Age play: Harmless Kink or Predator Safe Space?

[WanderingBlackDragon]

Strap in folks, this is going to be a long one!

Disclaimer: This thread does not, and is not meant to condone pedophilia, or any illegal sexual activity with real life minors. Please respect the site's rules concerning age. Anyone condoning or encouraging sex with real life minors will be reported!

Okay, so I was talking to someone I know about a roleplay I'm setting up with someone offsite. I explained that I was having difficulty making a decision about what to do: This is a Pokemon setting, and my partner is interested in playing a Gardevoir. At the time, my main rping character, who's a self-insert would be most appropriate to play against a Gardevoir. However, I had a character that I was more in the mood to play as, who, I felt, wouldn't work as well. Why? Because this other character was a teen.

When I mentioned this to my friend, they began freaking out, questioning if this character was 18+. Realizing I had potentially landed in some hot water with this person, I answered yes. Thankfully they calmed down. But, there have been an instance where I wasn't so lucky. I remember a couple years ago, I joined a discord for the anime Demon Slayer (Kimetsu No Yaiba), and I mentioned an idea for a possible fanfic that involved shipping Tanjiro with Shinobu, among others. Now, at the time, I was never aware of the age difference between the two characters, having watched the anime where age wasn't really mentioned. But, despite trying to point this out, the discord decided I was a pedophile and trolled me off the server.

In hindsight, I probably would have stood by the ship, because I never took Tanjiro as immature, or the kind of person who could not handle a sexual relationship. I've also grown to realize that I never felt directly squeamish concerning teen sexuality, for multiple reasons: My main choice of erotica is hentai where the characters are usually high school aged, and since I'd been looking at such stuff since I was that age, I never saw the problem with it, so long as all parties consent, and no harm comes to anyone. I realize I also have rather liberal views towards teen sexuality, again as long as all parties consent (as much as a teen can "consent", anyway), and there isn't a situation where someone is being harmed, physical, emotionally, etc.

However, in the recent years, I've gotten to know the other side of that thread. Sure, there may not be much difference between adults and teens engaging in sex on a physical level. But, there's things such as life stage/experience, maturity that we need to take into account. After all, and adult is much more prepared (or, at least I hope they are) to deal with mishaps such as STDs and pregnancy than a teen would be. We also have the consider the implications of an adult engaging in sex with a teen. Sure, a vanilla hentai may romanticize the shit out of a 30 year old teacher having relations with his 16 year old student, where everything is all cozy, and he's kind and respectful to her, and so on.

But, in real life, such a relationship is far more likely to resemble the more rapey counterbalance of an adult abusing their power over a teen to coerce sex from them. Also, what is it with Japanese men's fixation with banging high school girls? There's making exceptions, and then there's looking for an excuse.

Tangent out of the way: I've roleplayed teen characters engaging in sexual activity with other teens. While I have watched hentai of such a situation, I don't feel comfortable roleplaying sexual situations between an adult and a teenager: I'm much more comfortable with age equivalent partners. Sure, I like the idea of exploring teen sexuality, but I've found that I like to explore sexuality at different life stages (barring actual children, and the elderly); you won't catch me hanging out at the local high school, trying to take home some 16 year old to smash.

But, I've also seen on places like f-list where people want to play out sexual scenarios involving actual children. Loli fetish is a pretty big thing in hentai, despite the many of us who wish it weren't. But, what does this all mean? Does roleplaying as, or a against a minor character meant you harbor sexual desires towards minors? How much defense can "It's not real!" offer, before it becomes too much, and too telling of someone?

Let me know your thoughts.

And no, I'm not apologizing for the length of this post.

 

[BunBun]

But, what does this all mean? Does roleplaying as, or a against a minor character meant you harbor sexual desires towards minors? How much defense can "It's not real!" offer, before it becomes too much, and too telling of someone?

I preface this with that I do not care for age play in the slightest. It is one of those hard No's for me.

But it means nothing. There are so many kinks that people enjoy in RP that they would never try or care for (or can do) in RL. Also the defense "It's not real!" is in my opinion enough. What should it tell about someone? The question alone reminds me at the "Violence in Video games"-debate of the earlier 2000s.

People can find it interesting for different reasons with some probably doing such RPs because of sexual desires and other just find such RPs appealing.

Are there some pedos doing ageplay RP? For sure. Does it hurt anyone? As long as both players are adults, probably not but that I think is the case with many/all kinks.

My question here is if we exchange "age play" here with "gore" would anyone ask the same question or would be as concerned?

 

[WanderingBlackDragon]

My question here is if we exchange "age play" here with "gore" would anyone ask the same question or would be as concerned?

