MAP Forum

There are some nuances regarding what people might consider pro-contact. The way I think of it, there are at least two different possibilities for what it could mean:

One, the less radical definition, is that consensual AMSC (adult-minor sexual contact; I'm still getting used to that term) is inherently good/neutral, but should only be practiced in a society where it's culturally accepted so it won't cause indirect/iatrogenic harm.

Two, the more radical definition, is that consensual AMSC is okay even in current societies where it's considered immoral, and can be done secretly despite the risk of harm after being discovered, or harm from sexual taboos and social pressure.

I'm not sure which one I agree with. I wouldn't disagree with either too harshly. But I consider both to be pro-contact.

What do you think? Are there people who identify as NOMAPs/anti-contact, but are actually taking what I would call the less radical pro-contact stance?

I think a lot of people that call themselves "anti-c" see "pro-contact" as being a personal philosophy. However, I've always seen it as a political position. "Anti-c" people can, and do, break laws. "Pro-c" people can, and do, keep the laws.

I think there's a very useless discussion to be had about the morality of AMSC under the current system. With the laws as they are, the only discussion that really matters is one of legality. Feel morally justified means nothing when you're looking at decades in prison.

Contact ideology is more of a spectrum than a binary. Even if anti-contact MAPS do not openly advocate for lowering or abolishing the age of consent, they often have an opinion on what constitutes a "child" and what constitutes "contact" from an ethical perspective.

I consider myself anti-contact, but I recognize that certain forms of contact can be more harmful, less harmful, or even harmless depending on the age of the child in question. It's more of a grey area than I acknowledged when I first joined the community.

I think that Instead of constant arguments about contact and attempts to reconcile oneself with the current puritanical morality MAP community should put the "Pro-choice" position first. This is something that can unite both camps, those who are "Pro-contact" and those who are "Anti-contact".

It is choice that makes us free and this is what all MAPs want, for minors to have the right to choose and be able to choose whether to give or not give consent. Currently, minors do not have this right and the age of consent law does not really work because it ignores or limits the right to choose.

i believe minors should be able to choose wether to experiment in a sexual way. boys can feel horny from a early age and should be able to express themselves in a sexual way with a willing partner of either sex without any age limitations. i dont sit on the fence, i am on the pro contact side.

Definately Pro-c. They say life begins at the changing table. We agree. Can we please raise the next generation to be sex positive?