Pro-Contact is Pro-Abuse - Why Pro-C proponents and mindsets are fundamentally wrong

I initially held off on making this thread, but I feel as though it needs to be made.
It should go without saying that any form of sexual activity between an adult and a child (or minor) is innately abusive and harmful, and for the community which rallies behind a CSA prevention and child protection organization, I feel it is imperative we all be on the same page as to what is agreed upon if we, and @prostasia, are to be successful in our goal of seeing effective, rational, evidence-based approaches to tackle the problem of child sex abuse without infringing upon people’s civil rights, such as the right to engage in harmless sexual expression in the form of lolicon/shotacon, fantasy roleplay, and owning child sex dolls.

Adult-child sex is NOT harmless

Children, especially those prior to or in the early stages of adolescence, cannot consent to sexual activity with adults, unlike how can with peers of the same age bracket.

The degree to which a minor’s brain has matured compared to that of an adult’s with regard to sexuality precludes the consent question because such maturity and development is a factor which dictates how such things, like feelings, interests, and activities related to sex or sexual activity, are felt, known, understood, and experienced.

A child at the beginning of puberty taking or expressing an interest in sex, sexuality, and indulging in masturbation is still functionally a child.
Sure they may express an interest in the human body, sexual activity with their peers or even teachers, view and talk about pornography (which they likely shouldn’t), but that’s only indicative of a burgeoning interest in sex. But that doesn’t mean they understand it.
They don’t know how to identify, compartmentalize, control, or appropriately express these types of emotions, feelings, urges, or desires, as they lack both the knowledge and experience necessary. And even if and when they reach it, they lack the necessary neurological development to really cement such information into a universally meaningful way.
They don’t understand the intricacies of consent and how to identify or express a lack of it or how to identify or prevent acts of coercion, intimidation, be it physical or emotional, and how such things may affect the other person in both the short and long term.
This is why sex education is so important because it equips teens with the type of knowledge to go forward along with the self-awareness needed to be conscious of not only their own limitations and needs, but also those of others.

To assume or argue that older children and young teenagers being ‘sexual’ means a young boy or girl can consent to sex with an adult, a figure of authority in both social and physiological sense, and not run the extremely high risk of suffering trauma or harm to their psyche with respect to sexual matters is indicative of a lack of knowledge in this regard or a lack of care for the facts, either due to a level of personal disagreement or simply a desire and a goal to have sex with real children.
The harm, the trauma, and their effects on victims as a result of adult-child sexual activity is severe and comes from that innate fact: being between an adult and a child.

Children and teens (minors) naturally view and interact with adults differently than they would peers of the same age group. To minors, there exists a degree of reverence and intimidation that resonates from adults, whether it’s the result of their physical maturity or other aspects, such as wisdom, knowledge, or plain authority.
A minor is more likely to be intimidated and less likely to question or challenge them, such as when given a command or direction.
It is a subconscious bias that can be seen in just about all social structures or dynamics, such as within the workplace or other hierarchical social structures, to have authority and subordination.
To enable this to mix with an innately underdeveloped mind that is not experienced or knowledgeable of sex, sexual activity, etc. is to risk associating those with their early sexual development which has been observed to lead to immediate trauma in the short and long term.
If a minor says “I’m not comfortable with this” but the adult is insistent, either vocally or physically, then the child will not be in a position to where they can confidently decline or fulfill that declination of consent with physical resistance. At that point, they are at the mercy of a captor, not a consensual sexual experience with a partner.
Sure, one could argue that this type of behavior isn’t limited to just adult-child sex and that it can happen with adult-adult or even child-child, and you’d be correct to point that out.
But again - that observation does nothing to discount the inherent harmfulness of adult-child sexual activity.

This is why most countries have established ages of consent, which although can vary (16-18) is still grounded on this basic principle. to protect minors from this type of abuse.

Common Pro-C Arguments

Historical argument.
A common claim I see by pro-contact pedophiles and proponents with this are historical arguments, whereby they wrongly assume that all of this risk and trauma are fairly new concepts and that such activities would not have been so commonplace in the years prior had these effects been “real”.
Aside from the fact that such customs were deeply rooted in religious practice and sentiment and that the cultures of those days were simply not as attentive to the needs or psychological well-being of people, let alone children, and that the rights of children were essentially non-existent or were simply deferred to their parents, who would often barter for goods and services with the virginity of their youngest daughters or turn over their children to work without pay in dangerous, unsanitary, and unhealthy conditions, this isn’t a valid argument.
With logic like this, one could very easily justify racial and cultural segregation or dated medical concepts, such as blood-letting as a viable means to cure infectious disease.

