>>29506 >it's useful to explain our fetish Stop reading there. It will never be considered normal, and if it is it will be in a "now everything is kind of normal" kind of deal, like it will be socially accepted that pretty much everyone has a fetish or two, but even in that scenario our fetish will be more in the orange territory. Also, it won't help that half the community are fucking weirdos in the sense that they have little to no social awareness and tend to do whatever feels right because "why not".

>>29508 I don't need it to be considered normal, but it'd be cool if was understood.

>>29506 You would be hard pressed to find an explanation that accurately reflects the interest of even a majority of diaper fetishists or ageplayers, the one you propose only even applies to ageplayers and if you really scrutinize it then only a small subset. There's many different appeals to diapers

>>29506 >>29511 Fuck's sake, not everyone is going to accept or understand you online. Trying to be normal "online" is futile because billions of people have access to "online" at this point. There is no normal "online" beyond specific sites or communities having their own "normal". This coming up in the past decade is frustrating because it's an emblem of zoomer culture. I wasn't going to initially reply to this thread, but I've increasingly realized stuff like this is less trolling and genuinely the newfag idiocy problem on a mass scale. This needs pushback on in some places. Not everything needs a label, name, or description to be understood or for people to care. No one is automatically going to be your friend, understand, and accept you. At times that is even a detriment as it draws unwanted attention or encourages normalfags in if they even have the barest understanding. The word is not the thing. The map is not the territory. We do not need a complicated, clinical sounding name. ABDL and already existing related stuff is fine for us finding each other online.

>>29508 >Hard agree This is way too much effort for what it's worth. Can we just agree that we like what we like?

I don't care about being "normal", I care about being left the fuck alone in private.

The medical terms is "trans woman" are you happy now?

>>Lots of trannies are autogynephiles and admit as much in private Ahh yes, we'll pretend to be about something else but this is going to be the whole thread.

>>29532 No, no it's not. >>29539 You are the only one who has even brought it up so far

>>29539 > Ahh yes "Snide passive aggression is the invariant quality of the leftists: it is their calling card, their mating call, the degree by which they measure their victories." - Mark Twain

>>29506 I just like the underwear, that's it. And no that doesn't mean I'm "dysphoric" without it, or I'll hurt myself if people don't accept it, I just like infantile underwear. Can't we leave it at that

>>29571 Nope, OP is probably some tranny trying the build more support in this community by drawing a connection between the two, a similarity, to make their delusions seem relatable. So no, you can't just like what you like, it has to be a condition, has to have a label, so you can be gaslit into believing that some other psychos out there are just like you and you should be sympathetic to them because of that.

>>29572 OP is an idiot for trying to come up for some "medical term" for ABDL while also clearly referring to it as a fetish in their post. If it's a fetish, that's the term for it - there's no need for any other bullshit terminology to add into it. That said, there are situations where some sort of medical terminology might make sense, my own case included. I actually went to a therapist for a while, primarily motivated by what I would best describe as age-based body dysmorphia. In cases like my own, I don't think it's gaslighting myself to expect that I'm not the only person out of billions to experience it, even if the number of people who had the same problem is small and the number who have sought help for it even smaller. In those cases, they might just be looking for sympathy, sure. But it's also not unlikely that they're just looking for ways to alleviate some of that stress, and having literature on the topic that can be located through the use of a common term isn't a bad thing in that regard.

>>29506 I think autopedophilia is the correct term. Of course people don't like it, mainly because they also have retarded ideas about what it means to be a pedophile, and that's how we end up on the euphemism treadmill. Anyway, I agree there's some value in categorising things, including psychological features. Being able to label things has generally been the first step towards understanding them scientifically. Being satisfied to stop at "it's a fetish, that's all" is a bit like if stone age humans had been satisfied to stop with "it's a rock, that's all" and not cared about the difference between granite and malachite. That said, you're probably wasting your time trying to talk on that level to the people here.

>>29620 >you mean ageplay you idiot <also >retarded ideas about what it means to be a p3d0 <I can only imagine your "correct" ideas about p3d0s

>>29506 >>29620 The LGBTQ was originally invented by founding members of NAMBLA in order to promote their depraved pedophillic behavior and have it become accepted into the mainstream. AB/DL will not be co-opted into another branch of the NAMBLA machine you filthy pedophiles. The term Paraphilic infantilism already exists for anyone wanting a meaningless label, and your attempts to normalize pedophilia will not be accepted. So fuck off back to leddit rabbi.

>>29620 >they also have retarded ideas about what it means to be a pedophile I can sympathize with this. However I would disagree on your second point, something being a fetish as opposed to a sexual orientation, a mental illness, or something else is all the categorization it needs to be understood. Fetishes are fetishes, they don't need any further labeling. All that needs to be understood better by people is that there is lots of nuance and variation within fetishes, like how two diaper fetishists can have as little in common as a diaper fetishist and any given inflation fetishist. Ironically OP doesn't seem to get this by how they want a catch-all label >>29651 You can be a pedophile and against this crap you know.

>>29653 >You can be a pedophile and against <pedophilia> you know. No I don't think you can.....

>>29667 A pedophile who has a moral compass and is innocent of any crime, that is to say, "non-practicing" can absolutely be against the active normalization of weird sex shit that targets children in an attempt to normalize or just get away with molestation. It is similar but perhaps less intuitive to how a gay person can be against the LGBT

>>29670 So you're telling me being gay or a pedophile isn't an option but rather a condition inherent to the person? Interesting.

>>29683 Not the person you're replying to, but a lot of the religious make this distinction regarding homosexuality. There's nothing wrong with wanting to fuck a man's ass, there's everything wrong with -doing- it. In the lingo, it's be same-sex attracted (simply having sexual interest in the same sex) versus being a homosexual (buying the agenda and that it's an okay thing) I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to pedophilia. If you have a desire but never act on it, you're not hurting anyone. I myself am, by the descriptions herein, an autopedophile. I want a big-sister type to ravish me while I'm a little boy in diapers. Of course, you can't de-age so what I want can never happen, but it gets me off like no one's business.

>>29685 When Anon says that he means that such person can attempt to justify that they can't simply change. It's just their nature. Thus in their fucked up world it's everyone else who is "denying" their "innocent" actions. No one simply gets them. It's the same mentality incels, serial killers, r4p1sts, and other fucked individuals share. They are acting naturally, as they should. It's everyone else who is the problem. Because they don't get it. . . . And on the topic of religions, there are some who teach that you can sin with your thoughts, even if you don't do it. I personally don't like religions, but the justification I've heard is that it shows your desire to sin. And if you don't get rid of it, it will grow, and if the opportunity arises, you will sin.