(This is from my perspective as a YAP, but I imagine this applies to other “harmful” paraphilias as well.)

I’m on another Fediverse instance (which I will not name because I know the moderator goes out of their way to seek out and slander people badmouthing them and their instance) under a different username and the constant militantly anti contact rhetoric I see on there is exhausting. It’s all “children can’t consent” and “if you’re pro contact you’re a predator and we want nothing to do with you” and a whole lot of pathologization of pedophilia. I, of course, stay quiet about it on there, and I only put up with it because they also host a lot of kodo/kodocon (they say it’s okay if it’s purely fictional) and I haven’t found a better instance to migrate to. (Also, the mod is extremely ageist in general; they are extremely adamant about keeping minors off of their instance, and they don’t even try to say it’s just for legal reasons, they legitimately think minors shouldn’t be looking at porn.)

Yes, child sexual abuse is bad, but it’s not predatory to acknowledge that “minors” (I hate that term, it feels very dehumanizing) have sexual desires – not just teenagers but prepubescent children as well – or to suggest that they should be able to explore their sexuality with other people if they so choose. I don’t want to force myself on a child who isn’t interested in sex or romance (either in general or with adults). Many youth won’t be interested – as is their right. But that is not indicative of all youth, and I believe that if a child or teenager wants to enter a relationship with an adult, they should be able to do so.

When do these people think people should have sexual autonomy? When they turn 18? What’s so magical about that age that turns people from pure, innocent, sexless babies who don’t deserve autonomy “for their own protection” to fully fledged adults who are predators if they so much as eye a slightly younger friend wrong?

Also, someone tried to use a screenshot of the MAP wiki’s page for “pro contact” (which I don’t feel like looking up ATM but to paraphrase it said “pro contact people believe that sexual and romantic contact between minors and significantly older adults are not inherently harmful or predatory and should be permissible”) as a gotcha to say “if you’re defending pro contact MAPs this is what you’re defending, don’t lie about what ‘contact’ means!” Though I suppose maybe some people were saying that “contact” in that situation means “any kind of social contact, not necessarily romantic or sexual” and in that case that is an incorrect definition of “contact,” but it still seems absurd to me on some level.