MAP Forum

We're not flexible because of genetics, biological makeup, and inborn predispositions and culture acting as a risk factor for amplifying and reducing expression and behavior, but I don't think that culture is the cause alone.

My questions are why is there MAP acceptance and antiMAP hatred in certain societies but not others who are all related to each other? Why in certain cultures you get the opposite, controlling, child hating types who despite people who even show kindness to children? In some societies, young children were allowed to marry much older men and plenty of adults went naked around them yet no MAP HATRED seemed to be recorded.

It's the hatred and the instant unwavering "knee jerk" reaction that caught my attention and that I look for, not just a general "GROSS!!" stuff, the people who look like they want to have us killed and tortured just for being NICE to children as well as being sexually or romantically attracted to them. Also note how so many of these people who are interested in "protecting the children" are some of the most child hating people one could come to meet, like one of my own parents unfortunately.

MAPs don't seem to become antiMAPs readily and antis do not become MAP supporters readily. If it were cultural we'd probably see higher rates of switching from one side to the other.

After studying psychology and personality disorders I was noticing how some (especially Peter Salerno on cluster B personalities) are saying it's genetic at the root because certain behavioral and personality traits do not change over one's life (and in some cases get worse over the course of their lives) and how trauma, abuse, etc. do not easily explain their causes. As such I do believe there could be genetic/biological components (as seen by my posts) for the extreme "protecting" types who harm kids in the process such as depriving them of natural kid antics, curiosity, or punishing them excessively. They "care" about them but not as people, not as individuals but as tools to help pass on their ego and legacy. The general, less extreme dislike of pedophilia (those who are understanding of MAPs who do not want to harm children yet would want one who harmed a child to be beaten and killed, youth liberation supporters who would caution but not necessarily violently oppose AMSC etc.) seems to be cultural.

MAPs being the extreme of antiMAPs do appear to be traits that do not seem to change over the course of one's life even with therapy, "conversion therapy", drugs, etc. which for me points to biology and hard wiring of the bran, whereas the environment is only playing into these effects. A MAP and an antiMAp could be raised the exact same way from birth and still come out widely different with one being proMAP the other antiMAp.

If it was exclusively learned and culture only we'd see a greater change in antiMAPs becoming literally accepting of MAPs and vice versa, MAPs becoming antiMAPs and hating children and child lovers the same way. We do not see this readily and many stay stuck within their mindset despite cultural changes, even leading into the next generations in select offspring. However, genetic changes can occur quickly with a cultural change because more of those people with those genetics produce offspring. More MAPs having kids would mean higher (but not exclusive) child loving genes, more antiMPs means generally more child hating genes, etc.

I can already hear the response. But...wait. That doesn't make sense! There are plenty of people who are the opposite of their parents! Contrary to how we think of genetics based on expectations of things that are not biology (stinky stuff plus more stinky stuff should make it more stinky) this does not readily apply to genetics and biology in the field especially when it comes to how they affect personality. In laboratory settings these are accounted for and heavily controlled, something we cannot do in society, thus there's always variance for a genetic factor that is not of our ability to detect and avoid. If you breed a white cow with a black cow and get a black and white cow that makes perfect sense, but personality is very, very different from a simple color crossbreed.

There are times where one can appear to change, but it's temporary and not a lifelong change. Sure, you can have people driven past a certain point and they seem to be the opposite (an optimistic person being driven to being pessimistic and depressed), but they usually won't like the extremes they're put in and will do whatever they can to not be that way, fighting to get back to how their biological nature was before. Being born without oxytocin receptors is not the same as being born with healthy ocytocin receptors and having them damaged as people who were born with those fully functioning receptors that were damaged would do nearly anything to get them back. It's not 'them" nor "who they are" because their biology is telling them something should be there and isn't.

Another example is take an introvert who's put in social situations will not readily become an extrovert and they'll still prefer to minimize the interaction even after years of exposure and practice. Even if they externally appear to become extroverted they might not actually be truly "converted". They can only adapt to a point, which is where the genetics may come in.

