MAP Forum

Hey fellas, I'm not new to loving little girls but I am new to this forum. I'm zarkle a girl lover, fan of girls 3-12. My stance is pro contact for kissing, cuddling and tickling but never penetration or penial contact. NO EXCEPTIONS.

I'm here because I have an idea not many people talk about relating to pedophilia, (Evolutionary psychology) most MAPs who are political like the ones at yesmap wiki and write pro pedophilia defences like this https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/The_Manife ... ogetic_MAP ) they blame all anti-pedo behavior on culture as if humans are blank slates that learn prejudice. As if white Christian heteronormative puritan norms are oppressing us. You get the idea - the Queer theory doctrine (maps vs puritans) Well I am pro LGBT+maps but I think that us vs them culture war worldview is mostly but not entirely inaccurate.

Regarding evolutionary psychology, in nature we see animals that are seperated by hundreds of millions of years of evolution all share one thing in common they really care about protecting their young. Crocodiles, Birds and Mammals will fight to the death to protect their offspring from predators, and put simply this instinct animals have to protect their young can be mal-adpative leading some cultures to get a false alarm that pedophiles are dangerous. But the core of intense hatred, repulsion, disgust and fear of pedos is not cultural, its rooted in malapative biology, nature mistakening us for a threat and cultural institutions like Government agencies busting pedos get built around that. Nature's core instinct to protect children shapes the culture. Modern man has a prehistoric brain and gives into animal instincts while wearing a suit and tie.

More evidence for this is right wing conspiracy theory nonsense. BS claims like Q-anon that talk about "elite satanic pedophile rings" its all rooted in the instinct to protect children. The instinct is so strong that it triggers off the charts stupid false alarms like believing bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon

From Wikipedia
QAnon is a far-right American political conspiracy theory and political movement that originated in 2017. QAnon centers on fabricated claims made by an anonymous individual or individuals known as "Q". Those claims have been relayed and developed by online communities and influencers. Their core belief is that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic child molesters in league with the deep state is operating a global child sex trafficking ring and that Donald Trump is secretly leading the fight against them.

Everything about this dumb story screams tribalism, wild animals protecting their babies from predators and the alpha male (unfortunately Trump) saving the day from evil. The deepest moral values of the far right bigots are just byproducts of maladapative faulty evolution

I could go on significantly longer showing data (which I may do in a future post) But right now I just want to know from this survey. Do you all think hatred of pedos is A. Cultural B. Evolutionary C. A mix of both, D. both leaning towards culture E. A mix of both leaning towards evolution. I'd vote A but I see the point in E. Maybe 25% cultural and 75% evolutionary.

So yeah, let's use this thread to discuss the possibility that anti pedo biases are nature's false alarm to protect baby animals from predators and hoq nonsense conspiracy theories like q-anon could be tied to the false alarm. Share thoughts!

I should point out that before 19th century feminism the concept of a child was prepubescent/early pubescent, they were the ones who expanded the definition of child from like 12 to 18. So this is an example of nature setting the base at pre-puberty (moral outrage over sex with prepubescents) and culture re-defining the word child to mean 18 instead of 12.

Using this way of thinking if feminist keep getting legal victories and raise the age of consent to 25, normies will get disgusted and morally outraged over 24 year olds having sex. Imagine a future of people getting morally outraged over 24 year olds having sex. It seems comical but it follows through. They redefine the word child and the natural protection instinct gets modified by culture.

So its best to think of it as evolutionary biology and culture interacting with one another, culture can modify the base instincts for better or worse. Reason can over power brutish instincts.

I’m of the opinion that it’s cultural, because identifying something as an enemy or as dangerous is simply a cultural matter. There was a time when violence—both physical and psychological—was part of education. This rejection of violence in education doesn’t come from evolutionary psychology (it would be strange if it did, considering it’s something less than a century old), but from culture.

So why should it be any different with things that involve sex?

