Oversimplified and in my own opinion: Contact discourse is basically the question of "is it okay to act on minor attraction or zoophilia? (and necrophilia)" Anti-contact paraphilia activism is about the difference between fantasy and reality and being able to separate the two. Pro-contact paraphilia activism is people trying to actually have sex with children/animals. I myself am anti-contact for minor attraction and zoophilia.
Some people have more specific opinions. Some people are pro-contact for minors and anti-contact for zoophilia; or are anti-contact for minors but pro-contact for zoophilia. Some people describe their beliefs as neutral, complex, or changing. Some people believe that in the future, types of relationships will become possible that would otherwise be unethical (ie, thinking that the future liberation of children will lead to them being able to consent, believing in future inventions in human/animal communication, that kind of thing).
See the MAP Wiki page on contact discourse for a much more nuanced/detailed look into the debate. It probably describes it a lot better than I can tbh
Want to avoid pro-c's? I have a page for that.
I'm generally aligned with what FLEUR or limi-c believes, I label my stance on this matter as "anti contact".
I am against large chronological age gaps involving those that are chronologically minors. I think there is a large imbalance in experience and power in society that comes with different ages.
I am against bestiality (sexual contact between those inhabiting human bodies and animals who are not). Sexual contact between humans & therians, animal headmates, transspecies individuals, is okay. But besides that, I think sex with animals is wrong. Non-human animals are often literally owned by humans (bestiality debates usually focus on pet dogs/horses). They don't really understand consent in the way that humans do; sex with an animal can never be consensual in the way that sex with a human can be. I see some pro-bestiality folks argue that the animal 'looks like it wants/enjoys it' or something similar. However, these arguments do not fly when you're talking about sex with a human. I think it's wrong to teach an animal that it can initiate sex with humans, because again, they do not understand consent. If we treated dogs like humans in regards to sex, a lot of puppers would be getting arrested for humping strangers.
I only support necrophilic contact if an individual actually consented to their body being used for those purposes before they died. I think we should respect whatever people want to happen to their corpse after they die - whether that's getting buried in a fancy coffin, put on display, used for science and education, or donated to a necrophile. A necrophile might get some kind of disease from banging a corpse (idk, not a scientist here,) but that's up to them if they want to take that risk.
I think that it's possible for there to be a healthy relationship between people that are genetically related. There are genetic concerns related to incest (I'd like to research it more some day), though it's possible for a couple to be childless or adopt. However, I think there are significant power imbalances in families. I don't recommend trying to get with your parent/child. (I could probably word this better augh)
My anti-contact stance relates to current society. It would be cool if there is a society in the future in which this kind of contact can be non-harmful, but I doubt that will happen 🤷
I think the (anti-contact) paraphile community should be less connected to pro-contact stuff. I really don't like pro-contacts and contact-neutrals. I block them liberally.
If anyone wants to ask a question, then you can ask me on Tumblr.