Dialed up to 11

There has been a lot of heated argument here about age of consent, anti-contact vs pro-contact and so forth. The arguments need to be dialed down.

Prostasia fights child sexual abuse with scientific based evidence. @terminus has made it clear that sex under the age of consent is not to be promoted. Period. Exclamation Point! Full Stop. Non-negotiable. You may not agree with that position and are entitled to your opinion. Just not here. Capiche?

Now the age of consent varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and some variations have additional restrictions and limitations. Period. Exclamation Point! Full Stop. Non-negotiable. You may not agree with those positions and are entitled to your opinion. Just not here. Capiche?

Now I may not agree with all these positions, but I do respect and support them. Prostasia is the only organization I know of, that understands MAPs, like me, need a way scratch their itch in a safe manner. They support generally banned activities, such as text stories, drawings, 3D CGI, child sex dolls, lolicon, shotacon and anime. As there is no proof that any of these put any child at risk, their approach is almost unique in the world. They are going against the “conventional wisdom” and I applaud them.

Therefore I have put my money where my mouth is and donate to their good cause. I suggest some of the other regulars might consider that if they don’t already.


Children cannot consent to sex with adults as they would with peers of similar age or ability. This observation is backed up by a plethora of empirical data, virtually unanimous consensus among academics and clinicians alike, and an understanding of the word ‘consent’ as it applies to sexual activities and the differences between children and adults, which preclude there from being consent. The simple act of sexual conduct with adults, even if its ‘consensual’, can be and usually is quite damaging to their psyche and their overall psycho-sexual development is what precludes them from consenting.
In addition, the prospect of children engaging in these types of activities with adults puts them in danger and such a risk is too great.
A common argument by the pro-contact camp is that their own experiences don’t line up with what they read or see from what they may perceive to be reactionary accounts, rather than rational accounts, but such a reliance on personal anecdote is also flawed because of how memories work. People don’t always look upon their own experiences with perfect clarity, and rose-tinted glasses may cause them to be blind to any negative consequences. This isn’t to say to people who had experiences like this with adults that they’re wrong, but to take up a pro-contact mantle out of your own personal anecdotes, rather than an understanding or trust in the empirical evidence, is extremely problematic.

Pro-contact is to child abuse prevention and MAP acceptance what anti-vax is to virus control and prevention.

This is all that matters at the end of the day.

The broader scientific community is beginning to open up to the idea that these materials are harmless and perhaps even beneficial. Interest in non-offending pedophilic populations has heightened within the last decade, and studies are now being done on them, their psychology, and how their interactions with these materials may affect risk.
The position held by Prostasia and its community was not coined in a vacuum.

Okay, to be clear I don’t support a pro-contact position. And my memories are quite clear, thank you very much. I am very aware that the experience I had is not the norm. That doesn’t mean I won’t note that it can happen.

To say that all adult/child sex is bad is a scientific theory. However, one contradiction in that theory falsifies it. Therefore, that theory is bunk. To say that almost all adult/child sex is likely to be detrimental to the child and should be banned is better policy, even if it is a poor scientific theory. Scientific theories should have a way to demonstrate when they fail.

But in the extremely rare case that there is no harm, I feel that consideration must be given in any sentencing. An adult who has violated the law, and no matter how benign their attentions may be, still should be punished. But, as Gilbert and Sullivan said, “Let the Punishment Fit the Crime.”

Of course, there is what Charles Dickens wrote in Oliver Twist:

When Mr. Bumble, the unhappy spouse of a domineering wife, is told in court that “…the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”, replies: “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass - a idiot”.

1 Like

No… it’s bad. It’s essentially based on a consistent observation on how children’s brains work and develop in relation to their sexual development before and during adolescence, as well as how children subconsciously view and interact with adults. Children interact with and consider adults with a certain type of reverence and respect that they instinctively do not hold for their peers of similar age. They are more likely to trust an adult, to fear an adult, and to respect an adult on the basis that they are an adult. This type of behavior is not uncommon in other animals. And to bring that factor into a child’s sexual development alone can and does hinder their ability to further their sexual development.
It is the simple fact that interacting with an adult which leads to trauma or damage.
As far as ‘contradiction falsifies it’ thing goes, not in every case. In the realm of social science in particular, outliers are more common than in places you would see in say… medical or physics, whereby the mere fact that a theory or hypothesis doesn’t line up with the results in their entirety is not enough to render that theory or hypothesis false. Outliers can be explained by much deeper factors too, rather.

So again, while it’s not my intention to gaslight you, to say that the theory that all adult-child sex is harmful is quite a valid one that withstands most forms of scientific scrutiny with quite a considerable degree of reproducibility. Integration of these psychological theories into the realm of neurology is also becoming an interest, but that’s a topic for another day, as such integrations are all complicated.

1 Like

And I believe you, I genuinely and honestly do. I simply feel as though some clarification is needed in these matters because so much about the position of pro-contact is wrong and there are some variables that a reasonable person may feel as though should be questioned, and they’re not wrong to do so, but the conclusion that ‘not all encounters are bad’ or ‘children can consent with adults’ are two patently false theories that require correction.
They’re simply wrong.

