MAP Forum

I'd like to write about the conclusions I came to after reading the paper The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile by Gunter Schmidt.

1. Consent is "virtually impossible to realize" due to the imbalance of power between adult and child.

This happens because both parties do not see "eye to eye", the adult views the scenario in a sexual manner which is not necessarily true for the child. He makes an example out of this by relating a story about a man who invites a boy over to play with his model electric trains.

"The boy wants to play with the electric trains. The man seeks physical tenderness and sex with the boy."

"Only the adult is aware of the disparity of scenarios and only he is in a position to overcome it, simply by saying what it is he really wants -- and in that case the boy's "no" would undoubtedly come more quickly and emphatically.

Part of the muddled situation is that the pedophile is compelled to preserve this disparity of scenarios in order to keep the plot moving. Thus, he will tend to do whatever is needed to maintain it, as the element of deception is essential to fulfilling his own desire.

From this vantage point, therefore, I find it difficult to imagine consensual sexual acts between children and adults."

2. Although children have the "sexual machinery" in place and are capable of experiencing sexual pleasure, children's sexual behavior is disjoint from that of the adult's.

In a sense he's saying that a child's sexuality is a "playful sexuality" that the pedophile exploits for his own benefit.

"Gagnon and Simon (1973) pointed out long ago that homologous sexual behaviors of children and adults are not analogous or identical, since children do not yet follow the same sexual scripts or recognize the same sexual meanings as adults. Genital manipulation by children, even when it leads to erection and orgasm, differs significantly from adult masturbation, which is accompanied by erotic fantasies and scripts."

---

The question in the back of my mind is: Could he be right?

This is the most unintelligent read i have had in a long time. I don't even know how this is making you question yourself

1. - I think this wrongly presupposes a lack of sexual interest in children.

- I don't think a power imbalance negates the possibility of consent. Consent requires being able to conceive of multiple options and selecting one upon reflection. When people are arguing against age-gap relationships broadly, they sometimes seem to jump back and forth between power imbalance and consent as though they are in some way connected (and it's really strange to me that an 18-year-old has the rational agency required to comprehend murder and to be held accountable for that but can't make an informed choice to be with someone in their 30s. Even though they can murder people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and so on the argument seems to be that there's this intrinsic age-related power imbalance that always works in their favor but what advantage exactly does the older party have in all scenarios?).

- I don't see how the assumed asymmetry in sexual interest necessarily impacts the child. If there's a romantic or erotic aspect of a physical activity, from the adult's perspective, that is non-sexual for the child it is irrelevant to what the child experiences. Even if you argue that they would not have agreed to it if they knew that it was privately erotic for the adult (if they can't consent to it then logically they can't make an informed choice to avoid it either, the consent argument fails for this reason alone. I've said this a million times but x without true consent doesn't mean x against one's will), how far would people take that (e.g. can a grown woman consent to hugging a male friend if she doesn't realize that he's attracted to her and enjoys it sexually)? It seems to emphasize that the problem is with sexual pleasure and not the physical activity itself.

2. - This just further asserts that children aren't capable of sexual attraction which I don't accept (even leaving aside whether or not a libido or some sex drive implies attraction or a desire for partnered sex, the general idea with asexuals seems to be that they're capable of 'sexuality' ; which would make sense if they have all of the hormones responsible for puberty, but aren't capable of sexual attraction. I could point out that if you take a baby and leave him on a deserted island with no contact, if he somehow makes it to adulthood he might not experience attraction despite having a libido because he hasn't yet been exposed to someone he would be attracted to but I don't want to get into that. I don't understand the black and white switch that's supposed to occur in a child who can feel and enjoy orgasm but no desire for partnered sex and then one day a desire to connect the feeling of orgasm to another person, wouldn't the hormones that play a role in attraction play a role in orgasm?), at the very least not for older children (anecdotally, many people, even people who are strongly anti-pedo, will admit that they experienced attraction at a young age so I just don't think someone's being intellectually honest if they're pretending that all prepubescent children experience no attraction and a world where one did is pointlessly theoretical).

Even if this were the case, or when it is, I still don't think there's some kind of a rights violation or inability to consent just because a child didn't have the same feelings about the act as the adult. If a child wants to 'playfully' rub their own genitals, if they're not disgusted by the adult or bothered by their doing so instead of them what difference does it make if that's solo or partnered (leaving aside future regret)?

I'm not saying that risk-aversion can't justify discouraging child-adult sex, I just find these arguments to be lacking, and I obviously reject the idea that child-adult sex is intrinsically bad.

arty wrote: Tue Nov 11, 2025 4:12 pm I'd like to write about the conclusions I came to after reading the paper The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile by Gunter Schmidt.

