MAP Forum

Antis and anti Cs keep bringning up this “long term consequences” bullshit as a justification as to why AMSC is inherently abusive/morally wrong. That kids simply cant “comprehend” the “long term consequences” of having AMSC

1.Tf are the “long term consequnences” of getting your dicked sucked or your pussy ate by a hot MILF/DILF

Does a child create an everlasting soul tie with the adult if they get their cock sucked by an adult? Does their dick explode? Do they develop dick and ball cancer? Does the innate PTSD of having a willing and pleasurable orgasm from a person you find attractive, love, and trust, equal or surpass the PTSD of those who survived war and fammine? Does their soul go to hell for an eternity? Wtf are these so called “long term consequences”?? I have a hard time even believing in “short term consequences” outside of a good feeling in your lower abdomen and a a temporary orgasm high

Alot of the time antis and anti cs either refuse to elaborate on the so called “long term consequences” (that “surprisingly” dont exist when adults have willing and pleasurable sex, which outside of the very first time, is easily forgotten the next day or so, which goes to prove antis ridiculous points that children and teens are not human and clearly a separate species from legal adults who process the world in the complete opposite way that adults do, especially orgasms, and magically become normal when the clock strikes midnight of their special and magical 18th birthday

On the VERY, VERY rare occasions that they choose to elaborate on the “long term harm/consequences”, its some benign shit like

“It made me like sex”

mind BLOWN. Children having willing, pleasurable, and informed sex with someone they trust and care about makes them like willing, pleasurable, and informed sex?!?? How EVIL!!!1!1!1 who would of thought??!?! Such a life ruining and evil thing for a child, to enjoy expierncing willing bodily pleasure with someone they love and care about, clearly these children are ruined for life. CSA “victims” often complain about being “hypersexual”. And the “hypersexuality” was masturbating (something that fetuses in the wombs do) and seeking out porn(a normal human expiernece for anyone with a sex drive and no pussy to pound)

“It made me feel ashamed”

it wouldnt be shameful if society didnt shame you and your adult partner for it. So I dont see how this is a problem inherent to AMSC and not a consequence of societal conditioning and social norms

“I had to keep it a secret”

you wouldnt have to keep it a secret if once again, it wasnt for societal conditioning and social norms

“It made me different from the other kids”

in a society that shames kids for their natural sexuality, calling them “fast” or “grown” or “groomed” for desiring sexual freedom and bodily autonomy, refuses to inform children about their developing bodies, restricts kids from accessing information on how to have sex safely and pleasurably, and ridicules and harrass adults for finding children beautiful, being different from your peers may acutally be a good thing in this regard

“Adults arent supposed to do that with kids”

And adults arent supposed to punish children from expressing sexual freedom or shame children for their natural sexual urges. Adults arent supposed to give the death penalty or life in prison for watching “innapropriate” pixels on a screen. Adults arent supposed to ban minors from having access to sexual healthcare or shaming pregnant teens for being “fast”. Adults arent supposed to beat 18 year old “nonces” to death for having sex with 16 year olds in prison. Adults arent supposed to put 9 year olds on the sex offender regristry and lock them up in juvie for sexually playing with younger kids. Theres ALOT of things adults arent “supposed” to be doing, but I dont see you complaining about that.

And before any anti twists my words, I am not talking about children and teens being forced, coerced, or manipulated into sex with adults. I am talking about the minors who flirt with their adult partners, who eagerly bring up the topic of sex with their adult partners. Who feel ready for sex and have done the research on how to do it safely/been informed by an experienced adult, who willingly and enthusiastically pull down their panties then snuggle and fall asleep in their arms of their adult partner. Then run up to great them with a bear hug and a big smile the next day when they see their adult partner. Antis like to act like a 2 year old being forcibly anally raped by a grown man is the exact same as a willing ten year old begging his hot DILF boyfriend to suck his cock because hes horny and cant stand his blue balls. And im fucking sick of it.

To be fair, I think that children can internalize the child-adult sex stigma and, in retrospect, suffer because they view themselves as having been exploited or degraded in some way (I suppose you could argue that even women can internalize certain feminist ideas and interpret past consensual experiences as rape). They can also regret consensual sexual encounters for the same reasons adults do.

What concerns me is priming them to view mutually desired intimacy as inherently bad (i.e. something that warrants feeling bad about) as opposed to just responding to how they actually feel about it ("I'm sorry that this caused you pain, it was bad for that reason" as opposed to "this 'should' cause you pain, or at least you should view it as bad which will disposition you to feel stress about it.") If child-adult sex is inherently bad then that's fundamentally unrelated to whether or not it harms children, as I've said before I think that people wrongly use the value of suffering to clarify or support the perceived value of other things (i.e. x is considered inherently bad because it causes suffering or at least the emotional harm that it's presumed to cause necessarily and always is seen as support for it being inherently bad but then you pose a scenario where x doesn't cause suffering so why would it be bad then. I can't think of a single thing that must cause pain to all possible beings in all logically possible scenarios although I think the perception of ambiguity necessarily primes a negative emotional response because of its intrinsic relationship to experienced desire frustration, although even that isn't a specific thing but the realization of a preferred state of affairs not existing) and discouraging child-adult sex because it does or might cause pain is not the same as discouraging it on principle.

I think that you can criticize adults for having consensual sexual contact with children that might cause them long-term harm in the context of the society we live in (because of the internalized stigma argument, even some adult sexual regret is rooted in the meaning that we project on to sex and certain sex-negative attitudes) and the disregard for the suffering/happiness of others is something that warrants a negative emotional response even when a choice that is rooted in it doesn't cause actual pain or at least not in itself but it's hard to determine when their behavior stems from negligence (i.e. prioritizing their happiness over the child's long-term well-being) as opposed to unbiased 'shortsightedness' or just ignorance, if there are some practical scenarios when a thing to generally avoid might not cause pain then there might be some practical scenarios when engaging in/with it might not be immoral ('morality' having to do with the values a choice is rooted in, not its actual consequences). In my view, it is the disregard for the happiness/suffering of others (or one's own but we have to instinctively care about our immediate well-being and people aren't likely to give themselves less consideration) that is intrinsically immoral, doing x is circumstantially immoral; in the realization that it might cause unnecessary pain or unnecessarily deprive people of happiness, but if the only problem with x is the pain that it causes then it's never intrinsically immoral to do x per se (I would argue that trying to persuade people that something other than suffering is inherently bad is inherently immoral because it necessarily involves devaluing happiness; you're trying to persuade them that that thing shouldn't be a source of happiness and even just privately viewing it as inherently bad implies preferring that it not exist on principle even when it could be a source of happiness for someone. I wrote out a little tangent about being more sympathetic to the idea of multiple inherent goods, as long as happiness took priority and those goods either had no opposite or their opposites were inconsistently viewed as inherently neutral, but even that would prime people to have a negative emotional response to the absence of those goods. I have to be honest, I've been somewhat emotionally attracted to negative hedonism lately even though I think it's immoral in its disregard for happiness, it would be less appealing to me if it turned out that there is an afterlife).

The irony is that current attitudes likely contribute to long-term harm. I am strongly opposed to corporal punishment (using violence to discipline children) but even I suspect that, as a general rule, children who are raised in a culture where corporal punishment is the norm will probably be less traumatized by it in the long run than children who are raised in a society where corporal punishment is frowned on because the broader society informs a lot of what we're inclined to view as unjust, for most people, I suspect.