MAP Forum

Glad to be here and share my thoughts with logically sound like minded individuals. Brief background about me, I wrestled with my feelings I had for kids for 7 long years but I have now accepted it and happy about it. Anyway, I want to play devil’s advocated about the topic of “grooming”. I find it truly hilarious that a kid’s parents will have more empathy if two kids the same age engaged in sexually activity rather than an adult and a kid. Here’s what I know for a fact : girls and boys are very curious about sex at a very young age and because what society teaches young girls they tend to depend on the boy to make the first move when it comes to sex.

So let me get this straight, because we as adults know what sex is we can’t have it with a consenting child? Either way a male is usually making the first move for sex whether they are under age or adults. Here’s where grooming comes into play. We’re also looked at as wrong for introducing an action to a child that society will do subliminally and overtly through social media, ads, commercials and television.

These illogical antis think we’ll traumatize kids with sex. So I must ask, is the love we have for kids mainly sexually oriented to where they grow up and become whores or sluts or is our love so strong that they will grow up to be amazing successful adults. After giving that thought, I had to sit back and understand why my lust is so strong. Its because what we want to do isn’t normalized so we crave it even more. Then I must ask this as well, if normalized would we stay with the child as a partner even after they grow up? Honestly, I think if normalized I would. But how I feel in reality, I wouldn’t want to stay with her after she becomes an adult. My lust yearns for little girls and I wouldn’t be happy with her as an adult. Girls get their heart broken by boys at a young age (and vice versa) and they hold on to that forever. But I feel, actually I know a large % of us won’t break the girls/boys heart because we know what we want. Also, being raised by a single mother is what ultimately damages these children the most. Its not sex with an adult! So ultimately, we deserve every right to be pro-c! I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Your post is full of unsupported assumptions and generalizations.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with 'grooming' either (assuming that the adult genuinely cares about the child and their entire relationship with them isn't predicated on influencing them to want to be sexually intimate with them) but my intuition tells me that even in my ideal society (in terms of child-adult sex not being stigmatized and a general rejection of the idea that sex has inherent 'meaning'), it would probably be best, in most scenarios at least, for adults to not initiate sexual relationships with children or to proposition them (or to come on to them or be seductive).

I could be wrong, especially if the adult just asks the child once if s/he's interested in going on a date and that's understand to be 'romantic.'

I don't really want to get into this at the moment.

hmmmm... Grooming. What an interesting word to use in the context of pedosexual expedition.

In normal personal context, to groom would mean to clean up or to beautify for the purpose of making something more presentable and pleasing to the eye. In business context it would mean to train up for the purpose of fulfilling a higher purpose. The man on his wedding day is called the Groom. All these are good things. Good definitions -- positively defined.

Yet...
In regard to an adult/child romantic interlude, or the seeking out of such a potential, the term takes on such a negative implication of almost diabolical intent. But... isn't this how Most romantic relationships begin??

Is a man "grooming" a woman by taking her out to fancy diners? by buying her nice clothes and things she wants? getting her unexpected gifts for no other reason that just because ??

Any other time, grooming would be a prelude to a healthy and stable relationship, a display of affection intended to demonstrate to the sought-after that the seek hold them in high interest and value.

Truth is.. The same applies across the board. Grooming is a positive thing. Always has been and will remain so.

Only an idiot selling a slanderous narrative would misconstrue grooming with the likes of deceptive manipulation. The two are completely separate things.

Thanks TheDude. That's the most grounded take on "grooming" I've recently read.

msykm99 wrote: Thu Aug 14, 2025 6:26 pm I find it truly hilarious that a kid’s parents will have more empathy if two kids the same age engaged in sexually activity rather than an adult and a kid.

I think what you're trying to do is understand the benefits of a child having sex with adults instead of their child peers.

Some will argue that sexual contact must be with their peers and it is much better to have sex with peers of the same age! These tend to be the more conservative types.

Some will argue that men/women have more experience of life, sex, and intimacy, so would be in a better position to have positive sexual relationships with children. These tend to be the more liberal types.

Some will argue that children musn't have any sexual contact at all until they are old enough! These tend to be the more authoritarian types.

Some are aware that all three of these circumstances occur and have their own benefits and drawbacks. There are more possible circumstances unconsidered, potentially really good.

I think the trouble is similar to how the term "pedophile" is poisoned; on the face of it, it means what it says on the tin - attraction to children, yet in practice it's also short hand for child abuser. "Grooming" is similar, it can mean all the normal cordial aspects present in any romantic relationship, but it also means deception. What happens is people equivocate between the two meanings so that a non-coercive, open, and honest interaction can be lumped into the same category as manipulation. That way you don't have to confront the difference between an interaction based on deception and coercion, and an interaction that's honest and respectful.

PorcelainLark wrote: Sat Oct 11, 2025 10:31 pm I think the trouble is similar to how the term "pedophile" is poisoned; on the face of it, it means what it says on the tin - attraction to children, yet in practice it's also short hand for child abuser. "Grooming" is similar, it can mean all the normal cordial aspects present in any romantic relationship, but it also means deception. What happens is people equivocate between the two meanings so that a non-coercive, open, and honest interaction can be lumped into the same category as manipulation. That way you don't have to confront the difference between an interaction based on deception and coercion, and an interaction that's honest and respectful.

This is why it should be “child abuser” for those that attack kids. Child abuse isn’t exclusive to pedophilia, so it avoids the lumping in of attraction and offences.

Edit:
And I’ll add that putting “pedophile” in the context of a child sexual abuse crime has no other reason than to stigmatize us.
Ex: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 43884.html

Notice how the term “paedophile” is used as a shorthand for child sex abuse? It’s about connecting people like Watkins to simple minor attraction. Same with Epstein.