How I think of this is the fact that some of the most kind people can come from the cruelest of families, and the cruelest of people can come from the nicest of families. But doesn't this go against genetics? Shouldn't nice people create nice kids? Well...not really. Recessive genes can skip a generation, thus not showing up until the next generation. However, genetics are sneaky too and can expression multiple ways hence there's covert narcissism, overt narcissism, malignant narcissism, etc. All the same personality traits (strong desire for control, manipulation, praise, ego stroking, etc.) yet displaying differently. Same with autism (which I'm diagnosed). Many different varieties all carrying the same underlying biological traits. Genetics/biological factors were not widely researched in the past on toxic people thus this knowledge is new to many.

Then again these are all merely theories. Until more research on humans is done it will remain theory.

bnkywuv wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 4:47 am We're not flexible because of genetics, biological makeup, and inborn predispositions and culture acting as a risk factor for amplifying and reducing expression and behavior, but I don't think that culture is the cause alone.

My questions are why is there MAP acceptance and antiMAP hatred in certain societies but not others who are all related to each other? Why in certain cultures you get the opposite, controlling, child hating types who despite people who even show kindness to children? In some societies, young children were allowed to marry much older men and plenty of adults went naked around them yet no MAP HATRED seemed to be recorded.

It's the hatred and the instant unwavering "knee jerk" reaction that caught my attention and that I look for, not just a general "GROSS!!" stuff, the people who look like they want to have us killed and tortured just for being NICE to children as well as being sexually or romantically attracted to them. Also note how so many of these people who are interested in "protecting the children" are some of the most child hating people one could come to meet, like one of my own parents unfortunately.

MAPs don't seem to become antiMAPs readily and antis do not become MAP supporters readily. If it were cultural we'd probably see higher rates of switching from one side to the other.

After studying psychology and personality disorders I was noticing how some (especially Peter Salerno on cluster B personalities) are saying it's genetic at the root because certain behavioral and personality traits do not change over one's life (and in some cases get worse over the course of their lives) and how trauma, abuse, etc. do not easily explain their causes. As such I do believe there could be genetic/biological components (as seen by my posts) for the extreme "protecting" types who harm kids in the process such as depriving them of natural kid antics, curiosity, or punishing them excessively. They "care" about them but not as people, not as individuals but as tools to help pass on their ego and legacy. The general, less extreme dislike of pedophilia (those who are understanding of MAPs who do not want to harm children yet would want one who harmed a child to be beaten and killed, youth liberation supporters who would caution but not necessarily violently oppose AMSC etc.) seems to be cultural.

MAPs being the extreme of antiMAPs do appear to be traits that do not seem to change over the course of one's life even with therapy, "conversion therapy", drugs, etc. which for me points to biology and hard wiring of the bran, whereas the environment is only playing into these effects. A MAP and an antiMAp could be raised the exact same way from birth and still come out widely different with one being proMAP the other antiMAp.

If it was exclusively learned and culture only we'd see a greater change in antiMAPs becoming literally accepting of MAPs and vice versa, MAPs becoming antiMAPs and hating children and child lovers the same way. We do not see this readily and many stay stuck within their mindset despite cultural changes, even leading into the next generations in select offspring. However, genetic changes can occur quickly with a cultural change because more of those people with those genetics produce offspring. More MAPs having kids would mean higher (but not exclusive) child loving genes, more antiMPs means generally more child hating genes, etc.

I can already hear the response. But...wait. That doesn't make sense! There are plenty of people who are the opposite of their parents! Contrary to how we think of genetics based on expectations of things that are not biology (stinky stuff plus more stinky stuff should make it more stinky) this does not readily apply to genetics and biology in the field especially when it comes to how they affect personality. In laboratory settings these are accounted for and heavily controlled, something we cannot do in society, thus there's always variance for a genetic factor that is not of our ability to detect and avoid. If you breed a white cow with a black cow and get a black and white cow that makes perfect sense, but personality is very, very different from a simple color crossbreed.

