MAP Forum

As you guys know by now, a great deal of today's adult-minor sexual contact (AMSC) occurs in settings where adults and minors are most likely to interact, be it in schools or religious services that include youth services. But it's also poignant to note how a great deal of such contacts occur within familial settings too. To put it bluntly: A significant proportion of adult-minor sexual contact occurs within incestuous contexts, to the point that some estimates put the number of parent-child incest as constituting the vast majority of all incest cases (at least in the US).

Now, there are different types of incest, such as between siblings or between cousins, but nonetheless it's just a fact that, for better or worse, the proportion of adult-minor relationships is going to be non-negligible, so we can't just ignore it.

Some moderate MAPs may choose to address by stating that incest shouldn't be defended out of convenience but that nonetheless not all cases may be harmful. More radical MAPs may either defend incest as part of the pro-MAP rights platform on the basis that each case should be evaluated on its own merit rather than having a blanket ban being imposed and thus incestuous AMSC is no exception to this principle, whereas other radical MAPs may reject incest wholesale on the basis that parent-child power dynamics will lead to abuse anyways.

In my opinion, In theory I'm on the fence given how stigmatised incest is, so sociogenic harm might be confounding current sociological results on incestuous couples. But in practice, I don't think incest as an idea is worth pondering for now, if only because it doesn't bode well on us as a group given how already hard it is to get society to accept us as human beings deserving of human rights in the first place.

But I would like to hear your takes, my dear members. Should incest be defended even if it's between an adult and a minor regardless of degree, should it be rejected wholesale, or should we just ignore it?

I agree that it is not worth defending now. We gotta take things one step at a time.

But I do think that is should be defended. Much like AMSC in general, but even moreso because it might not involve minors at all, I think it's pointless to put a blanket ban on incest just because it might be harmful.

Well, fortunately I haven't really heard about people getting prosecuted on charges of incest alone. Perhaps I'm just not looking hard enough, but I'm going to be optimistic and say that It's not really being enforced anyway. I don't think it's really practical to do so.

The incest taboo is ridiculous. The justifications for it are flimsy at best.

Parent-child incest is the only form of incest that I see as being particularly risky. I know the "power imbalance" argument isn't well respected in MAP circles, but when it comes to parent-child relationships it seems like an undeniable factor, at least in today's society. This applies to legal guardians as well, even if that may not be incest.

I don't think that defending incest is absolutely necessary for MAP advocacy, but I see it as valuable step in destigmatizing non-normative sexualities in general, which is something that will benefit MAPs. The only way I envision defending incest becoming a liability for MAPs is in the context of parent-child incest.

What about masturbation ? Can masturbation with parents be called incest? If children and parents can attend a nudist camp together, what's stopping them from also playing with their genitalls ?

It is a very important subject but until we can proudly stand in the sunlight and declare “I am a MAP” without having to worry about our lives being completely destroyed, we have much more important things to work on.

Do I think it’s inherently wrong? No. Children today are growing up less and less in touch and comfortable with their own sexuality because parents are too afraid to discuss half of what they should because of potential ramifications. And when they do discuss it, it’s such an uncomfortable discussion that it doesn’t benefit the children much at all.

Phossu wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 4:53 am Parent-child incest is the only form of incest that I see as being particularly risky. I know the "power imbalance" argument isn't well respected in MAP circles, but when it comes to parent-child relationships it seems like an undeniable factor, at least in today's society. This applies to legal guardians as well, even if that may not be incest.

This exactly. Children often want to please their parents, their home is with them and it is not easy to leave it... that could be dangerous for them, much more so than contact with a stranger.

That said, I can imagine other social models in which this practice would be less dangerous. For example, if the life and education of children were more communal than in today's society.

It's very difficult to defend incest because many of the power imbalance arguments that we would otherwise argue against on boards like this actually do apply to family dynamics. While there is nothing wrong with incest itself (assuming there's no pregnancy), because of the way our society currently runs and the power that parents are given over their own children, I'm not sure I can defend it in the same way I would AMSC between non-relatives.

In a society where youth are more liberated and age hierarchies are looked at differently, it could be worth defending. However we'll need to progress to that point before we do it. My general belief is that if a person isn't able to actually remove themselves from the situation and distance themselves from someone coming on to them, their ability to say 'no' should come into question - and this is something I believe with minors and adults alike. Unfortunately in most incest situations, it's practically impossible for the minor(s) involved to remove themselves, and that's how it will always be unless we lived in a society that viewed youth rights very differently.

I think the issue of incest is different to the issue of being a map or intergenerational relationships.
Incest can be between siblings, often between adults. I think fighting that battle and fighting the rights for maps is taking on two big and unrelated battles.

Personally I don't have an issue with people who have relationships while being related, it's none of my business. Why is it anybodies business who has a relationship with who? It certainly shouldn't be up to the state to tell people if they can and can't have relationships but for some crazy idea the state believes it has that right. That's just a sign that the state is too big and encroaching. It's one thing for the state to have a view on foreign policy, military spending, national laws to protect citizens etc, but to put itself as the judge of who can love who and who can have a relationship with who?

If I was to fight that battle I'd started by focusing on adults havign relationships with related adults. I think that's an easier battle to fight, it would be an argument of whether the state has any right to dictate that.

But our fight should be on two things.

1. The rights of maps to not be treated differently in any way just for being a map. Maps like gay and stratight people are just people, and should be respected as such.

2. The replacement of age of concent laws with laws to protect all citizens from abuse and harm, with no discrimination or silo's.

There are approximately 2.2 billion children in the world. A MAP parent should get on just fine in a world where it is legal for them to engage with any of those 2.2 billion expect for the 2-3 of them that are their own kids. The benefits of arguing for incest specifically seem small.

The harms (strategically speaking) seem excessively large. From a purely strategic point of view, I see no reason whatsoever to argue for incest.

As for the philosophical arguments, I think that it can be potentially a positive experience. But I think the risk of parent-child incest complicating relationship dynamics is particularly high. I don't think it should ever been socially supported for that reason. However, I think that putting a parent in prison over a loving incestuous encounter is quite possibly going to cause more damage long term.

I don't buy into the power dynamics all that much. There are some who have sex with minors for the purpose of power and control but I am convinced that those folks are few in number. Now, regarding incest, I think the only incest that should be looked down upon would be that between a male and female. And I say that because if the female gets pregnant then that could pose some problems for the baby. Other than that, I see no reason why we should frown upon it.