KINKiwis - A thread for genuine kink/fetish information and discussion

[>IMPLYING]

so this is an actual thread now? and it actually has interesting insight into the psychology of sexual deviants?? bring the flood.

It took a while but yeah. (Post page 50, I think)

There's some performative/virtue signal-like posts of people complaining about the content/ideas, even though the thread isn't about celebrating or sharing their own, but actual discussion. You could discuss the harms of X/Y/Z, or why someone likes a particular thing in a purely clinical light, without the haranguing over pornography or some such. A lot of people are vulnerable to something called Splitting, where something can only be good or only be bad, with zero in-between.

To me, the value of this discussion is that learning the how and why of something is how you can avoid, if need be. There's also just a general fascination in learning and discussing the reasons too. It's never just "because it's hot," there can be a genuine underlying reason the person might like something that they don't even realise. Main issue is the number of possibilities could be too complex to take account of.

I don't fully buy the entire 'fetishes are dictated by childhood experiences' shit, I simply do not think that seeing something as a kid will result in you being into that as an adult.

They might have the same starting point of being spanked but the type of person they are kinda dictates where that leads and I would be willing to bet that the type of fetish category person you are is a lot more immutable and based in childhood than the specific fetish.

I don't fully buy the entire 'fetishes are dictated by childhood experiences' shit, I simply do not think that seeing something as a kid will result in you being into that as an adult. I think that a lot of it is retroactive revisionism.

I agree with this in a lot of instances but do to how things work it can be dismissed entirely. I still want to reply to this entire post, but in particular it's less, "X directly resulted in Y," and more, "X resulted in Y, which may or may not have lead to Z." I think revisionism is extremely common though if someone feels a degree of shame for their fetish/kink and want to make themselves completely blameless for it.

It wouldn't account for all fetishes given hypersexuality isn't just a childhood thing, you can induce it as an adult via frequent porn usage and such. Some fetishes are described as addictions in some contexts and I think it's the most apt. You can build up a dependency/tolerance to certain content via continued exposure as an adult, and then said content is now a "kink" to you as it can serve a passive function in arousing you.

I do think Childhood experiences might factor into positive or negatively-formed paraphilia.
For instance, if someone's parent disciplined them physically, but then hugged/soothed them after, that might legit screw up some wires in the brain. Your brain is releasing endorphins for the pain and a parent hugging releases oxytocin and so now your brain is associating being spanked/receiving pain with physical affection. If someone as a child received very little physical contact from their parent except in instances of harm, then some brain-wiring may associate natural parental love with being hurt. It'd go some way to explain why doms and dominatrixes are a thing, since they're effectively acting as some facsimile of someone's parent, as they can act the role of carer/decision-maker or someone who gives them the pain they've come to associate with "love" in a sense.

I guess a more easily pointoutable example would be autism fetishes. There is something about how their brain works that drives them to be more likely to develop certain fetishes. That, aside from within normal people and things that don't have such obvious outward symptoms.

Autism or some shade of light autism probably explains a the origins of a lot of fetishes along with psychosis, and then social contagion helps proliferate them. Someone who develops an autistic fixation on something is likely going to end up perceiving that connection to be of some other nature, especially if their fixation relieves stress or it occupied a huge chunk of their thought.



Delusions can be affected by a broader societal context, which also affect daydreaming. So in the context of social contagion, someone who ends up ruminating about something may end up exploring it in every capacity, which can have negative context if it's possible to explore it sexually.

"Daydreaming" is also a mundane-sounding thing, but in the context of the above: Daydreaming + hypersexuallity = fostering a (perceived) real connection with certain people/things in a sexual context and reinforcing certain ideas. This is especially potent because daydreaming is often what the brain does when in its "default" state so if someone's head is seeded with a particular thought, they may spend half their day thinking about it.



