babykeiff

@Little Sherri, I'm only teasing you. A dog in a diaper is usually not a good idea in most cases. In one view, it is a little rough and yoou won't fit also. In the other view, the dog doesn't like it. I know that there are dog diapers, and my younger brother diapered his old dog due to continence issues. However, due to the ability of a dog to get to its own butt with its teeth, a full diaper didn't last long on the dog and the cleanup was usually worse than any leakage would be as the dog would throw the diaper away where it hit a wall or something. I've been in the same situations both while out and being showered with SAP and fluff down my legs AND while at home, the back of my diaper split while bending down to pick up something resulting in snow and SAP all over the place. I tend to use a vacuum cleaner to get it up as this type of stuff on a bathroom floor tends to stick and hide until a little water finds it and turns the bathroom tiles into an ice rink. Not good stepping out of a shower - worse stepping in with a full and messy diaper - the crash results in force being placed on the full diaper causing same to explode and a whole different story. 🤔

How did this occur... or was it woof on you 😋

My father, as well as all my uncles have diabetes. My father aged 94 now, is dealing with it since he was 45 with diet alone. My other uncles (younger and older than him) all got it at around 45-50. Out of the six of them in the family, only one is still alive apart from my father. They all let it progress to the stage that they were taking insulin etc. My father is the second oldest in his family. Since my mother never had diabetes, I have a 33% risk of getting it. If my mother had it, I would have a 66% chance of getting it. In relation to you, I would suspect that you might have a greater than 50% chance of getting diabetes via inheritance, and is something that if it were me, I personally, would want to find out. You have seen your own mothers sugar and electrolyte levels drop, as well as your own electrolytes drop. That, to me, would be warning signs. Althouth you may not value your own life, you do have freinds here that do value you and your contributions. Surgery is usually the last ditch attempt to cut out what is causing problems. Diabetes in some start with watching diet, then to blood issues and the removal of limbs (toes, feet, lower legs etc), and the loss of sight due to tunnel vision progressing to total blindness. Other issues include internal problems such as OAB, overflow and then bowel leakage to total incontinence plus intestinal issues. By the time death occurs, most of the person is already burried / cut off courtesy of the surgeon. All this can be avoided by changing ones diet to control ones sugar intake. The body is a master at adapting. Unfortunately, stubborness is part of the human brain. B.T.W. Diabetes is caused by an issue in the liver where fatty deposits block certain receptors that are responsible for controlling sugar balance. This goes wild since the body craves sugars and the food industry lace foods with artifical and real sugars.

I didn't think that you work for Gastorade etc. It is that your response to someone overworking and sweating is like 'increase electrolytes'. That is true if one is training for an endurance sport, but there, it is a lot more clinically controlled. Standard excercise / work that casues one to sweat usually does not need a boost of chemicals to recover, and most chemical cocktails for those people are more damaging than helpful. Your own mother seems to have an associated liver issue that prevents her from processing and recovering from excercise that causes her electrolytes etc to drop. I would also presume that your mother has a form of diabetes which restricts her ability to process sugars. Following those presumptions, it would be understandable that Gastorade and/or other OTC 'boost' drinks have been prescribed for her by a medical team who are fully aware of her needs. In relation to your levels dropping, I suggest that you get that addressed by a medical team. You may have something similar to your mother - as there is a possibility that you inherited the same issue. In relation to flavour, and humans demand for it - the flavour we crave is sugar. Everything else is just window dressing. Unfortunately, advertisers & food producers know this, and increase the sugar/artifical sugar content of an item to entice us to crave it. The problem is that the item that is high in sugar usually has little to no 'substance' or value to it... and that saps our energy and causes us to crave more of the product with the sugar. Unless one is smart, it is very easy to get into that death spiral. There was an experiment partially shown in a 2004 film 'Super Size Me' where Morgan Spurlock spent 30 days eating only meals from McDonalds. During that time, his health deteroriated to almost critical levels. It took 14 months under nutritianal expert care to bring him back to normality. Yes, McD and all fast food meals are nice to eat, but one can't live on them as it will kill you.

