babykeiff

I don't expect a baby or toddler to stay within the lines - after all, lines are only a suggestion with baby/toddler art work. However, stick figures - most baby/toddler art work that contains people are hugely out of proportion - i.e big heads / hands / feet with thin tubes / circles (or somthing that would approximate a circle) connecting these, but they are a little more than stick figures. I suggest that you get your paint and fingers out and start creating art work to cover every flat surface in your kitchen. With only stick figures, you need the practice... and the play time.

I love your stained glass work. How long did it take you to make this?

Sorry to go all religious, but this thread is heading that way... Yes, I have toyed with the human enforced rules where 10,000 members makes a religion, but that concept is based on not knowing a true religion. Is there a true religion. There very well might be, but there is no one that can prove it. St. Peter was showing a new soul around heaven. He pointed out different groups of people saying 'There are the Mormans, there are the Islam followers, there are the people of the Jewish faith' when the soul asked St. Peter, 'what is behind the giant wall', where St. Peter replied 'Shush... they are the Christians... and they think that they are the only ones here. It is a human trait - arrogance - to think that x group is the 'true' religion where one dismisses every other one as fake. It reminds me of Beni Gabor, in the film The Mummy when he is accosted by the Mummy, Beni repeats, while holding the relevant organised religious icons (Cross, Crescent Moon etc), in the original language (English, Arabic, Chinese & Hebrew) of the organised religion a phrase similar to 'God help me' to the multiple deities, where Imhotep (the Mummy) recognizes Hebrew as the language of the Slaves that built the specific pyramid. This is an example of one trying to cover all bases in how a gambler would bet on all in a race, understanding that one of them would be the winner. In my humble opinion, what Beni does, is in direct oposite to each of the 'true' religious groups, where both are arrogance. Religious belief, in my humble opinion, is based on one or anothers interpretation of certain verses in either the Bible, Quran or whatever text that one choses. However, something that most people tend to forget, and/or organised religion tends to gloss over is:- The source material is just a group of stories with a message of some form. It was the way those messages were taught to an audience that had little formal education, and may not have had the ability to read and/or write. As a result, the message was put in a story format, as a way to pass the message to as much people as possible. The books of reference are usually translated from the original language, where errors occur in the translation. Organised religion tend to move events to suit their calendar. The books / scrolls etc. were all wrote by humans. Certain peoples misunderstanding tend to change and manipulate to their advantage - it is said that history is wrote by the survivors. Who are the survivors other than the cowards and the victors - where the victors will record what shows them in the best light, and the people that were defeated as weak and/or not worthy to survive. As a result, our history is, by default, coloured. Example 1: In the Adam & Eve story, Eve is supposed to be 'of Adam' and made from Adam's rib. - Is it more likely that the 'Adam' was of both genders where the genders were created / seperated to create the two dominant ones - since we are all capable of developing either female / male organs but due to a chemical, we make one dominant and the other recessive. Still, in some places in the world, female are subservient to males based on the misunderstanding that female is 'of male'. Even in the etmology of the words man / woman, the history of the word woman is 'of' man. Example 2: A serpent (animal) communicated with a human and convinced the human to eat of the Apple tree, the tree that Adam & Eve was told not to eat of.... and since they did eat of same, were banished from said garden. For this to hold true, then this supreme all knowing and all powerful being must have, similar to the failings of some humans, manipulated the situation, and the behaviour of Adam & Eve, to engineer the banishment.... but also knew that Adam & Eve would not do as told. This is also the root and source of heaven & hell etc.... what the some religious groups use as a way to manipulate the flock. Example 3: In this 'Garden of Eden', Adam & Eve felt shame after eating the apple. Shame from whom? There was only the two of them, both exactly the same age (a few days old), related either as brother/sister or husband/wife! How many people ask their pet to leave the room while they are getting dressed? How many 1-2 year olds seek privacy, and Adam & Eve was only a few days old. How many life partners feel uncomfortable naked around each other. Therefore, why is nakedness / genitalia exposure shameful / embarrasing for Adam & Eve? In 443 BCE, rome created a role of Censur to manage the Census (counting the population), and extended the role to address moral issues, where they deemed that exposed genitalia was shameful. In 1545-1563, the Council of Trent issued a decree against "all lasciviousness" in religious art, leading to the widespread use of fig leaves etc. to cover genitalia. This is the same group that created a hieracal order, sent preist to be educated which deemed that the followers were to thick to understand the stories within the relevant books. This is a mimic of what the elders / pharasees (political group) are depicted as doing in these books - keeping the teachings of the stories to themselves as they deemed that these teachings were only for the elite etc. We all have witnessed this same behaviour from our elected politicians, the so called people that were elected to be our representive and not our parent / caretaker! This is where they are confused between the title 'leader' and 'representive'. What would have happened if this elected roman person had decided that exposed noses was shameful? These images / feeling are being enforced on Adam & Eve, and all decendents based on what the one or more people wished to enforce. This means that between the beginning of time, the time Adam & Eve ate of the Apple, and 433BCE / 1563 , shame did not exist until some human decided it did! Example 4: In this garden was a Tree of Life, and an apple tree was the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil. Does this mean that if I feed a baby apples / applesauce, the baby will instantly know of shame & good & evil? Secondly, when Adam & Eve was banished from the Garden of Eden, they lost access to the Tree of Life. If the Tree of Knowledge was also in the same Garden we all would have lost access to that also, which would deem that apple trees do not exist, and since said apple tree does not exist, why do we feel shame? Example 5: If the Almighty is supposed to love us unconditionally, why would he, or any loving parent, set up Adam and Eve, and all humans (his children) to fail? This is a human behaviour, and not the behaviour of one that loves us unconditionally! Example 6: In the story of the birth of the Almighty, it is said he was born in a stable / barn with the animals in mid winter (December 25th ). However, in Bethleham, the houses were on stilts (to keep cool in the hot summers, but to allow the storage of animals below same in the winter months so the rising heat from the amimals would heat the house above.) Out buildings such as stables/barns did not exist. Secondly, December is usually wet, and the animals would still be out in the fields. The spring lambs would not be born until March-April. December is the time of the pagan mid-winter festival, which the church wanted to dismiss. Conclusion: Understanding the methodology of the day of passing teachings by stories, plus the stories were simplified and also linked (as a way of supplying a point of reference for the listener) to the current understandings of human life at that time, it deems that the stories with said book are not to be taken literally or factually, but where one has to extract the messages within to understand the teachings. In the story of Adam & Eve, is the message that our parents are created by one all powerful being, where s/he endowed our parents to create offspring - us? This is also the strenght and failings of a religious belief - one has to believe without proof. In relation to not beliving in a supreme being of one form or another, have a look at the following... In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.” “Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?” The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.” The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.” The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.” The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.” “Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.” The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?” The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.” Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.” To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.” It is not my words, but from Life after Delivery... by Dr. Wayne Dwyer. Beliving in a supreme being is a totally individual process that cannot and should not be dictated by another, which in my humble opinion, is being monitized by so many different organised religious groups to such an extent, I normally refer to such religious groups as 'Religious Groups Ltd., since that is all they are - a for profit business selling a concept where no-one has ever came back to challenge them. If these 'religious groups' followed their own teachings, there would not be one poor / disadvantaged person in the world. This is also an inbuilt failings of humanity - nobody, despite what they say, has the answer. The failing in us is that we expect there to be an answer, so we make it up. @DailyDi dream is, when analysed, where the human brain tries to make sense of random ideas and concepts. In normal everyday life, we are in a queue of some sort, where some of them are for a procedure that is objectionable to us, however as an adult, we know and trust that it is eventually for our self gain. When we dream, we can place a more benificial gain to a queue, and in DailyDi's case, joined an unknown, life after death, to the concept of eternal life in heaven, where the waiting place was allocated as purgatory. @curiositykilledthecat correctly mentioned that the concept of purgatory was created. Its roots is from the slogan "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs" by Johann Tetzel, a Dominan Friar during the 16th century for selling indulgences, which were papal documents that, according to the Catholic Church at the time, reduced the time a soul would spend in purgatory. Martin Luther famously critiqued this practice in his Ninety-Five Theses, arguing that it was a corruption of the church and that salvation could not be bought with money. @DailyDi's dream is as true as everyone elses - where one waits in purgatory in a queue to enter heaven when one takes both ideas of purgarory and heaven as human equivilants of what we do not understand. When linked with the unconditional love of this being, it would logically make sence that there is a place in heaven for everyone of us. @JDL23 whether you follow and/or believe in the Jedi faith or Catholism, the fundementals of both are the same = we are all His/Her children and we are supposed to respect and love each other as our brother and sister. I am not saying that is easy, and these books say the same Mark 10.25 It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. If read literally, then there is a kingdom, where no person can enter.... however, this is a story adjusted to suit the audience of the day. The concept of a kingdom is where there is a ruler and subjects, but other parts of the same books identify as a loving father and children where the concept of subservience does not exist. It is more to do with love and respect instead of servitude. The second part of the text refers to a rich man, but in all cases, where one is rich / wealthy, it was created on profit, which is exploitation of one or more other people. In relation to comparison of a good and bad person in our opinion, that is us judging another. If we had the ability to understand, would we be so critical? Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to know everything about everyone else. This information is limited by our ability to communicate, which itself is flawed as it allows for misunderstanding and people to jump to conclusions. In natural human behaviour, we tend to judge others and guess without all the information. This is easily seen when one sees a part of an object, and our brain fills in the rest based on what we expect to see. Our brain also fills in the rest based on what we expect to be told, which creates the errors within our understanding. The concept of beliving and following another is blind belief in an idea where in our current perspective, similar to the two babies in the womb and their limited perspective, we simply do not, and cannot have all the information. In our current perspective, we can see the mistakes that these two babies are making, and the root of their mistake is that they do not have the information that relates to living outside the womb / life after birth. Similarly, we do not have, and never did have the information that relates to life after death. As a result, those people who claim to know 'this' such as those from any religious group, are both arrogant and incorrect, but are also correct based on all known information. Logically, therefore, all religions must be incorrect, but in the same view and for the same reason, they all must be correct. Diapers as a Religion In the group of attendees here, we all chose, in some form, diapers and/or regression as some form of self soothing / comfort. Due to both the ignorance and self-righteousness and the lack of exposure to this interest within organised religions, this diaper interest is not addressed. It does not deem that organised religions will accept this behaviour, but in the tennets of the relevant books Bible / Quran etc., this type of self care is not only excepted, but required. It is your free choice and responsibility to take care of yourself medically, mentally, physically and spiritually. Medically - it is more benificial to your skin care and bilogical functions to use diapers rather than use indewelling aparatus. Mentally - one is calmer and less stressed when regressed. As a result, one can allow the power within the brain to deal with whatever issues one has while calmer, and if getting to this level is sucking on a pacifier / bottle etc., it is a lot better for you than alcohol / other form of drugs. Physically - there is no long term damage to one physically in regression, other than maybe loosing bladder/bowel control. Spiritually - the concept is to love another as yourself, and what is the greatest way one can love another other than taking care of their every need. To do same, one has to learn to love oneself completely - where self regression also leads to rebirth / regrowth and internal strength. We have all witnessed a child as they self-soothe. This level of internal peace that the child achieves is a goal for some of us, which allows us to accept the love of ourseves and others. @DailyDi quoted 'free religious garments' with reference to diapers etc. This is the way the countries governments monitize and/or create exceptions for a comercial religious group, by allowing the garments of said religious organisation to be state paid. In actuality, these garments are being paid for by all citizens of that state / country, where the only person / people getting benifit is the ones who use these garments, but, based on these books, why do we need garments to adorn a religion? Would that not contradict Exodus 20 3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; .... or is this another section that was ignored by the Council of Trent as a way to excuse / allow the adorned robes, statues, stained glass and paintings, the golden icons of candle holders / chalices, within organised religious buildings? In the film 'Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade', the task within is to find the Holy Grail or the cup/chalice used from the story of The Last Supper. Indy: That's the cup of a carpenter where the cup / chalice is carved from wood, a skill taught by a carpenters earthly father to his son. This is where the writers, with reference to the relevant books, created this pseudo icon to as closely represent what the story of the Last Supper would use. Earlier in the film, Indy is faced with a leap of faith - where he has to believe beyond all reason, that he will not plumet to his death when he takes a step following the instruction Only in the leap from the lion's head will he prove his worth where the lion's head is carved over his head at the edge of a cliff. It is not until after taking the step does Indianna notice that the path he is on has been decorated to allign with the rocks to be perfect camouflage. This is the leap of faith that we are told by that we need to take, and as humans, we tend to not trust it, but this mistrust is due to what we have learnt from other humans with the same failings of mistrust. A test, designed by Joseph Campos - The Visual Cliff was performed on crawling babies of different ages. The test was a gap in a pathway that was covered by clear glass, where the pathway way safe and no one could fall. The younger babies crawled across without hesitation, but as the age increased, the older babies hesitatied or simply refused to crawl across the gap. This is where these babies had been taught fear, and from their perspective, they did not understand that there was a safe path across the gap. The original is Animals also have this same failing.... Similar has been created as a tourist atraction in Taihang Mountain in Hebei Province where installed on the bridge is a set of transperent monitors cued up with speakers that occasionally sound glass cracking while the monitors show images of cracked glass. We are human, with the inbuilt problem and gift of free will. We get paid for our labour, but according to the Beatles and others, one can't buy love and/or understanding, yet many organised religions are trying to sell us the path to eternal life. It is the ultimate con game, as if/when they fail to provide the product/service that they are selling, you can't come back to complain! If you really wish to look at this, Adam & Eve never read the terms and conditions of 'Apple' before the ate the Apple. What every you chose to belive in, do it for your choice and reasons, and not for mine or others. After all, you are the only one that can answer for your free choice. Religious belief is firstly to accept ourselves, and then accept each other as our equal, and to step over the concept of borders and different nations. The idea of borders and its implementation was where human conflict between another human etc determined lines on a map. Religious belive is very simple - everyone is your brother/sister, and if one believes the Adam & Eve were the root father & mother of all of use, this deems that everyone is related to you. This is a very difficult concept, for some people, to accept. It really doesn't matter what your neighbour / brother / sister believes in (they have that free choice), it is up to you to just accept them and love them just because they are the same species of you.... and to quote Dave Allen, 'may your God go with you', and thanks for reading my rant!