There are times where one can appear to change, but it's temporary and not a lifelong change. Sure, you can have people driven past a certain point and they seem to be the opposite (an optimistic person being driven to being pessimistic and depressed), but they usually won't like the extremes they're put in and will do whatever they can to not be that way, fighting to get back to how their biological nature was before. Being born without oxytocin receptors is not the same as being born with healthy ocytocin receptors and having them damaged as people who were born with those fully functioning receptors that were damaged would do nearly anything to get them back. It's not 'them" nor "who they are" because their biology is telling them something should be there and isn't.

Another example is take an introvert who's put in social situations will not readily become an extrovert and they'll still prefer to minimize the interaction even after years of exposure and practice. Even if they externally appear to become extroverted they might not actually be truly "converted". They can only adapt to a point, which is where the genetics may come in.

How I think of this is the fact that some of the most kind people can come from the cruelest of families, and the cruelest of people can come from the nicest of families. But doesn't this go against genetics? Shouldn't nice people create nice kids? Well...not really. Recessive genes can skip a generation, thus not showing up until the next generation. However, genetics are sneaky too and can expression multiple ways hence there's covert narcissism, overt narcissism, malignant narcissism, etc. All the same personality traits (strong desire for control, manipulation, praise, ego stroking, etc.) yet displaying differently. Same with autism (which I'm diagnosed). Many different varieties all carrying the same underlying biological traits. Genetics/biological factors were not widely researched in the past on toxic people thus this knowledge is new to many.

Then again these are all merely theories. Until more research on humans is done it will remain theory.

Well I outright agree. I too think it is innate but you need to keep two things in mind.

1) Humans are repulsed by things they aren't attracted to (gays are repulsed by vaginas) (heteros are repulsed by gay sex) (lesbians repulsed by penis) repulsion is nature's mating deterrent and society needs to be educated on that. We are naturally grossed out by things we don't find attractive. The thought of "finding kids hot" repulses people who aren't attracted to kids and they need to be mature about it.

2) The same genes can do a ton of different things depending on nuture and enviorment. Humans have more complex enviorments, care taking strategies then any other animal, plus culture adds an additional layer of complexity. So in a way genes are still useful to discuss, but we aren't going to single out one gene for complex behavior. Usually its many genes depending on certain if and then arguments.


If you look at all of human history you find plently of attraction to post pubescent children and definitely overwhelming evidence of 14-17 having sex but not much of prepubescents being eroticized and in general finding prepubescents attractive was taboo in all cultures, some were just more punitive then others.

I recommend you watch videos from Paul Rozin and Robert Sapolsky about this "GROSS DISGUST" feeling normies have to get a better understanding of the way I think.

We're not flexible because of genetics, biological makeup, and inborn predispositions and culture acting as a risk factor for amplifying and reducing expression and behavior, but I don't think that culture is the cause alone.

I'm not sure what you mean but it seems to me that culture and environment act on our genetic capacity for certain behavior. It isn't one or the other, it's an interaction between environment and DNA. I think environment is what directly shapes us and heredity determines our potential.

My questions are why is there MAP acceptance and antiMAP hatred in certain societies but not others who are all related to each other? Why in certain cultures you get the opposite, controlling, child hating types who despite people who even show kindness to children? In some societies, young children were allowed to marry much older men and plenty of adults went naked around them yet no MAP HATRED seemed to be recorded.

Even with your point about parents with a strong disposition toward x not producing children who are very x (or possibly who don't have a strong disposition toward x); in I guess the same way that brown-eyed people can have blue-eyed children, I think an interesting question would be why do most people in a given culture or society hold a certain belief or attitude but in a few generations most of the people in that same group, without any significant mixing with outsiders, hold a radically different belief or attitude about an issue? That suggests, to me, that culture plays a significant role and we're capable of radically different behaviors and outlooks. The stigmatization of men with teenage girls is very recent and not that I would know but I don't think it exists in any non-Western culture prior to European colonization or even a couple of centuries ago in the West.

