MAP Forum

I don't know where exactly I'm going with this (and on this board the question is probably pointless. I don't think I'm who MAP activism is really oriented toward; I prefer post pubescent, or at least pubescent/post-pubescent, girls and women, I guess I'm mildly attracted to some prepubescent girls at times but when I fantasize about them it's largely for the sake of having a new kind of partner/novelty and I guess escaping societal restrictions. I almost envy 'pedophiles' ; as in people with a weak to no attraction to adults, because prepubescent children, depending on how young they are, tend to have softer personalities and given my personality type it is so much easier to deal with people who don't communicate via intentionally ambiguous hinting or innuendo and there aren't the usual social anxiety issues you have with adults although I'm very cold with children and completely lack social skills when interacting with them. Children are comparatively so unintimidating and 'easy'). It is probably better to remain silent and thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt but I can't bring myself to care these days. I have to be honest with you, I don't think MAP activism is the most important thing in the world. The vegan/animal rights movement is much more important when you consider the lives of the worst-off non-human animals on factory farms (or in laboratories or various centers of harmful animal 'exploitation') and the sheer number who live shockingly intolerable lives. Antinatalist activism might also be even more epic in the grand scheme of things. Ending world hunger, war and violence are also hugely epic concerns but I was surprisingly kind of bummed out when the site was down because I don't think there's any other kind of message board I can find that centers around a topic that...I don't know, resonates with me so much or tugs at what I'm really emotionally interested in, it's hard to articulate and it's probably really callous considering the more epic concerns in the world (not to downplay how truly hateable anti-pedophile discrimination is as someone who's against bullying, cruelty and oppression. I'm also deeply emotionally invested in the idea of animal equality and living in a society where non-human animal happiness/suffering is seen as being as valuable as human happiness/suffering but a vegan activism board is not really where my interests lie, I tend to avoid most vegan youtube channels as well so as much as I want people to agree with me on cats and all sentient animals being 'persons' the MAP conversation is what tends to interest me the most unless maybe someone picks at my sacred cow of animal equality or other insecurities). Anti-psychology is a stance I'm really invested in (the goals of that movement might be to separate psychiatry and state to the point where psychiatric authority isn't legally recognized and psychiatrists have no more legal power over people, on top of, I would hope, discrediting the validity of psychology as a science in the public eye, or at least that's what I want. I know there's a movement for psychiatric survivors and against psychiatric drugs etc. but I don't know how much of it is just about discrediting pscyh. as junk science) but even that doesn't really hit to the same extent.

Outside of just being happy that society has progressed in the way that I want it to or that a position similar to my own or implied by my core value system has become the norm I would not really benefit in any materially tangible way from a successful MAP 'revolution' (or the kind of broader sexual revolution that I would love to see occur). I'm not going to be a middle-aged man having sex with desirable young women I'm attracted to with my erectile dysfunction, social anxiety, body issues (balding, red eyes, dry lips, stretch marks, butt fat, various scars, etc., on top of just aging) or in light of the fact that most women/people are not my biggest fans, as face-saving and bitter as this might sound I don't really want real-life sex with women I'm physically attracted to (I'd fantasize about most of them in that way sooner or later; to really get into it I have to like a girl enough that I can fantasize about cuddling with her after, but on top of being unrealistic I wouldn't really want to put myself in a vulnerable situation with them nor could I enjoy sex with someone I couldn't trust, relax around or emotionally connect with). I am long-winded. The reason why the MAP question is so interesting to me, why it means so much to me and why I almost have this 'us against the world' mindset when I'm on this board and not others is because needing emotionally intimate wild sex (or even just sensual contact like kissing and hugging on top of being shown affection by attractive women) is so much a part of who I am. A life without the prospect of that is intolerable, for me. I'd be perfectly happy sleeping with women in their twenties and thirties so unlike pedophiles I'm legally allowed a sexual outlet but the MAP struggle/issue resonates so deeply with me because of my interest in sexual exclusion (anti-pedo. people generally want children to be asexual on principle) and sexual poverty (the MAP struggle, in some ways, mirrors the 'incel' struggle; or more precisely the 'rejected by people I'm actually attracted to' struggle).