1. Consent is "virtually impossible to realize" due to the imbalance of power between adult and child.

This happens because both parties do not see "eye to eye", the adult views the scenario in a sexual manner which is not necessarily true for the child. He makes an example out of this by relating a story about a man who invites a boy over to play with his model electric trains.

"The boy wants to play with the electric trains. The man seeks physical tenderness and sex with the boy."

"Only the adult is aware of the disparity of scenarios and only he is in a position to overcome it, simply by saying what it is he really wants -- and in that case the boy's "no" would undoubtedly come more quickly and emphatically.

Part of the muddled situation is that the pedophile is compelled to preserve this disparity of scenarios in order to keep the plot moving. Thus, he will tend to do whatever is needed to maintain it, as the element of deception is essential to fulfilling his own desire.

From this vantage point, therefore, I find it difficult to imagine consensual sexual acts between children and adults."

2. Although children have the "sexual machinery" in place and are capable of experiencing sexual pleasure, children's sexual behavior is disjoint from that of the adult's.

In a sense he's saying that a child's sexuality is a "playful sexuality" that the pedophile exploits for his own benefit.

"Gagnon and Simon (1973) pointed out long ago that homologous sexual behaviors of children and adults are not analogous or identical, since children do not yet follow the same sexual scripts or recognize the same sexual meanings as adults. Genital manipulation by children, even when it leads to erection and orgasm, differs significantly from adult masturbation, which is accompanied by erotic fantasies and scripts."

---

The question in the back of my mind is: Could he be right?

“1. Consent is "virtually impossible to realize" due to the imbalance of power between adult and child.”

First of all, what defintiom of consent are you using? I searched “consent definition” on google and it gave me this.

“Consent-permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.”

Are you saying that children are “virtually impossible” of realizing they can agree to something an adult does?? What?? Have you never been a child and agreed with an adult on anything before? Not ever?? Children agree to things adults do and say all the time and are fully aware that they are agreeing to it. If you even ask a toddler if he wants his toy truck, he will agree to it and he realizes that if he agrees to it he gets to have a fun and pleasurable time. And how come the “imbalance of power” makes it so kids cant agree to things adults propose?

Adults dont always have power over children, first off. There are plenty of examples of kids having power over adults, like teenage boys being physically stronger than adult women, or a homeless adult and a rich child, or an adult with a phsyical or mental disabillity and a perfectly healthy preteen, or a kid taking college courses and an adult that didnt even finish highschool. Not to mention the legal and social power modern kids have to completely destroy and even end an adults life if they accuse them of pedophillia/sexual contact. But even if adults always had power over kids, which isnt true, kids can and do agree to things adult propose, literally all the damn time. If you go ask a kid if they want a glass of milk and they say yes thats literally the definition of consent. If you ask a kid if you can fondle their chest and they agree that is also consent, even though it legally isnt seen as valid.

And even if children somehow couldnt consent, which we know for a fact that they can and do, consent means to give permission, not consenting isnt a no, its just not a yes. If you cant even give consent that means you cant revoke consent either, which would make adults and kids having sex neutural and not something that should be treated as if the party said yes OR no. Its one thing to say kids DONT consent. I DONT consent to getting a surgery. Its another thing to say kids CANT consent. If I CANT consent to a surgery that means its not up to me to say yes or no, its up to whoever is determined to be able to consent, which in the case of me possibly getting surgery, would be up to my kin, and the case of children, would be up to the adults. Not even being able to consent is different from not consenting, if you dont consent you dont consent, if you CANT consent that means the choice belongs to those who can and would be on their behalf, which would be the adult. So by this logic, if the pedophile consents on the childs behalf, whats the issue? If you cant give consent that means you cant REVOKE consent either, which to me, seems like an even more problamatic and sangerous way to view kids and their sexuality than just admitting they can and do consent. If you cant say yes, that also means you cant say no.(but we know for a fact that kids can and do say yes and no to adults all the time). Also, power imbalances exist in every relationship. Are we gonna say that women cant consent to men because the patriarchy induced power dynamic is too great? Or that blacks cant consent to whites because racism makes the power dynamic too great? And what are we even defining as “power”?

