EXCLUSIVE OFFER - WATCH CAMSODA GIRLS LIVE FOR FREE!!! - CLICK HERE
  • We have blocked access to our website from TOR nodes and a datacenter in France (some VPN connections to the country might be faulty) due to abusive behaviour. If things quiet down - they'll be enabled again in a few days/weeks.

Simp Chat Cockteasefiona | Mama Fiona | Fiona Costello | Goddess Fiona - Discussion Thread

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
I think this is more a philosophical argument, I don't believe there is any line that should or shouldn't be crossed when it comes to fantasy roleplay. you may think it is unhealthy or wrong, but the fact is she is acting out scenarios. I'm not personally into the doll or mommy themes, but I can appreciate that it is fantasy, there are so many things that I consider to be 'sick' on this forum, but I also believe it is not up to me to judge whether it is healthy or not, right or wrong. If someone wishes to explore such things with their thoughts, it is their responsibility, not mine. I have no obligation to be the arbiter of justice, to weigh their hearts against the feather of Maat and have Anubis decide the punishment.

Which is why I say its more a philosophical disposition than an absolute of right and wrong. I could see how pragmatically it can be seen as unhelpful to the rest of society, but personally for me as long as it doesn't harm anyone else I think its up to the individual what they get off to. if you think that someone fantasizing about such things could lead to a crime, that sets a different precedent in legislation, thought crimes let alone crimes of thoughts about sexual fantasy.

she absolutely broke the ToS of the sites she was on, but in terms of the content she makes I wish her the best. He who is without sin cast the first stone...
 
domdaddyxxx said:
I think this is more a philosophical argument, I don't believe there is any line that should or shouldn't be crossed when it comes to fantasy roleplay. you may think it is unhealthy or wrong, but the fact is she is acting out scenarios. I'm not personally into the doll or mommy themes, but I can appreciate that it is fantasy, there are so many things that I consider to be 'sick' on this forum, but I also believe it is not up to me to judge whether it is healthy or not, right or wrong. If someone wishes to explore such things with their thoughts, it is their responsibility, not mine. I have no obligation to be the arbiter of justice, to weigh their hearts against the feather of Maat and have Anubis decide the punishment.

Which is why I say its more a philosophical disposition than an absolute of right and wrong. I could see how pragmatically it can be seen as unhelpful to the rest of society, but personally for me as long as it doesn't harm anyone else I think its up to the individual what they get off to. if you think that someone fantasizing about such things could lead to a crime, that sets a different precedent in legislation, thought crimes let alone crimes of thoughts about sexual fantasy.

she absolutely broke the ToS of the sites she was on, but in terms of the content she makes I wish her the best. He who is without sin cast the first stone...
Click to expand...
But you are supposed to learn and not commit that sin over and over while making money off of mentally dumb incels.
 
For me porn is an immersive escape its fantasy but also needs to have a basis of realism. Now idk about you freaks on this site but in an immersive escape based in realism im not into fucking kids or my family members. It took me to have a gf that called me daddy in bed, to be ok with that in porn. And i dont have any kids so it shouldn't bother me but i still was. But people that have brothers, sisters or mothers in their life that get aroused over that taboo shit are mentally ill
 
Starting to get annoyed by the moral grandstanding in this thread. The ageplay videos weren't some niche part of Fiona's content, it was a frequent and consistent part of her output. If it bothers you, why are you in this thread? And I'm sorry, but unless actual real life children are getting hurt/abused, there's no reason to care. Nobody is forcing you to watch it.

DomPandy86 said:
But people that have brothers, sisters or mothers in their life that get aroused over that taboo shit are mentally ill
Click to expand...
The outrage here is hilarious. You're on a website currently that scams creators out of money, which is usually their sole source of income. Please stop preaching.
 
domdaddyxxx said:
you may think it is unhealthy
Click to expand...
I don't think that. I know that, because it's what the scientific and medical consensus is. It's in the DSM-5. Pedophilic Disorder can include having sexually arousing fantasies, rather than assaulting children. I know this because I just copied and pasted that from the DSM-5.

It's not something I really want to argue about because I'm not presenting an argument. I'm stating a fact based off what modern science and medicine tells us.

I can appreciate that psychiatry has once deemed non-heterosexuality an illness, and I agree that as wrong. I don't see that as a good reason to discredit what they are telling us now. As science has progressed, there's been an increasing realization that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, but something different.

Domdaddyxxx, I really do appreciate where you're coming from. I think we would agree on a lot of things. I'm not passing judgment either, or at least trying not to. I'm trying to let those who are qualified to say if it's unhealthy or not judge, and really hoping that my posts will convince some people to seek help if they are experiencing this disorder. There are many people who suffer from this disorder and recognize that sexual relationships with children or child sex abuse material is harmful and unethical, and never partake in either of them. It must be torturous without proper treatment, but people are afraid to get help.
 