Daydreaming social interactions can give the brain near-identical social fulfilment too, which is why watching people interact on a screen could offer you more or less similar fulfilment to talking to people in person can. It's pretty much the explanation for how/why online social interaction is even engaging, because as far as your brain is concerned the interaction is real, which can (for some) apply to their fantasies/daydreams.

(Sorry for just dumping Wikipedia extracts but maybe it's marginally better than dumping walls of text or something.)

I don't think you can point at a single thing and say it caused something completely unrelated in someone a decade later. I think that a lot of the actual cause is subconscious and multiparted so not something that can be easily explained, and that the desire to point at the sexy Star Wars vore worm isn't a genuine attempt to explain where the fetish came from but instead quickly answer the question in an easy way that is complete on the surface. Like would anyone watch that scene and wonder what it is like to be vored by the giant worm if they didn't already have something in their head that would point them to that thought? Is the worm the origin of that thought process, or was that thought process there for a lot longer than the person thinks and the first memory of it surfacing in an obvious way was in regards to the worm? I think I am advocating from vore eugenics. Admittedly that's a problem I have with a lot of psychology, the desire to have an answer when sometimes there just isn't one that can be explained or comprehended. I shit myself because I watched Rugrats as a kid and the apple falls down because the Earth is flat and moves upwards. Obviously. Some people are depressed because their dad died. Some people are depressed because their brain has always simply worked differently and no matter what they were always at a higher chance of becoming depressed.

It's weird here how I agree with you but I think the part in bold is why the part I italicised is possible. It's so complex that trying to navigate to a possible sole cause is very difficult, maybe even impossible. But due to the difficulty, it's often easier to reduce it to, "Just because."

To me if someone can point the origin of their vore fetish to the Star Wars sandworm (which might be a retroactive revisionism, but let's pretend it isn't), then I'd instead focus on the exact context he viewed the scene. A while back I spoke about how someone who has a fetish/kink for diapers might be due association with other, pleasant childhood memories or an attempt to replicate them in the present as a sort of placebo. The brain is very easy to gaslight, even if you're aware of the fact you're lying to yourself.

If you tell yourself you like something diapers because they relieve stress because of X-reason, it's probably going to work, especially if you're also doing dopamine/endorphin-releasing "acts" during the process.

With the part I underlined, the main issue I have with psychology is the opposite. I think everything can have an answer, it's just the pursuit of said answer is to have some sort of "fix" or ulterior motive, whereas I think there's value in just knowing it.

 

[⚞⛇⚟]

Bryon Noem

I still don't know who this nigga (or his wife) is. All I know is that he is a cuck and people are clowning on his wife for being cheated on by him.
Who are these people?

 

[jeanblunt]

I still don't know who this nigga (or his wife) is. All I know is that he is a cuck and people are clowning on his wife for being cheated on by him.
Who are these people?

His wife, Kristi Noem, was the Secretary for Homeland Security from 2025-2026 for Trump. When your working for a conservative president and your husband is cross dressing with cam girls. Doesn't help pass your conservative agenda.

 

[pro drivor]

Obesity used to be attractive. People who are the size of the average builder used to be attractive. A beer belly used to be sexy. Then when food became no longer incredibly expensive and scarce it became being thin that was super attractive.

not really it was moreso an indicator of being rich asf. people want rich asf mates for practical reasons.

 

[pro drivor]

I still don't know who this nigga (or his wife) is.

i envy your innocence & bliss

 

[CertifiedFedBot]

Fun thought experiment. Consider how fucked up people are now due to porn...

Spoiler: Now imagine how fucked up they'll be jerking off to this.

0:06

 

[Bullet Kin]

I will be putting this here from something I saw on X.
(Nitter)

0:30

Also this...
(Source)

0:48

I am very confused on how to react to this. Should I make fun of the streamer for allowing this sexual activity to proceed, or shudder at the sheer thought of this going on?