You might be refused depending on how long this task to taking (days - weeks rather than hours). It is OK to loose weight in moderation as our normal diet includes to much fat and artifical sugars (including the low sugar/ aspertme (artifical sweeteners) food). It is almost impossible, unless one choses to eat only grass, to avoid processed junk in the diet, but I respect you for trying- after all, God loves a trier. In relation to the weight loss, it is not the fat around ones belly etc that is the issue usually, it is the fat in ones organs especially the liver, as that blocks the processing of sugars and can lead to complications including diabetes. So, the work that is causing you to sweat is actually good for you - in moderation, as long as you are taking the relevant breaks from sun exposure, which you said you are. It allows the body to recover to an extent, however, full recovery normally takes a few weeks, something that might be detected within the blood. The normal IBTS tests for active virus' and hyperactivity in the immune system. These really should be an issue with you considering that you may be overtired, but can give some a false positive.

@anned, I know physics... and that a tree is heavier than me... and a stationary tree has potential energy that is released when cut. As a result - I will not fell a tree. I value my life - and although I wear diapers 24/7... diapers won't protect my hands / head if it was hit by a falling tree. So no... I will not cut a tree down. There are pleanty of so called experts that want to take that risk. I know my own limits. Also, I stated that someone must have roughly known what they were doing in cutting that tree down - otherwise, as you elude to, there would be blood and prob. a dead body at that site. The width of the cut (being the width of the tree) suggests to me a long chainsaw - which is not a cheap piece of equiptment. That item is either owned, or borrowed by someone who is used to the throw of a chainsaw. Yes, I have used a chainsaw to cut up a fallen tree before, and those are not easy to control, and the one I was using was a cheap short blade electric one. It is the torque of the motor compared to the speed of the blade that throws the blade left or right depending on the centrifugal force. Same occurs with an angle grinder. All this leads me to deduce that this tree was felled by someone with experience of a chainsaw - to get that cut straight - but might not be a trained woodsman as you have eludded to. I couldn't get a cut that straight and level even in the stump alone that I was trying to get rid off. What I eventually did was build a frame around the stump I had and used a hand held circular saw to get the line level, and then used a hand operated bushmans saw to cut out the middle. This, I planed and sanded to get flat and level, and turned the stump into a garden table. So, next time I need a tree cut down, now I know who to ask. @ValentinesStuff, I think that you might have tempted faith!

Winter comes, and the advertisers scam us all with changing terms of heating products. In simple terms, electric heating is 100% efficent in that all the electricity used is converted to heat. Therefore, a 1kw heater (doesn't mattter the medium) using 1000 watts of electricity creates 1000w of heat. A 2kw heater using 2000 watts of electricity creates 2000 watts of heat. Now we come to the lies that we are sold -- heater X is better than heater Y since it heats up faster or some other lie. It doesn't matter how fast a heater heats up since the process is to transfer heat to air / room. Now, the higher temprature difference, the faster the heat will move since heat is the actual difference and the movement of heat is called convection. If we look at the ice cube in the glass, the water surrounding the ice cube gets to roughly the same temp as the ice cube so the ice cube won't melt. There simply is not enough of a heat difference between the water and the ice cube. The same exists with a heater and the surrounding air - so to increase the heat output of a heater, one needs to cool the air around it, or move it so the heater can heat the colder air. In realtion to heat output, a 2kw or 2000 watt load draws 16 amps in the USA or 13 amps in 220v countries. That is the maximum load that can be pulled in every domestic socket. Yes, you can play around to double it in certain wirings, but you may easily overload the wiring. As a result, buying a heater that is greater than 2000 watt load is almost insane as all it will heat up to is the 2000 watt. To enforce this, many countries don't retail heaters greater than 2kw load - but advertisers will lie stating that heater X is better than Y due to thermal output and other lies like same. Simply, all electric heaters are 100% efficient - all electricity is changed to heat. Therefore no 2kw load heater has a higher thermal output than another 2kw heater. Even an advertised 3kw heater can't pull more than 16.7/13a from a circuit.. therefore even the 3kw advertised heater will only give 2kw of heat. If we look at the 'smart' / 'digital' etc heaters, they are using part of the 2kw load to power the green led or digital circuit. It is still pulling 2kw, but a fraction of that electricity is being used to give you the green led. This means, this $200+ unit is more expensive to heat a room than the $20 cheap unit. Now we get to the concept of moving the heat to the room - one has to heat the air for the air to heat the room. The greater the thermal difference between the heat source and the air, the faster the temprature will get into the air. However, this only lasts for a few seconds until the air around the heater reaches the same temp as the heat source. This air now heats the air beside it, but that process is very very inefficient - the transfer of thermal energy via air molocules since air has spaces between it, and heat transfer needs a medium. The way this is improved is using fans, to blow already heated air away from the heat source and alow the colder air to touch the heat source and thus get heated. Since hot air is lighter than cold air, it raises up. This pushes the cold air out of it's way and one has an air flow. As a result, to get more heat from a heater, it has to be as low as possible. Otherwise, one is heating the ceiling of a room and using the weak thermal transfer of air to heat lower in the room. Conclusion As a result, the best electric heater to heat a room is one that has a fan and a stat in it. It moves the air across the heat source, and when the room reaches a set temp., it switches off. Depending on the heat loss of the room controls how long the heater is adding heat to the room. These heaters are normally floor models at about $20, a lot better than the fancy Dyson or similar expensive junk. As with all heaters, do not use to dry clothes. All that does is turn the wetness in the clothes into steam to condense on your windows, increase the heat loss at the window (due to water touching the glass and providing a medium for heat transfer) and increase your heating costs... so a $5 worth of insulation or 1c of common sense is much better than $50 energy to heat.