Most of the people who oppose child sexuality or child-adult sexual intimacy don't hate children. Even if they're acting selfishly in discouraging it on principle, I definitely don't think that pro-MAP people are categorically pro-child and deeply sympathetic to them and anti-MAP people are consistently antagonistic toward children's interests (certainly not in terms of what they think 'children's interests' constitute). The fact that even people who generally don't care for children might jump on the anti-MAP bandwagon speaks to how serious the taboo is but I don't think they represent most anti-MAP people.

It's the hatred and the instant unwavering "knee jerk" reaction that caught my attention and that I look for, not just a general "GROSS!!" stuff, the people who look like they want to have us killed and tortured just for being NICE to children as well as being sexually or romantically attracted to them. Also note how so many of these people who are interested in "protecting the children" are some of the most child hating people one could come to meet, like one of my own parents unfortunately.

I think it would generally be for being attracted to children. When it's for being nice to children, I think it would be because they assume that's a pretense to help the adult get sexually close to children. The general ideal/standard is that adults should be 'nice' to children, it's admirable or at the very least not offensive for them to be kind to children. There might be some exception to this, people might critique 'gentle parenting' or parents who don't discipline their children/set them straight, and some people think it's unmasculine for a man to be really affectionate and nurturing with children, but I don't think that has much to do with what you probably have mind. That doesn't make anyone a 'scumbag,' just weak, negligent, possible naive or 'weird.'

MAPs don't seem to become antiMAPs readily and antis do not become MAP supporters readily. If it were cultural we'd probably see higher rates of switching from one side to the other.

Entire cultures switch from one to the other over the course of generations. If we don't see much crossover, I think it's because most people take the strongest cultural norms on morality for granted, most people aren't going to unlearn what has been ingrained in them since childhood or go against the herd but the attitude of average white southerners today on race relations is radically different than the attitude of average white southerners during Jim Crow or under slavery and I don't think mixing or the selection of some recent anti-xenophobia mutation or the people with a genetic disposition against xenophobia out-breeding the people with a genetic disposition toward xenophobia explains that.

After studying psychology and personality disorders I was noticing how some (especially Peter Salerno on cluster B personalities) are saying it's genetic at the root because certain behavioral and personality traits do not change over one's life (and in some cases get worse over the course of their lives) and how trauma, abuse, etc. do not easily explain their causes. As such I do believe there could be genetic/biological components (as seen by my posts) for the extreme "protecting" types who harm kids in the process such as depriving them of natural kid antics, curiosity, or punishing them excessively. They "care" about them but not as people, not as individuals but as tools to help pass on their ego and legacy. The general, less extreme dislike of pedophilia (those who are understanding of MAPs who do not want to harm children yet would want one who harmed a child to be beaten and killed, youth liberation supporters who would caution but not necessarily violently oppose AMSC etc.) seems to be cultural.

I would argue that this (personality consistency over time) is a tendency, not a rule, and it's not something you can properly study since we can only inter-subjectively observe behavior (not first person mental states that are inferred, ultimately on the basis of projection, from observable behavior). It seems to me that the norm is something closer to what you're describing as the extreme, I wouldn't consider a retributive attitude only toward child-attracted adults who willingly harm a child or cautiousness about AMSC in practice out of risk aversion to be a dislike of pedophilia. I might also add that I don't think people really have consistent personalities. Imagine two brothers and one is constantly teasing the other over some insecurity or phobia he has. He knows that it causes his brother some real distress (he has a meltdown or loses his temper when he's teased which is what the mischievous brother finds hilarious), maybe he assumes that it bothers him less than it does but he clearly doesn't care enough to not want to risk the mere not-super-unlikely possibility of causing his bro. a higher degree of stress than he assumes it does. Anyway, he finds him thrashing around on the ground one day, screaming in agony because of some medical crisis, and runs panicked to call 911, he stays by his hospital bedside all night long because he does love his brother on some level and want what's best for him, but you can't logically deny that he is relatively callous in constantly busting his balls over his insecurity or phobia. I'm sorry if that's a stupid example, my point is that it would be accurate to say that he is both a callous and compassionate brother, one description alone wouldn't capture the entire complicated story of who he is. It seems obvious to me that people objectify children in the ways that you describe but those same people can also care for them in a very meaningful way.