What speciffic “power” does every single adult hold over every single child? Because its certainly not legal, as a child can destroy an adults life with a mere accusation. Its not physical, as the average teenage boy could easily over power an adult women, and physically disabled and weak and sick or injured adults exist. Its not mental, since there are plenty of kids with a higher iq than plenty of adults. And its not “life expierence”, because age doesnt correlate with life expierence.(and why would “life expiernece” even matter if you want to give a kid a handjob or a blowjob? What about sucking dick makes “life expierence” the breaking point between sex and rape? “Oh little Johnny you didnt have the same expiernece during the vietnam war as I did so if I sucked your dick it would be abuse” what?? Not even adults have the same life expierence as other adults, does that make all sexual contact between adults also non conseual if you werent identical twins raised in the exact same enviorment with the exact same expierences?) And even if this “power” always exists and works in the adults favor, it is onky a problem if it is used negatively. Kids dont even care about this so called “power” adults have. Kids throw tantrums and whine and complain and disgaree(as well as agree) to adults all the time

“This happens because both parties do not see "eye to eye", the adult views the scenario in a sexual manner which is not necessarily true for the child. He makes an example out of this by relating a story about a man who invites a boy over to play with his model electric trains.”

Just because you don't always see eye to eye with someone doesnt automatically make your actions abusive. Espcially since everyone thinks different thoughts, so its impossible to fully see “eye to eye” with someone in the first place. Its not gauranteed that a child wont see something as non sexual that the adult will, and even if that is the case, the adult can just, tell them?? Its not that hard to open your mouth and communicate. Ironically, the only thing that would stop this communication is age of consent laws and social taboo which would make it dangerous and non prefferable for the adult to communicate their sexual desires with the child. So if a lack of communication is the problem, why is the solution to make it so that there is a lack of communication?

"The boy wants to play with the electric trains. The man seeks physical tenderness and sex with the boy."

What if the boy also seeks physical and tenderness and sex? Kids arent asexual, you know that right?

"Only the adult is aware of the disparity of scenarios and only he is in a position to overcome it, simply by saying what it is he really wants -- and in that case the boy's "no" would undoubtedly come more quickly and emphatically.

What if the boy is the one who seeks put sexual contact with the adult? Minors flirting with adults and seeking out sexual contact with adults happens all the damn time. And if you think it doesnt, you clearly havent been a middle schooler in a class with a bunch of preteen girls and a hot subsitute teacher. And how do you know the boy will say no? What if the boy says yes?(and minors say “yes” all the time, its just that legally their yes to sexual contact with adults isnt valid)

“Part of the muddled situation is that the pedophile is compelled to preserve this disparity of scenarios in order to keep the plot moving. Thus, he will tend to do whatever is needed to maintain it, as the element of deception is essential to fulfilling his own desire.”

Thats only if you live in a society where being honest about your sexuality as a MAP to kids will get you targeted by law engorcement and hysterical parents and violent mobs. So if your complaint is that pedos arent honest about thwir sexual feelings to kids, why is your argument that we should encourage the social norms and laws that make pedos dishonest with their sexuality to kids? There would be absolutely zero deception involved if MAPness was social and legally accepted and you could just walk up to a kid and say “hey I think your sexy and you make me horny and I want to rub your penis, can I rub your penis?”.


“From this vantage point, therefore, I find it difficult to imagine consensual sexual acts between children and adults."

Well you dont have to imagine, because kids consent to sexual acts with adults all the time, its just that legally their consent is not only ignored, but treated as dissent, so the kids get labeled as “willing victims” or “grooming victims”.

“2. Although children have the "sexual machinery" in place and are capable of experiencing sexual pleasure, children's sexual behavior is disjoint from that of the adult's.”

How so? Kids do the same “sexual behaviors” as adults, they just get thrown behind bars for “child on child sexual abuse” or labled as grooming victims and shuffled of to therapy if they get caught. Literally any sexual behavior that an adult is doing I can gaurantee you a kid is doing. We just cant view visual proof because that would legally be classified as csam. And even if kids did have different sexual behaviors than adults, different doesnt mean abusive, it just means different.

“In a sense he's saying that a child's sexuality is a "playful sexuality" that the pedophile exploits for his own benefit.”

Why are you assuming its explotative? If you are trying to prove that adult on child sex is explotative, you have to actual prove how pedophiles exploit kids instead of just saying “pedophiles exploit”. Why is sexuality automatically explotative if it isnt playful? Why are you assuming pedophiles cant be playful? Theres a whole subsection of adults having “playful” sexuality,(ageplay, and any roleplay based kink, which is literally based on sexual PLAY). How xome the assumption is that the pedophile is “exploiting” the kids sexual playfulness instead of being sexually playful as well? And what even is your defintion of “playful” sexuality and how is it different from non playful sexuality?

"Gagnon and Simon (1973) pointed out long ago that homologous sexual behaviors of children and adults are not analogous or identical, since children do not yet follow the same sexual scripts or recognize the same sexual meanings as adults.”