Anecdote or personal experience.
Another common argument I’ve seen regurgitated by pro-c proponents is the use of personal anecdotes or recountings of their own experiences or those of others, whereby they themselves had adult-child sexual encounters that they didn’t consider abusive or exploitive and look at fondly or that someone else, who was a young teenager or child married an adult and “turned out fine”.
These arguments are deeply rooted in a type of bias that can be difficult to correct for, yet still, one must keep in mind that anecdotes, especially those involving long far-off memories of one’s past, are hardly a valid or reliable means of ascertaining truth. Memories can be diluted by emotions one may feel later in life or even misplaced or recalled incorrectly. This can be seen as looking back with ‘rose-tinted glasses’ or the Mandela Effect, whereby certain memories about experiences may seem clear when that’s being recalled may not even be an accurate representation of the facts or what was felt.
A person recalling a Saturday evening romp with their neighbor’s wife as a young teen or experiencing fellatio by their English teacher may not recall the insecurity they felt and whether they initially consented to the activity in the first place. They may subconsciously choose not to recall those negative aspects about it and just choose to pretend it was consensual and harmless, rather than face the reality contingent on how they initially remembered it.
And even then - if we were to lend credence to the idea that these instances were not inherently exploitive of the minor parties involved, it still doesn’t discount the inherent risk of harm, or the psychology implicit within the subject at hand or the vast, overwhelming majority of cases where adult-child sexual activity was the cause of their trauma and psycho-sexual developmental complications and difficulties as a result of said activity.

In sum:
You cannot be pro-contact without being pro-abuse. They are one in the same.



Have you ever debated a pro-contact before? Asking out of curiosity.

1 Like

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have.


(filler words filler words)


1 Like

Do you care to further elaborate…?


Do you find my post in any way disagreeable…?


Pog is a good thing!

1 Like

I meant the ‘filler words’ part. What did you mean by this?


Just filler to meet the minimum characters


I’m bored :frowning: (filler words)

1 Like

@Chie Just out of curiosity. What do you think about cases where a minor dates someone close in age. Like,for example, when a 17 year old dates a 19/20 y/o or like when a 16 y/o dates a 18/19 y/o etc? Do you think that’s a problem? And if yes, how do you think we should approach these relationships? And what do you think when the media(movies, series, etc) portray these kind of relationships(sometimes even with a little bigger age gaps) in a postive or neutral way?


With respect to that type of specific circumstance, there really isn’t much difference between the two parties, but the similarities between the two parties make it an intrinsic exception, hence why I put emphasis on age bracket in my OP.
Should an 11-year-old be able to consent with a 17-year-old? I think not.

They’re movies. Fiction. People know the difference between real life and fantasy, as well as how those relate to real-life experiences and emotional dispositions regarding the two.

My answer going forward might deviate a bit from the original question, but I feel like I should touch up on a post you made in response to an older post of mine that I never got around to addressing, because it seemed like you misunderstood it.
One could argue that a film which graphically depicts and glorifies a sexual relationship between a child and an adult is (arguably) problematic, but to employ censorship of that nature on speech over disagreement with the position in question is a patent and flagrant violation of the free speech principle, one that will only cause more problems rather than attempt to ‘fix’ whatever problem such an act would attempt to create.
At the end of the day it’s just a story made for the entertainment and enjoyment of its audiences precludes it from even being a factor.
I’m sure there are NOMAPs who would like to escape to a reality where such things are legal and harmless, and fiction/fantasy gives them the opportunity to make peace with that while existing and being conscious of the reality we live in. I see no hard, conclusive evidence where such interactions would drive them to ‘make it real’ by way of acting them out with a real child.


Ok, thanks for the response. I agree! :slight_smile:


I’m physically cringing reading this, dude…

I can’t even begin to explain why you’re so infallibly incorrect on maintaining the ‘pro-contact’ position.

Also, at the risk of sounding rude, fuck the social and religious practices of Ancient Greeks. In their government, only men over 30 were allowed to vote and the rights of children were EXTREMELY limited.


Ok, I think I had enough of internet today…Lol.


I’ve thought about this question a lot. It kind of comes with the territory of running Virtuous Pedophiles for nine years. I made a series of blog posts listed here: where I considered it in more detail.