It’s not that I necessarily want to dismiss evolutionary psychology, but there’s a bit too much of a tendency to look at our current state (which might not even be older than a century) and give it ancestral explanations. When in reality, as a species, we’re quite plastic: there are populations that train children to use rifles because they know children are more malleable when it comes to committing war crimes; there are families that are very open about nudity and physical contact; and then there are populations where even a hint of blood in a video game or an exposed breast is thought to cause trauma.

There are populations where children are given a knife to play with, as if it were a toy, at an age when we wouldn’t even give them Lego. The idea is that the earlier they learn, the better, and that a few cuts never killed anyone. (Even though some children do die because of this.)

Everything I see around me is shouting: cultural.
This doesn’t mean there aren’t specific reasons why we pay attention to children, but I disagree that such reasons determine our behaviors. How we interpret this attention is, in my view, dictated by culture.

It’s easier for me to think that attraction, instead, has roots in evolutionary psychology. For example, I once read about how we generally find animal pups cute because of certain features they have, and how that same kind of selection leads us to (on average) prefer healthy people, and so on—attracted the way a peacock is attracted to feathers. And thanks to our plastic brains, this attraction can take on different shades from one individual to another: for some it’s affection, for others it’s sexual. But I don’t think it determines their behavior toward them.

zarkle wrote: Fri Nov 28, 2025 8:28 am I should point out that before 19th century feminism the concept of a child was prepubescent/early pubescent, they were the ones who expanded the definition of child from like 12 to 18. So this is an example of nature setting the base at pre-puberty (moral outrage over sex with prepubescents) and culture re-defining the word child to mean 18 instead of 12.

Using this way of thinking if feminist keep getting legal victories and raise the age of consent to 25, normies will get disgusted and morally outraged over 24 year olds having sex. Imagine a future of people getting morally outraged over 24 year olds having sex. It seems comical but it follows through. They redefine the word child and the natural protection instinct gets modified by culture.

So its best to think of it as evolutionary biology and culture interacting with one another, culture can modify the base instincts for better or worse. Reason can over power brutish instincts.

There is indeed a growing movement to raise the age of consent to 21 and even higher. It's mostly just feminists right now, but give it 5 years, and conservatives will start talking about protecting 20-year-old "children."

@notforever
> because identifying something as an enemy or as dangerous is simply a cultural matter.

Evidence to back up my claims about idenifying friend and foe and "us vs them" as evolutionary as opposed to cultural.
https://medium.com/the-no%C3%B6sphere/w ... 4cee56dda0
https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/the-sci ... s-vs-them/

This is where I disagree and tomorrow when I am less tired I can post why more in depth, but look at it like this, evolutionary psychology especially the work and statements of resepcted scientist like Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Jonathan Haidt (Moral Foundations) and Michael Shermer and even Jordan Peterson (less respected right wing chud) talk about a "us vs them" mentality being a problem in society. They have argued prehistoric humans were simple minded and reduced complex nuance topics into simple "us vs them" "good vs evil" black and white stories.

A wild animal being chased by a tiger doesn't have time for nuance, it can't sit down and think it through. It's brain isn't even powerful enough to do that. it needs simple us vs them narratives to know who is friend who is foe, complexity = beating eaten.

Zoroastrianism the world's oldest religion is a "us vs them" epic battle of good vs evil. It got repackaged to christianity and Islam. Marxism is a "us vs them" of workers vs bosses. Queer Theory is a modification of Marxism for "us vs them" repackaged as queers vs heteronormatives. These are what Dawkins calls "memes" being readapted. The us vs them story is proliferating in different forms. I want to cut the BS and instead of exclusively focusing just on culture I want to go deeper and look at nature for clues.

>there are populations that train children to use rifles because they know children are more malleable when it comes to committing war crimes; there are families that are very open about nudity and physical contact; and then there are populations where even a hint of blood in a video game or an exposed breast is thought to cause trauma.

@not forever, I advise you to read/watch basic info on Haidt's moral foundations regarding why morality varies. Just punch in "Moral Foundations" on Youtube. I side with Johnathan Haidt that says basically humans have six moral foundations that go back to cave man times
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

Care/Harm (caring for other members of the tribe)
Fairness/Cheating (preventing other members of the tribe from free loading/stealing)
Purity/Degradation (preventing the consumption of diseased food and deemed degenerate sex acts)
Authority/Subversion (obeying the leaders of the tribe/and respecting hiaracchy)
Loyalty/Betrayal (keeping promises, agreements in the tribe/ not running away during a battle)
Liberty/Oppression (being skeptical of over controlling leaders that may lie to manipulate the tribe.

In familes where a hint of blood triggers moral panic that is high careness/harm. In familys where a nipple showing is prohibited that is restriction on liberty and high purity. The part about "war children" like Kony in Africa is very rare and that would be a extreme violation of care/harm and rightfully so the entire civilized world rejects that. Like I said earlier, I'm actually quite tired and hopefully I can present my ev pych views better after a good night sleep. Like I said I believe its 70% evolution, 30% culture. I am not a purist.

zarkle wrote: Fri Nov 28, 2025 9:53 amEvidence to back up my claims about idenifying friend and foe and "us vs them" as evolutionary as opposed to cultural.

Something I have not denied; what I said is that those who consider themselves enemies do so culturally.
I don’t see anything since you wrote that it goes against what I wrote.

I am an antitheist atheist; I have been familiar with Dawkins and company for a long time, but I don’t understand what this argument has to do with the fact that throughout our history, and across different nations, what is considered dangerous has changed again and again—often proposing worldviews that openly contradict each other.

So much so that one can only conclude that what alarms us today is cultural in nature.
The fact that culture evolves does not mean it ceases to be cultural.

The color red has had very different meanings in different eras. The meaning assigned to red is cultural; it matters little whether red “does not exist”, whether it is a product of how we perceive the world, or of physical reasons or other factors. Its meaning is cultural.

When we talk about the enemy at whom the finger is pointed, we are talking about culture. It matters little that, as a species, we are drawn to certain kinds of rhetoric. We are also a species fascinated by narratives, but the fact that we give one value to the Bible and another to Harry Potter has cultural reasons, even if our interest in both has the same psychological basis.

For a time, a similar discussion took place, for example, regarding the prohibition of certain foods within religions: people talked about medical reasons (not eating foods that could easily be harmful), they talked about a legacy inherited from earlier religions, and then at some point the interpretation of identity became fashionable. You don’t eat a certain food in order to stay healthy—you eat it in order to belong to a group, to be the ones who don’t eat food X.

But these are all explanations offered retrospectively: a phenomenon is analyzed and people try to connect the dots, when in fact it is multifactorial and can be summarized as: it has cultural motivations.

It is obvious that we are not metaphysical beings, but nobody gives a magical character to cultural motivations. It does make it clear, however, that just as one food could be forbidden, another could have been forbidden instead; that instead of circumcision, people could have been putting rings around their necks to elongate it, or simply wearing fashionable clothing.

It hardly matters that circumcision, fashionable clothing, neck elongation, or marking the skin with cuts or ink all have similar social motivations—they emerge from the same brain and various influences. But if today we prefer tattoos over cutting our teeth, it is for cultural reasons.

The rest seems like rationalizations to me.
That desire to reduce everything to frameworks in order to have a picture of it and interpret it in the simplest way possible. (Which I can fall into myself, to be clear. The funny part is that even this rationalization can fall into the same rhetorics and give you, very indirectly, reasons for why we respond this way. But why do we choose exactly this way? Western culture, I presume. So again: cultural motivation.)

Whenever the phenomenon is a complex product of the interactions within a population, it is referred to as a cultural product. It matters little that, individually, a person is an organic being with a brain, determined by their biology, the laws of physics, and so on; culture is nothing magical.

