MAP Forum

I was browsing one of the chan boards and an anonymous poster made a post basically explaining why some pedophiles may act out and i thought it was interesting.


(Quote) Real answer?

Pedos are sexually attracted to young girls and most of them can’t help that attraction. They get sexually backed up because they have no legal way of expressing their desires, so tend to be overly sexual and vocal about their attraction mostly in a way that’s ambiguous enough and vague enough that they won’t get a charge.

>like saying lolis instead of little girls, because loli implies drawn girls

Not tryna make you sympathize, but imagine your specific sexual attractions. Blondes, big ass, big tits, whatever it is. Now imagine it’s illegal and you aren’t allowed to view it or talk about it. At first, it would be easy enough to hide and ignore. Over time that attraction, and lack of sexual release, will grow. Open ridicule about that attraction will feel threatening at first and eventually you’ll grow numb to it, sometimes even daring. “So what I like fat tits. It’s only illegal because XYX mandated by law that it is. It’s natural for men to like fat tits. I can’t help it,” so on and so forth.

So pedos finding a small bastion of freedom, it isn’t a surprise they want to spam their love for what they’re attracted to. They seldom get a chance to talk about it outside of visiting the dark net and talking there which is an extremely risky.

They can’t help what they are. Many studies show pedos were abused or at minimum exposed to things involving kids at a young and impressionable age, so it was mentally ingrained. My opinion is, if it isn’t harming anyone and they aren’t actively seeking to exploit a child, let them goon how they want. It’s private and nobody is getting hurt.

You could argue that girls who were abused are being harmed by allowing their images/videos to be circulated, and that’s a fair criticism. We’re at a point now where AI content is realistic enough that you don’t need real photos. And in a year it’ll be almost impossible to tell the difference. Hentai loli has also been a thing since forever. On top of that, legalize sex dolls for the age group. Anything that lets pedos get off in a healthier way as opposed to holding back for so long that they eventually succumb to sexual desires and rape a child.

This isn’t to excuse those who do exploit children. They should be held accountable in court if caught and get the sentencing they deserve. The ones that don’t do anything and just want to jerk off, however, it feels like the punishment doesn’t meet the crime.

Also, provide free and private therapy for that incentivizes stopping or mitigating the attraction. Yelling “kill all pedos” is not doing a good job at finding them. It’s making it worse because they feel more inclined to hide, knowing the world hates them more than they hate serial killers. (Unquote)

What are your thoughts on this?

I don't like the term "acting predatory" being used that way though, but do I think the overall point is correct.

It is correct that people like myself cannot openly talk about how much I love little girls to people like how most dudes can with chicks they find online or in-person. My only social release is lolicon and its communities, until my place of residence decides it's also illegal and "abusive". I would not say lolicon "stops me" from offending, that'd be my moral compass, but it does help keep me in a normal state of mind. Being unsatisfied sexually builds up over time and that leads to further problems down the road, so forcing MAPs to "hold it in or else" is not a solution.

The internet is not a welcoming place for us but I will not be intimidated by those who try to take it away from us.

I agree with their last few points on the punishment not fitting the crime, child-like sex dolls, AI child pornography, and free, private, therapy to help someone accept it as part of them and not see it as a huge issue. I have nearly lost MAP friends to suicide because of the insane fear and paranoia behind having their life ruined for something they didn't get a choice in. If people just understood that we are human too, that would go a long way.

The right ideas, but who would take the risk of openly advocating for those changes? You could generate PIM from pictures of elderly war criminals, but realistic AI-generated images will be banned anyway because the people who are disgusted by it drown out the people who don't care or who enjoy it. Or concerning lolicon, the central arguments are that it's used to groom children or increase the likelihood of offending. It doesn't matter if you even interact with children, the public still tolerates people having their lives destroyed over it.

However, the public can't even get over their apathy and nihilism enough to save themselves from climate change. If they won't even do what's right when it's in their own best interests, what hope is there that they'd do whats right for people they hate? The only causes that seems to gain traction are low-risk, high-reward.

I'm sorry, I don't want to be a doomer. Maybe people will get tired of MAP hysteria due to being overexposed to it.

Ugh this is cringe inducing. We aren't allowed to have a voice so everyone feels like they can speak in our stead. Non-MAPs always think they know what goes on in MAPs head because we can't speak for ourself in most platforms.

mrlolicon93 wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 10:49 pm Many studies show pedos were abused or at minimum exposed to things involving kids at a young and impressionable age, so it was mentally ingrained.

Can't get behind this part. But other than that, it's nice when other people are rational about it.