A simple diaper change will address that one!

@ValentinesStuff it is all about the cost and return of whomever is fullfilling the prescription. Your physician may have prescribed the diapers (tape on etc), but the pharmacist / medication fullfiller is supplying the pull-up type, as they are cheaper per unit. Your pharmacist / medication fullfiller is still invoincing for diaper-type (at 1.957 each item) while supplying pull-ups (at 1.562 each item). It is a way the medical suppliers get overpaid for what they supply. Rather than discussing this with the supplier, discuss it with your physician as yu physician can fix this issue, where the supplier has no drive to fix anything... after all, they have made approx. 40c more per unit they supplied I suggest that you raise this issue with your physician, who can re-write the prescription with the specification of 'tape on' type and not 'pull-up' type. The actual prescription as it stands (BRIEF,PROTECTIVE EXTRA ABS LARGE ATTENDS) has some ambiguity that the supplier is taking advantage of. All your physician had to do is to add the phrase 'tape on' where the supplier either supplies what is prescribed, or the suppliers does not get paid for the item.

Despite the advances in medication since the Hippocratic Oath of roughly the 4th Century B.C. to date (approx. 6,000 years) there has been no better ways to control and manage incontinence other than wearing and using a nappy / diaper. This fact, most medical professionals can't accept, so they insist in using some form of medication or surgery to address incontinence, all to the frustration and cost of their paitents. It is almost as if the medical professional is ignoring the Hippocratic Oath - which in simple terms is 'First, do no harm' which over time, has been diluted and changed, and in my humble opinion, to the profit of the Doctor and to the cost of the paitent.

In this physics based world, things do not just occur. There is always a reason, and in your case, the logic dictates the following:- You wet overnight every night. You wet occasionally most nights. Something other than a change in temperature caused you to wet as every night, due to the lack of the sun heating the ground, the radiated heat from the ground is less than if the sun was heating the ground. No matter where in the world one is, the temperature of the air does decrease overnight, which proves that it is normal for it to get colder overnight, so since that is an occurance that has occured since the existance of the earth (more than every human lifetimes), it is logical for humans, including you, to be so used to the phenomenon to not even notice same. 1 is false, as you do not wet overnight every night. The reason is that you have been toilet trained and your vasopression production is controlled and managed. 2 is false, as you stated that you have not wet overnight ever other than that once. That statement is a falsehood as prior to you being toilet trained, you wet constantly by reflex. Also, it was not an instant change from being in diapers and wetting overnight to not being in diapers and consistantly dry overnight. You, like most, took time to learn to manage your vasopression levels, and like most also, before, during pr post puberty, dealt with spells of overnight secondary enuresis. The fact that you dismiss that event in your life does not confirm that it did not occur, despite you not wanting to admit it. Considering that you are on a site based on the concept of diaper wearing, does signal to me that at one time in your life, past chronological babyhood, someone either diapered you, or you wished that they would. As I stated earlier, items have a trigger even if you can't recall the trigger. 3 is most definitly false as we as humans are masters at adapting to our environment. If you didn't or couldn't, then you could not survive. This means that logically, 2 must be true even if you wish to deny it. Therefore, would it be more correct that the time you describe when you were away on holidays and you wet overnight, it was memorable as you didn't expect that to occur despite it occuring in diapers on and off for a number of years while at home, where you presumed that wearing diapers at home would not effect your night time control? In relation to dreams, and the power of the mind, that is all consuming - i.e. try this one - visualise in as vivid images as possible, a lemon, and let your fingers feel the lemon skin etc... let that occur for a few minutes and then take a bite out of the virtual lemon. Your mind will send the correct triggers to itself so that you react as if you took a bite out of a real lemon. This is how dreams can effect reality, and all you are doing is giving yourself permission to act and fulfill your desire.