I have aesthetic preferences; there's a way I would prefer to look, but without question the bulk of the body dysphoria that I've struggled with for literal decades is rooted in the agony of unrequited attraction. If you don't look a certain way, the people you're attracted to will not want to have sex with you. Even the constant indirect criticism about my appearance that I used to face in public (which I've often gotten the impression was justified in part by my coming off as childlike and shy, so some of people's attitudes about children may have been projected on to me, I don't know. Children, or ideal children, are seen as docile, asexual and prideless, so if I was seen as childish the assumption might have been that I couldn't be hurt by sexual rejection or embarrassed/humiliated because, being childlike, I would have no desire to experience sexual pleasure or feel good about myself) that led to my social-anxiety related agoraphobia is largely a problem because of 'sexual exclusion.' In mocking someone's appearance (because being funny-looking is inherently at odds with being sexy. Clowns aren't sexy, they're funny-looking. This is getting long so I'm starting rush) or telling them that their appearance is flawed or unattractive you are effectively telling them that their appearance shouldn't be a source of happiness; which means that no one should be attracted to them, or simply drawing their attention to the reality of unrequited attraction.

My interest in the abolition of age-gap taboos is strongly tied to my interest in non-monogamy. I've always been turned off by 'polyamory' (I don't want to analyze that or get into it), even though the prospect of sex without emotional intimacy or affection is completely boring to me, my personal ideal would be emotionally intimate casual sex (or cuddling, kissing, sharing a bed, showering together, ) with female friends. I am too wiped out to do this justice (and I'm half-afraid the site will be inaccessible if I wait too long before posting), which is a shame because it could be an interesting topic, but I truly believe that there's a moral imperative to minimize 'sexual poverty' or to fulfill as many people's sexual/romantic needs as is possible and the widespread adoption of 'promiscuity' (being open to sexual/romantic intimacy with everyone you're physically attracted to) would serve this end. Even polyamorous people tend to downplay the hard fact that non-monogamy reduces competition (maybe to avoid appearing insecure or as though they adopted their lifestyle for 'unhealthy' reasons). People will joke about being selfish and not wanting to share their partners or sharing their partners for the sake of being generous or about how they're just too fine to deprive so many women of their company but it actually is true that the general principle of sharing and generosity and inclusivity really does justify open relationships.

If you have multiple partners multiple people benefit from being with you even if you're not with them for altruistic reasons. If a somewhat attractive man is competing with an extremely attractive man for the affections of a particular woman, the extremely attractive man will win ('attractive' by her standards, and considering personality; not just appearance). Unrequited attraction and sexual frustration will still exist in a promiscuous world but we will more or less no longer be in competition for mates, so there will factually be no more of a point in 'comparing' ourselves to others. I believe that exclusivity for the sake of exclusivity is immoral and that's what contractual monogamy is, to the highest degree possible in regards to 'the sexual economy,' poly relationships can also be closed and thus relatively exclusive). I'll have to leave it at that because, like I said, I'm wiped out from writing. Bottom line- my objection to the anti-pedo. position is largely an opposition to the devaluing of sexual pleasure (whether it's felt by children or child-attracted adults), it's something else if we're just weighing the risks and costs of sex against the value of sexual happiness but anti-pedo. people (as I'm defining them here) want children to be asexual on principle.

It may seem strange, but in some way I consider topics related to sexuality and privacy to be more fragile, and therefore precisely for this reason more important than all other struggles, and both of these issues arise again in a MAP context. I find them more important than fighting world hunger, war, violence, public health, weapons, etc., or any other position I might support, simply because I believe there will always be someone fighting against world hunger. But the day we lose privacy, or something is condemned regarding sexuality, there’s no going back.

What worries me is that losing privacy and condemning sexualization might be considered “right”. Once this happens, it cannot be undone, as it will be seen as part of inevitable progress. I’m not framing this as a “most discriminated category” argument, but rather as a “uniquely wrong category” argument. Something that, for many reasons, is taken for granted to the point that the opposing position has become the default stance to adopt.

And I believe it has significant implications.
I enjoy entertainment—I’m someone who is very connected to the world of video games, and I like watching movies, TV series, reading manga and books, and so on. I value freedom of expression, freedom of representation. I’m very protective about these topics, and I often notice how old comics or drawings, many films of a certain age, contain elements that today could no longer be published.
When I discover that certain types of magazines once existed and have been completely wiped off the face of the earth, it makes me sad. When I think about Japan and the external influences it is receiving, the internal changes, again… I think about how much culture could be destroyed overnight due to new moral standards. And moralism and paternalism are things I don’t like, that I really cannot stand.