I still would suggest water to drink rather than some manmade concoction. You are correct in that @FretaBWet is not only loosing water in the sweat, but there is more added junk that she doesn't need in the manmade supplements. She is partially urinating out her skin. That is why the diapers are dry and padding breaking up. A better product to drink would be salt water to replace the salt levels in her body, but that is also as insane as drinking gatorade or a manmade supplement. If she continues to drink water, she will replace the fluids. In a medical environment, NaCl 0.9% (salt water) is given via I.V. to replace lost fluids as it has been found the fastest way to 'perk up a paitent'. If her fluid level drops too much, she can take salt tablets - but with the midday break, I doubt if that is needed. The loss of other chemicals will be replaced within 8-12 hours (or more depending on ones metabolic rate) as the system rebalances. All she has to watch is that she does not stay out in the sun too long. She already explained that - early morning working in shade until shade is gone, break during full sun exposure and back to work in the evenings until sunset where the sun is less intense. That mid work break is critical for bodily health, and I'd presume that she is smart enough to rehydrate during those hours, and prob. nap for a while. It is almost as if you work in the marketing department of Gatorade! I would expect similar from europe in relation to Lucozade - another high energy high artificial sugar, high calorie drink that adds calories and is worse for the body in rebalancing its water levels than water alone. I recall the Carlsbeg commercial of a man in a desert with the quotes 'I'd fry an egg if I had an egg... I'd drink a Carlsberg if I had one" where most of us know that alcohol is a duretic = means will remove water etc. from the body. In life, there is a rule of 3... 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food = death.

You could have a BBQ...... self powered by the look of it.😋

Somebody needs plastic pants to prevent leaks of all kinds...

Fall.... and the world falls down. Autumn, and trees bear fruit, crops are harvested, fresh food is pleantiful, days grow cooler and shorter, leaves that used to shade are now a multicoloured blanket on the ground for children to play in, the chestnut becomes toys while the birds, and their young, migrate to warmer climates. Clothes now cover fading tans, and toes are hidden. Bare arms and legs and onesies are replaced by footed sleepers. Bulky diapers ocassionaly peak out from under overcoats. The air becomes fresher since the humidity and temprature drops. Harvest festivals start a series of early dusks and dark evenings, follow with Halloween and the aproach of Winter. Cinammon is added where ice used to dominate, and warm country meals replace the fading tomato and lettuce. The fox and squirel can be seen darting, while the owl patrols the now vacant habitats of the holidaying feathered friends. The mice are homeless since the harvest, and hide in the hedgerows venturing out in the dark in search for food, but become a snack for the sharp eyed nocturnal owl. These mice seek company within our homes and barns, but usually become toys for the family feline. The cooling fans of Summer are temporarily replaced by fresh fruit displays - and retail tempt us with Tinsel, Mince Pies and early Christmas gifts. Do we forget about autumn and rush into the winter, or do we step back and revel in the calm before the Christmas rush?

If you look at this image... you can see at thee white line on the stump, the angle on the tree in the distance, and the hinge mark remains where you'll see it broke - bits of wood on the stump pointing up. Secondly, the thickness of the stump is a single cut from one side to another since there is no join marks in the middle - this means it is a long chainsaw or long saw blade, not a standard lenght chainsaw/blade. It also shows a perfectly level cut - that takes experience.

