms todays legal establishments CSA foundational evidential documents.

I think the term you're looking for is "selection bias."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

Let me apply CSA laws in a Nudist family situation which is legal in most Western societies today. Children raised in nudist families provide testimonies that growing up nudist given them enormous advantage and benefits in thier life. However, imagine a hypothetical reverse situation a society, where the social or cultural movement of nudist family declared illegal due to its so called “imbalance of power” factor between adult and children and making claims that it causes various kinds of neurological and psychological change that damages their brain development. Also incentivise testimonies including giving publicities that support the establishments views. All of a sudden there will be many will come forward with testimonies, specially those adults who have been raised in nudist families, narrating how they have been sexually abused by their parent and other adults which they have come to realize now. It is like the ME-TOO movement visited again.

This comparison doesn't quite work. Forcing a person to perform a sexual act using power, for example a person forcing another to to fellate them in order for a promotion, is different from social nudism, because the person using their authority to get sexual pleasure is different from people who choose to be naked together for non-sexual purposes. There's no benefit being extracted, against the other party's will.

Scientific frameworks for the child’s wholesome physical and mental yearning for intimate sexual body contact, go far beyond simplistic categorizations of CSA based solely on adult child imbalance of power dynamics. Children do not fundamentally differentiate between Adult Minor Intimate Body Contact from Adult Minor Sexual Contact much as long as it remains within the affectionate compassionate, consensual boundaries. Therefore, one should incorporate physical violence harm pain injury or threat fear of humiliation resulting in trauma of as the necessary criteria in determining the CSA and not to interpret the child’s natural willingness to participate in consensual adult-child intimate body contact as Child Sexual Abuse. Developing such nuanced, evidence-based criteria is essential for protecting children while enabling a truthful, respectful understanding of the complex realities of adult-child intimate relationships.

Good conclusion.

Sorry to be critical. Over all I didn't have many problems with the rest of it.

Dear PorcelainLark,: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your suggestions have provided valuable insights, and I agree they would have made my paper to look better. I apologize for not using the MAP forum’s reply format, as I finds it difficult to follow. However I will do my best to communicate my reasoning clearly in response in this reply post.

In your first paragraphs that start with the words “I'd recommend using ….and so on.
You rightly noted my use of the term “consent” instead “willingness.” My choice here was intentional, as my paper is also addressed to the general public, not solely the MAP community. Crucially, I believe children do not naturally distinguish between willingness and consent just as they do not separate many such abstract legal or moral constructs in their daily experience. I believe children in their developmental simplicity, do not distinguish between willingness and consent as adults do. This lack of differentiation reflects their natural agency. The legal system, however, exploits this distinction to weaponize the term “consent,” reinforcing the dogma that “children are incapable of consent.” This legal fiction is used not to protect but to criminalize even when children are clearly willing participants.

Your next para: “This seems strange. Could you elaborate?”
From infancy onward, children gravitate toward adults—particularly parents, siblings, and caregivers—because they provide physical comfort, stimulation, and a sense of security that peers cannot offer. It is natural for children to seek intimate bodily contact with trusted adults. They find adults more capable of showing, teaching, providing and caring for them than others of their age group. To deny this foundational dynamic of human development is to impose an artificial moral filter on otherwise natural bonds.

Next para “ Isn't it the other way around? The authorities …… don't want the public backlash of supporting a reduction of the age of consent?
You suggest that authorities resist lowering the age of consent due to fear of public backlash, which I question. Historical decriminalization of homosexuality, prostitution, and adultery demonstrates that societal norms can shift despite initial resistance. I suspect what you term “public backlash” may partly reflect feminist advocacy, which often shapes child protection narratives.

Next para “Would you consider"…..unscientific Pseudoscience" is redundant”
I think you have a good point in here. I appreciate this observation, as “pseudoscience” already implies a lack of scientific rigor. Still, I use it mostly to emphasise the lack of scientific basis in many CSA claims, since such claims are cloaked in the authority of science. They are unscientific but pretend to be scientific, which makes them doubly deceptive therefore I reinforce it with the term pseudoscience.

Next para; “This feels anachronistic…completely unacceptable..”
While Western paediatric literature may acknowledge childhood behaviours such as genital exploration or “playing doctor” as normal, do mainstream educational systems reinforce this openly? Would parents tolerate school lessons that affirm such behaviors as healthy? I believe the answer is no—such transparency would provoke outrage, even riots, among parents. In practice, childhood sexuality is not accepted; it is stigmatized and silenced.

Let me skip the “To play devil's advocate,”
Next Para; “You can't prove a negative.”
You note that one cannot prove a negative (i.e., no harm in adult-child contact), however, I think there are positivel evidence, such as anthropological studies and controversial research like Rind et al. (1998)—suggests positive or neutral outcomes in consensual contexts, which authorities systematically ignore. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Your next para which starts; “This comparison …naked together for non-sexual purposes. .. party's will.”
In my view, the claim of “non-sexual nudism” is, more often than not, a strategic posture, if not outright hypocrisy. It is designed primarily to avoid triggering CSA laws that criminalize adult-child exposure. Whether it is labelled “non-sexual” is less relevant than the fact that it operates under a legal exemption carved out for its own survival. That said, I will refrain from expanding further here, given the sensitivities involved in this forum.

Far from needing to apologize, your critique has been immensely valuable, and I’m grateful for your engagement. If any points in my response seem contentious, please know they’re offered in the spirit of constructive dialogue. I’m committed to refining my paper to reflect these insights and welcome further discussion.