@Kevin140, I see, although you may not want to admit it, that the 'cold air / thin blanket' is only an excuse for wetting while asleep. Although a diaper dependent baby (usually male) wets when one opens his diaper by reflex, that is a shock reflex from cold hitting a warm genitalia with a weak / relaxed sphincter, and/or a reflex sphincter - where the toilet trained individual even asleep does not react that way. Severe shock and/or stress can cause some to wet/mess as a response to 'fight / flight' response, but a non toilet-trained individual / one with weak sphincters will void from that type of shock / stress / fear. I would suspect that, while on holiday, you indulged in alcohol the previous night OR it was the first night and you were suffering from jet-lag (offset body clock) as the trained bladder is well capable of holding 400-800ml of urine overnight even in cold climates. Your subcontious mind does not allow you to wet overnight as it can deduce that being wet is a reduction in genitalia temprature, one of the means used to teach you to not wet a diaper / wet the bed - i.e. it is an intrupton in sleep. Secondary Nocturnal Enuresis occurs when the production of vasopressin is altered / reduced usually due to hormones and/or puberty. Vasopressin is produced based on your body clock, so an offset body clock may cause some to wet while asleep.

You, like me, are incontinent so it is normal for you and I to have a messy diaper, but I suspect as soon as you are aware of the messy diaper, you excuse yourself and go and change like myself. To avoid the overpowering aroma of a messy diaper and exposing others to it, I wear plastic pants over a diaposable plus I use internal deodorants simmilar to nullo etc. I would suspect that you do similar. This topic is in relation to those people who chose to mess in the public arena where they expose their messy smell to others - and in my opinion, that is not acceptable. A chonological baby, when they mess their diaper, they do not know any better, and it is their parents / careers that are supposed to act maturely to prevent the stench of a messy diaper from their baby, offending others. If someone is doing same due to their choice - i.e. from a fetish, that is - exposing others to their choice, that is being selfish and inconsiderate and never acceptable. It is understandable that it would trigger legal and/or moral actions to start - i.e. presume that the person who soiled a diaper in public does not know any better so therefore, should be committed. Leeway is given to those who, by behaviour, act to prevent the invasion of another, similar to @Cruiser 03 and similar here. Humans tend to 'pidgen hole' others - and those who wet and/or mess their diapers while out are either... 'mentally challenged and has a career to deal with it' OR 'has a medical issue that they are capable of maturely dealing with' OR 'should not be allowed out on their own'

@babypat80, A baby is changed before bedtime, and next time it is usually changed is in the morning. Making the presumption that the baby sleeps the 8-10 hours overnight, even if the baby messes the diaper during the night, the baby is usually not changed until the morning. To facilitate that, before the diaper is put on the baby, the skin is coated with diaper cream or similar as a way to protect the skin. i suggested that in what I posted. You are suggesting that a change occurs circa 7pm, and not again until 7am the next morning. That, with a child is cruel, and with an adult is insane. The times I am suggesting is changing before bed, then after breakfast, then sometime during the day - maybe the afternoon, and then repeat just before bed time, but what is critical is changing at exactly the same time every day. The concept is to remove the reason not to void and also to ignore and forget (in you contious mind) the contents and state of your diaper - after all, it no longer matters so therefore, there is no reason to adapt or even be aware of the state of your diapers. This is how a baby sees its diaper - the baby does not care about its diaper so it is left to the parent to be aware of and adapt to the babies diaper needs, not the baby or the person wearing and using the diaper. Since the baby does not care about its diaper, it will wet and mess without any care or concern. Thus, its contious mind is never told of a need to void, so the baby just voids at the whim of its body where the babies mind takes no notice. If you doubt this, leave a baby without a diaper and it will still wet / mess and never react to itself wetting or messing in any form. ABDL's here want to regain the same diaper dependance of a baby, and the most difficult part of it is not intevening in the process of voiding. This behaviour is entirely possible - and to prove this, you voided without intervention as a baby like everyone else. Today, most people breath without contious intervention. We can intervene with breathing, and if we want, we could spend time teaching ourselves to, for every ten or so breaths, hold our breath for a few seconds, and continue doing that. Eventually, with enough practice, we can learn to, for every number of breaths, hold it for up to 5 minutes or greater. This type of training is similar to toilet training where one was taught to 'hold it' until we find a place we can void in private. Since 'holding it' and training is a taught response, and prior to it was a behaviour that was not taught - i.e. sating the need as and when without question - reverting to that behaviour is more about convincing ourselves to act accordingly and not forgetting something, or, similar to a lot of hypnotic training, attempting to learn a new skill.

