|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Neville Southall Adult Baby Cancellation--our chance?"
So, for anyone who hasn't been paying attention to todays Twittersphere, Neville Southall who often gives the login details of his twitter to marginalised groups so they can use his platform to find a voice, often trans or autistic people etc, today agreed to allow an AB/DL Adult Baby account to do so. After a negative backlash it was quickyl cancelled, although he's sticking to his guns, and still defending the kink.
Maybe since Neville is kink friendly, and there's a gap, we could get a Wam representative up there! Granted, I'm 90% joking, but who would we choose to represent us to 100k+ mainstream followers? Jayce? Moomins?
Maybe since Neville is kink friendly, and there's a gap, we could get a Wam representative up there! Granted, I'm 90% joking, but who would we choose to represent us to 100k+ mainstream followers? Jayce? Moomins?
 Love you, too |
|
Love you, too |
I mean, seeing as it's already had negative backlash from some of the people/groups he's allowed, I think it's a terrible idea.
There are already Wammers in this community working to present WAM in a positive light to media outlets. Of the ones I know, MyPierogative, CandyCustard, and MudBunny; who have done articles or working on documentaries dealing with sploshing and wet and messy fetish.
I don't think anything aside from someone writing a really shitty romance novel (50 shades of pie), and it taking off will really help WAM take off into a positive light, or a well known/accepted fetish.
There are already Wammers in this community working to present WAM in a positive light to media outlets. Of the ones I know, MyPierogative, CandyCustard, and MudBunny; who have done articles or working on documentaries dealing with sploshing and wet and messy fetish.
I don't think anything aside from someone writing a really shitty romance novel (50 shades of pie), and it taking off will really help WAM take off into a positive light, or a well known/accepted fetish.
He's more potato now than man. Twisted and evil.
Oh god, I heard about this today 
despite being sufficiently gay that I have no idea who Neville Southall is.
I think the wam community is healthier than a lot, insofar as almost all of us experience and acknowledge our interest in wam as a fetish and as something sexual or at the very least sensual - there's no controversy or pretense there, unlike some other fetish communities in which a lot of people deny that their fetish is in any way sexual (hence the whole "it's not a fetish" spiel of the woman advocating for the adult baby community on Twitter, despite her having a FetLife link in her bio and the extremely fetishistic content of her website). Seems that in their world, a "Mummy" is the equivalent of a dominatrix or mistress in the regular BDSM or wam world.
I think there's room for a really nuanced and thoughtful debate on how we define what a fetish is, and the difference between a fetish and a sexual orientation, given that many people with kinks (paraphilias) experience them as their primary erotic orientation rather than a 50 Shades-style "added extra" to spice things up in the bedroom (the common perception). Also how most fetishes/orientations split into an outwardly directed version and an "auto-" version, which sometimes co-exist to different degrees. There was a UMD thread several months back asking users whether they were only aroused by messing up others or were also aroused by getting messy themselves. I found the divide really interesting - about half the straight guys on the thread replied that they only liked messy women and didn't like getting messy themselves. The other half liked both, while all of the gay guys were into getting messy themselves. I've definitely encountered wammers who experience wam as an autoerotic orientation, ie. they're much more erotically stimulated by messing themselves up or being messed up (whether or not they film/post the results) than they are by wamming someone else. (The whole gay male community can be quite autoerotic in general.) And quite a few straight male wammers who are into getting messy themselves add some element of cross-dressing - they're not just aroused at the idea of messing up a sexy woman, but at the idea of being messed up as a sexy woman. As well as humiliation and the sensual and power-play aspects, WAM is also related to transformation fetishes in general (of which there are tons) as it's about temporarily transforming the appearance of a sexual target.
The adult baby fetish is, as many Twitter users have correctly pointed out to Neville Southall today, on a spectrum with paedophilia - more specifically, it's autopaedophilia. Many "adult babies" (if they're exclusive autopaedophiles) likely have no sexual interest in children, but a strong sexual orientation toward becoming a child themselves. For others (non-exclusive), they will be both attracted to children and attracted to becoming a child. So the "it's not a fetish" line become a reflexive defense used as a way of disavowing the relationship to paedophilia in their community, despite the fact that many of its members will be not just autopaedophilic but paedophilic.
