Underaged littles?

[LittleMaddox]

My views on this:
- as long as the questions/conversation remain of a PG nature, nothing sexual. I don’t see it as an issue. Good lord knows I could have used some guidence when i was first starting from somebody who understood what i was going through.

The problem is whether you try to keep it PG or not, things can get misrepresented when viewed by others and when something is very much related to something fetishistic it's not a safe subject to be discussing with a minor.

- no meeting up till 18, unless they are in your same age range (you’re both in local high schools, etc) and it should be limited to just meeting up at McD’s and such

Not sure exactly what you mean by this but an adult meeting up with a minor who is one year younger than them could still be considered risky and minors don't always make good decisions so I don't think it's a good idea either way.

- even on the TBDL Reddit and other teen only sites, there are lurkers who portray themselves as children to befriend other minors and prey on them. I’d think it would be more dangerous to be on a TBDL site and be lulled into a false sense of security and fall prey..

The difference is that the policies of this site are there to avoid us from knowingly associating ourselves with minors

 

[BabyTyrant]

I think some people are just too hardheaded and think ABDLs are "bad people" and will not accept that maybe they are wrong

With that comes a high risk because they would see the "Adult" as being some sort of "Predator" , so we as the Adults would always be seen as in the wrong

When you cant convince someone that it's not a "Predatory/Pedo" thing, you dont want to even be questioned with that and possibly charged

Re the whole "close in age/peers" thing, that can be risky too, I have heard of a Male that got in legal trouble (for being involved in a relationship with a Minor) because he had turned 18 and his GF was 16, they were 14 months apart in age, had he waited until they were both 18+ he wouldn't have gotten in legal trouble

TLDR, when to some people we are always gonna be "the bad guys" it's just not worth interacting with a Minor, it could so easily be misconstrued in court as "predatory" and can literally ruin your life, it doesnt even have to be a physical interaction either, in a Chat Room is very risky too

 

[Calico]

I have a friend who is 16 years old and is an age regressor, they are not into the sexual side of it at all but they had such a crushing childhood.
They find comfort in the community but can't interact because it's technically classified as a "fetish"
This is a very grey area for me, what's everyone else's opinion on it?

Age regression isn't a fetish and it's a medical thing that is prescribed to patients by doctors.

I think what you are looking for is age play and if someone does it involuntarily, that is age regression, not age play.

I have seen age regressers having "Do not follow if you are a kink page or ABDL" on their profile because they don't want to be associated with ABDL and not want to be seen as one because it is very offensive. They don't want to be mistaken as a age player too and be told they are doing their "kink" and involving family members in it and minors when that isn't the case. I don't blame them since many people can't tell the difference.

 

[Calico]

@JaysonTheRegressor I would not recommend meeting up with minor in this context unless the minor's parents/guardian(s) already understand this community and are open to the idea.

I wouldn't meet up with a minor at all no matter what interest it is rather it is autism or other disability or video games and I would need their parent or Guardian with and have them know about me first before we meet and they need to be present. That is because I want the parent to feel comfortable with their child meeting with an adult and I need their approval.

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

In the therapeutic context, therapists actually say so.

They say, "regression therapy."

I wish a better term existed, so we could stop using terms used by BPD patients.

Age play is offensive to some of us. I don't think it should be. No one comfortable with the term is saying, "age lying," or, "age faking," or, "I'm more real than you, because me doing this doesn't register as a kink with me."

Register or not, there's a reason we're all classified as fetishists. Here's the thing, according to the DSM 5, fetishes aren't billable, but fetish disorders are. Basically, white coats know being kinky doesn't make you sick. You're only sick when a kink is a problem.

Sex therapists who know what we are, and have dealt with us will acknowledge this is in us by 8. They aren't saying young kids should be boinking. They're saying who we are, and what we like, and how we love and bond, develop concurrently.

There's a third thing, that I'm worried we're walking right into with all this not realizing that maybe therapists know more than we do about psychosexual development, and insisting it's not sexual, when maybe some of us just haven't connected the dots, because they don't see dots, because they don't want them to be there, and that's the possibility of having this reclassified as a personality disorder.

Would you rather be kinky, or billable. Billable means treatable.

 

[LittleMaddox]

In the therapeutic context, therapists actually say so.

They say, "regression therapy."

I wish a better term existed, so we could stop using terms used by BPD patients.