@YuuKii, your methodology is excellent as it is teaching both parts of the mind to revert to wetting while alseep, but in my humble opinion, may not be the exact goal of members here. Yes, it does give the result required, but the result is classed as conditional training - Pavlov's dog theory in practice, i.e. you are training your body the following... wet with a full bladder... if over hydrated... if body temprature not ideal... when asleep As you are aware of, this is simple and logical response to sate a need. It also requires one to be able to accept a wet diaper as nothing more than a wet diaper, and not something that needs to be dealt with now. There is multiple layers of acceptance you are employing where the mind is making the decision to do this, after all, the above 4 paramaters occur if and only if your mind allows you to wet. The concept of partially relaxed muscles does come into play when one is talking about limb muscles, but the sphincters are within the group of smooth muscles. As a result, the sphincters are stable in the two states - open or closed. It takes signal, either concious or unconsious (i.e. your concious brain is / is not aware of it), to effect the change, but your sub-contious brain is always aware of what is required to control the sphincter, and what is the result of that action. The art of urination is effected by feedback OR by intervention. Toilet training created the intervention behaviour and supressed the feedback behaviour. A non toilet trained person is still voiding by feedback, or that is what medical science calls it. The process is a little more complex, but can be simplified - i.e. the bladder fills and signals the brain of this process by sensing the strech sensors in the bladder wall. Due to a non toilet trained individual not knowing what to do, the brain signals the sphincters to relax, and the infant voids. Due to feedback, the infant learns cause and effect, and will subcontiously not send the 'relax' signal to the sphincters. This is repeated until the bladder is full, and then the 'relax' signal, a learned response, is sent to the sphincters. When it comes to night-time voiding, there is an added complication called vasopressin, an enzyme that primarily reduces the water content of urine thus allowing the bladder to last overnight. It also increases blood pressure, (as it is a vasoconstrictor - constricts blood vessels) so for a person who is already has high blood pressure, vasopressin production would be reduced. This can lead to diabetes and low sodium levels. For some post or past puberty children who start bed wetting after being toilet trained, (secondary nocturnal enuresis) the added stress contributes to the wetting. When one evaluates @YuuKii process, and how it works for him, a lot of this methodology is stress reduction, which would lead me to conclude that he might have high blood pressure concerns, and is maybe diabetic. Possible Alternative IMHO, the concept of relaxation and teaching oneself to wet ones diapers in any position, is a good goal and has little to no side effects other than a need to wear diapers. The addition of over hydration may be adding complexities that are directly contrary to the interest of ones health. Water intoxation is a clinical diagnosis that needs to be avoided. Biologically, the body aims for a balance. As a result, if one over hydrates, one saturates ones cells with water thus diluting the nutrient content within the cells. To enforce the balance again, water, plus the cell contents of nutrients pass, via osmosis, the cell walls into the blood system. The level of 'impurities' within a blood system is calculated as 'Creatin Levels'. Since the kidneys primary function is to filter sugars from the blood, and secondary to filter creatin from the blood, oversaturation tends to overwhelm the kidneys and the kidneys can get oversaturated with sugars thus failing to remove the creatin from the blood. Conclusion As a result, although your process may result in a wet overnight diaper, it is likely to create the same lack of energy and low sodium levels one would encounter from a hangover. Although I support the intention of @YuuKii and others in their intention of diaper dependence, I do not believe the methodology he is employing is in his or others best health interest. As an adult, one intervenes in the process. It is not the lack of knowledge, but more to do with the lack of recall. As a result, for one to regain the same bladder and/or bowel control as a baby, one needs to recreate, as accurately as possible, the scenario one was in as a baby - i.e. the removal of responsibility for acts. The best way to regain the pseudo lack of control is more to do with habit than training. As a baby / infant, similar to an adult, one wets and messes to sate the need to void, but a baby / infant does not question the action, but just lets it happen when it needs to do it, in whatever it is wearing. The recall of the event is not required as the baby / child does not need to know the state of its diapers. As a result, as I suggested in a different post, all one needs to do is recreate the scenario where you are unaware of the state of your diapers, and this is how... Place thick as noisy as possible layer of plastic on your bed - to reinforce to your mind that no matter what you do, your bed is protected and safe. Coat the plastic with baby powder - smell is a very strong memory trigger = you will remember the same smells as you had in your cot / crib as a baby. Cover the plastic with a cotton sheet - to create the warmt and absorbancy even when wet. Coat your area with diaper cream - to protect the skin, make everything slick so your skin can't detect a wet diaper and/or a messy diaper. Also reminds you of how your area felt when diapered as a baby - where it was out of your choice what was in your diapers. Put on multiple layer cloth diapers, pin on if possible - thick enough that you can;t, even if wanted, close your legs so you have to spread your legs and waddle when walking. Put on plastic pants - the noisier the better = to remind you constantly of the proportions of the diaper to your body, so you feel the diaper in every movement. Change this diaper at the same time for the next week or so, or however long as you can stay in a diaper. This is to tell you that the diaper will get changed no matter what is in it at a specific time, and that all bathroom privilidges are non existant - you are in diapers. Time suggestions is shortly after breakfast, mid afternoon, and just before bed time, where a bed time bath might be a good idea to calm and relax you ready for sleep. The whole concept is that you are wearing a diaper and it will be changed no matter what is in it, so it removes your choice of whether to wet and/or mess the diaper as that will occur. Also, your choice of when to change a wet / messy diaper is no longer there, as the diaper will only be changed at specific times which were set by another. All this is to convince the subcontious mind that there is no reason to hold poop or urine till a more oppertune moment. Also, since there is no need to tell the contious mind that you wet / messed (you will be doing nothing about, but will be changing the diaper at a specific time only), the subcontious starts not to tell the contious mind that you are wet / messy, which leads to not telling the contious mind of a need to wet / mess, which continues on to ignoring the state of the diaper. At that stage, you will be voiding on the whim of your body, not noticing your need and just voiding without knowledge, or memory of the event. Since the difference between day and night control is a learnt concept, you will revert to using your diaper as you did as a baby. The core reason this training works is that you are not learning something new, but instead, repeating what your mind knows and has repeated for years without question as a baby. It also removes the reason for doubt in the mind (which toilet training is), which allows your mind to be more open and responsive. It also allows you to sleep a lot deeper since you will be totally relaxed while asleep.

The requirement for dish etc are slowly being eliminated in favour of streaming and internet based TV. However, the world is falling down a rabbit hole with this - the more streaming services, the more bandwith required to carry the data, which ends up in a slower and slower internet service. I presume you are aware of Moores Law ((misquote) ever 18 months technolology halves in price and doubles in speed). This is based on the density of transistors on a substrate. However, although counting from 1 to X allowes X to be infinity plus 1, where one deals with 'digital' stuff, there is a physical hard limit. Add to the internet being a high speed advertisment platform - the core reason for internet being communication, with the two main users being adverts and streaming, it wont be long before the internet goes back to basic systems - as they will be the only item that can run on the internet due to the rest of the bandwith being used by adverts and sttraming service, I would not fully dicount and dispose of the dish yet! TV used to be passive, where streaming allows interactivity. Radio is still passive being that you listen, not chose the play list. Interactive TV is, IMHO, will always be not needed, as too much choice removes the value and therefore the demand. Therefore, streaming is not required, and just a selling point that nobody actually wants / will use.