Well, that would depend on who you're asking. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, the whole "Violence in Video Games" thing is still being debated, if a bit lowkey, these days. I mean, for me, violence has always been more a consequence of a situation. Sure, there's some visceral satisfaction I can get in violently dispatching "bad guys" in a game, but there's also times were I find some things too much? But, that's just me, I'm a highly sensitive individual, so certain things can bother me more than others.

The reason I asked about "It's not real" being a good enough defense, is because I've observed creeps using it as an excuse to try to impose their fetishes on others. Some also really use it as a cover to try to realize their fetishes. So, I think it's important to understand the separation of reality from fiction/imagination.

I'm starting to wonder if I find myself becoming overly defensive of my own tastes/interests, because I know people who'd have me on an FBI watch list if they knew what I engaged in, so I'm afraid of being scene as a creep/predator.

 

[Tanakalian]

Well, that would depend on who you're asking. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, the whole "Violence in Video Games" thing is still being debated, if a bit lowkey, these days. I mean, for me, violence has always been more a consequence of a situation. Sure, there's some visceral satisfaction I can get in violently dispatching "bad guys" in a game, but there's also times were I find some things too much? But, that's just me, I'm a highly sensitive individual, so certain things can bother me more than others.

The reason I asked about "It's not real" being a good enough defense, is because I've observed creeps using it as an excuse to try to impose their fetishes on others. Some also really use it as a cover to try to realize their fetishes. So, I think it's important to understand the separation of reality from fiction/imagination.

I'm starting to wonder if I find myself becoming overly defensive of my own tastes/interests, because I know people who'd have me on an FBI watch list if they knew what I engaged in, so I'm afraid of being scene as a creep/predator.

After your opening post I had a look if I could find a list of ages of consent in countries in the world. And there are huge differences, from as young as 9 to as old as 20.

See also: List of countries by age of consent - Wikipedia

But a lot depends on where you are from, both for your own thinking as well as looking at other countries and their age of consent. Where I live the age is 16, with no further restrictions. Anyone over the age of 16 can have sex with anyone else over the age of 16.

As to your earlier question why Japanese men find it so interesting banging schoolgirls. The age of consent in Japan is 13 (but I must add that there are enormous differences per prefecture even in that country).

 

[BunBun]

After your opening post I had a look if I could find a list of ages of consent in countries in the world. And there are huge differences, from as young as 9 to as old as 20.

See also: List of countries by age of consent - Wikipedia

But a lot depends on where you are from, both for your own thinking as well as looking at other countries and their age of consent. Where I live the age is 16, with no further restrictions. Anyone over the age of 16 can have sex with anyone else over the age of 16.

As to your earlier question why Japanese men find it so interesting banging schoolgirls. The age of consent in Japan is 13 (but I must add that there are enormous differences per prefecture even in that country).

People want the age of consent raised in Japan.

Well, that would depend on who you're asking. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, the whole "Violence in Video Games" thing is still being debated, if a bit lowkey, these days. I mean, for me, violence has always been more a consequence of a situation. Sure, there's some visceral satisfaction I can get in violently dispatching "bad guys" in a game, but there's also times were I find some things too much? But, that's just me, I'm a highly sensitive individual, so certain things can bother me more than others.

The reason I asked about "It's not real" being a good enough defense, is because I've observed creeps using it as an excuse to try to impose their fetishes on others. Some also really use it as a cover to try to realize their fetishes. So, I think it's important to understand the separation of reality from fiction/imagination.

I'm starting to wonder if I find myself becoming overly defensive of my own tastes/interests, because I know people who'd have me on an FBI watch list if they knew what I engaged in, so I'm afraid of being scene as a creep/predator.

The "Violence in Video Games" discussion is a far cry from what it was in the early 2000s. I can't remember the last time I saw it mentioned in the news. But it is probably still there if lowkey. Violence as a consequence of a situation is maybe true IRL but we certainly look for it when it pick certain videogame so I don't know if I fully agree. But maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

Also I have to admit that the "It's not real" is maybe not enough or is it? If creeps use it to excuse their behavior they kinda make it 'real'. No one should do particulate in a fetish they don't enjoy/that makes them uncomfortable, RP or IRL. No matter if it is real or not. I guess my argument for "It is not real" is more from a outside perspective looking at people engaging in such RP where both are fine with said fetishes. Also I fully agree that it is important to understand the separation of reality from fiction/imagination (something a good amount of "RPers" really need to learn...).

 

[WanderingBlackDragon]

People want the age of consent raised in Japan.

Hence my comment about the weird fixation on high school girls.

Also I have to admit that the "It's not real" is maybe not enough or is it? If creeps use it to excuse their behavior they kinda make it 'real'. No one should do particulate in a fetish they don't enjoy/that makes them uncomfortable, RP or IRL. No matter if it is real or not. I guess my argument for "It is not real" is more from a outside perspective looking at people engaging in such RP where both are fine with said fetishes. Also I fully agree that it is important to understand the separation of reality from fiction/imagination (something a good amount of "RPers" really need to learn...).