RoosterDance wrote: Tue Oct 14, 2025 9:55 am

mrlolicon93 wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 10:49 pm Many studies show pedos were abused or at minimum exposed to things involving kids at a young and impressionable age, so it was mentally ingrained.

Can't get behind this part. But other than that, it's nice when other people are rational about it.

Yeah should clarify I don't agree with that part either, I was not abused or exposed to anything kids at a young age. I was a very curious kid growing up is all.

I keep saying the same thing every time I read about this topic or similar topics, but I'll keep saying it because I think it holds up:

The response that people have towards fictional child porn and other outlets (eg, sex dolls) is all the evidence people need to see clear as day how the negative attitudes towards child sexuality have nothing to do with any alleged harm. If they actually deeply cared about stopping MAPs from going near kids, they'd be doing everything they can to offer up alternatives instead of trying to make those alternatives— which don't involve any real children, ie there's no real harm— illegal as well.

They don't actually believe that having sex with minors is harmful. It's just the trendy deviancy to say you find icky, evidenced by the fact that they are obsessed with trying to criminalize any and all expression of it even if no children are involved; even if it's something that would reduce the chances of you going out and finding a real child; even if it's private, and completely out of sight. What you're supposed to do with the contemporary deviancy is hate it and attack anyone that your community decides to put the label on.

Aspire6 wrote: Tue Oct 14, 2025 1:16 pm

RoosterDance wrote: Tue Oct 14, 2025 9:55 am

mrlolicon93 wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 10:49 pm Many studies show pedos were abused or at minimum exposed to things involving kids at a young and impressionable age, so it was mentally ingrained.

Can't get behind this part. But other than that, it's nice when other people are rational about it.

Yeah should clarify I don't agree with that part either, I was not abused or exposed to anything kids at a young age. I was a very curious kid growing up is all.

I agree, I was never “molested” or “groomed” or “raped” or “abused” or “sexualized” or whatever the fuck antis call it these days. I was a virgin throughout my childhood. From 0-17 the only truly “sexual” thing ive ever done with another person was a kiss on the lips, and that was with someone only a grade above me, but given the state of the world, freshman kissing and dating sophmores might be considered a form of grooming and cocsa, so ig I WAS a victim of grooming and csa, lol.

I did have a lot of unrestricted internet access, but I wasnt searching up porn or adults, I was searching up videos of children(legal videos, nothing sexual), because even at 7 years old I was extremely fascinated and intrested in the body types of other children. I would watch children pee and ask my friends to tell me stories of them wetting themselves and would make makeshift diapers to pee in, mind you I was in second grade, and already a freaky little pervert with a piss kink. I had NEVER been exposed to abdl or adult piss kinks or anything, I just saw a boy peeing one day at school and was like “wow, I really, REALLY like that”. When I was around 9 I still enjoyed watching other kids pee and enjoyed looking at other kids but unlike when I was 7, I realized that when I watched them I would feel “tingly” “down there”. Ig antis will read this and claim that that little boy “groomed” me into my piss kink and pedophillia and basically sexually abused me by peeing in public. But heres the thing, little boys constantly piss in public, little kids in general piss themselves constantly. If that little boy hadnt pissed in the dog water fountain during recess that one day in kindergarten, some little girl having a potty accident and pissing her pants would have activated me as well. So unless we are going to fight so hard against pedophillia and child sexuality that we will seperate kids from any human interaction until 18, the kids will be perverts

Once again, no adults where involved in the slightest, I wasnt exposed to anything “innapropriate” because I was never really intrested in adults and adult sexuality, only other same aged and younger children, this was me purposefully seeking out other kids my age and younger. So unless the antis will claim that I “groomed” myself into being a pedophile, this makes no sense.

Also “or at minimum exposed to things involving kids at a young and impressionable age,”. Yes, children are typically exposed to children, this is not rocket science. So unless the og commenter is arguing that children should only be exposed to and involved with adults to avoide devloping pedophillia I am really confused. First he claims that children being exposed to adults causes pedophillia, next sentence he claims that children being exposed to children causes pedophillia, so what should we do, keep children locked in isolated cages in basements so they can avoid being exposed to children OR adults until their 18th birthday, since apperantly literally any form of aocial interaction will cause the big bad evil that is pedophillia in kids

Bookshelf wrote: Tue Oct 14, 2025 4:49 pm I keep saying the same thing every time I read about this topic or similar topics, but I'll keep saying it because I think it holds up:

The response that people have towards fictional child porn and other outlets (eg, sex dolls) is all the evidence people need to see clear as day how the negative attitudes towards child sexuality have nothing to do with any alleged harm. If they actually deeply cared about stopping MAPs from going near kids, they'd be doing everything they can to offer up alternatives instead of trying to make those alternatives— which don't involve any real children, ie there's no real harm— illegal as well.