The tree was cut down, not by kids, but by a professional tree cutter. The way it is cut is there is a wedge on the right of the tree cut out by starting high and cutting down to a line, then the bottom of the line is cut for the wedge. This is a straight cut. This is followed by a straight cut from the other side of the tree to the wedge. To cut this so accurately needs experience of at least 5-15 years cutting trees with an extended lenght chain saw. There is even a spray white line on the tree for the woodsperson to follow. This was not vandals, but more of a someone hired to do the job by a farmer / local buisnessman / rival business / landowner etc.

Freedoms do not protect things you like. It protects everything, including the thing you don't like - as without it, there would be no freedom.

In all the diseases and virus that exist in the world that one can get, covid is the worst. The simple reason is that it attacks our lungs. This is a massive organ in the body, and like every bit of our body, when it gets attacked, parts or it swell and puss (dead cells) oze out. However, there is nowhere for the pus to go other than to collect in the bottom of our lungs. Paitents with covid might recover from the infection, but die because they drown in their own pus. So no no no. Covid is not just a more aggressive flu.... it is much much worse. There are weak variants of covid that are a more agressive form of flu, but they also increase the damage to already carbon coated average human lungs of city dwellers. These people might recover from the viral infection, but the relevant lung damage takes months to years to recover from - similar to what occurred with pneumocosis paitents during the industrial era of the early 17-1800s across the world until air quality was addressed. Today, air quality is a lot better, but there are people with 10-40% lung function loss walking around while trying to function. - some refer to this as 'long covid'. COVID-19 & SARS-CoV-2 SARS-CoV-2 is the virus, and COVID-19 is the disease. Due to the bodies respose to an invader (infection) the immune system ramps up (causes tiredness and sweating, and some weakness in muscles etc) to attack the invader. In simple terms, white blood cells surround the invader and creates puss. This stops the virus attacking. In the common cold, the pus is the snot that comes out of your nose. With SARS-CoV-2 infection, the puss collects in the lungs reducing your ability to breath. This is where the real danger is. Vaccines These are mini versions of the infection designed to trigger the same immune response, but not in the lungs. This is why one feels 'sick' from a vaccine shot. The same processes are working - the immune system ramps up (causes tiredness and sweating, and some weakness in muscles etc). This is supposed to toughen up the immune system so that it is prepared and can act very fast when SARS-CoV-2 attacts the lungs, but are relying on the body to make a mistake in identifying the real SARS-CoV-2 and act as it has been trained to act with the false version of SARS-CoV-2. Anti-Vac Reasons (simplified) When one does not introduce the vaccine, the immune response only ramps up from an infection. The way it handles an unknown infection is similar to how it handles a known infection, but when the body realizes that its response is failing, it doubles down. If it presumes that it is handling the infection, the body doesn't get to the double-down layer early enough. Remember, this is a lung infection, and the faster one can handle it, the less secondary lung dammage (flooding and drowning) occurs. Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vacinnes This behaviour is 10-40% effective in the 100-500 people tested. Unlike all other medical interventions, this did not go through the multiple itteration trials that normally take 5-10 years before a medication gets worldwide approval. It was rushed due to worldwide media induced panic. This also means that the normal processes of passing the education to hospitals how to care for a paitent to enhance recovery was also bypassed. As a result, it will take another 5-10 years before paitent care reaches the needed level to enhance recovery. Conclusions & Reality Therefore, although the world is no longer in panic in relation to COVID-19, it is still here, and still a major problem, and will continue to be for the foreseable future. It is now being addressed in backrooms with little to no funding, and we might find the correct way to handle it in maybe 10-20 years.