Yep. We've all been there.

 

[M.G.B.]

This is a very fraught area of thought. It's easy to become morally outraged at the thought of minors being victimized and having the other side proclaim that there is no victim if it is only fiction. It is, in the end, only in the mind. So, it follows then, that if these people are to be punished for engaging in such fiction, that they are being punished not for their actions, but for their thoughts. This makes real the idea of thought policing and thought crime, which is a dangerous place to be with any subject. At the same time, people who pose a genuine threat may start with these fantasies and become dissatisfied, then seek out something real and harmful. Indeed, this is often how things go.

So, how do we approach this? To be sure and certain, in a proper society of law, people engaging in fiction cannot be punished if there is no victim. Law is only preventative in that people obey it because they have seen others punished, it does not actively seek out people who may break a law. At a bare minimum, there must be proof of a conspiracy to commit an act. This is part of why a stalker can get away with things for so long if they never say or do anything specifically threatening to someone. If the police can't see a perceived threat that will hold up in court, best hope they get bored and move on.

But stalking is something real, something between two people wherein one is nonconsenting even in the best scenario. In fiction, particularly in art and in writing, is there a nonconsenting party? Obviously if one forces this fiction on someone who does not want or enjoy it, this can be construed as assault, but if everyone is of consenting age and is in fact consenting? Well, that can only really be claimed between specific parties. When a product, such as hentai, or a smutty novel, or something similar is produced for a market, things become complicated because your technically legal piece of ink and paper (or arrangement of pixels depending) is interacting with the public. And this is where most often the line "Don't like it, don't interact!" shows up. And yeah, for the most part, I agree.

That is to say when such material is properly restricted to the right group of people who consent to its use, there is nothing wrong with it. It's fiction, no minors have been harmed, it's all ideas. So, what happens when someone uses those ideas to fuel harmful interaction? The question is this: Does the material create dangerous individuals by its nature, or do dangerous individuals gravitate to it? If the material did not exist, would dangerous people not exist? Or at least, would there be fewer of them? This is hard to quantify without some serious research, and even then I feel the numbers would not be able to tell us the whole picture without potentially really harming a few brains in the name of science.

If we fill in the blanks on our own though, we can at least see the potential conclusions. If fantasy does not create individuals who are threats to other people, then no amount of fiction, no matter how distasteful to the public conscience, can be lawfully made illegal. If it does, then the material itself can be connected to the harm of others and begs the question if we can ignore the sanctity of thought to remove it as an allowed idea. This of course does not stop people from thinking and certainly won't stop the creation of harmful individuals. At its best, there will only be fewer criminals rather than none, and that is of course still beholden to the idea that the material creates any in the first place.

So, what's my opinion and the TL;DR?

Fiction does not create harmful people unless used by another person specifically to harm them. Harmful people will always gravitate to things non-harmful people will enjoy. To punish those who abide by the law will not stop those who do not. It is important in all communities to recognize a dangerous person, and for those who are outside of those communities to realize there is a difference.

 

[WanderingBlackDragon]

This is a very fraught area of thought. It's easy to become morally outraged at the thought of minors being victimized and having the other side proclaim that there is no victim if it is only fiction. It is, in the end, only in the mind. So, it follows then, that if these people are to be punished for engaging in such fiction, that they are being punished not for their actions, but for their thoughts. This makes real the idea of thought policing and thought crime, which is a dangerous place to be with any subject. At the same time, people who pose a genuine threat may start with these fantasies and become dissatisfied, then seek out something real and harmful. Indeed, this is often how things go.

So, how do we approach this? To be sure and certain, in a proper society of law, people engaging in fiction cannot be punished if there is no victim. Law is only preventative in that people obey it because they have seen others punished, it does not actively seek out people who may break a law. At a bare minimum, there must be proof of a conspiracy to commit an act. This is part of why a stalker can get away with things for so long if they never say or do anything specifically threatening to someone. If the police can't see a perceived threat that will hold up in court, best hope they get bored and move on.

But stalking is something real, something between two people wherein one is nonconsenting even in the best scenario. In fiction, particularly in art and in writing, is there a nonconsenting party? Obviously if one forces this fiction on someone who does not want or enjoy it, this can be construed as assault, but if everyone is of consenting age and is in fact consenting? Well, that can only really be claimed between specific parties. When a product, such as hentai, or a smutty novel, or something similar is produced for a market, things become complicated because your technically legal piece of ink and paper (or arrangement of pixels depending) is interacting with the public. And this is where most often the line "Don't like it, don't interact!" shows up. And yeah, for the most part, I agree.