 

[CertifiedFedBot]

I will be putting this here from something I saw on X.
(Nitter)
Ver archivo adjunto 8949811
DramaAlert - TWITCH STREAMERS ARE USING SHOCK COLLARS ON HUMANS… WTF？ [2050688573322448896].mp4

Also this...
(Source)
Clicker training [4177853308].mp4

I am very confused on how to react to this. Should I make fun of the streamer for allowing this sexual activity to proceed, or shudder at the sheer thought of this going on?

Twitch, the all ages video game streaming platform. Every day I hope that they overstep a little too publicly and the whole site gets taken down for being porn aggregator for middle schoolers.

 

[THE SUPREME ORANGE]

*unzips the ONIONCONDA*

HELLO THERE KIWI KITTENS I HEARD THERE IS SOME FUN TO BE HAD ON THIS THREAD

 

[mutated dog leather]

*unzips the ONIONCONDA*

HELLO THERE KIWI KITTENS I HEARD THERE IS SOME FUN TO BE HAD ON THIS THREAD

send diap;er

.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

even though the thread isn't about celebrating or sharing their own, but actual discussion

Yea. Just discussion. :3 It didn't take a while to lose the kneejerk shitposting either really. Yea it took 50 pages but that was only a day or so anyway.

"X directly resulted in Y," and more, "X resulted in Y, which may or may not have lead to Z."

That's just the English language doing English language things. Let me just change what I said slightly

I simply do not think that seeing something as a kid WILL result in you being into that as an adult.

What I mean is if watching spacejam as a kid made you a furry then why isn't every child that watched it a furry? There is nothing that you can point to and say it absolutely 100% will do something to you 10 years later. There is something that is different between people. Some people have something underlying that will turn kids film into sexual awakening. If those people never watched spacejam then they wouldn't be a furry but they would still have that underlying whatever in them that would predispose them to being a furry or it might also predispose them to being into petplay and that sort of stuff, or maybe they'll go down the line of latex.

if someone's parent disciplined them physically, but then hugged/soothed them after, that might legit screw up some wires in the brain.

This reminds me of a very old conversation in the pamperchu thread, again. The problem I have with this sort of thing is how can you tell? How can you tell if it actually changed their brain that way? Why doesn't every spanked child end up with a bdsm fetish? It's the same question of 'is this actually what caused it or is this the first time something subconscious surfaced?'. To bring it back to pamperchu there's this idea that if he wasn't raped as a child he wouldn't be like how he is now. Which is true. But to what degree? I forget exactly how the topic went but people were saying something along the lines of 'if he wasn't raped then he would be normal, he would be exactly how he is now with the qualifications and experience and all that good stuff but just without the child rape animal murdering desires' and I just don't buy it. It's just naive to believe that you could remove a single bad thing and it would cure all the other bad things and have no impact on anything else. I don't doubt it'll fuck you up and all that, I just don't think it will ever be possible to say that it lead to something later on. It's almost video game logic. The idea that oh you rolled a 1 now you get cursed with the '+rape +diaper fetish' curse and will need to cure that with a potion. That a person is built from a load of discrete cards randomly drawn from a deck instead of everything having overlap and there being no such thing as discrete traits mentally. Think less mtg deck building and more soup creation. Once you put a cabbage in a soup you can't then pull out a cabbage the next day, it's going to have mixed in and is now inseparable from the carrots and potatoes and while it's still possible to eat the soup and pull out each of those three flavours it's impossible to really separate them and really you will only ever taste the mix.

I think everything can have an answer, it's just the pursuit of said answer is to have some sort of "fix" or ulterior motive, whereas I think there's value in just knowing it.

