MAP Forum

Biastophillia- Anti C for raping anyone. Pro C for CNC, as it is inherently pretend roleplay. Neutural on people watching rape porn of real victims. If they are paying for it there should be some sort of fine or prison sentence as it supports real harm. If they are watching it for free I dont mind as it doesnt actually support the creator or encourages the creator to go out and victimize more people.

Zoophillia-Pro C for eveything but penetrating small animals. It makes no sense that it is perfectly acceptable to slaughter and eat animals, exploit them for slave labor, wear their rotting flesh for fashion and test/expirement on them but giving a willingly and eager animal humping your leg a handjob makes you evil and will traumatize the animal. The animal dgaf. They are just happy to be recieving sexual pleasure. Anti zoos will fully support exploting animals for labor, wear their rotting flesh, eat them, hunt them for sport, wear makeup that required their suffering, but bitch and whine if you suck a willing and eager animals dick, even for animals that can easily maul and kill you if they dont like what you are doing and actually have power over the human. Any anti zoo who eats meat, wears makeup, wears leather jackets, or anything along those lines needs to genuinely shut the fuck up.

“Oh yeah im a cow, ill be perfectly fine and I fully consent if you lock me in a tight pen I can barely move in, standing in my own pile of feces for hours upon hours on end, forcibley breed me and have me constantly pregnant for milk you will steal from me, steal away my cow children, then slaughter me and eat me and wear my rotting flesh as a fashionable garment, but if you play with my cowussy I will be permanntly traumatized for life and I cant consent to that”

Necrophillia-I support it as long as the person consented before their death. It makes no sense that a person can consent to their literal organs being harvested or being displayed in museums before death but cant consent to a freaky necro getting a quick fuck in before death. The only, and I mean ONLY argument I have heard for necrophillia being morally wrong and should be illegal is “its gross!” Which is a very shitty moral argument

Incest-I dont even get why people have a problem with incest? I thought everything sexual and romantic is fair game as long as it involves consenting adults. But incest is somehow bad even if it involves consenting adults? People will try to straw man by bringing up minors dating related adults, but then their problem should be with pedophillia, not incest, since the problem is that the child is a minor and the father/mother is an adult, not the fact that they are related. But anyways, I am pro c for pedophillia AND incest and I think as long as both parties respect and love each other then it is perfectly fine

Pedophillia-Pro C for everything but penetration under 10 and pedo sadism. Children can consent in every way but legal. And the solution for not being able to consent legally is to abolish the legal age of consent so that they CAN consent legally. And legallity doesnt equal morallity, gay men couldnt consent to other men legally a couple of decades ago, now they can. What changed? Not the gay mens inherent abillity to consent, but the law. If the law is whats blocking them from consenting then its the law that is the problem and needs to change, not pedos or AAM. Children arent brain dead, they know what they want and when they want it, they are a very selfish and hedonistic age group, if they dont like something, trust me, they WILL let you know, you cant even make those sexy little brats do their homework or put on their shoes without them throwing a tantrum. They are VERY adament and make it VERY clear to adults when they do and do not agree to something. And all agreeing is is a synonym for consent. The only way you COULD force them to do something they dont want to do is if you force them through violence or coercion/manipulation, which should be illegal no matter the age group.

Most pedos dont even use or want to use force or violence or coercion/manipulation, since most pedos arent biastophiles, we just have a thing for non sexually mature bodies, not for violence. (And non sexually mature doesnt mean non sexual, fetuses masturbate in the womb, children under ten participate in sex play with other kids and innitiate sex with adults. WE are all sexual, no matter the age. There is no such thing as childhood innocence, only adult sanctioned childhood IGNORANCE)

“But children arent informed sexually” so inform them? Duh?? Thats what sex ed is for.

“But children cant comprehend it” what is there to comphrend? You play with penis it feels good. You play with vagina it also feels good. It doesnt take a bachelors degree to comprhend.

“But its dangeous” only if you dont use protection, which is covered in sex ed.