That is to say when such material is properly restricted to the right group of people who consent to its use, there is nothing wrong with it. It's fiction, no minors have been harmed, it's all ideas. So, what happens when someone uses those ideas to fuel harmful interaction? The question is this: Does the material create dangerous individuals by its nature, or do dangerous individuals gravitate to it? If the material did not exist, would dangerous people not exist? Or at least, would there be fewer of them? This is hard to quantify without some serious research, and even then I feel the numbers would not be able to tell us the whole picture without potentially really harming a few brains in the name of science.

If we fill in the blanks on our own though, we can at least see the potential conclusions. If fantasy does not create individuals who are threats to other people, then no amount of fiction, no matter how distasteful to the public conscience, can be lawfully made illegal. If it does, then the material itself can be connected to the harm of others and begs the question if we can ignore the sanctity of thought to remove it as an allowed idea. This of course does not stop people from thinking and certainly won't stop the creation of harmful individuals. At its best, there will only be fewer criminals rather than none, and that is of course still beholden to the idea that the material creates any in the first place.

So, what's my opinion and the TL;DR?

Fiction does not create harmful people unless used by another person specifically to harm them. Harmful people will always gravitate to things non-harmful people will enjoy. To punish those who abide by the law will not stop those who do not. It is important in all communities to recognize a dangerous person, and for those who are outside of those communities to realize there is a difference.

Damn, and I thought my post was long.

Well, to put it simply, I think dangerous people are going to have thoughts/feelings/urges towards harmful behavior regardless of the media presented to them. Media/fiction can certainly play a role in feeding behaviors; propaganda is still used today for a reason. I've always been of the belief that media only has the power to influence a person when it tries to speak to/about reality. Sure, a boy watching Looney Toons isn't going to drop an anvil on his friend, but he might see Pepe stalk and harass a girl and think that's how he should interact with girls.

In terms of what someone's kinks says about an individual, it'd be more productive to ask what their feelings towards said kink is.

For me, ageplay, or rather, teen sex is about two things: nostalgia and exploration. Nostalgia, because it can be fun to go back to when I was that age, discovering myself, discovering others, and the journey we take in discovering one another. This feeds into the exploration aspect, in the sense that we take a look at how something might work, or how people function. As aforementioned in a previous post, I like exploring sexuality at various ages, so long as those involved have the physical, and emotional capacity to engage in healthy sexual activity.

Another example is rape. Rape is a hard no kink for me, but I've spoken to others who enjoy the rape kink, at least from the perspective of the "victim" and it can very well vary. But, what it doesn't mean is that they want to be raped by someone for real.

 

[Tinkerer Nadia]

The problem with any kink talk is that to someone, your favorite kink is "degenerate trash that should be illegal/banned!" While they go consume media that has violent and sexual themes. Even stories from the Bible or ancient times have questionable content, so really I just say don't be a jerk. report rule violations as it is still against site rules, always be respectful and you will be ok. If you like to play 18 year old girls against 50 year old billionaires that train then to use magic as a wizard apprentice and they start a romance? Hey, its not bad to me. The best thing to do is just not consume the stuff you don't like, which has already been stated here so allow me to reinforce it.

Long story short, do what makes you happy but follow site rules and your country's laws.

 

[Glass Eye]

Hence my comment about the weird fixation on high school girls.

You would remiss to excuse US culture from the same fixation. One really blaring example of it is the dichotomy between Lolita the book and Lolita the movies and plays.

The premise of the book Lolita is that this pedophile who is being charged with murder has written out this "diary" to explain his actions. What he writes about, primarily, is grooming, abducting, and sexually assaulting a twelve-year-old girl. He even goes so far as to strip her of her identity, regularly refusing to refer to her by name (Dolores) and instead referring to her by the name of his fantasy of a girl (Lolita). There's more to it, but the relationship isn't nuanced.

However, when we look at the movies (and plays) that have been made out of Lolita the narrator/protagonist is just some lovesick guy being lead on by this manipulative girl who wants it. Moreover, the movies and plays do this pointed character assassination of Dolores Haze where paint her as lascivious, frivolous, and fickle. In the book there's a period of time where she's trying to escape and, spoilers for a 70 year old book, eventually does. She takes certain steps (bargaining with the narrator for money, saving money, developing friendships and relationships with others) to expedite her escape and in the adaptations those efforts are portrayed as whorish, vain, and slutty. The reality is she's trying to get an extra nickel out of the protagonist before he rapes her so it'll be easier to buy a bus ticket out of there.

We have a transformation of a heart wrenching and disturbing book into an often comedic love story about a middle-aged man and a twelve-year-old girl. It says some truly dark things about the space between our professed values and the real values when in the popular adaptations of this literary work we see the message completely reversed.

While that was a lot, and I hope you followed along, that was just one illustration of what I think is a culture of sexualizing young women in the United States.

 

[WanderingBlackDragon]

You would remiss to excuse US culture from the same fixation. One really blaring example of it is the dichotomy between Lolita the book and Lolita the movies and plays.