The problem I have is that at the current moment we know pretty much nothing about the brain. In the grand scheme of things we don't know anything about how our bodies actually function. Even shit that is observable and predictable like protein folding and function we still don't know. To be able to point to something in your own brain and use that to explain your fetish, or anything really, would need you to have an understanding of how your brain works fully. But you can never understand how your brain works, to understand how your brain works you would need to fit more brain in your brain to account for the extra mental capacity and understanding, but then you'd need to understand that too and how that might impact your desire to fuck rainbow dash, then you have a recursive loop and it becomes impossible. You need a bigger brain to understand your current brain, that needs a bigger brain to understand that, that needs a bigger brain to understand that and so on. Maybe you could model that with a computer and make the computer bigger but could a computer ever really understand a brain? Computers don't do randomness, they just cannot. But the entirety of physics that chemistry and biology are built on is fundamentally random. It's like translating language. Bonjour doesn't mean hello. Hello is simply the closest approximation that our language has. It has the same effect roughly, but the actual meaning isn't the same. Then you get to something like schadenfreude and we can't translate it. There's nothing in our language that means the same thing. We can use workarounds and an entire sentence to describe the context that it would be used in but we don't have that ourselves. Or that thing about africans not having a word for maintenance and only having a rough way to kinda describe it. We can approximate how it works but we will never get the exact way it works because the base we are building on is just incapable of that. Yea maybe the big bang and the shape of the universe and the reason for quantum mechanics and the origin of matter will have an answer. But we are far from ever being able to have that answer and instead of just saying we don't know we instead want to slap an answer in there and call it solved rather than face the fact that we do not even have the ability to understand ourselves because it is depressingly existential to think about.

not really it was moreso an indicator of being rich asf. people want rich asf mates for practical reasons.

I know we are on the autism website. But have you ever considered that it could be both? If you want a rich partner for 'obvious' reasons then are you not attracted to that person? Or are you fingering yourself over an image of his bank balance?

I will be putting this here from something I saw on X.

It's kinda funny. If this was posted on twitter as a shitpost around the hasan stuff it'd be funny. But no we live in a world where retards are incapable of simply just not posting porn to a platform full of kids. I don't know if it'd even work like surely the whatever would insulate against the shock? Every time I've seen any estim shit they put it under the clothes for a reason.

 

[AbbaZabba]

Fun thought experiment. Consider how fucked up people are now due to porn...

Spoiler: Now imagine how fucked up they'll be jerking off to this.

1777697317022222.mp4

...At least they aren't shitting before they prolapse, I guess...

 

[Getmeout]

that is not attraction, that is social signaling.
fatties never were attractive. being fat (and having a fat wife) was a status symbol because it was a sign of wealth.

thinking this is the same as attraction is brainless retardation. it's like seeing elon musk bang dozens of groupies and concluding "girls are very attracted to chubby middle aged autists!"

Then why are black men more attracted to fat women despite it no longer being a sign of wealth?

Why are Asians more attracted to white skin despite that not being a sign of wealth anymore either?

Why did the entirety of 2010s media in the west focus so much on the belly other than it being seen as attractive? Long legs and a flat belly used to be the peak of attractive, now it's thick asses.

There's a difference between beauty standards and social signaling. Those beauty standards are different between cultures and so the things those cultures find attractive are different. Attraction isn't some fucking hard coded autistic you must meet all these criteria. It's fluid and changes. Are you going to tell me that what you thought was attractive as a kid is attractive now? People think a lot of things are attractive. Some people just like blondes. That's not some hard coded rule in your biology that's just what you personally find attractive.

Once again. There are universal things. There are things that are more genetically hard coded to be attractive. But that is not the only things people find attractive.

I gotta agree with fart huffer here (Never knew I'd say that), if you actually look into the beauty standards of those times it's just irrefutable that they felt genuine sexual attraction towards obese men and women. It 100% was not just a social thing and it still isn't, because then why aren't we sexually attracted to blown up plastic surgery dolls? That's a sign of wealth, and is ugly, but we can admit that's just ugly. There was actual infatuation for the obese back then.

I don't think it's entirely dependent on culture though, as I grew up in a culture where six packs were the ideal, and I find them unappealing.

so this is an actual thread now? and it actually has interesting insight into the psychology of sexual deviants?? bring the flood.

I'm not interested in knowing to shame them or to avoid them, it's just interesting to know. I see fetishes as morally neutral, but they're still interesting to just... Know. Psychology is interesting.