They don't actually believe that having sex with minors is harmful. It's just the trendy deviancy to say you find icky, evidenced by the fact that they are obsessed with trying to criminalize any and all expression of it even if no children are involved; even if it's something that would reduce the chances of you going out and finding a real child; even if it's private, and completely out of sight. What you're supposed to do with the contemporary deviancy is hate it and attack anyone that your community decides to put the label on.

I almost mentioned this in another thread and I feel similarly. I'm not prepared to say that the intention behind discouraging child/minor-adult sex has absolutely nothing to do with harm reduction at all (especially if we understand 'harm' in non-hedonistic ways but even just in terms of suffering I think that's a factor, in the context of other values) but it's crystal clear to me as well that it's not about harm reduction alone and the stigma against pedophilia itself has virtually nothing to do with harm reduction (especially if 'harm' is understood as suffering. From a suffering-centered point of view I think we should be wary of victimless acts that imply de-valuing or celebrating the suffering of others but there is no incongruency between a sexual attraction to a child and valuing that child's happiness, the pedophile will probably fantasize about children in scenarios where the sexual intimacy is mutually pleasurable and it doesn't matter how unrealistic those scenarios are if we're talking about fantasy).

It is genuinely 'shocking' that animated child porn is illegal (I'm assuming something like computer-generated videos. Maybe the laws differ from place to place when it comes to lolicon or something like that, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal to personally draw child porn by hand in some places, I should probably read up on this). I cannot figure out what the rationale for this is. If someone isn't already attracted to children it won't do anything for them, it's not going to produce an attraction where there was none or if it just never occurred to people that they might find children presented in a sexual context attractive something else would almost certainly have triggered that eventually (I suppose it's not true that you have to be physically attracted to children in order for child porn to do anything for you, you could be turned on by the idea of it, but I think the logic basically applies). I've never understood why the assumption seems to be that pedophiles as pedophiles are uniquely incapable of impulse control, that they will lack the empathy and/or risk aversion required to avoid having illegal sex with someone that we can take for granted in teleiophiles. It seems obvious to me that if it makes a difference at all, child porn will almost certainly generally lead to lower incidents of actual child-adult sex.

I can at least understand the 'misguided empathy' behind statutory rape laws (or at least I think the concept of statutory rape is incoherent which is why I say 'misguided empathy.' There are at least some hypothetical worlds where we should discourage child-adult sex because we would have reason to believe the children would suffer unnecessarily, not because child-adult sex is inherently bad. Anyway, that could be about 'protecting children' in some way because those are laws that would actually affect them) but the criminalization of animated child porn and even the sex offender registry that convicted child molesters have to apply for upon release seems to border 'systemic discrimination,' to me (murderers don't have to apply for similar programs so the double standard implies that it's not just about public safety). The point of criminalizing animated child porn seems to be an inhibition of a particular sexuality, not protecting people who would otherwise be harmed.

The irony is, and this bothers me, that you can find autopsy photos of people online or pictures of dead bodies that their loved ones have to deal with being available to the general public, you can even post a video of a man being murdered but to film the statutory (or legitimate) rape of a child carries a special legal status. I can understand the idea behind criminalizing actual child porn because that can affect children or even the distribution/sharing of it as a privacy matter (even if it's consensual, maybe as an adult the child would change their mind about wanting it available to the public) but none of that applies to simulated child porn.

John_Doe wrote: Tue Oct 14, 2025 6:29 pm The irony is, and this bothers me, that you can find autopsy photos of people online or pictures of dead bodies that their loved ones have to deal with being available to the general public, you can even post a video of a man being murdered but to film the statutory (or legitimate) rape of a child carries a special legal status. I can understand the idea behind criminalizing actual child porn because that can affect children or even the distribution/sharing of it as a privacy matter (even if it's consensual, maybe as an adult the child would change their mind about wanting it available to the public) but none of that applies to simulated child porn.

It reminds me of something I thought about recently. I heard an advertisement on the radio for a mobile network or something, where a parent was wondering if their friend— another parent— would have the coverage to livestream a birth. I thought that was an odd thing to joke about; so I looked around to see if that's something people actually do. It is. There are entire social media pages dedicated to it, and people document even the more private moments of it for their family and friends to watch for some reason.

This is in a country where you can be arrested for being in possession of a drawn image of a naked child. You can watch a real life naked child come out of a gaping hole on a livestream, a traumatic private first moment in a child's life, without ever questioning the ability for the child to consent to complete strangers watching it— all while if you open up another tab with an anime kid's penis, you'll get the door kicked in for... violating a fictional kid's consent or something.

Stupid world.