Just to throw in my $0.02, is there perhaps an assumption about what others find arousing with clips obviously involving a (fantasy) child? Personally, the appeal of a clip like that is the shameless character of a mother (or whoever she's playing) with no sexual boundaries. I spend zero time thinking about who I'm supposed to be in the clip; all my attention is on Fiona. It's the element of lust taking over better senses and breaking taboos which is the turn on, not the act itself. At least for me.

Having said that, if I don't feel able to compartmentalize like that, then I won't watch it. If I'm too distracted by what would be happening if it was real, there's no arousal involved whatsoever and I'm not going to be watching that clip. I have to be in the right frame of mind.
 
FlyPanAm said:
It's not something I really want to argue about because I'm not presenting an argument
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing either, all good, I agree with you more than you realize. we can all agree that child abuse is wrong and harming another person. The biggest selling video game of all time you can simulate and roleplay bashing a granny with a baseball bat, run people over and go on a K spree. which is fun for millions of people, doing those things in the boundries of fantasy. but sexual things are too taboo. This is only where I differ, when its fantasy.
if the dsm is generalising then that would mean entire nations of you know what religion are mentally ill because you can legally marry children, let alone historically the ages of marriages. contextually these are ok because its not seen as abuse.
any way I was just offering some differing thoughts, I'll chime out now.
 
I'm gonna sidestep directly talking about the extreme ageplay conversation because I want to ramble about something different and hopefully appreciated instead

I don't think some people in this thread realize that people can consume the same piece of media and each get something different out of it.

Let's look at a popular scene repeated by way too many people: The classic "Oh no, I'm stuck. Step-bro can you help me out. Oh no, now you're fucking me"

1. Some people are into the incest part of it.
2. Some people are into the sexual assault part of it
3. Some are into neither and just want to watch specifically these two people fuck

Some people ignore the incest part of it and just gloss over that in their minds, or they mentally swap out step-sis as female friend or something.

Some people ignore the sexual assault part of it, they wave it off as 'porn plot stuff', a learned response so that they can watch a video and get the parts from it they're interested in.

sg1 said it better above:
sg1 said:
Just to throw in my $0.02, is there perhaps an assumption about what others find arousing with clips obviously involving a (fantasy) child? Personally, the appeal of a clip like that is the shameless character of a mother (or whoever she's playing) with no sexual boundaries.
Click to expand...

The interest that I can see in this sort of stuff is the difference-in and abuse of power/trust. Anyone who is into scenarios like boss/employee, teacher/student, mentor/mentee, or babysitter/father likes or at least tolerates an abuse of power in their content. And I'm only talking about straight up consensual sex for the previous examples. Louie CK's case is a great example of that sometimes invisible imbalance of power, what can come of it, and how the same events between the two can be perceived so differently.

sg1 can see an appeal separate from the extreme ageplay aspect in the shamelessness of Fiona. I can see an appeal in that power dynamic between parent and child being exploited. I can also see an appeal in watching Fiona the human being as opposed to her character, she gets -INTO- these videos when she's acting as many have pointed out.

That's 4 different aspects to the video right there. To assume one automatically with statements like "These viewers want to fuck their own family members" or "Those viewers are all pedophiles" make it seem like they landed on the first possible explanation for something and stopped thinking on it further.

Anyway, be more curious about how other people may perceive things different than you I guess? I don't know how to close out this ramblepleasehelpme
 
Last edited:
wcb99 said:
I don't think some people in this thread realize that people can consume the same piece of media and each get something different out of it.
Click to expand...

I think that's a good point, and I agree with it. But just to play devil's advocate for a moment, however you're enjoying a scene like Fiona's more extreme stuff, the other aspects of the scene (the elements that don't turn you on) are still being consumed and resonating in some way, even if its in your subconscious.

It's why one of the very real dangers of consuming pornography is that it can normalize sexual violence and encourage misogynistic/incel attitudes. That's why, as someone who consumes porn often, I'm careful about what I watch. If there's even a hint of non-consent, I don't give myself an opportunity to enjoy it because I'd prefer to avoid the possibility of unhealthy mindsets developing. I'm somewhat of an empath as well, which makes avoiding the depiction of anything upsetting easier.

I don't tend to watch much incest stuff, not for any big moral position, but just because I find it a bit tired and clichéd, and because I have my own family and any occasional runaway thought involving any of them is profoundly nauseating. Occasionally, if the actress is super hot or the scenario is interesting, I'll break my own rule so I do have a few from Bettie, Xev, Penny, Fiona, Gala MV, and Taboo Mom Natasha (that sounds like I have a lot but it's a fraction of a very large collection). But again, the clip has to be outstanding and I have to be in the right mood to watch it.
 
domdaddyxxx said:
if the dsm is generalising then that would mean entire nations of you know what religion are mentally ill because you can legally marry children, let alone historically the ages of marriages. contextually these are ok because its not seen as abuse.
any way I was just offering some differing thoughts, I'll chime out now.
Click to expand...