All of that said, Twitter is not the place for discussing kink and raising awareness of different fetish communities with the broader public, especially not via the account of some footballer, simply because Twitter isn't a good place for discussing *anything*.
despite being sufficiently gay that I have no idea who Neville Southall is. I think the wam community is healthier than a lot, insofar as almost all of us experience and acknowledge our interest in wam as a fetish and as something sexual or at the very least sensual - there's no controversy or pretense there, unlike some other fetish communities in which a lot of people deny that their fetish is in any way sexual (hence the whole "it's not a fetish" spiel of the woman advocating for the adult baby community on Twitter, despite her having a FetLife link in her bio and the extremely fetishistic content of her website). Seems that in their world, a "Mummy" is the equivalent of a dominatrix or mistress in the regular BDSM or wam world.
I think there's room for a really nuanced and thoughtful debate on how we define what a fetish is, and the difference between a fetish and a sexual orientation, given that many people with kinks (paraphilias) experience them as their primary erotic orientation rather than a 50 Shades-style "added extra" to spice things up in the bedroom (the common perception). Also how most fetishes/orientations split into an outwardly directed version and an "auto-" version, which sometimes co-exist to different degrees. There was a UMD thread several months back asking users whether they were only aroused by messing up others or were also aroused by getting messy themselves. I found the divide really interesting - about half the straight guys on the thread replied that they only liked messy women and didn't like getting messy themselves. The other half liked both, while all of the gay guys were into getting messy themselves. I've definitely encountered wammers who experience wam as an autoerotic orientation, ie. they're much more erotically stimulated by messing themselves up or being messed up (whether or not they film/post the results) than they are by wamming someone else. (The whole gay male community can be quite autoerotic in general.) And quite a few straight male wammers who are into getting messy themselves add some element of cross-dressing - they're not just aroused at the idea of messing up a sexy woman, but at the idea of being messed up as a sexy woman. As well as humiliation and the sensual and power-play aspects, WAM is also related to transformation fetishes in general (of which there are tons) as it's about temporarily transforming the appearance of a sexual target.
The adult baby fetish is, as many Twitter users have correctly pointed out to Neville Southall today, on a spectrum with paedophilia - more specifically, it's autopaedophilia. Many "adult babies" (if they're exclusive autopaedophiles) likely have no sexual interest in children, but a strong sexual orientation toward becoming a child themselves. For others (non-exclusive), they will be both attracted to children and attracted to becoming a child. So the "it's not a fetish" line become a reflexive defense used as a way of disavowing the relationship to paedophilia in their community, despite the fact that many of its members will be not just autopaedophilic but paedophilic.
All of that said, Twitter is not the place for discussing kink and raising awareness of different fetish communities with the broader public, especially not via the account of some footballer, simply because Twitter isn't a good place for discussing *anything*.
piecub said: Oh god, I heard about this today despite being sufficiently gay that I have no idea who Neville Southall is.
I think the wam community is healthier than a lot, insofar as almost all of us experience and acknowledge our interest in wam as a fetish and as something sexual or at the very least sensual - there's no controversy or pretense there, unlike some other fetish communities in which a lot of people deny that their fetish is in any way sexual (hence the whole "it's not a fetish" spiel of the woman advocating for the adult baby community on Twitter, despite her having a FetLife link in her bio and the extremely fetishistic content of her website). Seems that in their world, a "Mummy" is the equivalent of a dominatrix or mistress in the regular BDSM or wam world.
I think there's room for a really nuanced and thoughtful debate on how we define what a fetish is, and the difference between a fetish and a sexual orientation, given that many people with kinks (paraphilias) experience them as their primary erotic orientation rather than a 50 Shades-style "added extra" to spice things up in the bedroom (the common perception). Also how most fetishes/orientations split into an outwardly directed version and an "auto-" version, which sometimes co-exist to different degrees. There was a UMD thread several months back asking users whether they were only aroused by messing up others or were also aroused by getting messy themselves. I found the divide really interesting - about half the straight guys on the thread replied that they only liked messy women and didn't like getting messy themselves. The other half liked both, while all of the gay guys were into getting messy themselves. I've definitely encountered wammers who experience wam as an autoerotic orientation, ie. they're much more erotically stimulated by messing themselves up or being messed up (whether or not they film/post the results) than they are by wamming someone else. (The whole gay male community can be quite autoerotic in general.) And quite a few straight male wammers who are into getting messy themselves add some element of cross-dressing - they're not just aroused at the idea of messing up a sexy woman, but at the idea of being messed up as a sexy woman. As well as humiliation and the sensual and power-play aspects, WAM is also related to transformation fetishes in general (of which there are tons) as it's about temporarily transforming the appearance of a sexual target.
