Oranges

I apologize in advance if this has been covered before, but I'd like to point out that there is little evidence of this oft-cited "common-sense" notion. An instinct, by definition, is something that cannot be overcome by force of will. Yet, many women (young and adult) want nothing to do with mothering children. Some women even find the idea of mothering disturbing, and some find it to be something pushed upon them by others. One explanation as to why mothering might seem to be instinctual is that society conditions girls to -want- to be mothers. The educational system, gender norms... all kinds of evidence exists to support this, if you look at the world around you with that in mind! Anyway, I do have a theory as to why women might not like the idea of their boyfriends in diapers at first - most people consider anything to do with human waste gross and/or disgusting. Even if you don't use your diapers for their intended purpose, the initial idea can be quite disconcerting. I do think that if you have a supportive partner (and are willing to be honest and open about your desires) the chances are good that you can both work it out and come to a reasonable compromise. Oranges

I also said I'd stay out, but I'm bored and I checked up on my last few posts. @Eric D: I am a clinical psychology student, specializing in addiction - so you know my bias before I reply to your comments. Since this is (as usual) an emotional hot-button topic, I really don't wish to argue or debate what "dream world" I live in, because that would be pointless and unconstructive and drive us off-topic. To your point of how I would feel - certainly I would feel fearful or angry! I am human too, and I have emotion. However, if the person can prove they have changed, then what do I need to fear beyond my own preconceptions? Your view only holds if you see people as incapable of change. Your assumptions about psychological intervention in prisons seem pretty off-the-cuff - I would suggest reading into the success rates of treatments regarding various types of disorders involving violence and abuse before concluding that they "usually don't work." This assumption would *only* be acceptable if we *actually did* treat people with mental disorders while imprisoned, which we (in Canada and I am fairly certain also in America) generally do not for reasons of both funding and that it just isn't how the justice system is set up to operate. Now, what we *are* doing is simply jailing people, almost always *without* concurrent treatment for any psychological disorders or often, even proper treatment for their medical conditions. (Heck, I think that alone would make almost anyone angry enough to hate the justice system we live with, and continue to reoffend.) The figure of people who reoffend is so high precisely because what we are doing does not work, for sure - on that, we have common ground. Personally, I wish to find effective ways to help manage conditions that cause society serious harm, and disorders involving violence and sexual abuse are certainly part of that category. However, I don't consider taking away someone's life to be an effective deterrent to stopping this kind of heinous behaviour in society. It might work for that one person, but it is not a sustainable method of ensuring anything except the almost completely ineffective status quo - which we agree isn't working. Quite frankly, my drive in responding to this topic at all was to suggest that everyone suffers when we focus on our ridiculous methods of "crime reduction", such as killing, bodily harm, and imprisonment. Evidently, people seem to be more interested in exacting petty, self-interested revenge instead of considering *why* people do the things they do, and working to reduce them and help those who are suffering with serious problems. Until our collective justice system and relevant laws are re-examined to emphasize rehabilitation instead of punishment, we will be forever trapped in a 'revolving door' justice system keeping not only people behind bars, but our social improvement imprisoned along with it. I know it doesn't sound as simple or "pretty" as killing or reducing people to human beings bent on reoffending because of the wrongs they have suffered at the hands of a punitive system that has caused them nothing but pain, but like you said - pretty solutions don't work in ugly moments, right? If you took the time to read all of my post, thank you - I appreciate being able to express myself on this forum. Oranges

I agree. I find his actions horrendous and I resent him even being associated with our community. I also find it very scary that the majority of the posts here have lost sight of the fact that this man is a human being, like everyone else posting here. Suggesting that we kill or harm people only "fuels the fire" and creates more violence where there was less before, and reinforces the notion that criminal justice should be about punishment instead of rehabilitation. Food for thought: About 80% of violent criminals reoffend after being released. You can decide for yourself if our Western ideas of criminal punishment really work. Societally speaking, the justice system serves to remove those from society that are deemed unworthy, not help them become worthy - which, if I am not mistaken, is one of our overriding ideas of community. To help, not harm, right? I'm *not* suggesting we don't subject the man to some kind of societal justice, I think jail time would be appropriate with concurrent psychological intervention. He is a very mentally ill human being by our Western societal standards, there is no question there, but he is still a human being and deserving of his life and person, as well as a chance to become something different. I, like Baby Bethany, am getting out of this thread, y'all are just creeping me out.