The conclusion is that this user is simply just black. This isn't a fetish. This is just a normal and attractive body type. That's it. Not everything with a fat bitch is fat fetish art. Sometimes they are simply just fat.

I mean I agree but the conclusion that "They're just BLACK." is so funny to me. I do agree that art of a fat person does not equal fetish, even if the fat person is in suggestive clothing. I don't call any drawing of a woman in a bikini "A skinny fetish".

Furries, vorefags, diaperfags are all the same tier of degenerate to me. Acting like any of these groups has a moral highground over each other is retarded. Usually, furries are also vorefags and diaperfags too anyway so I don't understand the pretending like they're completely separate things.

This is very late but I wanted to say my thoughts anyway
Furries - Idk, I think most of the time it's bestiality with how realistic they make their fursonas, but the Japanese furries are honestly just humans in face paint.
Vorefags - I can't really find what's morally wrong about this.
Diaperfags - Easy, pedophilia. The only non pedophilic version I've seen is when the diaper is more so like an old man's diaper where the focus is on incontinence rather than childishness, but I've literally only seen that once. Every other time it's just ageplay pedo shit.

I think the reason why autistic people have fetishes more often than normal people is because of the inherent dehumanization in autism, you don't see humans as humans. Or well, you don't see them as the same species as you, not in a "They're less than you" way but just in a "I can't relate to these people at all" way. The same reason why autists tend to be furries and therians, they just don't feel human. So, for an autist, the idea of having sex with a human is weird. It's like having sex with a pillow, it's just not right. They have to add something to it for it to make sense, and it's like, this autist really likes Sonic the Hedgehog, best game ever. So if that pillow that I'm gonna have sex with was ROUGE, see, NOW I can get behind it. I think that's the mindset. It's why I see fetishes as morally neutral, for some people it is literally the only way they can feel sexual attraction due to something outside of their control. It's either that or "asexuality".

The idea of trying to "reform" degenerates is silly to me, because it begs the question of who asked you to? When people want to "reform" fetishists, it reminds me of Mormons knocking on your door and thinking they're being a help when really they're nosy nuisances.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

I don't think it's entirely dependent on culture though, as I grew up in a culture where six packs were the ideal, and I find them unappealing.

What I mean by that is that there are certain body types or whatever that are only attractive in a certain culture. You might not like six packs but idk polynesians will not like it ever. I fucking hate coming back to the same shit because it's retardedly weeby but unfortunately I'm not very familiar with the long neck stretching kaminoans of Ethiopia or wherever does that, or the ear eroticism of the deep jungle mbwenzikali tribes, so I only know of one example in the modern day. But you are not going to find necks sexy. I assume. That's something that only a jap would ever find sexy. Not all of them do, but none of us will. The fatness being attractive shit is just dumb, as if attractiveness is a binary choice with no nuance and something cannot simply be two things at the same time.

Diaperfags - Easy, pedophilia.

Your paedophilia sire.

0:15

Those are children. Having sex with those guys is like fucking a child.
A fetish is an abnormal sexual focus. A diaper fetish is therefore an abnormal sexual focus on diapers. They want the diaper, not the tangential association with children. You wouldn't 'call any drawing of a woman in a bikini "A skinny fetish"', on the same train of thought you probably wouldn't call someone with a wedgie fetish a paedophile despite that also being just about as associated with children as diapers are. Last winter I had sex while both of us were wearing whatever you want to call them, full body fleece footed pyjamas, another piece of clothing that is also heavily associated with children, does that make my wife also a paedophile despite me being firmly in the capital B Bloke phenotype? If it is where's the line? And if there is a line why is that line not the absolute most concrete line we have drawn in regards to sex of 'don't fuck kids'? Why does diaper fetishism trump that? Why does wearing a diaper suddenly make having sex with a grown man with a beard paedophilia? It's like saying all furries are zoophiles, on the surface they look pretty similar but at the end of the day it's a grown man not a dog or child. Obviously there are some nonces or zoophiles in those communities but that's not the entire community.