Age play is offensive to some of us. I don't think it should be. No one comfortable with the term is saying, "age lying," or, "age faking," or, "I'm more real than you, because me doing this doesn't register as a kink with me. Register or not, there's a reason we're all classified as fetishists.

I don't see what the problem is and why we'd need a "better" term. Age regression is what it is, and just because the word "regression" is used in some therapeutic contexts I don't know what the issue with that is.

How is age play offensive and to who of us?

Also we're not all classified as fetishists (me for example) as what I'm doing is not for the purpose of sexual gratification

 

[diapernh]

The problem is whether you try to keep it PG or not, things can get misrepresented when viewed by others and when something is very much related to something fetishistic it's not a safe subject to be discussing with a minor.


Not sure exactly what you mean by this but an adult meeting up with a minor who is one year younger than them could still be considered risky and minors don't always make good decisions so I don't think it's a good idea either way.


The difference is that the policies of this site are there to avoid us from knowingly associating ourselves with minors

If somebody is asking for advice on how to tell their parents, how to buy diapers, what to buy... all are completely innocent conversations

For instance when I graduated high school I was 18, but associated with underclassmen who were under 18. Just because I was older does not make me now unable to talk to them or meet at the McDonald’s.

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

I don't see what the problem is and why we'd need a "better" term. Age regression is what it is, and just because the word "regression" is used in some therapeutic contexts I don't know what the issue with that is.

How is age play offensive and to who of us?

Also we're not all classified as fetishists (me for example) as what I'm doing is not for the purpose of sexual gratification

Yes, we are all fetishists, according to the DSM. Therapists know sexual development occurrs well before we know what's occurring, so, since they freely acknowledge that this is in us by no later than 8 years old, rather we know it then or rediscover it's in us later, obviously, not every fetish is about getting off, or seems sexual in the classic sense. Some of us may be stuck at such an early stage in psychosexual development, that it never reaches our genitals. I wish I could remember which podcast it was, they talk about having a sex therapist on, who said getting a diaper on your butt, may be sex for you.

If you're filling the space usually occupied by romantic bonding and sex, with this, this is your sex.

You're entitled to your opinion, though.

Rather you consider this sexual or not, would you rather be kinky, or assumed in need of a shrink's couch?

 

[FunSizeJake]

There is actually no gray area at all. If you help introduce them into an NSFW community, which the AB/DL, TB/DL, DDLG, BDSM, etc. unequivocally are, then you are essentially assisting/coercing a minor into sexual activity. If you do nothing (the correct choice), the person will be left to their own devices to figure it out. Is it ethical for minors to explore sexual communities before they are 18? No. Will it continue to happen? Of course. I know how rare finding someone into this kink is, but if you're looking for actual advice, you need to stay as far away from those conversations about AB/DL with this person as possible to eliminate yourself as a suspect if something goes wrong and they start pointing fingers.

 

[LittleMaddox]

Yes, we are all fetishists, according to the DSM.

That's not true. We aren't classified as fetishists by the DSM--the DSM doesn't care about and classify fetishists. It classifies fetishistic disorder, which is when a fetish is causing psychological distress, etc. Fetishism on it's own is classified by the first criterion for fetishistic disorder if you want to speak DSM (V): "A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from either the use of nonliving objects or a highly specific focus on nongenital body part(s), as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors". The DSM classifies disorders. A key part if the classification of fetishistic disorder is the second criterion: "B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning".

Therapists know sexual development occurrs well before we know what's occurring, so, since they freely acknowledge that this is in us by no later than 8 years old

Where are you getting "8 years old" from because pretty sure you just pulled that number out of thin air and it has no merit at all.

rather we know it then or rediscover it's in us later, obviously, not every fetish is about getting off, or seems sexual in the classic sense. Some of us may be stuck at such an early stage in psychosexual development, that it never reaches our genitals. I wish I could remember which podcast it was, they talk about having a sex therapist on, who said getting a diaper on your butt, may be sex for you.

A fetish is literally defined by sexual gratification, if you aren't getting off to it, it isn't a fetish.

If you're filling the space usually occupied by romantic bonding and sex, with this, this is your sex.

This is completely inaccurate and I honestly take a bit of offense to it. ABDL is only one aspect of my life. It's fulfilling parts of my desires, but it isn't replacing anything romantic or sexual by any means. I honestly think referring to it as "your sex" is repulsive.