The premise of the book Lolita is that this pedophile who is being charged with murder has written out this "diary" to explain his actions. What he writes about, primarily, is grooming, abducting, and sexually assaulting a twelve-year-old girl. He even goes so far as to strip her of her identity, regularly refusing to refer to her by name (Dolores) and instead referring to her by the name of his fantasy of a girl (Lolita). There's more to it, but the relationship isn't nuanced.

However, when we look at the movies (and plays) that have been made out of Lolita the narrator/protagonist is just some lovesick guy being lead on by this manipulative girl who wants it. Moreover, the movies and plays do this pointed character assassination of Dolores Haze where paint her as lascivious, frivolous, and fickle. In the book there's a period of time where she's trying to escape and, spoilers for a 70 year old book, eventually does. She takes certain steps (bargaining with the narrator for money, saving money, developing friendships and relationships with others) to expedite her escape and in the adaptations those efforts are portrayed as whorish, vain, and slutty. The reality is she's trying to get an extra nickel out of the protagonist before he rapes her so it'll be easier to buy a bus ticket out of there.

We have a transformation of a heart wrenching and disturbing book into an often comedic love story about a middle-aged man and a twelve-year-old girl. It says some truly dark things about the space between our professed values and the real values when in the popular adaptations of this literary work we see the message completely reversed.

While that was a lot, and I hope you followed along, that was just one illustration of what I think is a culture of sexualizing young women in the United States.

Yeah. It comes off as some sick attempt to victim-blame the girl, while absolving the guy of any wrong doing. Also, my grandmother is named Delores, so there's an uncomfortable thought in my head.

It seems to me, this kind of attitude stems from the idea that a man's sexuality is natural, and thus he shouldn't be blamed for whatever he does. Crap like this is where shit like MGTOW and PUAs, and InCels come from.

 

[Shiver]

Allow me to come in a week later and complicate the issue even more!

The example OP gave is something I wouldn't even call age play; it's regular play involving fictional minors. I'd define age play as a kink where the age is the point. Maybe everyone is an adult, but there's a pairing with a huge age gap (a bright eyed college girl and a sleazy middle-aged billionaire). Maybe it involves childlike naivete and dependency, even if an age isn't specified, like DD/lg stuff. In these cases, the age difference or the youthfulness of a character is a proxy for something else - innocence, helplessness, etc. Like so many other kinks, it's about the dynamics of power.

As for depictions of popular characters that are underage, I usually get the sense that nobody really knows or cares about their "canon" age.

We use pretty broad strokes in policing any/all of the above, in the interest of discouraging pedophiles/ensuring nobody in the real world gets exploited. But for the sake of discussion, there might be two separate issues.

 

[WanderingBlackDragon]

Allow me to come in a week later and complicate the issue even more!

The example OP gave is something I wouldn't even call age play; it's regular play involving fictional minors. I'd define age play as a kink where the age is the point. Maybe everyone is an adult, but there's a pairing with a huge age gap (a bright eyed college girl and a sleazy middle-aged billionaire). Maybe childlike naivete and dependency are the point, even if a specific age isn't specified, like DD/lg stuff. In these cases, the age difference or the youthfulness of a character is a proxy for something else - innocence, helplessness, etc. Like so many other kinks, it's about the dynamics of power.

As for depictions of popular characters that are underage, I usually get the sense that nobody really knows or cares about their "canon" age.

We use pretty broad strokes in policing any/all of the above, in the interest of discouraging pedophiles/ensuring nobody in the real world gets exploited. But for the sake of discussion, there might be two separate issues.

Huh. Never quite thought of it that way

 

[Motoharu]

I treat age play the same way I treat rape play. Something that is absolutely heinous in real life, but if someone has that desire, I would rather they release the urge in a consensual RP than anyone IRL.

I've played a 15 year old girl against older men before, and they have ranged from respectful to disturbingly creepy. I still have fun with most of them, because I'm not 15 anymore, and I am in a very safe place. For me, I enjoy being doted on and being submissive in RPs. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the people I played against was a pedophile, but I just hope none of them ever actually hurt anyone.

I've heard of studies that suggest violent, rp porn makes men less likely to rape, maybe rping with me makes them less likely, too. If anyone does show a link that RPing sex with minors make them more likely to hurt one IRL, I'd stop RPing as a minor immediately, but so far, the evidence suggests the opposite.

 

[Didgeridont]

An interesting topic, but one that I feel should not be thought of too deeply. I believe the answer to "does age play have connection to paedophilia?" is a very definite perhaps. Yet to go beyond this perhaps is to open a very messy can of worms, because we then must consider other kinks and their relation to heinous acts and thoughts.