Maybe not entire nations – surely there's some men there that don't marry minors, even if it's legal – but, yeah, I guess it does. I never thought of that before. What is surprising is that some mental illnesses there have sections called "Cultural-Related Diagnostic Issues," and pedophilic disorder doesn't have that section.

I was curious so I checked the ICD-11, which is the other diagnostic thing, that the WHO makes, that is used outside of the Anglosphere, and it does have cultural-related diagnostic issues section.

I don't think there's anywhere that it's culturally viewed to be normal and healthy to have marital relationships with people as young as Fiona was alluding too her in videos. Like, we were talking 5 and under with some of them. It's definitely viewed as a mental illness if you're having persistent fantasies involving people that young.
 
sg1 said:
Just to throw in my $0.02, is there perhaps an assumption about what others find arousing with clips obviously involving a (fantasy) child? Personally, the appeal of a clip like that is the shameless character of a mother (or whoever she's playing) with no sexual boundaries.
Click to expand...
I'm not looking to kink shame. If that's what it is, just exactly what you said, then I am not seeing that as being the same as what I'm talking about.

You could make videos about shameless mothers without sexual boundaries without implicating (the idea of) young children though. If it has to be that taboo... I'd be worried for you and would hope you do see a therapist, even if it's just a consultation to see if everything is ok, unless you are 100% happy with your love and sex life. If you're happy with your current relationship status and sex life, and aren't breaking the law, and it isn't having any other negative impact on your life, then there isn't a problem. If you're having any problem at all, even unrelated to the areas I mentioned, I would want that person to get therapy so they could feel better.

Again, I'm not saying this to judge anyone. My initial post that started this conversation was a reply to someone who was calling us prudes for being uncomfortable with the fact she was making this content and her publicly saying it was meant as harm reduction. If her videos were meant as harm reduction, it means she was making her content with the intent that people who watch child sex abuse material would watch it. She's marketing it to those people to some extent. Pedophilic disorder is a real medical condition, and the kind of material she's making would worsen the severity of someone's illness.

Also, I'm not calling anyone a pedophile. Not even the person I replied to. I was just asking anyone that is frequently having the fantasies that Fiona was re-enacting to please trust me when I said it's a sign of a mental illness and that help is out there.

And I'm a little mad Fiona is making content for people will that illness that will make it worse for them. She has to know how serious an issue this is, and she didn't do any research into how it's treated
 
Last edited:
Sydney Harwin has created clips almost as bad. No ages mentioned but it’s very obvious she’s talking about the same thing.

Do we know who reported Fiona?
 
sg1 said:
Sydney Harwin has created clips almost as bad. No ages mentioned but it’s very obvious she’s talking about the same thing.

Do we know who reported Fiona?
Click to expand...
As far as I know it was the combined efforts of some subreddit that brought her down. I do know of at least one creator that publicly called her out on twitter months before the ban though.

I have to believe MV knew/knows about the content she and others sell offsite for awhile though. They probably just turned a blind eye, due to all the money they were making from them. Once the payment companies get involved though, it was all over for her.
 
grizzlytree said:
I have to believe MV knew/knows about the content she and others sell offsite for awhile though. They probably just turned a blind eye, due to all the money they were making from them. Once the payment companies get involved though, it was all over for her.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. That seems to be the norm for pornography companies. Look at what it took for Pornhub to crack down on the underage content and rape porn on their website.
 
I don't want to beat a dead horse... but someone uploaded a video she did where she's actually simulated sex with a baby, using a doll.

That actually is straight up illegal in the US.
 
FlyPanAm said:
I don't want to beat a dead horse... but someone uploaded a video she did where she's actually simulated sex with a baby, using a doll.

That actually is straight up illegal in the US.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure it's illegal here. Maybe in some areas, but if there's no actual child involved, pictured or otherwise, I'm not sure how it could rise to the level of being illegal. It's fucking disgusting, for sure though.
 
DegenerateNerd said:
I'm not so sure it's illegal here. Maybe in some areas, but if there's no actual child involved, pictured or otherwise, I'm not sure how it could rise to the level of being illegal. It's fucking disgusting, for sure though.
Click to expand...

I'm totally certain. It's a federal crime. You don't need to involve a child to be found guilty of producing CP. It just has to be depicting sex with a minor.

There was just a story in the news a few weeks ago about someone in Alaska being charged for it after he used AI to generate images of kids, even though no actual kids were involved. https://www.newsweek.com/army-soldier-charged-using-ai-child-pornography-1944832

At the very least, I think it's common sense to say that the kind of video we're talking about with the doll could be viewed that way by the DOJ, and that it would be extremely ill advised to make that kind of content for that reason. Not gross – I agree with you about that though – but a bad idea. And it would also be a bad idea to watch those kinds of videos or have them downloaded on your computer for the same reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom