Whew, this is a rather deep and wide subject- I hope I can make a positive contribution to the discussion
First, I would like to point out that what one does is driven by what one believes or sees, regardless of it's veracity or correctness. Thus to act correctly, one must first see clearly. As a way of assessing what others see, I look for signs such as the name "False Memory Syndrome Foundation". In that name their position becomes obvious. They are very unlikely to have an unbiased viewpoint, so I reduce the credibility of all their words accordingly. That alone does not mean they they have reached wrong conclusions; it only means that they have an obvious bias which affects their judgement. One of the local religious universities here has a required course on "False Religions". I have yet to get any of that school's graduates to understand that the name of this course should clue them into the fact that they are being indoctrinated, not educated, because it begins with an unproven assumption of correctness when no such proof truly exists. If that course were named "Other Religions" then there would
be a chance that it could be unbiased, a chance that does not exist now. Even if they happen to be right, they are obviously biased and thus should not be given any credibility because of that.
I also disagree with categorizing anything based on a person's age. We all know that humans develop at different rates. At any given age there will be some who are more mature and others less mature both mentally and physically. If categorization need occur, then it should be based on a persons level of development, not their age. I know that would be very hard to do but to know of a basic flaw in your ideology and not attempt to correct it also undermines one's veracity, and due to the mistakes which will occur when such categories include the wrong people, it will adversely affect the results of your research into the subject matter. I have never seen any allowance made for those errors when using age to categorize humans so I questions the results which they arrive at in their researches. Once again they may be right- but they may equally be wrong.
As to our memories we are all flawed. We do not consciously remember everything we experience, sometimes to the degree that we have no recollection at all of something even when we were totally aware and lucid. Everyone has found themselves being told of something they missed by groups of persons who were also there that did remember. In such instances it is highly likely that the masses are correct in that memory while we were not. Yet we are also susceptible to having our memories altered through that same mechanism. I cannot say what or how the subconscious may bear on that, I can only say that we should start by believing that memories are real until credible doubt is introduced into the equation. We humans also prefer happiness, therefore we tend to remember nice things and repress not-so-nice things. Usually we will clearly remember the worst things but not always, as the human mind may push them away as a method of coping with that adversity. I do believe some memories are repressed and some are enhanced. I also believe that without corroborating evidence we can only access them if they still reside correctly in our subconscious.
We've seen from many here that many forms of abuse, sexual and otherwise, play into the reasons that cause us to be ABDL. We also see from that same group others who do not have those experiences and yet are very similar in being ABDL. From that I can only conclude that with our individualism, such abuses can be a contributing factor but are not necessarily going to produce the same results in everyone. I believe that my own being pressured to mature more rapidly than I was ready for is part of my deep-seated DL motivation, yet it would seem that this would also carry along at least and equal portion of being AB, which I am not. I cannot explain this obvious disparity, I can only say that I know this to be true in me. Can ABDL be a coping mechanism for those who were abused? Certainly, but there can be other coping mechanisms and there can be coping with the same things in non-ABDLs through other means. If being ABDL helps you deal with life better then it is a relatively harm-free way to do so. It is far better than not coping well, or than coping in a manner which is generally perceived as wrong by society as a whole.
Aimed toward Sarah and others who seem to place their faith in, and justify their beliefs in those who should be competent Medical Professionals, I would like to point out they can be wrong even to the level of their vast majority. Need I remind you that a little as 50 years ago, homosexuality was seen as a grave disorder and that it was believed that being homosexual indicated a strong proclivity to being a pedophile? We now know better than this, in fact we know that the reverse is more often true, yet it was this very same group of supposedly knowledgeable persons who were so very wrong back then. I believe that their knowledge is now advanced, but it is clear that it can still be every bit as wrong now as then. We should not grant them cart-blanche believability until their theories are very well proven over many lifetimes, such as has been shown in my example. All of medicine, be it mental or physical, is a practice and not perfect and every sane practitioner of medicine will tell you that even today, we still know and understand only a tiny portion of these things. I would also like to point out here that having formal education in these fields also relates to what I said above about the "False Memory Syndrome Foundation"- you have been led to believe that certain concepts are correct, or to have had your inherent beliefs in those concepts reinforced via what you believe is ample justification for them. Having a deeper understanding and greater knowledge than usual of something does not in itself insure that you are correct in those beliefs, especially when those things were being given by someone who also believed them.
It is only by giving the opposed position equal credibility then comparing the two that we can determine which is the more correct of the two. Even then we can still be wrong, especially when as is usual, the persons teaching us are not showing us both sides equally in the classroom environment. They are pushing their viewpoint as being the credible one and grading us on how well we adhere to their viewpoint. Our desire to want to pass those courses inhibits out ability to see the other side clearly, and the deeper you go into a subject through advanced education, the more likely it is that you are going to blindly accept what is being given to you even when it is in error. This is often seen in many highly educated people lacking what we generally call 'common sense' in many areas where they were not adequately educated. One such example was Albert Einstein who lacked the ability to properly ties is own shoes, a concept which was too simple for his complex mind to understand even though he very well knew the value of it. It behooves us to always question everything and demand it be proven before we believe it, especially if it is something we want to believe, because we are all flawed humans and we can all be wrong no matter how highly educated we are.
Sorry for the lecture but I hope this will enhance the understanding of what we're discussing here and allow for a better understanding of it all- It is a very enlightening discussion indeed