“But kids dont know how” which is why you have pedos teach them , i will GLADLY and EAGERLY and ENTHUSIASTICALLY teach a kid how to have sex with nothing but pure PASSION. Trust me, there are plenty of VERY WILLINGINLY teachers willing to help kids “know how”

“But kids dont understand it” roaches, frogs, and flies dont understand sex either, but they are still capable of having safe sane and willing sex, despite not even being sentient. Besides, theres alot of things kids dont understand that kids do anyways, toddlers dont understand the dynamics of walking, but they still walk. Kids dont understand resperation and muscle contraction, yet they still swim. Kids dont understand converting nutrients to waste, but they still eat icecream. I dont understand how rollercoasters work, that doesnt mean I should avoid riding roller coasters?? And once again, it doesnt take a bachelors degree to understand sex, especially since it is INNATE in HUMAN BIOLOGY.

“But the power dynamic” power dynamics exist in EVERY relationship, and dont even matter/can actually be helpful as long as the power dynamic isnt used negatively. Yes a pedo has the “power” to beat and yell at a child, but they also have the “power” to save a kid from an abusive parent that beats and yells them. Or the “power” to simply do nothing at all, it all depends on how you use it

“But child on child sex is so different from child on adult sex and kids cant consent to adults” How is sticking your dick in cunny any drastically different from sticking your dick in an adult womans vagina. What extra knowledge do kids need to know so that they can consent to adults that they dont already possess when it comes to consenting to kids? That the adult woman will be slightly less tight? Because thats all I can come up with

“But kids cant consent” oops, ur missing a word there! Kids cant LEGALLY consent, which is a pretty big difference from flat out not possessing the abillity to say “yes I would like to have sex with you”, and if you genuinely think that kids dont have the ability to-idk, voice their opinions?? Speak?? Think about things?? You have clearly either never been around a child older than one or you are not from planet earth. If “kids cant LEGALLY consent” is your only argument, then that is not an argument against PIM or AMSC, that is only an argument against the law that prevents them from doing so.

“But the kids will be traumatized” isnt it funny and suspicious that children who are “victims” of having mutually agreed upon adult minor sexual contact with a person they love and look up to are only “traumatized” when one of two things happen, when ,

1.The social shame and taboo and secrecy of being a minor and having sex with an adult reaches them, or

2.They are taught, either directly or indercetly, wether by their parents or teachers or other kids their age that AMSC is wrong and evil and that they were abused and should feel taken advantage of, that they suddenly feel abused and taken advantage of.

NO OTHER FORM OF ABUSE WORKS LIKE THIS.

Children dont eagerly agree to be being beaten and try to get adults to beat them, and if a child is beaten they dont go “oh that felt good, I enjoyed it and want more” then suddenly become “traumatized” when their peers talk about how gross and shameful getting beaten and how they don't get beaten, or the teachers tell them that getting beaten is wrong and should make them feel awful.

Children don't eagerly agree to being yelled at and try to get adults to yell at them, and when a child gets yelled at, they dont go, “oh that felt good, I enjoyed that and want more”, and actively seek out being yelled at more, then suddenly become “traumatized” when their peers talk about how gross and shameful it is to get yelled at and how their parents dont yell at them, or their teachers tell them that getting yelled at is wrong and that they should feel traumatized.

I find it very strange and suspicous that children are smart enough and capable enough to understand and react to all other forms of abuse, but when it comes to “child sexual abuse”, at least non forceful or coerced and mutually agreed upon sexual “abuse”, this is the only form of abuse that children willingly seek out, the only form of “abuse”that is ONLY hurtful once the child has been socially sanctioned and forced by every single adult and peer in their life into the “victim” role, that children are only “traumatized” once they have been repeatedly conditioned over years by their family and friends that the situation was to supposed to be “traumatizing”.

There are only two options here, either sex has magical properties and pedos are witches using mind control and telepathy to brainwash children into enjoying safe non coerced/violent sex with them, or get this, this is gonna sound crazy-hold your horses-this is gonna blow your mind- children actually ENJOY having willing non coerced or forced sex with adults that they love and care about and that due to the large taboo on adults and minors even being platonically interested in each other, the social shame, secrecy, and taboo alone are enough to screw up the child?

And that if we really cared about children, telling them they are too stupid and brain dead to agree to a mere handjob but perfectly capable of being beaten and yelled at for “discipline” riding horses, playing contact sports, driving cars, being religous, solving long division, playing complicated instruments-etc, and dragging them through the taxxing and scary years long legal process, fear mongering to them about sex and pedophiles, making them too scared to even go outside or watch porn or talk to non related adults, hell, even related adults with the “creepy uncle/touchy dad sterotype”, with the fear that thier brains will do nothing short of self destruct if they do, teaching them that they dont deserve any autonomy over their bodies because they are too stupid and brain dead to handle any form of sexual freedom or make decisions about their own lives and bodies, refusing to educate them on the natural human body because YOU cant get over your hang ups that kids are humans and humans are sexual creatures, then once they do have sex, either with their peers or older partners, locking them or their partners up indefinently in prison and put on the sex offender registry over mutual handjobs and willing blowjobs, teaching them over and over that their bodies have been defiled and now “ruined”(implying that sex is inherently dangerous and “ruins” people) and that their “innocence”(ignorance) is destroyed, that the only valuable thing children have to offer is their “purity” and “innocence” and that having sex, espcially with an older partner, is worse than death and the moral equivilant to having their soul destroyed, threatening to murder the older partners, who they love and care about, over something as simple as a blowjob or breast fondling-that maybe the constant shame, paranoia, fear mongering, and violence around childrens sexuality, sex in general, pedophiles, and adults in general is what “harms” kids for life, and not boys getting their dicks sucked by hot MILFs?

Once you unpack all the shallow and easily argued against reasons people are anti c for AMSC, the CORE reason they hate AMSC, is that they are digusted by youth sexuality because they think that the only thing children are good for is their “purity” and “innocence” and that sex is inherently dirty and an evil sin and “defiles” them. You cant blame kids for being into kids because they cant be both innocenct and dirty at the same time, so they blame pedos instead since we “indoctrinate” children into the evil impure sin of “sex”. Theres also the fear of “outsiders”, which destroys the typical nuclear family dynamic. And “pedophiles” represent that outisder perfectly, the evil monsters who blend in with society and lurk in the shadows crawling up from the depths of hell to break up the perfect modern nuclear family and awaken a childs innate sexuality.

The modern hysteria around pedophiles and childrens sexuality all comes from the church but yall dont want to hear that- and its ironic that anti pedos think that pedos “run the church” when the church is literally the only reason everyone hates pedos in the first place. But of course anti cs/antis will just ignore this and go “I aint reading all that” because actually thinking deeply about problems and viewpoints that challenges their world view and might lead them to a conclusion that goes against the mob is evil and must be ignored or destroyed, *yawns*

Tldr;if your pro C im just yapping about all the shit you already know, if your anti C dont bother reading this, your mind cant “consent” to reading this, brains not developed enough

Urophillia-I fucking love piss

Coprophillia-You have to be careful because this one can spread diseases and corpophagia grossess me the hell out, but disgust isnt a moral argument, so I support it as long as you practice it safely

BDSM-As long as its practiced safely and both partners agree idgaf, its lowkey hot

Paraphillic infantilism/Auto pedophillia-I barely even understand how this one is taboo? I guess because antis think we will be attracted to saggy granny tits and ass if shes says “goo goo ga ga” and calls us daddy? Idk, adult bodies(except for DILFs) are gross to me even if the adult is wearing a diaper and has a pacifier in, so I dont see the correlation between pedophillia and ageplay. Its none of my buisness and they should be allowed to do as they please

Fictiphillia-idc, pro c

Lolicon/shotacon fictophillia- unlike with ageplay, anyone who claims to be a lolicon/shotacon but unattracted to real minors is a lying little fuck. Thats like saying “I like big breasted women in hentai but big boobied MILFs irl disgust me and anyone attracted to women irl in has NOTHING in common with me and should be genocided-“ stfu pdf ur not fooling anyone, especially not ur fellow pdfs. Just admit u like minor ass and goon in peace instead of virtue signaling for anti approval. Anyways loli cunny. Child erotic belly and chest. Cheeky brats seducing adult

Somnophillia-Pro C as long as the sleepy guy consents pre sleep. If they havent consented pre sleep, then anti C

I agree on all points except for three details.

Regarding Zoophilia, I believe I hold slightly more extreme positions on one side and more cautious ones on the other. On one hand, I believe that precisely because we eat animals, skin them, hunt them, use them in research, and so on... for me it would also be fine if sadistic attitudes were applied toward one's own pet. I may be heartless but... well, perhaps I'm just heartless. On the other hand, I have concerns about disease transmission. I don't know if it's a well-founded fear or not, but the last thing I'd want is a new pandemic because someone fucked their own dog.

The second detail concerns incest. There, the issue should only involve reproduction and offspring problems. Nothing more and nothing less.

Fun fact: Where I live, incest isn't a problem unless it becomes a "public scandal" (or something like that). Essentially, for it to become illegal, a newspaper has to shine a spotlight on it. At least that's how it was ten years ago—I don't know if things have changed.

The third point is BDSM. For me, if there's consent, you can even go beyond personal safety. There are parts of the world where people scar their bodies as a form of tattoo, there are people who eat spicy chips that could send someone to the hospital, there are also extreme sports... for me, if a person wants to take a risk, well, good for them.

I conclude, but here I might be in "conflict of interest". For me, there's a real distinction between pedophilia and shotacon/lolicon. In other words, does it make sense to label someone who has no romantic or sexual interest in a real child as a pedophile if they find shotacon interesting? Isn't it that the dynamics are simply different? Also talking about people who get aroused by a story in a book but feel disgust as soon as they see a real body. Just to be clear: I share the irritation of finding it annoying when a shota lover shits on pedophiles just to distance themselves from them. Something that way too many categories do, especially those associated for one reason or another with pedophilia.

That said, when I was a teen I think I was a bit of a somnophile—I found it extremely erotic after seeing a movie about... I think a serial killer. I didn’t know the language and had only seen one scene of what I assume was a necrophiliac playing with a sleeping boy.

Not Forever wrote: Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:06 am I agree on all points except for three details.

Regarding Zoophilia, I believe I hold slightly more extreme positions on one side and more cautious ones on the other. On one hand, I believe that precisely because we eat animals, skin them, hunt them, use them in research, and so on... for me it would also be fine if sadistic attitudes were applied toward one's own pet. I may be heartless but... well, perhaps I'm just heartless. On the other hand, I have concerns about disease transmission. I don't know if it's a well-founded fear or not, but the last thing I'd want is a new pandemic because someone fucked their own dog.

The second detail concerns incest. There, the issue should only involve reproduction and offspring problems. Nothing more and nothing less.

Fun fact: Where I live, incest isn't a problem unless it becomes a "public scandal" (or something like that). Essentially, for it to become illegal, a newspaper has to shine a spotlight on it. At least that's how it was ten years ago—I don't know if things have changed.

The third point is BDSM. For me, if there's consent, you can even go beyond personal safety. There are parts of the world where people scar their bodies as a form of tattoo, there are people who eat spicy chips that could send someone to the hospital, there are also extreme sports... for me, if a person wants to take a risk, well, good for them.

I conclude, but here I might be in "conflict of interest". For me, there's a real distinction between pedophilia and shotacon/lolicon. In other words, does it make sense to label someone who has no romantic or sexual interest in a real child as a pedophile if they find shotacon interesting? Isn't it that the dynamics are simply different? Also talking about people who get aroused by a story in a book but feel disgust as soon as they see a real body. Just to be clear: I share the irritation of finding it annoying when a shota lover shits on pedophiles just to distance themselves from them. Something that way too many categories do, especially those associated for one reason or another with pedophilia.

That said, when I was a teen I think I was a bit of a somnophile—I found it extremely erotic after seeing a movie about... I think a serial killer. I didn’t know the language and had only seen one scene of what I assume was a necrophiliac playing with a sleeping boy.

I see where your coming from for zoophillia, but I disagree. Animals, even though they are legally considered property, are still sentient creatures who can feel pain and suffer and deserve respect. The fact that we are so cruel to them already means we should be less cruel, not more cruel. Wearing fake leather, letting them be free range and have good lives before we eat them or being straight up vegetarian, drinking almond milk. All this is totally doable and is already being done and can be done on a wide scale. We lived in a fucked up world where it is morally permisble to abuse, torture, eat, maim, hunt, expiriment on, and do other gross things with their body. But if a willing and eager animal has fun and gets pleasure humping you, you are basically worse than satan for letting them. Letting a bull hump your pussy is somehow worse than imprisoning it, killing it, stealing its kids, and wearing its rotting flesh. Smh.

On incest. The birth defects from incest are greatly exaggerated and only show up after decades and decades of incest. A woman over 40 is more likely to have a fucked up deformed kid then two healthy people that are cousins. And if we say that incest couples cant have kids because of birth defects, why should disabled or mentally ill people be allowed to have kids? If you have cerebral palsy or autism or schizophrenia you shouldnt be allowed to reproduce because of the chance you could have deformed kids by this logic. Which is an opinion youre allowed to have, but alot of people who are anti incest because of the greatly exaggerated risks of birth defects suddenly think its perfectly ok to risk having kids with birth defects if the parent is disabled. Either having kids when you know there is a significant risk of them having birth defects is permissible or it isnt. You cant have your cake and eat it too. And even if the risks of birth defects werent grossly over exaggerated and something like 99% of kids who have cousin fucker parents will be born with no arms and legs and level 3 autism, that is not an argument against incest, that is only an argument against incestous reproduction. Sister and cousin fuckers are perfectly capable of getting sterilized, buying plan b, wearing condoms, or simply getting an abortion. So having a disabled kid isnt a gaurantee, and having a kid in the first place isnt even gauranteed

On loli and shotacon, I see what you are saying. And i dont doubt that its possible to be into fictional young people but be repulsed by real children, but I find it HIGHLY unlikely that this is the case even a quarter of the time, let alone 100% of the time like ironic lolicons claim. Being attracted to fictional children but being unintrested or repulsed in real children should be about as common as being into fictional men but being unintrested or repulsed in real men. Which I have seen happen, lesbians claiming to have fictional crushes on men but only liking women irl. But they are the VAST minority. Most people who masturbate to fictional women are attracted to real women, most people who masturbate to fictional men are attracted to real men, but im supposed to believe that most people attracted to fictional children are not only unintrested by real children, but disgusted and repulsed by real children.

Lolicons and shotacons will say stuff like “Oh yeah I love lolis and shotas because I love their smooth hairless prepubescent bodies, flat chests, and fun whimiscal personalities but I HATE real children despite thier smooth hairless prepubscent bodies, flat chests, and fun whimisical personalities, I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with pedophiles, who are attracted to real children because of their smooth hairless prepubsecent bodies, flat chests, and fun whimisical personalities. Lolis and shotas have NOTHING in common with real children and kodocons have NOTHING in common with real pedos.”

I just find it extremely hard to believe them when they use logic like this, because it just doesnt make any sense when you think about it. And I also find it distasteful how hard they join the mob against pedophiles when there is such a high likelyhood that they are some flavor of MAP themselves. I kind of get what they are saying, as a pedo myself, I vastly prefer real lolis over fictional lolis, but that doesnt mean I have NOTHING in common with lolicons and that we are on two seperate planes of existance. I do occasionally masturbate to loli/shotacon, and while I prefer real children, if I had to choose between a fictional adult and a fictional child, I would choose a fictional child any day. So while I mainly goon to real kids, when I goon to fiction, im not gooning to 30 year old big breasted MILFs, thats all I can say.

Even though I disagree with some of your points, im glad that we can have a respectful debate around these topics. On anywhere but the pediverse, even bringing up these topics will get you instantly shut down with a “EWW INCEST IS YICKY COUSIN FUCKER” or a “EWW GROSS ZOOPHILLIA DOG RAPIST DONT TALK TO ME” or a “NASTY GROSS NECRO GO KEYS CORPSE FUCKER”. On the antiweb, everyone is pro thought crime and against thinking critically about moral debates.

They are told that one side is wrong since birth, and instead of thinking deeply about WHY something is wrong and trying to have complex eithical debates over it, they just go “well my mom and dad says its gross and yicky so it must be evil” or “its illegal so it must be morally wrong” instead of actually thinking critically. Then they accuse you of being part of said group in order to shut dowb any critical thinking and label you as the “enemy”. I find it very telling that the main arguments against pedophiles, zoophiles, and necrophiles and incest is “ITS LITERALLY ILLEGAL UR GOING TO JAIL” or “ITS GROSS”, as if things are only morally wrong because its illegal or they personally find it unpleasant. Its funny because alot of these same people will be pro lgbt, not realizing that the exact same reason people hate pedos and zoos and necros today is the same reason they hated gays. One upon a time, a couple of decades ago, genociding and torturing and imporsining gays was ok because “ITS LITERALLY ILLEGAL YOUR GOING TO JAIL” and because “ITS GROSS”. The “valid” arguments homosexuality where shallow arguments fueled by disgust and hysteria and the medical industrial complex. “HOMOSEXUALITY IS LITERALLY A MENTAL ILLNESS”, “HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARMFUL! MEN CANT CONSENT TO OTHER MEN, IT LEADS TO TRAUMA AND DESTROYS LIVES” “ITS A SIN TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL”. They refused to talk to actual gay people about why they felt the way they felt, they censored gays and shamed them for even having homosexual thoughts or expressing their opinions. They used shitty hysteria fueled “science” and “research” to justify how gays were ill and homosexulity was harmful.

Young men who had been “groomed” into homosexuality were only allowed to share negative and traumatic expiernces with gay meb because if they shared positive expiernces they were written off as “grooming victims” or “brainwashed” or just plain “evil”. Now adays nothing has changed. Society didnt actually start accepting gay people, they just found new targets for their sexual hysteria. “Leftists” today are only pro lgbt because mommy and daddy government told them that gay is good. “Conservatives” of the past only hated the lgbt because mommy and daddy goverment told them it was bad. In a couple decades we will be pro youth sexuality and pro love for all paraphiles. Nothing will change, a new target will be found. Maybe robot and ai fuckers or something. The majority of people, wether “leftists” or “conservative”, cant and wont think for themselves. They just go along with what the majority has told them. There is no real differnce between either party.

Glad to finally be able to have a discussion with someone on why pedophillia, necrophillia, zoophillia, incest is wrong or right other than. “STFU PDF!!” “EWW GROSS PREDATOR!1!1!”

G@yWad69 wrote: Fri Jul 11, 2025 2:49 am On incest. The birth defects from incest are greatly exaggerated and only show up after decades and decades of incest.

I admit I might have an exaggerated perception—if there's no risk at first encounter, then I don't see a problem since I believe it's an exceedingly rare phenomenon that, without coercion, incest would persist across multiple generations.

Given my nature, I admit I would follow a certain logic, although it would certainly be used not so much from a public health perspective but to remove what is disliked. But if I knew that reproducing would bring into the world a person with genetic problems, I would avoid reproducing.

G@yWad69 wrote: Fri Jul 11, 2025 2:49 am [...] Lolis and shotas have NOTHING in common with real children and kodocons have NOTHING in common with real pedos.”

Haha. Yeah, perhaps saying "nothing" is exaggerated. I see Shotas somewhat like we're talking about Furries, so part of a fictional imagination. I wouldn't say Furries have nothing to do with real animals and there's certainly a subcategory of Furry enthusiasts who are zoophiles. The same applies to Shota, but I believe that as an idea of a minor, Shota is extremely caricatured. Probably the absolute denial is more of a phobia about being associated with pedophiles, but I believe the overlap between the two groups is only partial.

I agree with the rest, I always like to bring up homosexuality when other sexual orientations are attacked.

Much of the people who support homosexuality don't do it because they're open-minded, but because, unlike previous generations, they don't find homosexuals as disgusting (Maybe because of positive caricatures in movies or new stereotypes.). A person is open to others only when they can actually accept that something may exist that personally disgusts or repulses them or, even better, when it's not socially accepted. (Thus also taking social risks in not despising it or defending it.)
These same people in other historical periods would have been the first to stone homosexuals, because at the time it was the "right" thing to do. They would have perceived it as dirty, as deviant, as an offense, they would have seen every homosexual as a potential rapist.

There are so many more paraphilias you could list. But the bottom line is, as you have more or less concluded, that sex in whatever form it takes is okay as long as all parties involved are okay with it. I agree with that, and believe most would as well. The three most hated ones, that being pedophilia, zoophilia, and necrophilia, are hated precisely because they believe one of the parties involved cannot consent (which we know is bogus).

Incest seems to be a special case. When I think about it, I'm not really sure where the disdain for it originated. Still, people don't really have much of a logical argument against it, which is why they usually have to resort to associating it with pedophilia in order to maintain the hatred.

But what sucks is that even ignoring that, there's still the lingering stigma over sexual deviancy in general. For example, I used to hang around swinger communities quite a bit. But despite them being fairly popular, many people feel the need to hide the fact that they participate at all, lest that information destroy their careers. Similarly, there are those that try to defame OnlyFans models, especially those that are parents.

Why should these people have to hide in fear for simply enjoying their sex lives? That's a difficult thing to do, you know. Finding the right person(s), fighting back health problems, and of course, dodging social ostracism. We should be celebrating when people overcome all that and bond together. I believe that, on top of all the religious nonsense, a lot of the spite comes from those who couldn't get their own sex lives on track. They're wallowing in misery and think everyone else deserves to feel just as miserable.