You're entitled to your opinion, though.

I'm wasn't (and still am not besides the last point) presenting an opinion, I'm presenting facts.

Rather you consider this sexual or not, would you rather be kinky, or assumed in need of a shrink's couch?

Neither because these two things don't cover all of the possibilities and I'm not going to classify something that has no sexual aspect for me as sexual, since frankly any sexual aspect would ruin it for me

 

[LittleMaddox]

If somebody is asking for advice on how to tell their parents, how to buy diapers, what to buy... all are completely innocent conversations

For instance when I graduated high school I was 18, but associated with underclassmen who were under 18. Just because I was older does not make me now unable to talk to them or meet at the McDonald’s.

It's the context of the discussion though and the fact that things could come across as predatory or otherwise harmful for the younger person. It's fine to provide resources online for these things, however engaging in a one-on-one discussion especially in private with something that often has a sexual aspect to it whether innocently-intentioned or not could be misconstrued in the face of the law

 

[FunSizeJake]

That's not true. We aren't classified as fetishists by the DSM--the DSM doesn't care about and classify fetishists. It classifies fetishistic disorder, which is when a fetish is causing psychological distress, etc. Fetishism on it's own is classified by the first criterion for fetishistic disorder if you want to speak DSM (V): "A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from either the use of nonliving objects or a highly specific focus on nongenital body part(s), as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors". The DSM classifies disorders. A key part if the classification of fetishistic disorder is the second criterion: "B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning".


Where are you getting "8 years old" from because pretty sure you just pulled that number out of thin air and it has no merit at all.


A fetish is literally defined by sexual gratification, if you aren't getting off to it, it isn't a fetish.


This is completely inaccurate and I honestly take a bit of offense to it. ABDL is only one aspect of my life. It's fulfilling parts of my desires, but it isn't replacing anything romantic or sexual by any means. I honestly think referring to it as "your sex" is repulsive.


I'm wasn't (and still am not besides the last point) presenting an opinion, I'm presenting facts.


Neither because these two things don't cover all of the possibilities and I'm not going to classify something that has no sexual aspect for me as sexual, since frankly any sexual aspect would ruin it for me

This entire argument is irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters is that both parties are 18 years old before participating in any sexual acts. If a party is not 18, there is no gray area. It's illegal. The definitions by the APA don't matter. It could be ANY fetish, any sexual desire at all, but if both parties are not 18, someone is at risk of jail/prison time. Once both parties are 18, it doesn't matter what they're doing sexually (with some obvious exceptions, sexual activities that conflict with other constitutional laws).
The whole ideology that "regression isn't sexual for some people, it isn't a fetish, so it's okay to participate in it with minors, blah blah" is complete bullshit. If you're trying to make a case, or question yourself about participating in something with a minor, it's already a no-go. It's not hard guys, come on. If they aren't 18, don't push any boundaries. They're legally children. Fuck the anecdotal "I was working at 16 paying for my own place working 2 jobs still in school so adulthood is based on maturity" bullshit. Adulthood is not based on maturity. Adulthood is being 18 (Insert your country's legal adulthood age here). Go ahead and try that "adulthood is based on maturity and not age" speech in front of a judge. Just. Don't. Do. Anything. With. Minors.

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

I don't see what the problem is and why we'd need a "better" term. Age regression is what it is, and just because the word "regression" is used in some therapeutic contexts I don't know what the issue with that is.

How is age play offensive and to who of us?

Also we're not all classified as fetishists (me for example) as what I'm doing is not for the purpose of sexual gratification

I've heard some of us say it was like calling a wizard a mudblood. Not very nice. I understand it to well to agree with that.

The DSM 5 does make the distinction between a mere paraphilia, no longer billable, because kink doesn't inherently make one bat shit nuts, and a paraphiliac disorder, that indicates a problem, or at the very least, a desire by the ABDL in question, for treatment, and which is billable. We're in there,

 

[LittleMaddox]

The whole ideology that "regression isn't sexual for some people, it isn't a fetish, so it's okay to participate in it with minors, blah blah" is complete bullshit. If you're trying to make a case, or question yourself about participating in something with a minor, it's already a no-go. It's not hard guys, come on. If they aren't 18, don't push any boundaries. They're legally children. Fuck the anecdotal "I was working at 16 paying for my own place working 2 jobs still in school so adulthood is based on maturity" bullshit. Adulthood is not based on maturity. Adulthood is being 18 (Insert your country's legal adulthood age here). Go ahead and try that "adulthood is based on maturity and not age" speech in front of a judge. Just. Don't. Do. Anything. With. Minors.