I'm not going to say it's normal or whatever but like the point of the thread was to discuss shit objectively. Objectively something not involving children isn't paedophilia. I might not personally like it but I'll still treat them with the same respect that I would expect back. If it doesn't involve or depict real animals or children then I don't care.

 

[Getmeout]

on the same train of thought you probably wouldn't call someone with a wedgie fetish a paedophile despite that also being just about as associated with children as diapers are.

I have to contest, literally anyone can wedgie anyone. It's something even adults still do, ergo it's not pedophilic. And like I said, I don't think being into a diaper is INHERENTLY pedophilic, since diapers are just to trap waste cause the wearer can't make it to the bathroom. That could be an old man or a girl incontinent from anorexia. I call diaperfags pedophiles because 90% of them do it in under the context of binkies and bibs and footy pajamas. If someone had a diaper fetish but their fetish was being put in an adult medical diaper and having a nurse change their bedpan, I wouldn't call that pedophilic. But 90% of diaperfags just aren't into that.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

I have to contest, literally anyone can wedgie anyone. It's something even adults still do

Yea. That's my point. Anyone can do this incredibly childish act that is only ever really associated with children. Including adults. Anyone can just put on an adult diaper in that exact same logic.

I call diaperfags pedophiles because 90% of them do it in under the context of binkies and bibs and footy pajamas.

Is petplay zoophilia then? Is putting in a tail plug and a pair of ears and eating out a dog bowl and then fucking zoophilia? At the end of the day the actual person is an adult and that's the only thing that matters. Maybe the person looks like a child, someone in their 20s but looks like a teenager, in that case doing anything will make that person look like a nonce. If it looks like a child it's bad regardless of what type of fetish it is, if an adult puts on pyjamas and a bib that doesn't magically make them look like a child, it makes them look like an adult in pyjamas and a bib. Larping as something doesn't make you that thing, it really shouldn't need to be said on this site of all considering the trans shit. A man in a dress is no less of a woman than a man in a diaper and bib is a child.

 

[Getmeout]

Yea. That's my point. Anyone can do this incredibly childish act that is only ever really associated with children. Including adults. Anyone can just put on an adult diaper in that exact same logic.

No-- What I'm saying is that I don't believe wedgies are associated with children. Maybe we grew up differently, but wedgies were always an age neutral act to everyone around me. Something children did more often, but it wouldn't be weird for an adult to do and would seem normal. It's like leaving gum in someone's hair, or confessing to someone with a note. Your first experience with it was probably when you were a kid, but it wouldn't be weird for your next experience with it to be when you were 19.

Is petplay zoophilia then? Is putting in a tail plug and a pair of ears and eating out a dog bowl and then fucking zoophilia?

... Yes? Imo there's two types of petplay, there's collars and degradation and leashes and being called a "good girl" and wearing cat girl stuff like the tail plug and ear headband, and then there's zoophilic petplay. Puphoods, only being made to bark and pant, and eating out of bowls made for dogs. My rule for petplay is if you have to go to Petsmart to do it, then it's wrong.

At the end of the day the actual person is an adult and that's the only thing that matters. Maybe the person looks like a child, someone in their 20s but looks like a teenager, in that case doing anything will make that person look like a nonce. If it looks like a child it's bad regardless of what type of fetish it is, if an adult puts on pyjamas and a bib that doesn't magically make them look like a child, it makes them look like an adult in pyjamas and a bib. Larping as something doesn't make you that thing, it really shouldn't need to be said on this site of all considering the trans shit. A man in a dress is no less of a woman than a man in a diaper and bib is a child.

I agree that having sex with a man in a diaper and footie pajamas isn't the same as having sex with a child, of course. But you have to understand, what is the appeal? What's sexual about wearing children's clothing other than the fact that they're children's clothing.