@FretaBWet, I did misunderstand your views, and appologize. I fully 100% agree with the idea of keeping a child in diapers at night until they attain primary night time control. This happens almost automatically after a child is toilet trained daytime as the child is learning to stretch its bladder etc.. After all, a child is in diapers day & night until they attain control and it would be silly/abuse just to remove diapers altogether if a baby/child is still weetting/messing day/night. In relation to secondary loss (bedwetting after being dry at night) this is a common issue with children triggered by stress/puberty/growth spurt etc., and medical consultation is advisable, however the common medication used makes it worse - but that is the medical industry. The child will, with focus and help, relearn the signals. As a result, diapers and/or any infantile protection involved is abuse. An undersheet and lifting the child before it wets the first time teaches the chlild to wake from the signals. Letting it sleep through the second & subsequent wettings may seem cruel, but the alternative is diapers or reducing the childs sleep quantity, both actions are wrong. A parent may loose some sleep watching their childs signals to lift it, but that is what is needed for the childs gain. Every baby/child before they wet/mess their diapers when asleep, move from being fully relaxed to spreading their legs, maybe spreading their toes or placing feet flat on the bed, and usually roll onto their back. A prior dry overnight bedwetting child does exactly the same, but due to them being in too deep a sleep, don't wake up before wetting. A parent needs to intervene and lift the child, who will wake. This is teaching the mind that it needs to wake from these signals, which the mind learns very fast, usually after lifting the child 2-4 nights. It may not be perfect, i.e. the child might weep urine a little after the 2-4 nights, or wet as they wake the next morning, but that will go as soon as the bladder etc gets stronger / used to the capacity.

@FretaBWet I feel for you and what you went through as a child - that was abusive from the start not only the actions of you parents, but also the inactions. In relation to your choice of diapering a child for bedwetting after they have been dry is not addressing and/or helping the child. That is abusive as it is preventing the child from achieving a development milestone. I know that some see that leaving a child to wake up in a wet bed as abusive, diapers or any version of infantile garb encourages child to regress, and not mature. The plastic sheet on the bed to create the flood and leave a child in a soaked bed is also child abuse. There is a compramise that addresses both issues without diapers, and that is an absorbant pad under the child combined with waking the child just before they wet the bed at night the first time. If this was done with you, you would have learnt to wake just before you wet - as what the child will learn. I can see @rusty pins views, but I also think that he is also linking an adult discussion about bedwetting to AB as a fetish. We here are over the age of 18, and are adults first. Yes, it is incorrect to entice a child, either by action or inaction to become an AB or DL, but nobody here in their right mind would want to do that. Simply, any form of infantile supporting behaviour (diapers, pull ups, bedwetting pants etc) being given to a child to wet while in bed after they have achieved night time control is child abuse as it is telling the child that it is acceptable for it to wet at night. The child already knows that it is not, and that adds to its stress levels. One supporting that action convinces the child that it is OK to wet. This does NOT help the child in any form. As I said earlier, any action and/or inaction that doesn't help the child attain night time control IS ABUSE. Therefore, keeping a child in diapers after the achived night time control due to them wetting at night expecting time to be a healer is silly. The child has zero encentive to control their bladder - so that action is enticing a child to become totally diaper dependant. @Kawaharu, I can understand the decision of your parents to keep you in diapers - you never attained primary control maybe due to other issues. Could that be why you think that putting a prior trained child in diapers for bed wetting a valid option? Yes, it can make it easier for the child to deal with it - but the child SHOULDN'T be dealing with it - the parent should, and acting in a way to entice the child to attain night time control. A wet bed, wet sheets & blankets and should not be part of the equation. After all, we all have washing machines - and that is the duty of a parent to wash clothes, not a 3-18 year old child! A parent needs to be attentive to their childs needs, and assist them as needed. A bed wetting child needs the parents help - and if that means that the parent needs to sit at the edge of the childs bed all night watching when the child wets - and the parent should know the childs actions to notice it - and then lift the child before it wets, that is exactly what the parent needs to do.

Equality means open for all without predjuice - therefore any public space being equal means ANYTHING can occur there, including public exposure of diapers. It is the parents / careers obligation & responsibility to protect their child from what they would see as inappropiate, NOT everyone else. You can't farm out care and responsibility of your child to the rest of the world. THAT IS FREEDOM

That will go away, so find your plushie and cuddle up. Your plushie is medically trained and will nurse you back to happiness 😷 I tend to disagree - it is a problem for everyone in the world, and will continue to be for the next 10-20 years until it gets like the common cold - something Lemsip and other OTC medication is supposed to help with.