Pro-contacts are what stand in the way of social advancement in particular, because it’s what lets people conflate the sexual orientation that is pedophilia with the evil that is child sexual exploitation and abuse. And since all actual, real-life adult-child sex is abuse, you can put the pieces together yourself.

Okay, you got me. I was being a little glib. Though on a very basic approach, outliers need to be accounted for. I just don’t like the statement that adult/child relationships HAVE to bad. Because there are some cases where they weren’t. Again, they are still against the law and I don’t promote or approve of them.

I am not a scientist, but I play one on TV. :laughing: Actually I am a scientist. As a scientist, I don’t consider social science, psychology, sociology, etc. as science. They are more accurately arts. In my opinion, if you can’t accurately measure and calculate an outcome with mathematics, it’s an art.

However, you are right, one outlier does not necessarily invalidate a theory. Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” actually had lots of holes when he wrote it. But, over the years, other scientists have amended and expanded the basis of the Theory of Evolution to the point that it has stood the test of time very well. But any theory is just that, a theory. There always exists a possibility that someday someone will disprove it.

1 Like

A nice idiom to many, sure, but not really one that holds up as fact. Psychology is a bit finicky as a ‘science’ but it still abides by basic scientific principles nonetheless and has applications that have more than proven its worth. Same goes for social science, but the fact still remains that adult-child sex is considered harmful to minors. The mere existence of outliers in this regard still doesn’t change how such things effect children or how likely those effects are to breed terrible results.

What I’d like to know is if NOMAPs - pedophilic individuals who do not offend and see sexual conduct between adults and minors, at least in the real world, as something to avoid - are the majority. Given how popular certain genres of anime and manga are and how popular virtual/fictional pedophilic pornography is and how consumers of that material interact with one another, it’s safe to assume it’s not as niche as others may believe it to be.
In fact, I know it’s not.

If we can prove that the majority of pedophilic individuals are non-offenders and are non-contact/anti-contact, then we can prove that pedophilia really is no big deal and that the desire to commit offenses must be channeled properly. Of course, people may disagree with it, that’s why I’d like to see better, more well-rounded studies with regard to how such interactions are observed to mess with child psychology.

It’s the pro-contact camp that I believe may be the minority, and their ideology is fundamentally incompatible with reality.

I’d like to see more studies on that too. I know of several website in the dark web, that cater to people who want to look at pictures and art, but also state that they don’t want harm to come to a real child. It could be lip service, but I think most are sincere. 3D Boys, an onion site, is very specific about no photographs of any kind. Artwork, text stories and 3D CGI are all that are permitted. They have several thousand members. PZA Stories, another onion site, only allows text stories, no photos or pictures of any type allowed. Maybe Prostasia should be investigating them to see if they are fellow travelers. Nifty.org has a large number of stories involving minors as does sexstories.com. I am sure there are many others.

It seems that the majority of these fiction-only communities may have adopted a zero-tolerance stance with regard to real-life sexual contact involving minors, as such are considered a form of exploitation and abuse, whereas fiction simply cannot involve that type of behavior.
This is a good thing.

1 Like

All these discussions are just Pedo’s trying to make Prostasia look bad.

Despite being completely bankrupt of any moral or ethical standards, pedophiles are remarkably intelligent creatures. They know how to infiltrate and sabotage to get what they want.

I wouldn’t put it past them, to be quite honest. We’ve had antis pretend to be pro-contact, anti AoC pedophiles for the sole purpose of false flag attacking the charity, only to be banned and singled out by the community.

No… but pro-contact activism, under any circumstance, is simply unacceptable.

NOMAPs, non-offending MAPs, are undoubtedly the overwhelming majority.

Something much harder to say is the proportions of anti-contact, who believe sexual contact is innately harmful and can never be acceptable, and pro-contact, who believe sexual contact is or could be acceptable, MAPs. Many anti-cs have pro-c beliefs in reality but call themselves anti-c for appearances, to avoid losing support groups or friends, because they define the terms differently, or because they go along with society, I’ve known people who fit into all of these categories. There are of course exclusively anti-c groups while there are no significant explicitly pro-c groups, the pro-c ones that do exist take an officially neutral stance and are typically not very large, this only accounts for the clearnet though, pro-cs are more likely to congregate on legal dark web sites or other places away from the public eye.

In summary it will depend mostly on where you draw the line between the two stances and it will still be hard to tell. I would be interested to see data on offending rates and contact stances though, with stances clearly defined of course.

NAMBLA is a very vocal pro c group. I believe there are others.

NAMBLA’s been inactive for years (Edit: since 2006), there are a tiny group of members still desperately clinging to it and it still technically exists sure but it’s not exactly an active group. The same goes for the others I can think of, PIE for example has been defunct since 1984.

Others pop up occasionally and usually disappear just as quickly.

1 Like

They factually are science

1 Like

This is the part that troubles me the most. I hope to god these are also the minority since such beliefs are plainly and simply anti-thetical to the science of child sex abuse psychology. It’s like saying you have people who believe in creationism within atheist/secularist circles.

We need to be on the same page with regard to this. It’s one thing to have fond memories of a time you sexually experimented with a teacher or something and say “I turned it okay”.
It’s an entirely different thing to believe that such experiences ought to be allowed for other kids on the basis of your experience alone.