My bottom-line answer is recusal. Recuse, recuse, recuse. When and with whom minors can engage in sexual activity is all about what’s good for the minor. If there’s an adult in the equation somewhere, the adult’s desires are completely irrelevant. Society is full of people who know about children and minors and care deeply about them and their welfare who are not attracted to children at all. Pedophiles have no different insight on how children work. Let the others sort it out. Whenever we pedophiles express an opinion on the subject, it doesn’t do anybody any good. I’ve expressed an anti-contact position, which maybe isn’t too bad because it comes across as a “man bites dog” story, but fundamentally, if we’re seeking to advance the cause of celibate pedophiles, recusal is the way to go.

But I have my hunches, like anyone else. And when I studied it, some of the basic things didn’t really hold up. Children are not always harmed, and if we say so it’s wrong and not helpful – including to the subset of victims who don’t think they were harmed. However, there is a serious risk of serious harm, which is sufficient reason to prohibit anything. Children’s brains being immature doesn’t really cut it with me if you’re going to let young teens have sex with each other. Yes, adults may know more, but it’s a difference of degree, not kind as your hypothetical partner gets older. A logically consistent position that some people hold is that it is also a crime when two young teens have sex, but my intuition is that can’t be right. So what’s left? My hunch is that the reason we want to keep outlawing adult-minor sex is because it’s good social policy. Given the various classes of people who inhabit our real world, having it be illegal prevents lots and lots of exploitative relationships, while stifling only a few that might work out OK. That’s my hunch.

But basically, I’ll go back to recusal. It’s a complicated question, deciding when children/minors are ready for all sorts of freedoms. There are lots of trade-offs. Let the teleiophiles sort it out.


Okay bud I feel your time here is soon at end. We are anti contact and wont be convinced by some kind of rant.

"Nobody comes to the round-table of B4U-ACT, VirPed, Prostasia, etc, unless they have a heavy burden of pedo-lust and pedo-hatred. "

This is the shit I expect to hear from procontacts. Its not self hate to understand that children cant consent. Lets just say that hypothetically, I thought rape was hot. I’t doesn’t mean that I get to rape people or that I hate myself for bieng anti rape.

@terminus Please close his account.


It’s great to have a specialist whose dealt with this type of subject matter for so long and done so much for the NOMAP community stop by and offer their two-cents on the matter.

I have to admit, I’m not a MAP nor do I have any pedophilic thoughts, but I do greatly sympathize with the struggle of non-offending/no-contact pedophilic individuals and have always been an ardent supporter of civil liberties, civil liberties such as sexual freedom and the right to privacy. I believe NOMAPs have the right to explore and indulge in their emotions and feelings, just as anybody else would, so long as no harm comes to children, or is likely to do so.

I do have some questions, though.

I can get behind the risk argument, in fact, I do agree with it wholeheartedly. I just think that such a position won’t be all that convincing if you lend even the slightest amount of credence to the concept of adult-child sexual activity being harmless as a means to undermine the anti-contact position, in addition to blurring the concept of harm.
Part of the reason why I don’t solely rely on it, though, is because pro-contact proponents may try to take the ‘high risk’ factor and argue that the risk is overstated or that adult-child sexual encounters are misunderstood.
I think it’s a fairly reasonable point to be made, considering the various differences between children, teens, and adults and how they interact with one another. In my OP, I mention instinctual subordination conjunction with developing/underdeveloped juvenile psychology, and the inherent dangers of mixing those two together. I believe that there is harm in that, even if the minor in question attests the opposite, because, taken into consideration with the two prior factors I’ve mentioned, you can’t really trust a minor who is being groomed to make a reasonable assertion on that fact as they are not likely to know what their best interests even are.
Taken into consideration with how teens who’ve been groomed may go out of their way to protect their abusers, or how children with physically abusive parents may lie to CPS because they’d rather put up with physical/psychological abuse because they’d rather sleep in their own bed, have their own possessions, shower in their own bathroom, than be put into protective care with some stranger who isn’t their parent (an experience I personally know, sorry for the anecdote).
This does go hand-in-hand with the risk argument, but still.

I feel like the affirmation of it being innately harmful is valid. This isn’t to say that we should be gaslighting children or teens who’ve enjoyed their experiences, but to look at those situations as though they weren’t harmful is over-the-top.

It can’t be right because it isn’t. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that teens and young adolescents can be sexual, whether it’s by themselves or with peers of their own age bracket, and to deny them their right to explore these issues safely and informatively would be antithetical to logic. It’s why I’m an ardent opponent of abstience-only sex-ed, because it consistently and routinely fails to prevent things like teen pregnancy, teen rape, and teen STD infections.


Pro contact is against the rules. You keep going on about pedo self hate and lust or whatever and, just so you know im not a pedophile hebephile or nepiophile.


@prostasia is a child protection/CSA prevention organization with an emphasis on the preservation of civil liberties.