Talk:Ageplay

message: I would like to point out that not ALL Ageplay is BDSM or sexually related. Ageplay is in fact a lifestyle of it's own. The fact that it is an off shoot of BDSM, and remains in that category, is what people use to label it a fetish. Ageplay of itself is simply when a person feels younger than they truly are. It is not always necessary to have two people in an Ageplay scene. Ageplay can be as simple as sucking your thumb, or playing a board game, or as complex as having a whole lifestyle based on that of an actual child, including childlike clothing, bedtimes, rules, etc. (Not with an actual child of course). Many Ageplayers out there feel the need to be taken care of. The ways they like to be taken care of vary as there are so many people in this world. Some enjoy cuddling and watching cartoons, and others like getting into trouble and being punished (or need to be). Infantilism, a branch of Ageplay, shows clearly what I mean by needing to be taken care of. An Infantilist generally gives up all control and gives full responsibility to their caregiver. They need to be bathed, clothed, fed, changed (if they are into the diaper scene, Diaper Lovers, Bedwetters, etc.), and over all nurtured.
This article needs to be redone, since much of it is taken from http://www.fact-index.com/a/ag/ageplay.html
:Wrong.  Look at the bottom of that page: This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.  That page was taken from here, not vice-versa.  Fact-index.com is one of several ad-supported mirrors of Wikipedia. NTK 15:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the article is too focused on sexual ageplay and doesn't cover other types of ageplay enough. It doesn't even mention kids playing grownups, that's probably the type of ageplay most people know about... --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Too much focus on ''sexual'' ageplay 

message: Good day.
I started a peer review on Infantilism and since it is related to age play, I am hoping some of the editors of this article will kindly help in the peer review.
Thank you in advance.
--OrbitOne 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer reveiw of another article 

message: Why was this article edited so drastically and without discussion? Anybody got a clue?
Here is a link to the previous version of the article, which I'm sure anyone would agree is better than a very brief definition of terms and a few links: http://web.archive.org/web/20060515073043/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageplay
Linking to "Daddy's girl fetish" as an explanation of sexual ageplay is patently ridiculous, for instance. There is a wide variety of roles and fantasies exhibited by those who do sexual ageplay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andchimeras (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Edit? 

message: I tried to find some references that use this term. There's some news articles regarding online environments such as Second Life - 
I don't think they should be added to the article, as they're mostly off-topic, and the usage of the terms is rather POV (suggesting that age play is "abuse" of "virtual children", in the case of the BBC), but I thought I would list them here to show evidence of usage of the word. Mdwh (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism? 

message: While I did not propose it, I think it is ago idea. Ageplay is the name that participates give Age regression fetish. Also while there might be salvageable information in Age regression fetish, as it stands it tries to make a false difference between the two. as a stand alone plage at best it should be a redirect to Ageplay --Roguebfl (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking studies that map ageplay as a practice or ageplayers as a  population, a better argument for the merger might be that "age regression fetish" is a misnomer, since  fetishes apply to objects, and age regression is not an object. BitterGrey (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age regrestion fetish merge 

message: i already started it, btu it needs much more work, specially on the part about non-secual ageplay --TiagoTiago (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs more work  

message: I don't think pedophilia has any relevance in this article at all. Saying something is "not" something doesn't really belong in an article. Age Play is not driving a monster truck, either. But we don't need to say it in the article. Sure, there may be some people out there who commonly confuse Age Play with driving monster trucks, but I do not see that we cater to saying everything under a sun something is not. You do not define something by listing out everything it is *not*, but rather, what it is. Move to delete reference to pedophilia as having nothing to do with the article.
In Age Play the individual wants to *become* or *be* or *roleplay* a younger or older person, not 'get involved with' a younger or older person, e.g., Ephebophilia or Teleiophilia.  71.226.11.248 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And I say keep. the Difference is many people's first reaction is to associate the two things, hence the refutation is relevant where as none confuses it with driving a monster truck --Roguebfl (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age Play never has had any relation at all to Pedophilia 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Adult baby.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Daddy tallica, all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. You keep adding your own personal commentary to the article without any sources. Your edits also violate our neutrality policy because they express your opinion in Wikipedia's voice. You've already  broken the three-revert rule by reverting four times; if you revert again, you will be reported and blocked. KateWishing (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverifiable edits 