Lets consider the concept of modesty, when and where it began in the world, and the corresponding enforcement of same. Some members here seem to see this topic to be discussing exposure of diapers in public where most are replying to exposure of diapers in private settings. Around 10,000 BC, genitalia was commonly exposed in life, and all art forms. It was not until roughly 4 AD following Christianity becoming the state religion in the Roman empire, that exposed genitalia was considered a sin. What followed was a series of changes :- stonework that had exposed genitalia was either covered with a fig leaf or something, or the 'offending article was simple broken off', art work (paintings) were modified to disquise the exposed genitalia with an object etc. The root of Christianity is the Bible, and nowhere in the bible is any reference to genitalia exposure being a sin. If one looks at history, this 'ruling' came from 'organised religious groups' - and due to their influnce in society then and now, it is now unacceptable to have exposed genitalia. These same religious groups, and misinterpretation of what they stated also enforced hiding undergarments to such an extent that women used to wear clothes where none of their skin was exposed. Today, it is considered OK for women to expose skin and some clothes do expose undergarments. The thinking and belief of hiding undergarments went to extremes in France and England where women would be clothed from nose to toes. Over the years, this had been relaxed by most people worldwide, but still some old ideas (18th-19th century dress) are being inforced by members here. In certain countries, strict dress style and sence is being enforced by elders perception of bible teachings, or Quaran depending on prevailing religious beliefs. These include clothes that only allow visibility of the eyes and nose. This 'modesty' concept is hilarious to me when one evaluates its source. If Christian belief of the day presumed that the nose was offensive to view, we would all be wearing nose knickers etc... and sex shops would be selling g-strings to cover the nose while all the time, people would be running around with exposed genitalia for everyone to see and compare. In relation to diapers, if one looks at the history of same, it was not until the widespread use of plastic / rubber pants were diapers hidden from view - as when a baby wet their diaper they would leak everywhere - and needed to be changed. Changing a diaper is work, but not as much work as changing every item of clothing a baby is wearing. Yes, there are pictures of babies in robes, but that is for an event that the baby is attending. Diapers were originally a modesty item, a way to cover the babies genitalia in public. i.e. Nappy derived from anglisized term nappé, the french word for table cloth, or more likely napkin, a small piece of table cloth to hide baby genitalia. The diaper itself was originally a piece of woven coth (the weave increased absorbancy as compared to linen) to protect house dwelling babies from wetting on everything - and when the baby wet, the diaper was used to dry up the puddles, rinsed out, hung by the fire and then reused. Most of the time, babies travelling (like on a treck across states in US) where either naked or wrapped in a diaper while asleep. These diapers were hung by a fire to dry and reused. The diapers were not washed as it was believed that urine was a good disenfectant. Sometimes, wet diapers were just rung into a bucket to collect the urine before being hung infront of a fire to dry. It was cold climate babies that were wrapped up, and the diaper part of the wrap and was made from moss and leaves - so when wet, was just replaced. The basket the baby was in was also a way to carry the baby, and to prevent the baby touching the snow as it was laid down for the diaper to be changed. These babies sometimes messed in the moss, but it was rare due to the extra work of its parent in cleaning the basket plus the limits of water to do so. Yes, there was snow, but using same on a baby to clean it would be a bit rough. In warmer climates, babies like most primates, clung onto their mother using their hands and feet, and signalled their need to void. The young / human baby never wet or messed on parent that was carrying it - and when the baby needed to void, the parent would hold thier offspring away from themselves close to, or on a branch / ground where the baby would spread it feet and toes to enhance balance before voiding. Babies today do same, spread toes/feet before wetting / filling their diapers. Before the introduction of plastic/rubber pants, babies were never allowed to mess same - not only due to the inability to get the cloth clean again - but also due to the act of potting a baby before/after a meal. Hand washing wet diapers is only a matter of rinsing same, but with a poo diaper it involves a lot more labour - and without the benifit of washing machines or running water and/or hot water, it was very labour intensive and time consuming. Child rearing skills being passed from mother to daughter also passed on the ways to raise a child while not letting child mess in diapers. With the introduction of plastic/rubber pants, diapers were more hidden and babies were let mess their diapers. This created the problem of diaper rash - which signifies to the grand mother that their daughter (the mother of the baby) is failing in her job. As a result, it took until the demand for women during war time, plus the introduction of diaper services before plastic/rubber pants on diapers plus babies messing diapers to be acceptable. Prior to that, it was a sense of pride to a mother for another to see their child sporting pristine white diapers AND a line full of white diapers drying in the breeze. With the introduction of diaper covers and diaposable inserts and then pin on disposable diapers followed by tape on disposable diapers, more and more babies were raised in these type of diapers - wetting and messing same to their hearts content. These diapers were changed to baby-shape, long lasting, super absorbant, super dry etc, each invention supposed to be better that the previous for your precious little angel. The simple fact is, over the centuries, the toilet training age has slowly increased from 6-9 months to 6-9 years due to the changing products that are supposed to be better for your precious little angel - as is the concept of modesty from none 10,000 BC to genitalia being chopped off, 4AD and continuing today where to some, diaper exposure in private is a little risque, but underwear exposure of any kind in public is a hanging offense! Most of us remember running almost naked or in just underwear on the beach / near a water hole / any water source even a standpipe in the city to cool down in the summer, where babies / young children toddling around in just a diaper and sitting / playing with the water etc. In the 60s/70s/80s it was acceptable to see kids doing that. Today that is classed as exposure - all because a group of prudes in 4 BC are unable to read a bible, and they decide what the rest of the world should do. Where is the concept and gift of free will?