That's...not at all what I'm saying. I was replying directly to @SpAzpieSweeTot's claim that "we're all fetishists" and direct question to me. I explicitly even said in my post after that "engaging in a one-on-one discussion especially in private with something that often has a sexual aspect to it whether innocently-intentioned or not could be misconstrued in the face of the law"

 

[LittleMaddox]

I've heard some of us say it was like calling a wizard a mudblood. Not very nice. I understand it to well to agree with that.

I don't even have a clue what this means or is referring to

 

[FunSizeJake]

I'll say it again, louder for the people in the back. If both parties are not 18, or both parties are not concurrent minors, there should be absolutely no mention of fetishes, sexual activities, or sex in general. If you're trying to make a case that it is okay to discuss the aforementioned topics, you have pedophillic tendencies.

 

[FunSizeJake]

That's...not at all what I'm saying. I was replying directly to @SpAzpieSweeTot's claim that "we're all fetishists" and direct question to me. I explicitly even said in my post after that "engaging in a one-on-one discussion especially in private with something that often has a sexual aspect to it whether innocently-intentioned or not could be misconstrued in the face of the law"

Sorry about that, I started with an idea and it transposed into something more. No hard feelings, I wasn't trying to attack anyone.

 

[LittleMaddox]

I'll say it again, louder for the people in the back. If both parties are not 18, or both parties are not concurrent minors, there should be absolutely no mention of fetishes, sexual activities, or sex in general. If you're trying to make a case that it is okay to discuss the aforementioned topics, you have pedophillic tendencies.

No one's really contradicted you on this I don't know why you're re-iterating it. Also the claim about pedophilic tendencies is downright absurb

 

[LittleMaddox]

Sorry about that, I started with an idea and it transposed into something more. No hard feelings, I wasn't trying to attack anyone.

Don't worry, none taken

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

That's not true. We aren't classified as fetishists by the DSM--the DSM doesn't care about and classify fetishists. It classifies fetishistic disorder, which is when a fetish is causing psychological distress, etc. Fetishism on it's own is classified by the first criterion for fetishistic disorder if you want to speak DSM (V): "A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from either the use of nonliving objects or a highly specific focus on nongenital body part(s), as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors". The DSM classifies disorders. A key part if the classification of fetishistic disorder is the second criterion: "B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning".


Where are you getting "8 years old" from because pretty sure you just pulled that number out of thin air and it has no merit at all.


A fetish is literally defined by sexual gratification, if you aren't getting off to it, it isn't a fetish.


This is completely inaccurate and I honestly take a bit of offense to it. ABDL is only one aspect of my life. It's fulfilling parts of my desires, but it isn't replacing anything romantic or sexual by any means. I honestly think referring to it as "your sex" is repulsive.


I'm wasn't (and still am not besides the last point) presenting an opinion, I'm presenting facts.


Neither because these two things don't cover all of the possibilities and I'm not going to classify something that has no sexual aspect for me as sexual, since frankly any sexual aspect would ruin it for me

Resonant Yes, I believe it was, but it may not have been love in brief, it may have been Big Little Podcast, anyway, he mentioned having a professional on an earlier show who said the diaper on your butt may be sex for you thing. I'm sorry you find what was said by someone who wasn't even me repulsive. I was honestly just trying to wrap my mind around that part myself, not saying it was right or wrong. It's not clear cut at 8. Plenty of people believe it's in us before then. The theory that mentioned 8 specifically, was on one of our 2 episodes of Sex Savvy with Dr. Kimberly Resnick Anderson.

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

I don't even have a clue what this means or is referring to

Really dude? You want specifics? SiySiy made the mudblood is to wizard, as age player is to Little or "real AB," reference. It can't be true, because age player was the first term ever used, and that happened years before Little was ever used.

I'm not trying to attack anyone either. I'm just saying I used to be utterly befuddled as to why this was a fetish at all, and then I started reading, and understanding more about how we don't develop in a vacuum, and now, things staying exactly ad they are DSM wise, makes more sense.