MAP Forum

In this thread we can discuss the great contact debate intensely especially on things I disagree with and things that make me very uncomfortable to think about such as sex with small children, which I am against and view as a form of rape even though I know it is distinct and not as bad as forcible rape or sedation rape. It falls under a category of mind game rape. Staying polite I will make it clear my opinion is in the range of 11.5 to 15, leaning near the higher end side, and I very strongly disagree with sex below 11.5, but I will flesh out the best logical case for each category of dealing with sex under the age of 18.

Below I will list the best naturalistic arguments for each age of consent category and feel free to add or challenge arguments or categories. Meaning you can use this thread to pick what category you are, why others should be a category higher or lower or why my category system is flawed. Keep in mind, my words "physical possibility of" just means if it is logically possible not a justification to do it.

The eight part checklist I will do for each age list
"
1) Understanding of their own sexual attraction:
2) Physical Possibility of Oral:
3) Physical Possibility of Vaginal/Anal:
4) Physical Possibility of Male penetrating others :
5) Physical Possibility of Female pregnancy:
6) Possibility of reaching orgasm:
7) Mental ability to say no to an adult:
8) Hormones to detect erogenous interest:
"

This eight part checklist does not mean they should do these things it means its biologically possible.

So let's move on to the age of consent debate

When arguing for lowering the age of consent based on naturalistic reasons

1) 14-17 years of age because tanner stage five of puberty is complete and history gives it a very strong green light that would exonerrate all criminals today for having sex with upper teenagers. The ethics of penetration will be debated but naturalist thinking makes it win as pro penetration is safe as long as its voluntary. Even non MAP normies that are well educated concede in private discussions on this age range, and will mention sex in highschool when hormones are raging. Coincidentally most so called "female pedophiles" in the news and sex trafficking so called "victims" meet this category. Extremely convincing opinions on lowering the age of consent are here due to hormones and fertility rates being their highest. The only thing standing in the way is legal, social and evolutionary glitches. The best arguments against it is citing frontal lobe development, but even that runs into trouble due to the fact the frontal lobe isn't a impulse control machine, its a norm conforming machine.
-----
From a naturalistic perspective:
Understanding of their own sexual attraction: Yes
Physical Possibility of Oral: Yes
Physical Possibility of Vaginal/Anal: Yes
Physical Possibility of Male penetrating others : Yes
Physical Possibility of Female pregnancy: Yes, extremely fertile
Possibility of reaching orgasm: Yes and they'll do it themselves very frequently
Mental ability to say no to an adult: Yes
Hormones to detect erogenous interest : through the roof, higher then any point in life shortly after

2) 11.5-15 years of age Females seem to be done earlier and males a bit later but this is when tanner stage four of puberty is complete and ovulation is regular, and the male is producing sperm normally with a full size penis and they have almost all of their developmental milestones. The only things not present are a bit more pubic hair growth, a bit more breast size growth and wisdom teeth. This is the first category that one can say the person is biologically capable of sex without any naturalistic controversy like harmful pregnancy or large penises harming the female. Keep in mind 11 is the extreme earliest and 15 is the extreme latest. The ethics of penetration will be debated but naturalist thinking makes it win every time.
-----
Understanding of their own sexual attraction: Yes
Physical Possibility of Oral: Yes
Physical Possibility of Vaginal/Anal: Yes
Physical Possibility of Male penetrating others : Yes
Physical Possibility of Female pregnancy: Yes, extremely fertile
Possibility of reaching orgasm: Yes, and they'll do it themselves very frequently
Mental ability to say no to an adult: Yes
Hormones to detect erogenous interest : very high

3) 8-11 years of age The exact start to middle of puberty when the girls eggs are in motion and they occasionally ovulate and the boys develop mature sperm and begin growing larger penises and get nocturnal emissions. Its more difficult to argue for penetrative sex for girls here, but one can actually make a solid case that sexual hormones permit non penetrative intimacy with children, thus allowing for the logical argument of oral sex and mutual masturbation being ethical. The ethics of penetration will be debated even more intensely but naturalist thinking makes difficult to dismiss
-----
Understanding of their own sexual attraction: Somewhat
Physical Possibility of Oral: Yes
Physical Possibility of Vaginal/Anal: Heavily Debatable
Physical Possibility of Male penetrating others : Heavily Debatable
Physical Possibility of Female pregnancy: Low to Mid chance but possible. Danger is low range.
Possibility of reaching orgasm: Yes, and they'll do it themselves frequently
Mental ability to say no to an adult: Yes
Hormones to detect erogenous interest : moderate

4) 6-7 years of age because they argue from the Waldorf model that a child's brain stops being ultra receptive to the enviornment around that time, thus it functions loosely similar to an adult's due to having a better sense of self. Where as a child below 6 is like a sponge just absorbing info from the enviornment and not truly mature enough to consent. The ethics debate on anal/vaginal penetration leads most people to the conclusion of it being dangerous. Nature clearly set up a repulsion mechanism to prevent this similar to the westermarck effect on incest.
-----
Understanding of their own sexual attraction: No, just abstract feelings of sexual curiosity
Physical Possibility of Possibility Oral: Yes
Physical Possibility of Vaginal/Anal: For full sex no, but a logical debates can exist on cautious entry
Physical Possibility of Male penetrating others : Heavily Debated and in many cases not possible
Physical Possibility of Female pregnancy: very rare from precoscious puberty and bad luck. Very dangerous to be pregnant at this age
Possibility of reaching orgasm: Yes, but they won't usually do it or they might masturbate to cartoon characters or abstract things
Mental ability to say no to an adult: Depending on the personality type they can be heavily biased to say no
Hormones to detect erogenous interest : very weak

5) 3-5 years of age because that is the earliest age of remembered memories + basic communication + bathroom training. We are almost certainly conscious from birth but we don't remember anything until 3 to 4 years of age with the brain storing memories, and that coincidentally corresponds with potty training and basic communication and doing task yourself. One can argue sexuality is just another daily milestone task of life. The ethics debate on anal/vaginal penetration leads most people to the conclusion of it being dangerous. Nature clearly set up a repulsion mechanism to prevent this similar to the westermarck effect on incest.
-----
Understanding of their own sexual attraction: No, just abstract feelings of sexual curiosity
Oral: Yes
Vaginal/Anal: No without risking serious harm
Male penetrating others : Heavily Debated and in many cases not possible
Physical Possibility of Female pregnancy: No, unless 5 and ultra extremely rare cases from precoscious puberty and bad luck. Very Dangerous to be pregnant at 5.
Possibility of reaching orgasm: Yes but they won't usually do it or they might masturbate to cartoon characters or abstract things
Mental ability to say no to an adult: Very likely to agree to anything and go along with everything
Hormones to detect erogenous interest : no

6) 0-2 years of age Total Abolishing of age of consent, the extreme category of outright little to no limits, this category challenges the existence of the moral concept of consent itself. These people argue penile rubbing on infants and babies is "just a bonding" that primates do and that societies entire structure on consent and sexual practices is deeply misguided and we should reinvent all norms from scratch. Proponents often cite tribal cultures from Bush and Ford's "Pattern's of sexual behaviors" of parents in primitive cultures who orally stimulate their children as a way to calm them down. Though they are forced to admit males having sex with them is universally taboo and the ethics of penetration is known to be extremely dangerous. Nature clearly set up a repulsion mechanism to prevent this similar to the westermarck effect on incest.
-----
Understanding of their own sexual attraction: No, and difficult knowing what is going on outside of possible self masturbation
Oral: Yes
Vaginal/Anal: No
Male penetrating others : No
Physical Possibility of Female pregnancy: No
Possibility of reaching orgasm: Yes, but they probably won't masturbate
Mental ability to say no to an adult: simple words, body language, and below 1.5 rejection isn't present at all
Hormones to detect erogenous interest : no


---------------------------------

As for me personally I am attracted to very small girls not really teenagers or adults.

I am pro kiss hug tickle cuddle for prepubescents and early pubescents as well as allowing them future legal opportunities to do sexy dancing and bikini modeling. I think in an ethical future prepubescent lovers like me will never have sex with them but will be allowed to work at daycares, schools and other places to nuture little children with parents and child's permission, and MAPS will be able to masturbate to pictures of their favorite child lovers in private discretly after the play session with ethically produced media of the child in revealing clothes like a bikini. I believe humans will have much higher empathy and quality of life in the future where as todays moral concerns fade away as silly instincts.

At 12.5 and 13.5, I am tolerant of penetration and mutual masturbation for 12.5-13.5 and up due to the logic of tanner stage 4 of puberty
While I disaprove and it makes me uncomfortable I can see a cold logical argument for non penetrative sexual activity with children young as 9

I am torn apart between around 9-12, because puberty undoubtedly changes how most people experience sex drive and attraction, or entirely challenging the age of consent and replacing it with new norms. In any case, penetration should have to wait until around 12 if not more. The very classification of something as "sexual" can already be up to debate. I think that's something important to take into account in your disgust theory, because I think two different cultures may not perceive exactly the same things as sexual (perhaps you have already taken that into account).

I like what you say about a future society where people leave behind their moral instincts and try to really understand others. Although wouldn't that mean to take the "cold logical" arguments as valid?

Sex: top option
Romance: bottom option

Went with "0-2yo The very concept of consent needs to be challenged entirely with a radical overhaul of all norms".

I think historically parents used to use masturbation to help their infants sleep. The focus should be on how harm occurs rather than a blanket prohibition. There will be the possibility of harm at every age, from 0 to 100, there isn't a magic point where the risk of harm ceases to exist. The problem is the callousness with which people view sexual partners.

For example, a parent gently masturbating their infant to sleep isn't worse than someone forcing themselves on an 18 year old in my opinion. I recall as a teenager, my mother jokingly grabbed my genitals for a moment (never did anything like that before or after), I could have called it molestation but what would be the point? I wasn't hurt by it, it didn't make me feel uncomfortable, I don't think she was trying to exploit me.

Genital contact isn't enough to make something abusive, the harm lies in the kind of contact and the circumstances surrounding it. I think this approach to making it all about genital contact is a way of avoiding the problem of psychological abuse and mind games abusers play. You can hurt a person a lot more without ever making any genital contact, but because that's where the law is focused, everything else tends to be forgotten or downplayed.

That's my steel man of the argument. In practice, I don't think the age of consent would be lowered younger than 12 (if at all). Now, my main focus isn't about changing the age of consent but questioning whether the violations of it are treated proportionally.

PorcelainLark wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:26 pm For example, a parent gently masturbating their infant to sleep isn't worse than someone forcing themselves on an 18 year old in my opinion.

I would not just say that touching their infant's genitals to calm them "isn't worse" than forcing someone, but that it probably just isn't bad at all (unless someone proved otherwise). This is also what I mean by "what even classifies as sexual?" However, the harmless activities with a baby/toddler are rather limited and I have no idea if they would satisfy a MAP into them. I am already unsure if orgasms at such a young age are safe (they happen naturally but only in a small fraction of children as far as I know), whereas penetration is directly out of the table, and of course you need to take into account at least non-verbal cues.

Genital contact isn't enough to make something abusive, the harm lies in the kind of contact and the circumstances surrounding it.

I agree.

Yeah, I mean the 2nd and 7th options make no sense since they are both social constructs.

PorcelainLark wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:26 pm Went with "0-2yo The very concept of consent needs to be challenged entirely with a radical overhaul of all norms".

I think historically parents used to use masturbation to help their infants sleep. The focus should be on how harm occurs rather than a blanket prohibition. There will be the possibility of harm at every age, from 0 to 100, there isn't a magic point where the risk of harm ceases to exist. The problem is the callousness with which people view sexual partners.

For example, a parent gently masturbating their infant to sleep isn't worse than someone forcing themselves on an 18 year old in my opinion. I recall as a teenager, my mother jokingly grabbed my genitals for a moment (never did anything like that before or after), I could have called it molestation but what would be the point? I wasn't hurt by it, it didn't make me feel uncomfortable, I don't think she was trying to exploit me.

Genital contact isn't enough to make something abusive, the harm lies in the kind of contact and the circumstances surrounding it. I think this approach to making it all about genital contact is a way of avoiding the problem of psychological abuse and mind games abusers play. You can hurt a person a lot more without ever making any genital contact, but because that's where the law is focused, everything else tends to be forgotten or downplayed.

That's my steel man of the argument. In practice, I don't think the age of consent would be lowered younger than 12 (if at all). Now, my main focus isn't about changing the age of consent but questioning whether the violations of it are treated proportionally.

I was going to say something similar. There is no magic number for me because I view an act that causes no suffering as victimless, there are practical scenarios where AMSC won't cause children or minors to suffer and whether or not it does is circumstantial. So I definitely can't support a blanket rule on principle. If I have to play that game in terms of cultural norms or legal policies rooted in risk aversion and with a big picture in mind (which isn't to suggest that I think some form of prepubescent child-adult erotic intimacy is always practically harmful, or necessarily even particularly high-risk in a society without an AMSC taboo. I do want to stay open to different arguments, I'm only dogmatic about the idea that no pain=no victim, and we should celebrate AMS relationships insofar as they are a source of happiness for children and minors; while still weighing that against risks and costs, and also that AMSC doesn't have to cause immediate stress or long-term trauma even in practice) then I would probably say 15 for girls/16 for boys; because that's when the absence of menarche/semenarche is considered medically delayed (you'll find different claims online, some say 16 for girls, but most seem to say 15, for girls, I havent read any so far claim that no thelarche by 13 isn't delayed and it 'should' take no more than two years to go from thelarche to menarche. Also, around 98% of 15-year-old girls, at least in presumably the U.S, have started menarche and apparently researchers consider a trait abnormal if it shows up in 5% or less of the population. Some third world countries have the average age as high as 16 but that can probably be explained by high stress or low fat, if a girl's body doesn't have enough fat to sustain a pregnancy her body won't bother to waste resources by preparing for it) or 13 for girls/14 for boys since that's when not having started puberty is considered a problem. If we're talking about people whose bodies are wired to mate; who are also probably capable of sexual pleasure and desire, the argument for their not being 'ready' for age-related reasons is difficult for me to understand. This is a rushed post, by the way (I know I say that all the time).

I would like to add that something can be harmful in the absence of callousness or abusive intentions but, if we're brutally honest, I think most sex regret (if we're talking about sex with people who care about you) probably boils down to shame (which is the result of sex negative attitudes), disgust and maybe social awkwardness and I care about all of that but being honest about that being what we want to prevent changes the nature of the conventional anti-AMSC grievance/concern. Similar thing with prostitution.

In regards to the OP,

I think Brain O'Conner has covered the repeatedly debunked (not just on this site or from people who are sympathetic to AMSC) myth of 25 as the standard age for prefrontal development much better than I could. But even in my limited understanding, it develops at different ages for different people; it often occurs long before 25 and well into one's 30s, and there is apparently no link between it and changes in observable behavior.

I don't understand what the evolutionary argument against sex with 14-17-year olds (or rather as an explanation for why it's actually taboo) would be. That seems entirely cultural to me (at least in the sense that whatever genes that might play a role in the stigma today expressed in very different ways in generations past and traditional societies. It might only be a handful of cultures in the world that are/were ok with adult-prepubscent sexual contact, I don't know; it's not too hard to imagine why evolution might select an anti-true pedophilia attitude, but I have a hard time seeing that being the case with 'hebephilia' and especially 'ephebophilia.'

I'm not sure what you mean by 'physically possible' (this might be nitpicking your wording but what's 'logically possible' might still be physically undoable. I think 'logically possible' basically just means that concepts and ideas don't inherently contradict each other, or aren't internally self-contradicting, and we can imagine a scenario in which something exists or doesn't exist. A 4-sided triangle is not logically possible, purple fire is but I doubt the latter is physically "possible" or doable). I don't think there's ever an age when anal sex without lubrication becomes medically unproblematic, nor do I think puberty makes performing oral sex less medically risky or anything. I can maybe see what you mean or might have in mind if we're talking about vaginal intercourse.

Learning to undeny wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:53 pm I am already unsure if orgasms at such a young age are safe (they happen naturally but only in a small fraction of children as far as I know), whereas penetration is directly out of the table, and of course you need to take into account at least non-verbal cues.

I can only base it on my experience, but I would expect the ability to have an orgasm isn't contingent on whether you've reached puberty.

DANAT4T wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:54 pm Yeah, I mean the 2nd and 7th options make no sense since they are both social constructs.

I get what you mean by 18 being a social construct, but could you elaborate on what you mean by the other one?

John_Doe wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:11 pm I would like to add that something can be harmful in the absence of callousness or abusive intentions but, if we're brutally honest, I think most sex regret (if we're talking about sex with people who care about you) probably boils down to shame (which is the result of sex negative attitudes), disgust and maybe social awkwardness and I care about all of that but being honest about that being what we want to prevent changes the nature of the conventional anti-AMSC grievance/concern. Similar thing with prostitution.

When I said callousness, I was thinking of what makes people rough/cruel. If an infant lacks memory, they can't have regret, so the problem of harm has to lie either in moment to moment experience or physically. For comparison, you might consider sexual relations with people with dementia, a person could be harmed in that context even if they wouldn't be able to remember it.

PorcelainLark wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 11:30 pm

Learning to undeny wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:53 pm I am already unsure if orgasms at such a young age are safe (they happen naturally but only in a small fraction of children as far as I know), whereas penetration is directly out of the table, and of course you need to take into account at least non-verbal cues.

I can only base it on my experience, but I would expect the ability to have an orgasm isn't contingent on whether you've reached puberty.

DANAT4T wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:54 pm Yeah, I mean the 2nd and 7th options make no sense since they are both social constructs.

I get what you mean by 18 being a social construct, but could you elaborate on what you mean by the other one?

John_Doe wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:11 pm I would like to add that something can be harmful in the absence of callousness or abusive intentions but, if we're brutally honest, I think most sex regret (if we're talking about sex with people who care about you) probably boils down to shame (which is the result of sex negative attitudes), disgust and maybe social awkwardness and I care about all of that but being honest about that being what we want to prevent changes the nature of the conventional anti-AMSC grievance/concern. Similar thing with prostitution.

When I said callousness, I was thinking of what makes people rough/cruel. If an infant lacks memory, they can't have regret, so the problem of harm has to lie either in moment to moment experience or physically. For comparison, you might consider sexual relations with people with dementia, a person could be harmed in that context even if they wouldn't be able to remember it.

The 7th option references bathroom etiquette which is a social construct.

DANAT4T wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 11:42 pm The 7th option references bathroom etiquette which is a social construct.

Ah, I was thinking of the stuff about memory.