 

[Harm]

Look at any "caretaker" involved in ABDL fetishism and it's blindingly apparent that simulating pedophilia is a core component of the sexual experience. There's a reason any time I bring it up, the OP suddenly stops replying for a couple pages before picking up a whole other thread of discussion in here, and it's because he knows it's true. That's why he has to obfuscate in bad faith by bringing up other fetishes which obviously aren't the same as "daddy's gonna check your diapie and see if you've made a mess in your nappy and then deep dick you like a little fucktoy before giving you your fresh pacifier, kiddo." Like, no shit that's tangentially related to pedophilia.

 

[Getmeout]

Look at any "caretaker" involved in ABDL fetishism and it's blindingly apparent that simulating pedophilia is a core component of the sexual experience. There's a reason any time I bring it up, the OP suddenly stops replying for a couple pages before picking up a whole other thread of discussion in here, and it's because he knows it's true. That's why he has to obfuscate in bad faith by bringing up other fetishes which obviously aren't the same as "daddy's gonna check your diapie and see if you've made a mess in your nappy and then deep dick you like a little fucktoy before giving you your fresh pacifier, kiddo." Like, no shit that's tangentially related to pedophilia.

I'm probably THE MOST open minded when it comes to fetishes, unless there's something truly evil in it I will happily befriend someone into it. Vore? See nothing wrong with it. Feet? Nothing wrong, inflation, BBWs, fucking-- Bubblegum blowing? Fine! Even FURRIES I don't think are INHERENTLY wrong, but ABDL-- Idk, there's just NO explination for it outside of an attraction towards the idea of having sex with a childish entity. I give slightly more leeway to people who want to be the "kid", still pedophilic, but I can at least recognize that the desire most likely comes from some horrendous trauma as a child. Still not ok but I feel both pity and disgust, the "mommy" in the situation though, 100% some lolicon pedo-adjacent type. Just a creep.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

Maybe we grew up differently, but wedgies were always an age neutral act to everyone around me. Something children did more often, but it wouldn't be weird for an adult to do and would seem normal.

The only time I have ever heard anyone talking about a wedgie that wasn't a child was someone making a joke about childhood or in a sexual context.

... Yes?

That's just a complete my guy. No. Having sex with a person wearing a pup hood isn't zoophilia. A person pretending to be a dog isn't a dog. I am still on the site that takes the piss out of men pretending to be women and how they aren't actually women right?

Vore? See nothing wrong with it.

Diaper fetishism is as much paedophilia as vore is cannibalistic zoophilia.

There's a reason any time I bring it up, the OP suddenly stops replying for a couple pages before picking up a whole other thread of discussion in here

No that's just because it was the same three things being repeated in a circle and doing nothing other than shitting up the thread and being a waste of time for everyone involved.

"daddy's gonna check your diapie and see if you've made a mess in your nappy and then deep dick you like a little fucktoy before giving you your fresh pacifier, kiddo."

Yea that'd be pretty noncy.
Anyway here's the first post from a diaper subreddit with the face in.

This guy that clearly shaves and has piercings and is very clearly not a child. That's who it's being said to. Whether it vaguely resembles something noncy doesn't matter if it's being said to an adult. If these people made any attempt to actually look like a child instead of just putting on some clothes then I would at least be closer to agreeing with you. But none of these images look anything like a child. That looks like a child about as much as the neon green anthropomorphic furry creature looks like a fox.

The only thing that matters is who it's being said to. If it's a child it's paedophilia, if it's not then it's not. If it's art that looks like a child then it's lolicon and you're a paedophile, if it's not then it's not. The line is literally the most concrete line we have ever drawn in regards to sex. That line is if you're over 16 (or 18 for burgers) then it's not paedophilia. If you want to argue that having sex with some 50 year old guy with a grey receding hair and a beard is actually the same as fucking a child because you called him 'kiddo' then feel free to but it's just too retarded to bother wasting time on. It's weird. It's gross. It's not something I would ever do. And it's so on and so forth. However it is literally just simply not paedophilia at all in any way.