Then again, there’s the issue of freedom of expression, which for me also involves the freedom to give consent. The freedom for a young person to take photos of themselves and share them wherever they choose, the freedom to access pornography, the freedom to read and write erotic stories, the freedom to watch films that depict their stage of life, desires, urges, and… the same creative freedom for authors to talk about whatever they want, in whatever way they want, conveying whatever message they want.
I have always struggled with depression. As a teenager, I often read books that were not considered suitable for my state of mind. Books that would have been forbidden if the same panic that exists today around sex in the name of “youth health” had existed back then. But I appreciated them, I incorporated them into my own experience, I interpreted them and used them as I saw fit—they helped me grow and adopt a certain mindset.
I believe that young people should have freedoms: giving some dignity to their actions instead of always seeing them as mere products of their surroundings (which is true—they are products, but so are adults’ actions), as well as responsibilities, support, and rights.

In short, this brings us back to a discussion adjacent to the MAP issue.
I would also talk about education, where I am increasingly convinced that interaction with adults is extremely necessary for young people, especially in a modern context where both parents work and the only adults a young person can approach are authorities—not friends, not people who can spark curiosity or exploration.
I’ve met many intelligent and successful people who talk about the positive impact of having an adult, outside the family, who helped them excel in some field or who were endless sources of information and curiosity, keeping their minds lively. That is the kind of education that schools should provide but cannot, because the prerequisites for friendship and one-on-one relationships are missing.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the average IQ is declining year after year precisely because of this lack of interaction. Even an adult would benefit from chatting with other adults who know more than they do in a friendly relationship. Imagine how beneficial it would be for a child, instead of having education come only from authority figures.

In short… I truly consider it an important issue, from many different perspectives. Then, selfishly: I want entertainment to be free. I want someone to be able to write a book, make a movie, or create a video game without worrying about ending up in jail for it.

That was a long read, but from what i understood, you're saying that people have a right to sexual pleasure, and i would agree with you. However, you also said it wasn't the most important issue, which i would disagree with. I think about attractive young teenage girls 24/7 and how miserable it is that i can't have them. It's driving me mad

Cunny Defender wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 10:44 pm That was a long read, but from what i understood, you're saying that people have a right to sexual pleasure, and i would agree with you. However, you also said it wasn't the most important issue, which i would disagree with. I think about attractive young teenage girls 24/7 and how miserable it is that i can't have them. It's driving me mad

So, hebephilia right?

Officerkrupke wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 10:53 pm

Cunny Defender wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 10:44 pm That was a long read, but from what i understood, you're saying that people have a right to sexual pleasure, and i would agree with you. However, you also said it wasn't the most important issue, which i would disagree with. I think about attractive young teenage girls 24/7 and how miserable it is that i can't have them. It's driving me mad

So, hebephilia right?

Hebephilia, ephebophilia, teleiophilia, and even pedophilia, you could say all the above. I'm attracted to females across ages broadly; I really just like young girls in general

Cunny Defender wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 10:44 pm That was a long read, but from what i understood, you're saying that people have a right to sexual pleasure, and i would agree with you. However, you also said it wasn't the most important issue, which i would disagree with. I think about attractive young teenage girls 24/7 and how miserable it is that i can't have them. It's driving me mad

Prepare for another long read, and this might go somewhat off-topic.

I wouldn't frame it as a 'right.' I believe that sexual pleasure qua happiness has intrinsic value and that there is a moral imperative to increase the emotional quality of people's lives, that would include sexual/romantic gratification which something like 99% of human beings (over a certain age at least but even if a part of me is still cautious about overstating the sexual needs of average small children I can't deny the evidence that some infants masturbate for pleasure, even if one typically doesn't develop a strong stable libido until puberty or maybe andrenarche) have a deep-rooted psychological need for. It seems to me that people are generally not sympathetic to sexual frustration, it's not seen as a serious 'social problem.' There's some sympathy for 'unrequited love' (not being able to find a committed long-term monogamous relationship) but not a desire for sex per se (even emotionally intimate casual sex that may occur in the context of friendship). As a man ages he's expected to mature beyond an attraction to girls/women in their teens, twenties etc. or a general desire for sex (when people argue against pornography or prostitution, there's typically not even a cost-benefit analysis where they're at least considering the sexual happiness of men who would otherwise have no other external outlet for their sexuality if not for some kind of sex work because sexual pleasure just has no intrinsic value at all, it is something that immature and unsophisticated perverts are preoccupied with. Someone once said that erectile dysfunction in older married men can be a good thing because it deters them from seeking extramarital affairs and forces them to focus on their duties as a husband-father. You'll also have people who will say that circumcising men is good because it prevents preejaculation without considering the cost or alternative solutions to preejaculation, it might not be as obvious how that applies but I could cite different examples of the general devaluing of sexual pleasure). People seem to radically underestimate how psychologically devastating long-term sexual frustration with no practical hope for satisfying sexual/romantic encounters can be (I'd rather not focus on men, and I'm not going to elaborate on this because you might already be losing interest with how long this is/will be, but I'm not really convinced that average women have a sex drive or sexual interest to the same degree and that probably explains a lot of things), it's seen as a completely trivial thing.