@Bittergrey: I agree with this, and it's good to see well-thought out posts being added to this thread by everyone involved. I like your idea of a continuum, I have often thought of it that way myself. I have one general comment about the last page or so of posts: I think that while the community is still pretty young, so to speak, it would be a net negative thing to start trying to divide it into other subcultures so rapidly - the "AB/DL" banner is also one that gives social solidarity and acceptability to the group, regardless of whether we view it as clearly defined "AB" and "DL" groups co-existing because of a shared interest of diapers, or whether we view it as a continuum. Perhaps even a continuum of those is limiting, because it defines us in ways that even people within the AB/DL community (myself included) find unnecessary. For example, I am a "DL", but not really. I enjoy diapers, but my wife and I both dabble in ageplay, sometimes there is no sexual 'kick' from it. But occasionally, if the mood is right, there is. From my vantage point, it would be fair to say I am neither "DL" nor "AB". But the "AB/DL" moniker is where I know I can find people to talk to, and write posts like this, without fear of social rejection. And while the continuum nor the discrete categories fit my -exact- needs, they are certainly a million times better, imho, than having no community or definitions at all. Just goes to show the diversity inherent in humanity, I suppose. Thanks for reading.

Bias warning: I am a clinical psychology (abnormal/addictions) student, so expect what I say to be skewed or possibly incredibly boring. The history part of this goes that I was diagnosed with AD/HD before the DSM split it into 'predominantly' and 'mixed' types, if I recall correctly, and they threw me on Ritalin. I was 13. It basically did what you would expect roughly-pharmaceutical-grade speed to do to people with AD/HD, and after about 1.5 weeks, I refused to touch it ever again (for various reasons, if you want more depth you can message me . At that point, I worked on changing my own behaviours and thoughts about the syndrome, and it's worked beautifully for me ever since then. I am nearly 24 now. As for the response to the thread, I personally can't think of a single incidence in which my AD/HD had any causal link with my AB/DL activity, nor can I even really imagine it. Certainly it is a stress-relieving activity, but I would say that almost all the stress in my life comes from things other than AD/HD - in fact, I have very few issues with managing my AD/HD symptoms nowadays. The closest I can come at all is that for me, wearing diapers is something I enjoy, and as such it is an activity that I perform with no particularly noticeable correlation to the symptoms of AD/HD. I also think as fun as it would be to draw conclusions, we don't have nearly enough data to suggest it, nor any of a formal, academic nature that has been subjected to the same scientific rigour as that on AD/HD itself. However, if a formal study is being done - sign me up, and I'll help in whatever way I can!

1) Don't like it. 2) Personally, I think our health care system is great. I have had none of the mythical "10 hour wait times" at emergency, or even had any trouble getting standard things like ultrasound done. It is my opinion that many of the opinions one hears about it are rendered by those who do not live here, or are uninformed. To make it easy to understand how it works, essentially the government is your insurance provider. Many things are covered, some things that you would expect are not - non-emergency dental work in Ontario, for example, must be covered by private insurance, or you pay out of pocket for it. There are other social assistance programs run by the various provincial governments, as well. Ontario's "Trillium" program is a good example: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public...s/trillium.html It makes liberal use of a "triage"-style concept to determine who's next. For example, one wouldn't expect a patient with broken arm to supersede a patient who is bleeding internally in an ER - one would also not expect someone with less advanced liver disease to recieve one before someone in worse shape. That sort of thing. Quality-of-life issues are generally taken very seriously, although sometimes one has to advocate for themselves. I should also note that many of us are dedicated to the idea of our health care. As an example, even though my wife has advanced liver disease, we both agree that someone in worse shape should get a transplant before she does. 3) I do not know, but I'd find it reasonable to suggest that it would be assuming you are Dx'd as medically incontinent.

I'm displeased to hear that some members of the userbase here have chosen to treat you poorly, after all of the work that you do. I, for one, appreciate this place. Thank you.