BabyGurlAlexa said:
Isn't it only paraphilic if it is for sexual reasons? not all ABs are fetishists
Slomo said:
That's correct. All paraphillias and all fetishes are psychologically/medically defined as being based on sexuality. That's why paraphilic infantilism is not a correct term for describing us.
I cannot do this anymore. I cannot do this. Psychosexual development begins at birth. Infantile sexuality exists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cvOoYX45G_0[/video]
Once that's understood, us all being classified the same, becomes far less offensive. Even if the pleasure you get out of your Little bABy items, hasn't ever registered down below, it's still a fetish, because we start developing so soon, and psychosexual development starts very simply, with, "Yay! Ow!"
"Yay! Mommy's milk! Ow! Burp me; before I explode! Yay! Daddy's funny faces! Oh, now he's yelling; ow! Paci. Where's paci? Ah, that's better! Yell on, daddy! Paci's magic!"
It doesn't need to involve direct, obvious sex, because, it starts so simply.
So, yep. Until a better scientific theory is accepted, we're all fetishy and weird. That's just fine.
Slomo said:
At least it is a better term than what we had 20+ years ago of being mislabeled as a sexual deviant who needs to be "cured" of their sickness.
Yes, there's that. Yay! They're even starting to depathologize them. That's why there's a distinction between fetish, and fetish disorder. Fetish disorders are billable. The person wants treatment. That's the difference.
Something needn't look like sex, to be romantically bonding, like sex is, or to feel good, or, to give those, "responses," people like so much. Look, for example, at giantess porn. It doesn't look like porn. Nobody boinks anybody, but it works for the people with that fetish.
Similarly, if someone all out replaces, "Put you, in me," with, "I'll just cuddle, thanks," they've traded typical sex, for their currency, with or without the, "response."
Furthermore, all you need to get a, "response," is male or female erectile tissue, working nerves to the area, and a blood supply to the area. No puberty required, though it does help, Slomo, dear.
When a male family member was 5, he got one, and couldn't pee. Mom gave him a toy to play with, sat him on the toilet, and waited for what was up, to go down. Granted, it was only up, because the muscles relaxed as he slept, and let more blood flow in, but it happened, so, when someone reports those sensations at a young age, maybe not writing them off as liars is a good plan? A sex addicted woman reported doing some very interesting things with her stuffed animals, and there was even a product from it. A 3 letter product. I think she was 6 at the time.
Here's another fetish. It's not ours, but think about it. Does anything the psychologist explains make sense? The childhood roots, the turning bad to good experiences, anything?
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B4XzOWi5c4s[/video]
So, does it look overtly sexual for all of us? No. Does it involve penetration for all of us? No. Does it even look overtly sexual, or involve penetration for me? That's the world's most resounding hell no! Do all of us get off on it? No, not even me. Does it give us simple, "Yay," based early development-type pleasure? Yes.
From what I gather, some of us even like a bit of, "Ow," in the form of humiliation or punishment, and others, like me, want nothing more than to hear, "This hurt, the first time around, because the adults around you were disconnected idiots! I'm here now. The mental pain, that hits you right in the chest, every time you hear, 'diaper,' and your name, in the same sentence, will stop, when you know you're safe, and I'm safe to be around," and that simple reward system payoff is why it's a fetish. Something is feeding us, bonding us to our BIGs, we're loving ourselves, and our BIGs, and our objects, in ways that aren't typical. That's all the psychologists are saying.
CrinklyConnor said:
. . .thus why I specified "age regression" which is what psychologists refer to when talking about non-sexual infantilism.
Not that I've ever heard. Age regression seems to be the term we use, not them. Psychologists use something called regression therapy, on people with borderline personality disorder, or dissociative identity disorder. Now, they did meet someone who swore up and down it wasn't sexual, and so they documented it, and called it Adult Baby Syndrome, but, was that true, or did the patient just not understand anything about psychosexual development? Did she have a vested interest, perhaps, in the shrink she saw, believing it wasn't sexual, or perhaps, in believing that herself?
There was also a mother who was so far gone, she had her itty bitty kids feeding her looney butt, and caring for her like a baby. There was even someone with DID, who had a baby alter personality, but, regression as we use it, I doubt they've ever heard. I could be wrong. Do you have a source? Now, it maybe that a few psychologists have heard our term, but it hasn't been published in academic journals yet, so once the few doctors who have heard it, publish, we maybe classed differently.
Even though it's not sexual for me, I made peace with the term, because I understand better why it's used.
My hope is, that others will, too. I also hope minors, who don't see this as sexual for them, or perhaps adults who used to be those minors, will stop using terms like "AgeRe non kink, safe for work," to get in communities they don't belong in. It's so dangerous! These are minors. Even if they're never boinked, they could end up being romantically bonded to someone with a fully developed brain, who can manipulate them, because their brains aren't fully developed. What's safe for work about that!? These kids don't have the foresight to know they could bump into one of the few with malicious intent, or that the could get the vast majority of us, who are good people, in trouble, even if they don't mean to.
I also hope a few people within the community learn that people who regress don't dissociate, and are still aware they're adults. Do psychologists use regress as a term for someone who completely dissociates and becomes childlike? Is that why the person making videos is so confused as to think that when we're regressed, we don't know we're grown? Do we need a better term?
I hope a few of us learn, that though Littlespace is
a Subspace, (It is; what BIG says, goes.) it's not
the subspace.