Are you fluent Chinese, as the literal translation is "the wolf's wolf's wolf" which is a common saying in Chinese which would be equivilant to "the cats pyjamas" or "the bees knees" but has a next level as intended in the Chinese phrase, "the person/animal that a trustworthy person/animal would chose", and since this phrase is from a country where parental / grandparental opinion is trusted and respected, the phrase also includes "the parental animal/person of the trusted person/animal's opinion / choice". To me, it is facinating the etemology of language, and how intertwined the culture, behaviour and beliefs of a country, and its people, is embeded within the language. If you doubt this, have a look at the French translation of "please", which is "s'il vous plaît", which literally translates as "if it pleases you" and is intended to be "if you do not mind". It is a level of politeness that is instilled within the language which is missing in English, as although most of us were taught to be polite, where if one uses this (the English version) in business, it is portrayed as showing weakness and/or begging to say 'please'! It is often said in history that words have power, where incorrect words / interpretation of the meanings have caused wars. If one evaluates the details, it is where one or more people misinterpreted what was said and took offence to what was said. However, it is very difficult to cause another to be offended / take offence by belittling self. Usually when one does that, they either gain the respect of another OR remove the belief of the other that you are a threat / someone that needs to be eliminated! Please remember, what is said may not equal what a person thinks. As a result, although the spoken word does have power, the words in ones own mind (the only fully true opinion) has no effect to anyone else other than self.

Lá Fhéile Pádraig sona go gach baboga anseo. (to every baby here, Happy St Patricks Day)