One might also ask "is D/s connected to paedophilia?" for it calls upon the same power dynamics and themes that we define paedophilia under, often it has a domineering figure who exerts control over a weaker, generally naive and childish subordinate figure - much like an adult does to a child. We see parallels in the lexicon of D/s as well, with terms like "daddy" and "brat", once again evoking imagery of the relationship between adult and child. And we can keep going, too. "does liking flat chests have connection to paedophilia?", "does liking partners younger than you have connection to paedophilia?", "does liking lithe, short, and skinny partners have connection to paedophilia?".

We find that in a lot of non-vanilla kinks, there may be unearthed some strange, taboo connection to things that are very gross and wrong, yet the connection is still there, subconsciously, but it serves us little purpose to think about it, because we will only make ourselves mad in the process. I, for instance, may enjoy fantasizing about older women/milfs, but does that mean I wish to have sex with my mother? My conscious mind screams no, but what does my subconscious think? What other vile, foul thoughts are stewing in the darkest recesses of my brain? Does it benefit me to reflect that much, or is it perhaps healthier that I just accept this as part of who I am? I think that's the more important question, and one that we can only ask on a personal level.

Of course, I balk at stuff like age play, but I recognize that there is no real consequence to it occurring through a digital space. Indeed, it may be healthy, as mentioned before, for people to get this out of their system through a medium like writing rather than trying to satiate those kinds of urges in person. And besides, I'm sure other people may grimace when they see what I enjoy as well, so I try not to make assumptions of others based on their kinks and interests (stones from a glass house, and all that).

 

[MasonBradford]

I appreciate the thought and exchange going on here. Lots of ground being tread. Good stuff.

But on the very specific angle along the lines of 'there is no real victim involved,' 'I can't judge someone just for tastes/thoughts they have,' etc., that sort of thing, I would only ask:

Would you say the same about white supremacy?

Just, for example, if someone in your inbox felt comfortable enough to let you know, nonchalantly, that they hold a supremacist worldview... is that harmless? Is it something you would not judge?

This may seem like a trite, cheap-shot sort of example, but if I think if you want to continue embracing the fuzziness of it all, you'll find that if you keep pulling at the threads you can definitely unravel some larger thoughts and truths behind the fuzz.

A morality that begins with "do no harm" has found a great start (what you do isn't my business as long as you're not harming anyone, right?), but there is a thin (razor, paper, very thin) barrier between ill thought and ill action, and sometimes I wonder if a mere tolerance of the thought but denouncement of the action is enough to meet our basic moral responsibility to ensure the lack of that potential harm.

I'm not advocating Thought Police or anything like that, but. We all have our inner convictions, I guess.

Welp, the whole point was just to throw out a short, quick white-supremacy example and let you run with it, but I've gone and made this too long already. Meh.

 

[Shiver]

But on the very specific angle along the lines of 'there is no real victim involved,' 'I can't judge someone just for tastes/thoughts they have,' etc., that sort of thing, I would only ask:

Would you say the same about white supremacy?

Just, for example, if someone in your inbox felt comfortable enough to let you know, nonchalantly, that they hold a supremacist worldview... is that harmless? Is it something you would not judge?

An interesting angle to approach it from, but I don't think it holds up as an analogy. The "no real victim" argument is about the difference between fantasy and reality. In age play, or rape play, there's no genuine belief that these things are good or appropriate; a white supremacist does have genuine beliefs about how the world should work.

The better analogy would be race play - where people make-believe racist tropes for gratification, but again it's only a fantasy.

 

[Tinkerer Nadia]

I appreciate the thought and exchange going on here. Lots of ground being tread. Good stuff.

But on the very specific angle along the lines of 'there is no real victim involved,' 'I can't judge someone just for tastes/thoughts they have,' etc., that sort of thing, I would only ask:

Would you say the same about white supremacy?

Just, for example, if someone in your inbox felt comfortable enough to let you know, nonchalantly, that they hold a supremacist worldview... is that harmless? Is it something you would not judge?

This may seem like a trite, cheap-shot sort of example, but if I think if you want to continue embracing the fuzziness of it all, you'll find that if you keep pulling at the threads you can definitely unravel some larger thoughts and truths behind the fuzz.

A morality that begins with "do no harm" has found a great start (what you do isn't my business as long as you're not harming anyone, right?), but there is a thin (razor, paper, very thin) barrier between ill thought and ill action, and sometimes I wonder if a mere tolerance of the thought but denouncement of the action is enough to meet our basic moral responsibility to ensure the lack of that potential harm.

I'm not advocating Thought Police or anything like that, but. We all have our inner convictions, I guess.

Welp, the whole point was just to throw out a short, quick white-supremacy example and let you run with it, but I've gone and made this too long already. Meh.

I mean we are talking about to context of role play right? Of fantasy and not real world Implementation? If someone messaged me asking for some weird roleplay about playing a racist girl or somthing, the same argument applies. You can want to act somthing out and not necessarily condone real life actions or people.

