Tag "diaper fetish" name and definition mismatch

Princess Luna

Senior Moderator

Site Developer

Tag Czar

Put simply, diaper fetish having a name that implies it’s any sexualization of the use of diapers, but having a definition that’s any time non-babies are in diapers, doesn’t match. Sometimes adults are in diapers for innocent reasons (like Pinkie in the babysitting episode), and sometimes there’s sexualization of diapers on babies (common with age regression stuff) or not being worn.
This has caused a bit of a headache with tagging >>2442823 because of its counterintuitive nature (users come in here with a set of expectations that is reasonable but we violate it and they get mad prior to comprehensive explaining).

I think the easy solution is to split the tags into something carrying the current definition, but a more straightforward name like “diapered non-baby”, and then a tag carrying the current name, but a definition that’s any time diapers are sexualized, with some examples of how that’s done.

As this is somewhat outside my area of expertise with fetishes, I’d especially appreciate some feedback from those more familiar with the ABDL community.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Princess Luna

Senior Moderator

Site Developer

Tag Czar

For the time being, my solution is as follows:

Creation of tag “non-baby in diaper” (name can be changed later with aliasing if necessary).
Diaper fetish gets a new definition, which references this tag, but does not define itself as such.

I’d appreciate some feedback on this, so that further steps can be taken.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Sprite

That One Shitty Artist

Please keep in mind that I rarely forum post unless it’s directly relevant to me, so pardon the sudden intrusion.

The problem with this is there is a VERY gray, muddy line between what may be fetish material, and what may not be. While something may not directly be intended to be fetish material, ABDL at it’s core is a fetish.

To branch off of what that discussion had gone through, yes. Age regression is a coping mechanism, but what they need to understand is that ABDL isn’t black and white. It’s a spectrum. It is a kink-centric spectrum that spans from AB to DL, where DL is the more sexual heavy side, and AB is the more “wholesome” side. Anyone who is into ABDL falls onto this spectrum at some degree. Someone might be into it for just sexual gratification (full DL) or someone might be into it for coping/wholesomeness (full AB). But at it’s core, ABDL is a kink/fetish, should be tagged as such, and shouldn’t be tagged “Safe”. It is NOT for minors to partake in. It’s bad enough that ABDL, by the general masses and news outlets, is often compared to pedophilia.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Lead Pie

This is a box.

@Sprite
While I support the idea of the different tags, I gotta agree that there is a huge potential for debates about drawing a line.

However, I think that the sexual spectrum isn’t between the AB and DL parts, rather that it exists inside the AB part. Some people may see the AB part as a sexual thing to them, while some others, as you stated, use it to cope. It may even be both for people. So when it comes to images with adult baby themes, it might be hard to set a line for some, some may see the image as sexual, some may not. You might need to ask for author’s intend.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Sprite

That One Shitty Artist

@Lead Pie
This is true. ABDL as a whole is just one gigantic clusterfuck of a kink when it comes to what is sexual and what isn’t, especially so given that it can incorporate various other kinks into itself.
When it comes to age range, it can be quite the issue. Foals and elders in diapers are seen as normal, but anything in between there is like… Super gray area. I know that I’ve made my share of ABDL images that were meant to be wholesome and not sexual, but I’ve followed the tagging rules as best I could. If a character is involved with ABDL play, it shouldn’t be tagged as safe, but if the character is diapered because of a medical condition and is never involved with ABDL, then maybe it could pass. But once again, mega muddy waters with this.
I know that I got into a mega heated debate on a Sweetie Belle image a few months back over this and I had to call a mod in to prove the point.

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Zalakir

Diaper artist

The whole issue is that the context would allow everything then, and even if a character is incontinent and needing diapers, it, at 99.99% of chances, was made with the intent to please the ABDL community.

I do not understand the need to make a new tag that will regroup almost every picture that already falls under the diaper fetish tag, issues concerning this one do not pop up often at all, and I think it’s an overkill to rework the whole thing just for that.

Most of my pictures are not sexual in nature, but they are depiction of the diaper fetishism, and fall under that category, caracter being incontinent or not, wearing them for fun or per obligation do not change that fact.

In my eyes, tags are not here to please everybody, they are there to give an accurate expectation of what to find of said picture. Yes, “Non baby in diaper” is a valid tag, just as much as “Diaper fetish” was.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Princess Luna

Senior Moderator

Site Developer

Tag Czar

@Zalakir
I think you misunderstand, this is the problem:

Tag “diaper fetish” was defined to mean non-babies in diapers.
There are images of babies in diapers and fetishized, tagged “diaper fetish”, despite not matching the definition (but clearly matching people’s intuitive notions); thus, from this alone, “diaper fetish” needed a better definition.
On top of this, occasionally there are images of non-babies in diapers that are not fetishy, including a few screencaps; thus, we need a fallback tag in case someone wants the diaper stuff well and truly gone, even that which isn’t tagged “diaper fetish”.
Finally, there’s issues with always saying “fetish” when there might not be sexualization (you might be fine with it, but many are not); so far, nothing has been done on this aspect. The two main ways to solve this would be to either restrict the definition and rely on a fallback of “non-baby in diaper”, or change the name to something more neutral like “diaper fascination”.