When one looks at human history, early humans were not toilet trained, and used to void as and when they needed, similar to primates. They also never used to wear clothing. What changed that behaviour is a series of choices that were made by, what I class as idiots - people creating rules for their own personal belief, who are unable to see the full impact of their decisions, and/or wish to enforce their own bias. In fact, it is these people discriminating against the free choice of another, but are using a current media scare tactic to enforce their discriminations. When one really digs into these actions, in this world, the root is always money - either for themselves or others. History Neolithic humans were naked and not toilet-trained, as neither was required for survival. If you understand Darwin theory, the humans that chose to wear clothes would be slower runners than those who didn’t. Those that hunkered to void, were sitting target. As a result, they were eaten by predators, but came wrapped in clothes - similar to a sandwich where a filling is surrounded by bread. For security and self-preservation, humans moved into groups surrounded by some form of barrier, i.e. water etc. A stationary human tends to build shelters as a form of protection from the weather. This tends to create an induced weakness – i.e. we tend to put on more clothes when we leave these shelters as outside is usually colder than inside – which our Neolithic ancestors did also – so the gain in defence by living within a shelter turned these groups into soft targets. Living indoors will cause the body to adapt to the situation where the human lost its need for the waterproof fur and the tough skin. The growing collection of waste - human waste plus bones etc. of past meals tend to attract pests which also attacked the skin of our Neolithic ancestors, so at that time, despite having to deal with these infestations, our Neolithic ancestors still perceived it to be a better situation to live in this self-enforced prison. It took a few centuries for humans to instead of imprison themselves from their predators, to build prisons large enough to imprison their predators from them. Even today, in African savanna, where humans install housing, they build walls around the houses rather than imprison the animals. It took millions of years, past 1300's and the black plague, for humans to understand that their own waste is toxic to themselves. If prehistoric humans knew of this cost, I doubt that they would have moved into ground based shelters. The clothing of the time only covered the trunk of the body, not below the waist or the genitalia, as to do so would need the removal of the clothes to void, which in a predator-prey environment, would not have been a good idea as it would need both toilet training plus one to change focus to remove clothes and thus, leave one vunerable to predator attack. Now we come to the concept of ‘shame’ and the idea or need to cover genitalia. This comes from both one person’s idea in Rome, a Censor (or leader / ruler / governor) chose to initiate what we call now, ‘censorship’, where the concept of another person’s genitalia being on view was considered obscene. Organised religion church decided to enforce this to such an extent that most art works of the day, where genitalia was exposed (statues / paintings etc.), a fig leaf was placed over said genitalia. Consider if noses were considered obscene, today everyone in the world would be wearing ‘nose bra’s’ and pornography would advertise as ‘naked noses on display’. This is how stupid the concept that exposed genitalia is somewhat obscene, arousing and/or sexual! Arousal / sexual drive are in the mind of the person/people getting aroused. As a result, even in this group, despite what we chose to think / believe, some of us get aroused at the sight of another in a diaper. It is not that we wish to engage with the other in copulation, it is more to do with the images we set in our own mind in relation to the diaper which, in the parlance of psychology, the diaper is a ‘fetish object’ being the item that most of us relate to being stereotypical babyish, yet all a diaper is an item to contain eliminations as a way to avoid same getting on floors / furniture of the den dwelling animals. In a hetrosexual environment we are told that most females get aroused when seeing a muscle bound man wearing skin tight underwear where there is an obvious lump in the front. When there is an obvious lump in the rear, it tends to have the opposite effect. Most men get aroused when seeing a female dressed in black tights that stop partialliy before their hips, and where the female is wearing frilly knickers and a bra plus high heeled shoes, painted face (makeup) plus bits of metal and stone hanging from their body (jewelery). This is based on what a 'normal' person is supposed to do - yet since we are all individual, we react differently based on what is in our mind, not what is in front of us. Some in this ABDL world get aroused either wearing a diaper and/or seeing another wearing a diaper, and it is one of the many ways we find to address either our need or desire to wear a diaper. It is not the wearing of a diaper itself, it is the feeling of the bulk of same, and the link to a younger age where, at that time and age, there were clear results for actions – i.e. if we misbehaved, there would be a clear response for that action, and once it occurred, forgiveness and love were given. We were encouraged to, and praised after using the diaper. It was expected that we make a mess in feeding ourselves etc. Everything we did was accepted with love and care. Clothing grew from ‘items to cover the trunk’ to designer following human stupidity. i.e. it was, and still is a status symbol to be better covered – more plush fur / designer clothes - than your neighbour. This was flaunted by so called religious groups where garments were coloured in crimson and red, both colours that were the most expensive to produce at that time - the same people who professed ‘Pride is a sin’ and it is ‘shameful to do x / y’. When one looks at the whole concept, one can see how these organised groups – religion etc., - did not practice what they preached, and did what they did only as a methodology of enforcing control and dominance. It has taken millennia to understand the human body, and its adaptions to the human faults. Humans are supposed to learn, not only from our own mistakes, but those of our ancestors. As a result, it is advantageous not only to study our history, but also to understand it. Most of us presume that we live in a democracy, but if we critically analyse it, the democracy is tainted by the biased, usually uneducated opinions of the few. Currently, via another media form, certain ‘influencers’ attempt to dictate the world view. Others, via the same media form, are using legal action to attempt to colour the world views of their own product. We are either individuals, or sheeple. Individuals have their own opinions and comments. Sheeple tend to ‘follow the crowd’ similar to the group of hounds that are involved in a fox hunt. If we look at that in detail, each hound except the leader, has their nose up the butt of the dog in front, and are only following the smell of shit, and have no chance of getting anywhere near the fox. Followers of fashion are similar, following what another is wearing rather than making and owning their own choice. The film ‘The Devil wears Prada ’ – Miranda Priestly (based on real life Anna Wintour ) editor in chief of Runway (based on real life ‘Vogue’), a fashion magazine & Andrea ‘Andy’ Sachs joins as a journalist. where there are two contradicting morals or concepts :– Miranda Priestly character (actor Meryl Streep based on the real life Anna Wintour) believes that she controls the world’s clothes and fashion industry, and without her, the industry would collapse. Andrea Sachs character (actor Anne Hathaway) firstly dismisses the fashion industry as fallacy, then falls for the industry but eventually realizes the truth, maybe not the truth of the fashion industry, but the truth of herself and where she wishes her career to go – as a journalist and chooses not to become, as she thinks, one of the shallow egotistical followers of fashion. If you watch that film, you will see how inhumane the Miranda Priestly character needs to be to keep her job. She drops Emily Charlton - Senior Assistant in favour of Andrea, plus sacrificed Nigel Kipling promotion by giving that job to her competition, Jacqueline. Regardless on which side of the fence you sit, the root of the concept of clothes is self-pride, self-induced weakness, and nothing else, and in the view of some, egotistical and shallow. We, humans, are the only animal that think that we need to adorn our body with clothes, paint and bits of metal and rocks (jewellery), and this has its roots in a human choice to reside in a dwelling, a non-elected roman nobody and the portrayed lies of religious doctrine! Even if you believe those teachings, Adam & Eve were naked and a snake told them so after Adam & Eve ate the apple. Does that mean that an apple is a magical fruit that grants us the ability to communicate with snakes? After that, they were cast out of the Garden of Eden where they used a fig leaf to cover their perceived nakedness. The concept of an all knowing God contradicts this as s/he knew that Adam and Eve would talk to the snake, eat the apple and therefore be cast out. The first people that did not read/want/accept apple terms & conditions We, as humans see this as God knew this would occur – so therefore, could have, if s/he wished, prevented having to cast out Adam & Eve and all human kind from the Garden of Eden. This resolves into there is limits to love, even God’s love, but then it contradicts that God is all loving and all forgiving. Looking at this from the information provided by the snake to Adam & Eve, it was the snake that told Adam & Eve that they were naked, where God accepted, without question, the nakedness of Adam & Eve. Since that is the case, why do we, and those who profess a religious believe, consider nakedness shameful and/or obscene? Yes, religious belief and humankind history tend to contradict itself, where the answer would have been within the Library of Alexandria, which was destroyed multiple times from 48BCE to 389CE by churchmen and crusaders and christians – the same people that professed religious belief! Today, there are over a thousand different religious beliefs, and each are ‘sold’ as being the one true religion. The worldwide growth of knowledge has removed thousands of others. Each of the religions claim some form of payment will grant redemption / eternal life, but if one evaluates that, how can a metal / paper token purchase something that is not of this world? A quote from the bible states in reply to a question from the then church leaders regarding money, where the reply was... Matt 22:12-22 “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” ...as the token (coin) was belonging to Caesar as it had an image of Caesar on same. In the same way, every metal / paper token is belong to the country and is of no actual spiritual value, so how