Trust me, there is a lot of porn/lewd content around literal black NWO and enslaving white girls to your macho man black penis, but I would not call people that enjoy it black supremacists so much as people that enjoy an interracial fantasy of being totally dominated by a strong and likely young black man.

I have played all kinds of truly evil characters, but I have never felt like I accepted them as good so much as an outlet to go into some really taboo stuff. Engaging with these ideas can remind you why they are revolting as well, or at least I find so.

 

[MasonBradford]

In age play, or rape play, there's no genuine belief that these things are good or appropriate; a white supremacist does have genuine beliefs about how the world should work.

While I take your point (I think you're right, both generally and in presenting a better analogy), I guess I'm too cynical to assume there isn't a very real element out there who does have genuine, age/rape-adjacent beliefs on how the world should work. But, so too, I can concede that there can also be an appropriate barrier there as well. I think I'm going to fall on the sentiment that the more openness of communication, the better, and that's important for healthy roleplay partnership.

 

[Tinkerer Nadia]

While I take your point (I think you're right, both generally and in presenting a better analogy), I guess I'm too cynical to assume there isn't a very real element out there who does have genuine, age/rape-adjacent beliefs on how the world should work. But, so too, I can concede that there can also be an appropriate barrier there as well. I think I'm going to fall on the sentiment that the more openness of communication, the better, and that's important for healthy roleplay partnership.

Naturally. To give you some context on my own role play communication, I always make clear when I introduce a character like say someone's kid or like a supporting cast member that is younger that there should not be or ever attempt to be a sexual relationship involving that character, and I remind my partner every time that character is plot relevant around the more sexually active cast. It is so bad that for one rp I had the daughter of a lord live in a different building on the other side of his castle just to ensure we were clear that she had 0 idea of what sex goes on between the parents, that's how anal I was about it.

 

[Shiver]

While I take your point (I think you're right, both generally and in presenting a better analogy), I guess I'm too cynical to assume there isn't a very real element out there who does have genuine, age/rape-adjacent beliefs on how the world should work. But, so too, I can concede that there can also be an appropriate barrier there as well. I think I'm going to fall on the sentiment that the more openness of communication, the better, and that's important for healthy roleplay partnership.

Oh there's no question that some people don't separate their kink from their true beliefs. I love rapey RP, and if ever I get a whiff that the person I'm playing with harbours some icky beliefs irl, I walk away. But the core point is that the fantasy isn't inherently immoral.

 

[Victorian_Virtue]

This is a fantasy site where you write out......fantasy. I have written about killing people and have no desire to do it in real life. You need to stay true to your own code.

Do murderers also write about murder? Yes, (I would bet poorly) but the overwhelming majority of people are on here to write fantasy. Just because it pops up as a mental image does not mean you are going to act on it. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people wouldn't.

 

[Thufir Hawat]

I treat age play the same way I treat rape play. Something that is absolutely heinous in real life, but if someone has that desire, I would rather they release the urge in a consensual RP than anyone IRL.

I've played a 15 year old girl against older men before, and they have ranged from respectful to disturbingly creepy. I still have fun with most of them, because I'm not 15 anymore, and I am in a very safe place. For me, I enjoy being doted on and being submissive in RPs. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the people I played against was a pedophile, but I just hope none of them ever actually hurt anyone.

I've heard of studies that suggest violent, rp porn makes men less likely to rape, maybe rping with me makes them less likely, too. If anyone does show a link that RPing sex with minors make them more likely to hurt one IRL, I'd stop RPing as a minor immediately, but so far, the evidence suggests the opposite.

That's my take of it as well though I've first considered it regarding violence in RPGs. I'm pretty sure that violent games have contributed to reducing the overall levels of violence. It fits my observations on myself and others.
So I used to have in my sig on another site the quote of S. M. Stirling:
"There is a technical term for someone who confuses the opinions of a character in a book with those of the author. That term is idiot."
And yes, as a roleplayer I extend this to roleplaying fictional people.

Now, what I generally avoid is whitewashing the consequences. But that's more because of personal preference than because I think it normalizes some kind of potentially unethical behaviour. In fact, I can see an argument that the fantasy is required for releasing the urge.
But it doesn't change my preferences. Those still matter, and I prefer that whatever we do in a RP would have consequences.
I'm also playing a game here, not engaging in free therapy. I'm not qualified to do so, even if I wanted to.

 

[Sync]

People here like stories involving younger characters. Does that make them paedophiles?

People here like stories involving rape. Does that make them rapists?

People here like stories involving snuff. Does that make them murderers?

Here, on BMR, what we have are stories of fiction written between two (or, sometimes, more) consenting adults who are (allegedly) capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality. The fantasy ends when one of the party stops engaging in it.

If I get off on stories about men having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl, that doesn't mean I'm going to try and seduce every girl from the local high school.