Now I'm about to really go off-topic, it seems to me that it's relatively rare for people to really value the happiness of others. It's a little less rare for people to care about the suffering of others; everyone at some point will probably be bothered by the suffering of others because that's part of 'human nature.' People tend to see happiness as trivial, at least in terms of moral imperatives, it means a lot to me if someone cares about my happiness. I came back to this point after finishing the rest of my novella so I can't remember what exactly I wanted to say but I've been pondering lately whether or not it's more useful to emphasize being pro-happiness, when 'happiness and suffering' or 'pro-happiness/anti-suffering' becomes cumbersome. On one hand I don't want to deny that suffering is inherently bad; in and of itself and not just in minimizing happiness, but because one can be free from pain without experiencing happiness even though being completely happy necessarily negates feeling pain being 'pro-happiness' necessarily implies being anti-suffering (in some capacity) whereas one can be anti-suffering without being pro-happiness (in fact, although pleasure minimizes pain, if you introduce a source of pleasure into someone's life that they become accustomed to its future absence will cause them pain that would otherwise not be an issue if they never became 'addicted' to that pleasurable thing or aware of what they had prior to been missing out on). I say this because, from an anti-suffering point of view, one can sympathize with someone's sexual frustration without respecting the value that enables that frustration to begin with (you could think the desire for sex is inappropriate but still sympathize with the pain that not having access to it might cause someone, if one can somehow eliminate their own desire for sexual pleasure then its absence will no longer cause them pain but from my point of view, even if I could do that, there would still be the loss of something valuable even if I was no longer harmed by that loss. For this reason I think that the pro-happiness point of view is ultimately the best approach to take when it comes to destigmatizing pedophilia itself and child-adult sex on principle even though even just the view that only suffering is inherently bad still goes a very long way). It really bothers me that psychologists think that introverts, all other factors being equal, are less capable of happiness and even moreso when they claim that extroverts as extroverts are more pro-happiness (for one, you have to introspect in order to ponder the nature of happiness per se abstracted from the things that we feel good about but I won't get into the flaws of psychology and its ideas about happiness or consciousness generally).

I really wish there were a community of people who agreed with me about the value of everyone's sexual pleasure (qua happiness, and I want to stress that I don't think sex itself is intrinsically valuable one way or the other) and identified as 'promiscuous' in the sense of being theoretically open to everyone who met a certain physical standard in the understanding that sexual suppression is inherently harmful (the traits that attract you to one person will attract you to other people who share those same traits, so monogamy is inherently suppressive and suppression is harmful because it leads to felt desire frustration) and to bring as much happiness into as many other people's lives as is possible; even if they're doing so for partly selfish reasons. I mentioned earlier that I'm not as interested in other message boards and that would include a board for pan-hedonists like me because, in practice, I won't see eye to eye with other philosophical hedonists on what our worldview implies so the fact that we share it is largely irrelevant. I also wish there was a term for someone who can't enjoy sex without an emotional connection but is uninterested in commitment and exclusivity, but more than anything I would connect 'promiscuity' to an 'everyone deserves happiness' worldview. 'Promiscuity' isn't really a serious or clear term that I can see a lot of people calling themselves 'unironically.' 'Sex positive' people don't necessarily take their 'sex positivity' to its logical conclusion and again, I don't consider sex to be intrinsically good. 'Polyamory' turns me off for reasons that I can't necessarily connect to basic ethical principles (the general rhetoric about 'it's about love, not sex, and it's work work work, very complicated and not fun' when sexual attraction seems to be what differentiates a friendship from a 'romantic' relationship. I'm just not turned on by the idea of a group marriage. I might also argue that it's conceptually meaningless. I think the debate around whether or not romantic love is inherently monogamous is a waste of time if the term is as open-ended and nebulous as it is but I do think that infatuation is inherently monogamous because it involves an aspect of obsession and there seems to be a fundamentally monogamous form of attachment regardless of whether or not what we're calling 'romantic love' is inherently monogamous so what do polyamorous people have in common with sexually monogamous couples that couldn't apply to platonic relationships that we can see it's the same thing applied to multiple relationships? It's just easier for me to say my ideal would be a sexual friendship, 'allosexual aromantic' sounds simple and convenient but if you say that you're not interested in 'romantic' relationships people will assume that you want impersonal, affectionless interactions with people you don't care about and the term refers to hardwired orientation, not learned relationship preference or a certain ideological view of sex/relationships).