can giving this metal / paper token to an organised religious group purchase something that, according to Matt 22, is not wanted or required? There is a joke that brings a person to heaven where the guardian is showing the person around… ...here are the Jewish people, here are the Hindu people, and here are Sikh people... The person asks what is behind that wall, and the guardian answers… ...Shush, they are the Roman Catholics / Christians and they think that they are the only ones here.... Another joke is a conversation between two unborn twins claiming facts about outside, as it must be death as no one has ever came back see here for the full joke There is a moral in these jokes and also within life. It is only arrogance to believe what is next is anything that we can comprehend. This also logically deduces that organised religion must be only for financial profit, and can offer nothing that is either requested / required or even known ...as nobody has ever came back from death. Due to our own knowledge now, we can understand the difference between living in the womb and life, but as an unborn human, even if we had the mental facilities we enjoy now, without the knowledge that we have of life, there is no way we or any other unborn person in that state could explain to us the difference. It can only presumed that information in the Bible / Quran etc could be valid, but considering the difference between life in the womb and life as we know it, we can presume that the difference between life and the after life is as different, which is, considering or ability within the womb vs our ability today, it signifies that there is no way we could ever comprehend what the after life is. What therefore, gives a self-professed religious leader the ability other than self-arrogance to state what is next? We really do not know. As a result, why do these self-arrogant people make up rules for us to follow / endure all based on what is essentially ignorance and lies? We hope that there is a form of life after death, yet have really no way other than our own absolute need for something else / better to drive us. It has been proven that all animal species need interaction with similar, ‘No man is an island’, yet our own actions tend to distance ourselves from each other, either in the rules we set and/or the privacy we demand. Is this about acceptance and love of self and others, or more likely, self-preservation. It is almost that we have forgotten that we, as a human, are only one of a species, where self-sacrifice is needed to create a stronger more resilient human, survival of the species, and instead tend to protect the weaker of ourselves thus making a weaker more dependant human. Has capitalism replaced Darwinism and are we all members of the church of the almighty dollar / yen / euro etc.? ABDLism / infantilism are one of the multiple forms of psychotherapy and as a way to attempt to reduce / remove stress from one’s life, but it is only a pill / sticking plaster on a much larger wound. The wound is self-induced since it is ourselves that push ourselves that hard to place ourselves under a stress that needs to be addressed. Most, if not everyone in the world is involved in some form of ABDLism / infantilism if we wish to see it. Smoking is a faux way of addressing the suckling urge of early babyhood. When one sleeps, one normally cuddles up in something close to the foetal position. Modern science has found that most people in the world unconsciously behave infantile either before, during or after a stressful episode, and this stressful episode may be as simple as answering a simple question. During that first period in our life, infant hood / baby hood, we were placed in, and convinced to use diapers, we had no responsibility, and therefore, no stress. We didn’t know what stress was and/or what worry was. Today, we put ourselves under stress for, in my humble opinion, no gain at all and make all types of excuses for it. Medically, all it does is reduce our life. Life is a gift, is real, and not a practice. We only get one life no matter how we chose to live it. Therefore, those who ‘kill themselves’ working 24/7/365 to have a huge pension when they retire may never live long enough to actually retire. Dementia is also caused by stress, so in a way, working 24/7/365 could put you into a care facility, back in diapers and being treated as a baby/infant as dementia progressively destroys memory back to the brain of an infant. That is if you have the money / insurance to cover that type of care. However, you will not have the mental ability to notice or enjoy it as you will have the same brain as an infant but instead of growing and learning, you will be regressing. The lockdowns of recent years taught some of us the value and the need of a home/work/life balance, but it also allowed the growth of more self-arrogant ‘influencers’ and more dependence on the virtual world for human interaction than the real world. If one digs into most virtual world member, one will discover that they all are portraying an image to hide their true identity. Even here, my true identity is hidden behind an image of a bear and a pseudo name. I could list many reasons, but the true one is that I, similar to a toddler, still hide behind my plushie for some form of safety / security. That, I tend to do in real life too in a similar way, via an image or character I portray thus letting very few people in to see the real me, but because I do same, it tends to let me see similar actions of most public figures including those in the virtual world. This is what I am trying to show the people here – that very little of what we observe either in the virtual or the real world is truth, as most people lie and manipulate for self-gain, the most experienced tend to end up with what we own, yet we do not seem to protect or notice i.e. life, soul, and money. It seems that wisdom is wasted on the elderly. ABDL Forums… and the future. On the internet, there are many sites similar to this primarily based on infantilism (the fantasy of an adult to see themselves as a child of a perceived age with all the relevant trappings - which may or may not include the fetish object of a diaper etc.) and/or the support of those who chose diapers as underwear (which includes those who need it for support of the fantasy, and/or those who need it for reality due to either physical and/or mental needs (where the fantasy can also be the mental requirement)). In this site / forum / group, we know that there is a difference between the fantasy and reality, but for some (usually the AB side of it), this line can be blurred. We, in the group, never involve the under age as primarily we wish to be the underage ourselves. Therefore, using the rules strictly, we ourselves, when in fantasy mode, are not old enough to be members of these sites. The lines between fantasy and reality due to our own mistakes and the blurring of the virtual with reality, where we assign more trust to an online person than to a real person, we have created that premise, by self-isolating, by reducing the interaction with real people, by having more ‘online’ friends than real friends, by believing what media and advertisements are telling us, by filtering the information we get to who is currently trending, by our emergence into ‘soap operas’ and other media driven fiction, (and the list goes on) – the line between reality and fantasy is already blurred. It needs a strong willed focused individual to be able to ‘switch off’ the internet and social media to be able to make rational and educated decisions, and not ones based on what someone stated in media – i.e. to act as an individual and not as one that follows the crowd – and unless that happens, where this takes work, courage and self-belief, we will eventually loose ourselves, and the core reason for this site, which is using diapers and regression techniques in order to truly love and accept oneself, but the oneself that you need to love is under age, so strictly based on rules, love of a minor (although it is self-love and where we place ourselves as the minor) is never accepted and is classed as rape and child molestation since in most jurisdictions, the minor does not have the maturity to consent, so therefore, it is rape and molestation based on the same rules. So, can this site and others like it still exist, or will it, in time, fall into obviation based on one or more peoples biased opinions even though, they are wrong? Is this complete community destined to become a clinical version of itself, where what remains will be the groups of people (incontinent and other) who need, but won't admit their need for the 'infantile' side of the support, but without that group of the people (those who chose to regress to support their own mental health), that type of support will not exist in a clinical side - the type of support one receives from the medical industry - the people who claim to have studied this as one of a thousand subjects within education. Adam & Eve Do you accept the Adam & Eve story and a talking snake which, if you wish to accept that this occurred, it was a manipulated and engineered process by a supposedly all-knowing and loving God – which I personally find hard to believe and accept. It is easier for me to accept that the Adam & Eve story is fiction created by a marketing department of a business. History teaches us that we only wear clothes today that cover the genitalia based on either a fantasy Adam & Eve story and information from a snake – something that we are supposed not to trust and/or a nobody (censor in Rome) who decided that genitalia were obscene and that organised religion ltd., a primarily financial institution, decided that exposed genitalia was obscene. In Victorian England (1800s), it was decided that exposed female legs and arms were also obscene which altered the dress of the era, to such an extent that the only female bare skin on display was the face and hands. Are we to believe that Muslim faith has influence on Victorian England, as based on the Muslim faith, a female cannot expose any skin, and the burqa was employed. If we followed the teachings blindly similar to Orthodox which has its teaching employed pre-roman times, we would follow the an eye for an eye concept, but the problem with that is we are all sinners in one form or another, and as a result, to quote people like Gandhi, and earlier, George Perry Graham, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and the whole world would be blind and toothless. It tells us that it is up to ourselves to freely choose the teachings of history, and not to blindly follow another no matter who they claim to be, without firstly questioning their motives and is it in the best interest of ourselves. How difficult is it to love oneself first, and similar to our animal breathern, love each other? True love is absolute, and it also involves self-sacrafice. We are engineered to love our offspring, as it is required for the species survival, but even that is foreign to some. Is this world and the human species selfish, and therefore, doomed to extinction... all based on the aquisition of bits of metal / paper, tokens that we can't take with us?