If I get off on stories about men raping women, that doesn't mean I'm going to get out and try to force every woman I come across to have sex with me.

If I get off on stories about killing women while I have sex with them, that doesn't mean I'm going to start shagging prostitutes and choking them to death while I'm at it.

I have a moral and ethical code that dictates my real life behaviour and attitudes. BMR is just a place where my imagination gets to be flexed.

If you (and I use the generic "you" here; I'm not pointing fingers at anyone) can't understand that I can recognise the difference between fantasy and reality, then you shouldn't be in a position of authority.

As for the fetish itself: a young girl represents innocence and purity. Claiming that innocence and purity is a primal thing. While most men realistically expect that they will probably never have sex with a virgin girl, most men would probably like to to just that - whether the reason being purely selfish for the male, or purely noble, or something in between. Additionally, youth has a firmness and energy that can be lost with age, and an older man might see having sex with young girls as a way of trying to recapture something they've lost - doesn't make it right, but it can be a motivation.

 

[Etheria]

Hey hey! Kinkster, here. I’m not entirely sure as to how Age-play relates to the initial post, but I figured I’d chime in should anyone be interested in the ethics of safe kink, and practice of age-play in the kink community. (Coming from the perspective of an active submissive in the kink community).

Between two consenting adults, age-play is often apart of a dynamic in which the dominant takes the role of a caretaker (far more pampering and affectionate than your average disciplinarian dominant) and a submissive that takes the role of a little or middle. Age-play isn’t exclusive to DDLG or CG/L dynamics, nor is it present in every dynamic. But, I’ll simply be referring to the large majority that do.

Littles engage in a sub-space called little-space. Just as any sub-space (ie: primal, kitten-play, etc.) might offer a conscious psychological shift into a specific state of mind- little space explores a child-like state of mind. This can often be therapeutic, as we shift our perspectives to experience things in what is considered a very safe space, whilst exploring sensations of joy, playfulness, comfort, and even pleasure. To demonstrate this concept in an alternative sub-space: in primal, we tap into our more feral, animal instincts. In pet-play, we act (roleplay) as though we are a specific animal. In neither of these spaces do we genuinely believe ourselves to be an animal (other than human, that is)- nor does it make us one. We are assuming a mindset, and engaging in behaviors befitting of this mindset.
In that same vein, those engaging in ageplay do not genuinely believe themselves to be children.

Side note: Excuse the colloquial use of “we”. Sub-space is extremely personal and subjective, and there are many variants as to how one might experience it. Not all submissives, nor all littles, engage in sub-space.

Ageplay isn’t always inherently sexual, either. A little who engages in age-play, and/or little space- may enjoy activities such as coloring, being comforted by stuffed animals, watching children’s tv shows, etc.

But often comes the argument or assumption that age-play offers a safe space to predators/pedophiles. As to say all Daddy Doms, Mommy Doms, and Caregivers are in fact predatory or immoral in some sense. However, this is a play and dynamic that occurs between consenting adults. There is no intent to engage in sexual activity with children. Moreover, within the kink community, we often discuss the safety of age regression versus ageplay. Ageplay is not always sexual- but is always a kink. Age regression can be utilized during little space, but in some cases is in fact a trauma response, coping mechanism, and tool to help heal anxiety and trauma.

To comment on the topic regarding age play offering a safe haven for pedophiles, it can be likened to the argument that CNC (Consensual Non-Consent) offers a safe space for rapists. In actuality, there are many participants of CNC that use it as a tool to heal from sexual trauma (many who are sufferers of sexual assault). Participants in kink, and in a bdsm dynamic- follow safety precautions such as safe words (as well as physical indicators) to measure wellness and consent at all times. The initiators of CNC are by no means rapists, or possess the desire to rape. As all of these forms of play are based in consent.

Kinks may be enjoyable (and considered “kinky”) due to the basis that these things we’re engaging in are considered somewhat “taboo”. We are aware we’re engaging in an activity that is not commonly accepted, and therefore may derive a thrill from it.

(Also! Ageplay is not pedophilia. The engaging of sexual activity between an adult and a child is the fetishizing of pedophilic activity. Age of consent is relative to region/country, and so the morals surrounding it are incredibly subjective as well as from a cultural standpoint.)

At the end of the day, when practiced safely, age-play is a valid kink. It’s not everyone’s, and it certainly doesn’t have to be yours or mine! We all have hard limits. But that’s what consent, preferences, and safe kink is all about.

I think it’s important to destigmatize the practices within kink, offer information on safe kink, and work not to invalidate other’s kinks so that everyone feels valid and safe in expressing their preferences. I think a lot of these safety precautions and ethics can be applied to writing and virtual roleplay, heeding that we are engaging with fellow adults. Apologies if I missed the point of the thread. Just felt this was valid information to share, based upon the title! ♡