I think about attractive young teenage girls 24/7 and how miserable it is that i can't have them. It's driving me mad

I'm in a similar boat. I think about something related to sex (e.g. kissing, hugging, a girl sitting on my lap, some kind of interaction charged with sexual/romantic tension, ) on some level in the back of my mind almost constantly, it's usually attached to my interest in music and certain sensory experiences too. Even when my libido is low, I normally want to want some kind of sexual/romantic intimacy with unrealistic fantasy women. I'm basically as attracted to women in their late 30s as I am to teenagers though (there have been more than a few times when I would see some woman in a movie or tv show who looked as though she was in her 40s and think, 'finally, a middle-aged woman I'm really attracted to,' but then I'd check her wikipedia page and find out that she was in her late 30s). After 40, my my attraction to women starts to wane. As crass or harsh as this might sound, it's not super rare to come across basically sexually attractive women in their 40s but I can't remember the last time I came across one I could see myself having a crush on/being infatuated with. I did see a picture of a 45-year-old woman I know nothing about yesterday who looked completely as though she were in her 30s so she might be an exception (I wasn't infatuated with her or particularly aroused or anything but she looked like a young woman, I could maybe see myself being infatuated with someone who looked like her). My mid-life crisis, this intolerable despair I have about lifelong unrequited attraction, can basically be boiled down to sexual frustration (along with most of my non-aging related body dysphoria, although I do have a personal preference for how I look I would rather be unattractive by my aesthetic preferences but irresistible to all the girls/women I'm attracted to then to be attractive by my tastes but repelling to the girls/woman I'm attracted to. That said, I'm not the kind of person who would actually bend to fit women's preferences, certainly not in terms of personality or values, but if it were within my control I wouldn't necessarily change certain aspects of my appearance just to attract women).

To be a 70-something-year-old man and know that shockingly attractive girls/women in their teens, twenties and thirties find you sexually repelling or 'disgusting' is one of the harshest things in the world. It's very difficult to process emotionally. It bothers me when people put down other people because of their looks, even if it's this completely innocent person they have no issue with it's as though they are completely oblivious to or apathetic about what it's like to know that the people you instinctively want to be intimate with find you disgusting. It's incredibly heartless to me. I really do believe in the concept and ideal of inclusivity and everyone deserving happiness but people who claim to don't always apply that to sexual pleasure.

you also said it wasn't the most important issue, which i would disagree with.

Then we have to agree to disagree because, in my mind, we can't talk about sexual frustration or helping people to have satisfying sex lives or at least some semi-satisfying sexual outlet before we talk about food, shelter, health care and the basic necessities of life. If you live in a war zone and you're running on adrenaline and panic you will probably get no gratification from daydreaming about cuddling with some baddie after hot sex. Same thing if you're starving. It doesn't matter if we destigmatize a 40-year-old developing an intimate sexual relationship with a cute 13-year-old if either of them is struggling with unbearable chronic depression or anxiety or some lingering trauma that they can't free themselves from. Even in terms of human happiness there's so much more we need to take care of before my ideal sexual revolution can really improve people's lives but given the suffering that animal exploitation causes (there may very well be some relatively happy cows, pigs, chickens etc. on some small farms even though I still oppose k.lling them for food but I'm talking about the worst cases, the ones who suffer unimaginably from standard industry practices) I think it might be the single most pressing issue of our time.

As a general point, another issue I would connect to my interest in MAP activism is my opposition to normative age roles. I hate that people are told that they're no longer allowed to dress a certain way, carry themselves a certain way, express themselves in a certain way or engage in hobbies that bring them happiness because of their age. It's something else if you're telling someone, "at your age, you should know better" but that's in regards to irresponsible or unethical behavior, not just watching Disney movies or playing with toys. I read mostly middle-grade fiction and I can't see myself ever 'feeling' like a 'middle aged man' inside. Outside of my ideas and in certain areas I'm not that different than when I was in my late teens, certainly not really different in any core fundamental way than when I was 26.