A MAP and an antiMAp could be raised the exact same way from birth and still come out widely different with one being proMAP the other antiMAp.

They could be (although being raised in the same household doesn't negate serious environmental differences), do you actually see that often?

If it was exclusively learned and culture only we'd see a greater change in antiMAPs becoming literally accepting of MAPs and vice versa, MAPs becoming antiMAPs and hating children and child lovers the same way.

What would drive that?

We do not see this readily and many stay stuck within their mindset despite cultural changes, even leading into the next generations in select offspring.

What cultural changes do you have in mind?

In laboratory settings these are accounted for and heavily controlled, something we cannot do in society,

What exactly is accounted for and controlled when studying personality in laboratory settings?

There are times where one can appear to change, but it's temporary and not a lifelong change.

This is impossible to test or demonstrate inter-subjectively, so for that reason and time I'll spare you personal anecdotes. Actually, a temporary vs. stable change in observable behavior is not impossible to test but you obviously can't assert that as a categorical rule. People change their behavior all the time.

Sure, you can have people driven past a certain point and they seem to be the opposite (an optimistic person being driven to being pessimistic and depressed), but they usually won't like the extremes they're put in and will do whatever they can to not be that way, fighting to get back to how their biological nature was before. Being born without oxytocin receptors is not the same as being born with healthy ocytocin receptors and having them damaged as people who were born with those fully functioning receptors that were damaged would do nearly anything to get them back. It's not 'them" nor "who they are" because their biology is telling them something should be there and isn't.

I imagine that most people would prefer circumstances that did not depress them (that could come from their environment, nutrition, hormonal changes, ). Pessimism has a protective effect (you're less likely to be disappointed if you expected things to go badly, you were prepared for it. Expectation sensitizes us to the frustration of our desires). I don't doubt that some people have a natural disposition toward pessimism but under better circumstances; where they were conditioned to assume a happy ending, it would be less needed. think you undermine how easy it is to damage naturally agreeable people to the point of their not being able to trust, sympathize with or love others.

How I think of this is the fact that some of the most kind people can come from the cruelest of families, and the cruelest of people can come from the nicest of families. But doesn't this go against genetics? Shouldn't nice people create nice kids? Well...not really. Recessive genes can skip a generation, thus not showing up until the next generation. However, genetics are sneaky too and can expression multiple ways hence there's covert narcissism, overt narcissism, malignant narcissism, etc. All the same personality traits (strong desire for control, manipulation, praise, ego stroking, etc.) yet displaying differently. Same with autism (which I'm diagnosed). Many different varieties all carrying the same underlying biological traits. Genetics/biological factors were not widely researched in the past on toxic people thus this knowledge is new to many.

My understanding is that recessive genes are those allelles that do not express when they are paired with a dominant gene (e.g. someone with an allele for blue eyes and an allele for brown eyes will have brown eyes. Blue eyes are recessive, brown eyes are dominant). I don't think recessive genes skip a generation, they just don't express if paired with a dominant allele (maybe I've misunderstood what you mean). I'm sure many different genes play a role in personality but it seems more likely to me that genes for personality traits would be combinative (e.g. the child of a very tall man and a short woman, who has reached her full genetic potential; not someone with stunted growth, will probably be in-between them, once you account for childhood nutrition or possible growth-stunters). A habit in psychology is to connect fundamentally unrelated traits, that may or may not correlate but can exist independently, and one will be inferred from the other. Sensory observation as the basis of predicting the behavior of natural phenomenon is the basic cornerstone of the scientific method, there's no objective or self-evident reason to assume that the future will resemble the past but if we're starting with that hardcore common sense assumption then sensory observation is, for all intents and purposes, inconclusive evidence for the physical world behaving in a particular way in future and that isn't 'interpretive,' psychology is interpretive and 'theoretical' through and through.