It's taught or rather it's a trait acquired by someone with certain things happening in their lives, and it isn't unique to MAPs but can be different groups.

People are often their own worse judge, that's why many people find it easier to forgive others than it is to forgive themselves for anything. We constantly compare ourselves to others and usually focus on unfair comparisons. That person is much more successful than me (although I don't account for the fact that this person was born to a wealthy family, had private education, had access to resources I don't etc). That person is prettier, fitter, taller or anything else. So we end up forming negative views of ourselves. For most people it's managed reasonably but for some people it's really corrosive and they really feel that sense of being invisible, of failing, of being less than they want to be. At this point they have two paths they can walk.

Path one, they can analyse themselves, put together a plan of self improvement, learn to manage expectations and grow as an individual. Get educated, form a business, find romance, get fit or whatever.

Path two, they can fail to analyse and grow as a person and just take the easy option of finding someone they can look down at, to tackle that sense of failure. Depending on where they are and the circles they're in, they will find a safe target. Immigrants, gay people, pedophiles, coloured people, Muslims, Christians or whatever. Then they'll build a lazy identity around blaming them for their failures and trying to hurt them to heal themselves.

Anti's are a minority of people on path two, they're just people failing at life and looking for someone to hurt to try to plug the void in themselves. But they're not the majority, if anything I feel some pity for anti's because they are on a path that only deepens their failure in life and they will never be anything more. Of course they are also destructive to other normal good people so I only spare a limited amount of pity.

zarkle wrote: Fri Nov 28, 2025 8:28 am I should point out that before 19th century feminism the concept of a child was prepubescent/early pubescent, they were the ones who expanded the definition of child from like 12 to 18. So this is an example of nature setting the base at pre-puberty

At what point did you determine that pre-19th Century is "nature"?

It would appear that most primitive societies do not have a taboo on pedophilia. This is not evidence that it's absence is "natural", just that some civilizations have deemed it unnecessary.

It would also appear that pedophilia is socially imprinted as a threat to children in western industrial societies. This among other reasons is why you get peculiarities such as Q Anon and Moma Bears, which as you admit yourself, can not be pinned down to any particular timeframe (and thus, I would add, defeats your own argument).

I think there's a problem in trying to explain a relatively recent change in terms of evolutionary traits that have existed for thousands of years.
I don't know much about the statement that "protecting their young" is a natural trait in many species. But I think the ways it shows up can be very different in all these species and throughout human history. Perhaps there was a society where people didn't see problems with adult-child sexual relationships. From their perspective, there wasn't anything that could harm young people or the idea of protecting them. Societies have dealt with it in many different ways.

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_ ... in_History
https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_ ... _Sexuality
https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_ ... ationships

I think we can get somewhere if we focus less on pedophilia and more on the broader concept of maladaptiveness.(Maybe?)
The idea that pedophilia is a kind of demonic trap can also be linked with a demand to repress the desire out of the social body. However, an analysis like this would ignore explanations based only on evolution and would look for a multidisciplinary approach. It's similar to the approach they take in queer theory.

I personally don't accept this. I believe the hatred for pedophiles is entirely cultural, or at least not rooted in a biological instinct to protect children (I don't think it can be reduced to that even if an instinct to protect children, biologically hardwired or not, is a factor). I could be wrong. For one; while it's obvious that the survival of mammalian juveniles depends largely on loving, altruistic mothers (and compared to most other species humans might be especially vulnerable in infancy), I think children are treated very poorly in many cultures. They have arguably become more and more sacred in Western culture since the Industrial Revolution, but I'm not a history buff. There is no similar outrage, in most cultures, when it comes to corporal punishment (which correlates with long-term anxiety and aggression issues and even a lower IQ) or the circumcision of infants for non-medical reasons (and a strong instinct to protect infants wouldn't necessarily apply to the same degree to older children, pre-teens or young teens). Lastly, something else has to explain why sex is viewed as an inherent threat to children's welfare to begin with.