So? So what if its not identical?Different doesnt mean abusive? And how drastically different is kids sexuality from adults? Adults give and recieve sexual pleasure because ir feels good and is fun. Kids give and recieve sexual pleasure because it feels good and is fun. Even when it comes to procreation, theres plenty of kids that have sex purely for procreation(like those teen parents who planned their pregnancy) and theres plenty, PLENTY of adults who just do it for pleasure. If we are to assume that sexuality not being 100% identical=abuse, than how far are we going to push this? We already have antis saying that sexual pleasure between middle aged adults and adults in their 20s is a form of abuse because they arent identical. Will you only be allowed to have sex with people who are the exact same as you sexually in the future, lest it be abuse? Are men and women sexually pleasung each other an example of abuse since men and women dont have identical sexualities or follow the same sexual script? And how much meaning does sexuality even have? Have we ever considerred that we might be overclomplicating blowjobs or eating ass or handjobs? What is the deep complex and mature meaning in sucking dick that adults realize that kids are incapable of grasping?

“Genital manipulation by children, even when it leads to erection and orgasm, differs significantly from adult masturbation, which is accompanied by erotic fantasies and scripts."

I dont know about you, but I had fantasies and “sexual scripts” when I masturbated as a child. And as an adult I also have fantasies and “sexual scripts” when I “manipulate my genitals to erection and orgasm”? Why would a child not have erotic fantasies? Isnt the whole sterotype that kids have eleborate fantasies while adults dont often have such a robust imagination? Why would that same imagination magically not exist when it comes to sexual pleasure in kids? Not to mention, I was sure fantasising about all types of things when I masturbated as a kid, so my own lived expierence already puts a shoe in this opinion that you are parading around as a fact

And how come childrens consent to adults only matters when its sexual? If kids cant consent and acts without consent is abuse, then I expect some consitancy. If kids sexually fooling around with adults even if they give permission for the act is rape because kids cant consent, then we better label adults play fighting with kids as physical assualt and throw those adults in prison for battery. If a kids cant consent, or cant consent to adults, and a lack of consent=abuse, then pretty much everything adults to with or to kids outside of the bare minimum for basic survival is a form of battery or assault, so why are making special exceptions for sex? Whats special about sex?

On what basis would the boy say "no" if the man is explicit about his intentions?
Here, it is being assumed that a boy would never, ever want to engage in that kind of activity, but if that were the case, there would be no situation in which the boy had given his consent. However, it seems to me that this is not the case; there are boys who have given their consent, and this refutes the statement.

The scenario presented is tainted by the assumption that a boy, by default, does not want to have sex. From this perspective, one could make a "father's dilemma" argument, where there is a son who does not want to be cuddled, does not want to be hugged, and does not want to be touched even with a finger, and from this, one could conclude that it is difficult to imagine acts of affection between father and son.

It is the same thing.

Then I don't understand why differentiate sexual activity between a boy and a man. Why is the man's activity not playful? I play video games—do I play them in a playful or "serious" way? I masturbate in the same way I play video games—is my masturbation playful or "serious"? I mean... we are a species that entertains itself and plays; we start as children, and these activities accompany us into adulthood. They do not change in their nature.

Whether there is "exploitation" or something else happens at all ages.
You should have seen my vulture-like approach when I was young and wanted my mother to buy me a video game—it was the time of day when I was disturbingly coquettish. Was I not exploiting the image my mother had of me to get something? Of course I was. It's called human relationships; this is how we function. Even a simple conversation is not disinterested; if we talk, it is only because we derive pleasure from talking, we vent, and so on.

This is a flawed analysis because the secrecy is not necessarily intentional; it's enforced by the circumstances surrounding the intent. An offending MAP cannot be honest about their intentions, even if they wouldn't bring any harm to their 'target'. A straight man can walk around the street and ask a random girl out and the worst that can happen is he gets told no. A MAP with illegal intent cannot do this... obviously.

The deception only exists because it is illegal and culturally considered wrong. An offender's deception exists because;
1) If the sexual intentions are revealed publicly, or if someone finds out without him having some level of control over the situation, he risks being arrested or attacked, and;
2) The 'target' will be conditioned to assume it's wrong without first being allowed to ease into a situation where they can perceive wanting that sort of contact as okay.

An offender will deceive to ensure their own safety, and to tailor an environment where the boy can be open about what they actually want.

If AMSC were legal, this dilemma wouldn't be a problem. You... could just ask. Similar kinds of 'deception' were found between homosexual men when homosexuality was still criminalized. Two gay men couldn't just tell each other without risking their own safety. If you were a gay man in the 70s and you were interested in another man, you would likely have had to invite him over as a friend to gauge whether or not he might be interested, and tailor the environment to make him more comfortable before you could move forward and ask any questions that might incriminate you.