The adult baby fetish is, as many Twitter users have correctly pointed out to Neville Southall today, on a spectrum with paedophilia - more specifically, it's autopaedophilia. Many "adult babies" (if they're exclusive autopaedophiles) likely have no sexual interest in children, but a strong sexual orientation toward becoming a child themselves. For others (non-exclusive), they will be both attracted to children and attracted to becoming a child. So the "it's not a fetish" line become a reflexive defense used as a way of disavowing the relationship to paedophilia in their community, despite the fact that many of its members will be not just autopaedophilic but paedophilic.
All of that said, Twitter is not the place for discussing kink and raising awareness of different fetish communities with the broader public, especially not via the account of some footballer, simply because Twitter isn't a good place for discussing *anything*.
despite being sufficiently gay that I have no idea who Neville Southall is. I think the wam community is healthier than a lot, insofar as almost all of us experience and acknowledge our interest in wam as a fetish and as something sexual or at the very least sensual - there's no controversy or pretense there, unlike some other fetish communities in which a lot of people deny that their fetish is in any way sexual (hence the whole "it's not a fetish" spiel of the woman advocating for the adult baby community on Twitter, despite her having a FetLife link in her bio and the extremely fetishistic content of her website). Seems that in their world, a "Mummy" is the equivalent of a dominatrix or mistress in the regular BDSM or wam world.
I think there's room for a really nuanced and thoughtful debate on how we define what a fetish is, and the difference between a fetish and a sexual orientation, given that many people with kinks (paraphilias) experience them as their primary erotic orientation rather than a 50 Shades-style "added extra" to spice things up in the bedroom (the common perception). Also how most fetishes/orientations split into an outwardly directed version and an "auto-" version, which sometimes co-exist to different degrees. There was a UMD thread several months back asking users whether they were only aroused by messing up others or were also aroused by getting messy themselves. I found the divide really interesting - about half the straight guys on the thread replied that they only liked messy women and didn't like getting messy themselves. The other half liked both, while all of the gay guys were into getting messy themselves. I've definitely encountered wammers who experience wam as an autoerotic orientation, ie. they're much more erotically stimulated by messing themselves up or being messed up (whether or not they film/post the results) than they are by wamming someone else. (The whole gay male community can be quite autoerotic in general.) And quite a few straight male wammers who are into getting messy themselves add some element of cross-dressing - they're not just aroused at the idea of messing up a sexy woman, but at the idea of being messed up as a sexy woman. As well as humiliation and the sensual and power-play aspects, WAM is also related to transformation fetishes in general (of which there are tons) as it's about temporarily transforming the appearance of a sexual target.
The adult baby fetish is, as many Twitter users have correctly pointed out to Neville Southall today, on a spectrum with paedophilia - more specifically, it's autopaedophilia. Many "adult babies" (if they're exclusive autopaedophiles) likely have no sexual interest in children, but a strong sexual orientation toward becoming a child themselves. For others (non-exclusive), they will be both attracted to children and attracted to becoming a child. So the "it's not a fetish" line become a reflexive defense used as a way of disavowing the relationship to paedophilia in their community, despite the fact that many of its members will be not just autopaedophilic but paedophilic.
All of that said, Twitter is not the place for discussing kink and raising awareness of different fetish communities with the broader public, especially not via the account of some footballer, simply because Twitter isn't a good place for discussing *anything*.
Yeah basically this, was wondering when this would spring up on this site after seeing twitter today and my god what a day it was. Aside from the obvious problems regarding the fetish the fact is people with fetishes aren't a marginalised group. There's been no government ran "cure" clinics, no implementation of apartheid or segregation and no workplace discrimination because ya don't have to tell people your kink. At worse its been (for us at least) name-calling and the occasional mocking tv sequence, not exactly the Jim Crow laws like. I don't know how anyone thought it would be a good idea for the "adult baby twitter takeover" but I think Neville's been misled here completely and I don't think he's entirely in charge of his twitter but there u go was a strange day to say the least, had a laugh mind.
Wook at me, i'm a widdle bay-bee...
Oh Janet! You look so funny!!!
Regis said: Leave the White House to the adult baby, and keep the Twitter mob the fuck away from WAM. Anything else you need me to solve?
Shouldn't you be preparing the basement for Kym?
Oh Janet! You look so funny!!!
Sponsors
VIP Coupons
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In