This is a followâup to my last post, discussion on the topic:Â
I feel like this could count as a theory too, since we still donât fully know whatâs going on behind the scenes yet. I thought it was interesting enough for others to think about and form their own conclusions. Iâm also a huge science nerd and love talking about this stuff lol.
To the people in the âTheyâre still childrenâ crowd â while I appreciate the passion behind that interpretation, I strongly disagree with the idea that this is confirmed by the narrative. The claim that Stellaâs speech or Ms. Gracieâs ASMR lines in Chapter 5 prove the experiments are children is speculative at best. These are thematic elements, not hard lore. Stellaâs monologue is philosophical, not literal, and Ms. Gracieâs âstay a child foreverâ rhetoric is clearly part of a psychological manipulation tactic, not a biological fact about the experiments.
Letâs also remember that the developers themselves have expressed differing views. Amberâs headcanons are not canon, and she has contradicted the lore multiple times. The lore is intentionally ambiguous right now â MOB has been vague on purpose, either because the story is still developing or because theyâre trying to avoid unnecessary conflict in the fandom.
The main argument for âtheyâre all childrenâ hinges on trauma causing regression. And yes, trauma can cause regression â but regression â childhood. A traumatized adult can act childlike without being a child. The Prototype is a perfect example: he shows severe psychological damage, but his actions â surgeries, inventions, calculated manipulation â do not match a childâs cognitive abilities. He reads as a mentally stunted, traumatized adult, not an eternal child.
The toysâ psychological states vary. Some may still be children because they were transformed as toddlers or young kids. Others were older children or teens when transformed, meaning they would have continued developing mentally. The narrative does not confirm that all toys are children, and the evidence used to support that claim is interpretive, not definitive. Many may be children â but not all. You canât give certain toys adult-coded traits and still expect everyone to believe theyâre children. It feels more like shock value than consistent storytelling.
And unlike FNAF, these characters are organic biological beings with their original human brains. We have no confirmation that the devs removed:
⢠Myelination processes
⢠Neurotransmitter regulation
⢠Environmental stimulation
The lore never states this. In fact, Huggy Wuggy is supposedly confirmed to still have a thyroid (donât quote me on that though), and Bronâs thyroid glands were devoured in the âRESTRICTED_restoration.mp4â tape â meaning he had them to begin with. Thyroid glands produce hormones. So the âthey stay children foreverâ idea doesnât hold up when you consider these biological factors.
⢠Their original human brains
⢠Organic biological systems
⢠The ability to think, learn, and adapt
Then they cannot be permanently locked into a childâs mind unless:
1. The devs explicitly state all hormonal and neurological development was removed
2. The brain was artificially frozen in a prepubescent state
3. The experiments were designed to suppress all cognitive maturation
None of this is confirmed in canon (as of now).
So the âthey stay children foreverâ argument is based on assumption, not evidence.
Why adult-coded behaviors break the child theory
You still cannot explain:
⢠The Prototype performing surgery
⢠Gilbet showing adult emotional restraint
⢠Mommy Long Legs demonstrating complex manipulation
⢠Poppy using advanced vocabulary and reasoning
⢠Developed frontal lobes
Mental age â physical age.
What if the devs removed all hormonal components?
If they removed every hormone needed for brain maturation, the toys would:
⢠Have no emotional regulation
⢠Have no long-term planning
⢠Have no impulse control
⢠Be unable to perform complex tasks
⢠Be cognitively frozen at the age they were turned
⢠The Prototypeâs intelligence
⢠Mommy Long Legsâ manipulation
⢠DogDayâs emotional nuance
And again â adults can act childish too. âChildishâ describes behavior, not biology. Adults can:
⢠behave younger than their age
That doesnât make them children.
Childish behavior â being a child.
It just means someoneâs behavior is underdeveloped, not their age.
The only thing that might have been removed is puberty â which would make sense, since theyâre toys.
I understand why this topic is sensitive. Unfortunately, weirdos exist and will always target childlike or mentally vulnerable characters. Thatâs disgusting and deserves criticism. But people are throwing around accusations like âPDF fileâ way too loosely. Most people are simping for the design, not the child the character once was. You can separate the two (even if itâs still a bit weird). AUs and headcanons exist. These are fictional characters.
If people care that much, maybe put that energy into stopping actual predators and helping real victims.
I just wish people would focus more on the lore and science instead of obsessing over the âchildâ aspect, because itâs causing unnecessary drama â and MOB being intentionally vague isnât helping (for now, anyway).
So what do you guys think about all of this? Let me know in the comments below and tell me your own thoughts and theories on the topic. đ¤
(No arguments in the comments please đ)
Bonus (these go into more depth):
