MAP Forum

Hi, just want to put it out there that I am quite open and proud to identify as a [non exclusive] Nepio, happily attracted to infants and toddlers. I know that many in the MAP community are uncomfortable even with Nepios, so I stick my head above the parapet to be freely available to explain as best I can the attraction and to champion the Nepio corner.

Preach!! I'm not a nepio myself, but you are just as much a MAP as the rest of us. Glad to have you here.

I think any MAP who is uncomfortable with nepios needs to do a little introspection... An involuntary disgust response is one thing, but feeling that way should never lead one to believe that you are invalid, or "worse" than other MAPs just because you happen to be attracted to the youngest among us.

That is kind, thank you.

And I know I have said this before, I didn't learn how to be attracted, I was born this way

Phossu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 10:09 pm Preach!! I'm not a nepio myself, but you are just as much a MAP as the rest of us. Glad to have you here.

I think any MAP who is uncomfortable with nepios needs to do a little introspection... An involuntary disgust response is one thing, but feeling that way should never lead one to believe that you are invalid, or "worse" than other MAPs just because you happen to be attracted to the youngest among us.

I think it can really depend on what "valid" and "worse" mean.

ALL of us, except for xenosatanists, divide people into two classes- those that we permit sexual intimacy and those that we deny it (I'll ignore whether that is legal or moral denial this time). Anti-c people usually include all MAPs, biastophiles, zoophiles and many other paraphiles into the "denied intimacy" class and only permit the intimacy of "consenting teleiophiles". Pro-c people want to extend the class (by how much varies by person) so more people can live in line with their identity.

I find the idea of "you're so valid, attraction is not action" to be... well... imagine if we used it with other groups? Wouldn't it kind of being patronizing?
"You're so valid, gay guy. Loving men must be amazing. But push those feelings down and stay celibate. Being gay doesn't mean you actually have to date men or have sex with them."
"You're so valid, transperson. I know that you feel dysphoric and you want to change your body. I acknowledge and respect those feelings. But you can't actually transition."

Being denied the ability to act in line with our natural inclinations is inherently INvalidating. Yet I don't think we can validate every single kind of identity in the sense of permitting the authentic enactment of it. Nepiosadists cannot be truly validated. Their feelings are "worse" in the sense that they are more prone to harm. The nepiosadist doesn't deserve blame or shame for those feelings. But they are "bad" to have. Yesterday I was very upset and for a brief second I got an image of smashing my daughter's head into the wall crushing her skull. It was a horrible intrusive thought to have. It was a "bad" thought. That doesn't mean I'm bad. That said, I think the feelings of most nepios are very tender, kind and caring. They understand that infants aren't very developed and so anything resembling adult sexuality isn't appropriate or them (and often their fantasies even reflect this fact).

So nepiophiles being aroused by infants? No hate. No shame. No blame. But can I imagine a society where they are truly valid? Not really.

Does this make me a hypocrite because I support expanding permissible actions, but not as far as nepis? I don't think so. Like I said, almost everyone has two classes. Are anti-c and antis hypocrites for allowing adult-adult sex? Shouldn't be ban that, too?

Fragment wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 11:16 pm I think it can really depend on what "valid" and "worse" mean.

Agreed. When I wrote that, I meant "worse" to mean "you are worse as a person" and "valid" to mean "emotionally valid". Without even talking about actions, it is common for people to invalidate our feelings alone. This can be done in a lot of ways, and society does it constantly to MAPs. I tell people they are valid because sometimes that is really valuable to hear. I think there is a risk it can end up being patronizing, and I'll try to be aware of this possibility.

Fragment wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 11:16 pm Being denied the ability to act in line with our natural inclinations is inherently INvalidating.

This is a good point. Like you say, everyone has two classes of permissibility and not all actions can be permitted. Your example with the gay guy and trans person is distinct from the case of nepiophiles in this way.

So the question is, how should we react if someone tells us they are a nepiosadist, or a biastophile, or some other orientation that we consider unethical to act on? In my opinion these people get enough shit, so I try to be supportive. I have no issues with biastophiles having violent fantasies in the same way that I have no issues with other fantasies I would consider unethical to act upon.

I'm very sorry to hear about the intrusive thoughts you had the other day. That is understandably very upsetting. While I believe that thoughts are not "bad" in themselves (even the thought you had), there are a lot of ways that our thoughts can cause distress or other negative effects.

Phossu wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 12:16 am Agreed. When I wrote that, I meant "worse" to mean "you are worse as a person" and "valid" to mean "emotionally valid". Without even talking about actions, it is common for people to invalidate our feelings alone. This can be done in a lot of ways, and society does it constantly to MAPs. I tell people they are valid because sometimes that is really valuable to hear. I think there is a risk it can end up being patronizing, and I'll try to be aware of this possibility.

[...]

So the question is, how should we react if someone tells us they are a nepiosadist, or a biastophile, or some other orientation that we consider unethical to act on? In my opinion these people get enough shit, so I try to be supportive. I have no issues with biastophiles having violent fantasies in the same way that I have no issues with other fantasies I would consider unethical to act upon.

I'm very sorry to hear about the intrusive thoughts you had the other day. That is understandably very upsetting. While I believe that thoughts are not "bad" in themselves (even the thought you had), there are a lot of ways that our thoughts can cause distress or other negative effects.

I think we're basically in agreement, except on whether the thoughts are "bad" or not. I don't think having "bad thoughts" makes you a bad person. But I do think that some kinds of thoughts should probably be managed.

We should definitely do our best to emotionally support each other, even through those thoughts.

That said, we're talking about nepios, not sexual sadists here. So I don't even really see the thoughts as "bad". Just somewhat incomprehensible to me.