Valerian wrote: Fri May 16, 2025 3:12 pm Dear PorcelainLark,: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your suggestions have provided valuable insights, and I agree they would have made my paper to look better. I apologize for not using the MAP forum’s reply format, as I finds it difficult to follow. However I will do my best to communicate my reasoning clearly in response in this reply post.

No worries.

In your first paragraphs that start with the words “I'd recommend using ….and so on.
You rightly noted my use of the term “consent” instead “willingness.” My choice here was intentional, as my paper is also addressed to the general public, not solely the MAP community. Crucially, I believe children do not naturally distinguish between willingness and consent just as they do not separate many such abstract legal or moral constructs in their daily experience. I believe children in their developmental simplicity, do not distinguish between willingness and consent as adults do. This lack of differentiation reflects their natural agency. The legal system, however, exploits this distinction to weaponize the term “consent,” reinforcing the dogma that “children are incapable of consent.” This legal fiction is used not to protect but to criminalize even when children are clearly willing participants.

I think, by itself, showing that people are equivocating about the meaning of consent is already something that requires sustained attention. It's the crux of the conflict.

Your next para: “This seems strange. Could you elaborate?”
From infancy onward, children gravitate toward adults—particularly parents, siblings, and caregivers—because they provide physical comfort, stimulation, and a sense of security that peers cannot offer. It is natural for children to seek intimate bodily contact with trusted adults. They find adults more capable of showing, teaching, providing and caring for them than others of their age group. To deny this foundational dynamic of human development is to impose an artificial moral filter on otherwise natural bonds.

It feels enough to show that it's normal for children to seek bodily contact with adults, without making the stronger claim that children prefer bodily contact with adults to people the same age.

Next para “ Isn't it the other way around? The authorities …… don't want the public backlash of supporting a reduction of the age of consent?
You suggest that authorities resist lowering the age of consent due to fear of public backlash, which I question. Historical decriminalization of homosexuality, prostitution, and adultery demonstrates that societal norms can shift despite initial resistance. I suspect what you term “public backlash” may partly reflect feminist advocacy, which often shapes child protection narratives.

I know things can change in spite of public backlash, I just don't think the level of backlash against MAPs is equal to the backlash there was against homosexuals. Otherwise, I feel like things like the French petitions against age of consent laws and the activism of the Pedophile Information Exchange would have succeeded. For comparison, if it was feminist, then how come sex-negative feminists lost the fight over whether pornography should be banned? I think, even if the authorities were interested in supporting our cause or sympathetic to us, they would be reluctant to do anything to support us because it would potentially damage their careers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_pe ... nsent_laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophil ... n_Exchange

Once we understand that limitation, we are in a stronger position to try to negotiate with people in positions of authority.

Next para; “This feels anachronistic…completely unacceptable..”
While Western paediatric literature may acknowledge childhood behaviours such as genital exploration or “playing doctor” as normal, do mainstream educational systems reinforce this openly? Would parents tolerate school lessons that affirm such behaviors as healthy? I believe the answer is no—such transparency would provoke outrage, even riots, among parents. In practice, childhood sexuality is not accepted; it is stigmatized and silenced.

I'd say parents and authorities aren't a monolithic block, some tolerate these things while others panic about them. I think more liberal parents would accept this. Also, consider the recent attempt in Germany to allow children the privacy to "play doctor."
https://controverity.com/2025/04/04/sho ... in-sex-ed/
Or the movement towards "sex positive parenting."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ezgiguler/sex- ... nting-tips

The hysterical voices are loud, but they don't account for everyone. We should be careful to try to avoid thinking of this as an "us versus them" situation because it means potentially losing allies and alliances we could have had.

Next Para; “You can't prove a negative.”
You note that one cannot prove a negative (i.e., no harm in adult-child contact), however, I think there are positivel evidence, such as anthropological studies and controversial research like Rind et al. (1998)—suggests positive or neutral outcomes in consensual contexts, which authorities systematically ignore. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

I'd either point out the burden of proof is on those that claim it is intrinsically harmful, or try to refute the adequacy of the evidence they use for the claim.

Your next para which starts; “This comparison …naked together for non-sexual purposes. .. party's will.”
In my view, the claim of “non-sexual nudism” is, more often than not, a strategic posture, if not outright hypocrisy. It is designed primarily to avoid triggering CSA laws that criminalize adult-child exposure. Whether it is labelled “non-sexual” is less relevant than the fact that it operates under a legal exemption carved out for its own survival. That said, I will refrain from expanding further here, given the sensitivities involved in this forum.

I disagree, nudity was part of my upbringing but AMSC was not; being tolerant of nudity isn't the same as supporting pedophilia. I would say most antis oppose both. I don't see the point in fighting with nudists over whether to support MAPs; they are a small and declining demographic. On the other hand, the number of people that insist all nudity is pornographic, is increasing.
I think the real test is whether you think changing in a public place should necessarily be considered a sexual violation? I don't think so. Take a hypothetical, say you were changing and you didn't realize people could see you, technically you're doing the same thing as indecent exposure but there's no sexual gratification from the act of changing, so it's clear you could cross the line without any sexual intention.

Far from needing to apologize, your critique has been immensely valuable, and I’m grateful for your engagement. If any points in my response seem contentious, please know they’re offered in the spirit of constructive dialogue. I’m committed to refining my paper to reflect these insights and welcome further discussion.

No trouble, I just don't like being excessively negative towards others, if I can help it. Good luck with your writing!

Thank you.