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Zalakir

Diaper artist

I agreed on most of those point exept the last one.

People’s feelings shouldn’t matter when it comes to tagging.

I have worked with teens and administrated the biggest French TBDL (Teen Baby/Diaper Lover (Other name for Diaper Fetichist) forum for years before retiring because I was becoming too old to listen to teens without a psychological backed formation

I was a mediator in case of conflict and someone who listened to them in times of need, claiming it’s not sexual is part of the process of acceptance of self, a diaper fetish stays a fetish, it doesn’t stop the fact that it can be a coping mechanism, it’s also my wall in time of needs.

I understand the fact that imagining a grown man in diapers can be really disgusting and damaging for the self esteem, because ultimately a young ABDL (Adult Baby Diaper Lover) does not want to be “that dude”, I know it, I got it, still get shivers when I think about it, I saw it so many times.

Diaper Fetish is the clinical term for the thingie, but perhaps going with the Acronym AB/DL would be less heavy on the mind of those being against that name?

Posted 3 years ago Report
Edited 3 years ago because: Explanation of acronyms

Link Quote Reply

Sprite

That One Shitty Artist

@Zalakir
This still plays into the whole issue of fetish/kink being inherently sexual… As I had said before, I’m a 90/10 split on AB and DL, but I tend to enjoy AB/DL as a non-sexualized kink. Many people have taken to CG/L for the non-sexual side of it… But if it’s a solo image, then CG/L doesn’t fit too much into it, I don’t think.

It’s a really bad conundrum that even the AB/DL community as a whole has not figured out. I really wish I had an answer for this, but I don’t. A kink is a kink is a kink, sad to say. Sexual or not. There’s no one or two words that can really sum up art of a character who happens to be in diapers, but isn’t a part of AB/DL…

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Daxn

As the original proposer of the current definition, I can see how it can be restrictive. The idea was to cut off the bull’s head and get on with it, as the issue of “Is this really sexual?” with AB/DL is a contentious one, and also has its Fair share of trolls and repressives.

I Just realized that the quickest way to resolve the issue is to make a “Detailed Diaper” tag: basically, a tag for when the diaper gets unusual attention (think characters with open mouths in general versus characters wuth extremely detailed mouths). It excludes screencaps with adulta and includes Age regression images, and likely doesn’t trigger a flamewar on the innocence or not of it.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Sprite

That One Shitty Artist

@Daxn
What about something like “Non-Fetish Intent” as a tag? Of course, people will need to learn to copy-paste OP descriptions buuuut… Maybe it’d work.
I mostly propose that since those that would like to use designs of baby diapers on a baby pony, or an adult pony with baby pony designs (just so it isn’t medical like how some do IRL) don’t get the tag on their image that wasn’t meant to be fetish material.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Daxn

@Sprite
“Non-Fetish Intent” as-is would cover plenty of other things that could be mistaken as fetish… which could be pretty flexible I guess.

But, to solve this issue at hand, perhaps we could split it into “AB/DL Fetish”, with a “An image where the diaper is part of a sexual situation. Lowest rating must be Questionable.” definition and “AB/DL”, with a “An image where the diaper is innocently in-focus. Can be Safe.” Or, to use less acronyms and a more neutral term, “Autonepiophilia” for sexual images (as that’s the technical term for the exclusively sexual part of AB/DL), “AB/DL” for non-sexual AB material, and then make “Detailed Diaper” as a base term.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Sprite

That One Shitty Artist

@Daxn
Possibly. Or just have “ABDL” and “Adult Foal” tags for encompassing it, but if sexual content isn’t in the image or isn’t implied/intended, then we omit “diaper fetish” and “fetish” from the tags.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #2788

… I think you’re all overthinking this. If someone is sexually attracted to diapers, any image with diapers in them is going to be sexual to that person, no matter what the intent of the artist.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Sprite

That One Shitty Artist

@Background Pony #2788
It’s not that black and white. Not everyone who is into ABDL is into it for sexual reasons. Many of us are into it for wholesome, bonding things or as a coping mechanism (such as myself.) A good chunk of us wound up sucked into it because of physical conditions, but don’t consider themselves to be sexually aroused/attracted to diapers.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #09CF

@Background Pony #2788
Not to mention this whole thing happened because an incontinent person got mad that “diaper fetish”’s old definition was a laconic and broad “the character is in a diaper and is not a baby”. So people are trying to find a way to solve the lumping up.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Background Pony #2788

@Sprite
Right… But for those of us who are into for sexual reasons, what difference does your intent make? What is the objective difference between one diaper image that wasn’t intended to be sexual and one that was?