message: I removed the following paragraph from the article because of several problems I will explain in depth:
 "Ageplay does not involve the sexual attraction to biologically underage people. Many people (both outsiders of the community and ex-members of it) are concerned that the association of children’s looks, behaviours and voices with sexual arousal may, over time, prompt individuals to develop sexual attraction to minors."
The first problem is that it's not clear what "biologically underage people" means. The term underage is primarily a legal one and it's exact meaning depends on the situation and the laws applicable thereof which depend on the jurisdiction one is present in. So for example, underage can have different meaning when it comes to drinking vs sexual consent vs gambling, etc. There is no such thing as "biological underage". Age of consent or age of majority are not set strictly by some scientific research that such and such an age is when the majority of individuals are able to give handle whatever activity is being regulated here. Rather, they are largely subjective and/or arbitrary decision by lawmakers. In the case of sexually underage people, while there is a definitive end to puberty in teenagers/adults, it may not be at the at the time said person reaches the age of consent but could be later or earlier. The second set of problems is with the statement "Many people (both outsiders of the community and ex-members of it) are concerned that the association of children’s looks, behaviors and voices with sexual arousal may, over time, prompt individuals to develop sexual attraction to minors.". This statement seems to be conflating those who ageplay as pubescent teens with those who ageplay and prepubescent children, toddlers, or babies. There is a key difference between prepubescent children and and pubescent teenagers in that the former has strong evidence supporting the notion that sexual attraction to prepubescent children is biologically abnormal whereas with underage teenagers, the limited evidence currently available does not suggest that. While it may be illegal for an adult to have sex with a underage teen, this is based on the legal claim, which may not be actually true in certain cases, that the teen is unable to give informed consent. It is not based on scientific evidence that being attracted to at least somewhat sexual developed underage teenagers is biologically abnormal, which is more of a cultural product. Thus when it says "association of children’s looks, behaviors and voices with sexual arousal may, over time, prompt individuals to develop sexual attraction to minors.", it conflating prepubescent age play and it's possible effects on creating abnormal sexual attraction to prepubescent with sexual attracted to sexually developed but underage teens, which no scientific studies support as being abnormal, regardless of whether it's harmful to the underage teen if an adult acts on such an attraction or not. There is also the issue of why people age play, something this sentence does not properly address. For those that ageplay with a partner dressed and acting like a prepubescent child or baby, it's generally not about a sexual attraction to minors since real pedophiles would not find an adult playing a child or baby a suitable substitute for actually children, in general. With ageplay involving someone dressed as underage teenager, it may be about qualities such as innocence rather the specifically the underage look or it may be a legal way to fantasize about being with an underage teen without actually engaging in statutory rape, much like watching barely porn is a legal way to indulged such fantasies without the illegality actual underage porn performers would bring. So if underage teenager ageplay is the result of already present attraction to underage teens and such attraction is biologically normal then there is no risk of creating a sexual attraction as it would already exist. It might cause some who practice such ageplay to develop feelings of guilt and such due to the in many western cultures, many people mistakenly think that science shows such attractions be abnormal and thus feel guilt them. Obviously the deciding line between normal and abnormal attraction in this context is fuzzy currently due to limited research on the subject. We just don't know at what stage of sexual development does the average person start to find persons of their preferred gender(s) sexually attractive. In summery, if the paragraph was to go back in, it would need to be sourced and reworded. It would need to be make clear that for some in the community it does not involve sexually attraction to prepubescent children or for some (but not all) still developing underage teens, as some do indeed use it as a means to legally address sexual attraction to underage teens. Concerns by non-members and ex-members about creating a abnormal sexual attraction to either prepubescent children in some individuals from prepubescent child/baby ageplay should sourced and addressed separately from concerns about underage teenage ageplay which may be largely moot or irrelevant since their is no consensus among sex abuse researchers that such attraction is problematic in and of itself or that it will likely lead to statutory rape. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I removed the paragraph on whether ageplay involves sexual attraction to "biologically underage people" and it's possible negative side effects.