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Sprite

That One Shitty Artist

@Background Pony #2788
To those into for purely sexual reasons, you can get off to whatever. But the distinction is meant to be for those who aren’t like that. They don’t care for the sexual parts of the kink, they want to be able to see more wholesome imagery.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Twilights-Secret

Comfy Pones

@Background Pony #09CF
I think it’s worth mentioning that it’s actually a fetishist that got mad on behalf of someone with incontinence and the person with incontinence themselves was just upset that their image caused drama.

Take that how you will.

@Sprite
I know @Lead Pie already pointed it out but I gotta agree. At times I feel DL has a wholesome side… …but as I said, I can’t always tell even for myself so I could definitely be wrong. Makes me wonder if people who think they’re only into it in a wholesome way aren’t just like me and just haven’t yet realized.

@Princess Luna
“Diaper fascination” is synonymous with “diaper fetish”. “Fetish” isn’t strictly sexual. But being DL, myself, even I can’t reliably separate where the “sexual” line is even for myself when it comes to wearing or viewing art of diapers and diaperpones. Sometimes I can tell it is, sometimes I can’t tell it is for a bit then realize it is, and sometimes it seems not to be.

Though I can see the rationale with wanting a tag for adults in diapers unrelated to the fetish. It might also be trickier than you think since, heck, having an incontinent character who doesn’t have the fetish is pretty common subject material in the fetish fandom.

And I imagine it won’t be rare to find people in denial about having the fetish or it being sexual. “I just find I really like pics of adult mares in diapers. They’re cute and I like them and have a fixation on them it’s not like I have a fetish”.

It’s a bit like trying to tag images “brony” or “pony”.

Though you’re right there are some cases that this definitely applies to (Baby Cakes Pinkie), I think overwhelmingly you’ll find people in denial about the fetish. Like, maybe for a few dozen non-fetish pics, I’d expect hundreds or thousands of pics indistinguishable from fetish pics with people arguing the character is just incontinent or it’s non-fetish in some other way.

To put it one way, my condolences to anyone with body control issues, but diapers are a kind of underpants and drawing characters in any kind of underpants is going to carry certain connotations with few exceptions, and figuring out how to avoid those connotations in the picture itself will be tricky.

…so Tl;dr, there are some rare cases that are definitely not fetish (again like Baby Cakes Pie) but I’m worried how many cases you’ll get where the artwork is indistinguishable from ABDL style and they claim it’s not ABDL, or when it seems not ABDL in every way but actually is, and distinguishing is as easy as distinguishing when someone “just like ponies and pony art but isn’t a brony”.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Sprite

That One Shitty Artist

@Twilights-Secret
The issue coming out of this was not of someone being a fetishist and upset over it. They were trying to correct the tags as per the tagging guidelines. The commissioner got pissy about it the tagging changing and mods showing up to put a stop to it.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Daxn

@Twilights-Secret

I’m worried how many cases you’ll get where the artwork is indistinguishable from ABDL style and they claim it’s not ABDL, or when it seems not ABDL in every way but actually is, and distinguishing is as easy as distinguishing when someone “just like ponies and pony art but isn’t a brony”.

The thing is, I’ve yet to see a pony non-AB/DL or Age Regression artist do diapers that don’t look overly represented. I believe we still need something that can make it easy for filtering purposes, and go from there when it comes to “intent tags” such as the ones we’re discussing.

In other words: the first scenario is a classic situation of “feticistic coyness” that happens in other situations as well, and that gets solved by adding a tag that doesn’t refer to intent; the latter however is basically a non-issue.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Sprite

That One Shitty Artist

@Daxn
The one major thing that I find is in the specific of people who suffer from a form on incontinence and have a diapered character but are also ABDL… But aren’t into it for sexual reasons. With a character who is in diapers due to medical needs but not ABDL, we can have a “non-ABDL” tag, but for those who aren’t into it for the fetish but still a part of ABDL… Ugh.
This is just so fucking muddy, man. No pun intended.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Twilights-Secret

Comfy Pones

@Sprite
The character being incontinent is such an incredibly common trope in ABDL art that I don’t think it makes much sense to distinguish it. It’s made for DLs by DLs as much as any ABDL fetish pic.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Sprite

That One Shitty Artist

@Twilights-Secret
What about people who are born incontinent or develop it over time but aren’t ABDL? Are they automatically lumped into the group?

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Princess Luna

Senior Moderator

Site Developer

Tag Czar

@Twilights-Secret
In regards to characters in underwear, do remember we’re a pony site, so it’s incredibly common for a ponified character to have either no clothing on their back half, or a much more minimal version, compared to the original thing, which for diapers will mean exposed diapers quite often; this makes it a bit harder to separate things out with common art content.

Overall, the impression I’m getting right now is there’s a lot of uncertainty about delineation of content, which isn’t too surprising.

Posted 3 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!

The Travelling Pony Museum Shop!

Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!