@babybuddha for research and also to create AB themed hypnosis, it might be a good idea to analyze how a baby gets toilet trained, what goals it has at the time, and ways to sate said goals while defeating the toilet training. Then your hypnotic creations might be more effective in assisting ABs to attain their wish of temporary to permanant diaper dependance. After all, all you are doing is getting the subject to act and behave the way they already know how to, but is suppressed deep in their mind in favour of adult thinking and acting.

There are a lot of facts in relation to Covid, as well as a lot of media hype. I could go into listing facts, but that is a fire starter, and something I believe is banned on this site, so I won't. As a result, I can fully understand your views, might not agree with it all, but without setting an incendrary device here, can't really comment. I will, however, identify the facts about biological life, which a virus and humans form part of. We are all unique, even identical twins are unique. This is due to the way life is created - by joining strands of instructions to create a third strand. This process is used in all life replication, and is error prone. This error is what creates the uniqueness in offspring. This error also allows mutations to occur - and some mutations stay - cause of the benefits, while others die out - see Charles Darwin; Survival of the Fittest. Key Point 1 As a result, every copy of an original biological object is slightly different to the original - which creates mutations in the copies. If you want to look at it this way, we are all mutations of our biological parents. Key Point 2 Based on point one, since all biological objects mutate, a virus being a biological object mutates / changes. The concept is called survival of the fittest. As a result, a virus 'learns' to survive every way that is used to kill it. Key Point 3 Simplified - Human immune system is a set of white blood cells and a group of killer cells. These killer cells can identify a possible intruder into the human, and attack and kill the intruder. Since these killer cells are not 'super', they can only identify an intruder that they were built to identify. This means that for disease A, A killer cells exist, and for disease B, B killer cells exist... and so on. However, these killer cells are built naturally based on the body being infected by A..Z diseases etc. Some killer cells are inherited from parents, but most are developed in the first few years of life. That is why it is not a good idea to protect a child from childhood diseases - yes, do keep them clean etc., but if one methaphorically wrapped them in a protective bubble, the childs immune system will not develop and later in life when the child is exposed to A childhood malady, it is liable to cause much more problems that if the child caught that disease early in life. Key Point 4 Vaccines are supposed to 'teach' the immune system how to recognize the infection so the immune system can 'learn' how to fight it. Key Point 5 Simplified Humans have never made a vaccine from scratch. They use soft versions of the disease to create a vaccine. I.E. Chicken Pox vaccine is made from infected Cow Pox cells. Spanish Flu vaccine is made from weak influnza cells. Covid19 vaccine is made from weak infected covid cells. or similar. Other covid vaccines is the virus stripped of certain behaviors - but I think microbiological processes are to much detail on a site like this. Key Point 6 This then comes to the effectiveness of the vaccine, and does it teach the immune system. The answer really is no. The immune system is pedantic - i.e. if it has identified and can handle disease ABBA, it might be able to handle disease ABBA1 but it is not guarenteed. We are relying on the immune system not only to be able to handle ABBA, but to also make the error in identifying ABBA1 and presuming it to be ABBA and treating it as such. ABBA to some music lovers is / is not a disease depending on if you like the band 😊 Point 7 Now we come to the 'common cold', as it is referred to. There are people that catch cold every year. Biology tells us it is not the same cold, as the cold is a virus and virus' mutate at each replication (Point 1), so the fact that it is called 'common cold' is a mistake. The immune system should mistakenly identify it as what it had last year, but sometimes it doesn't (Point 6) - as a result, it is another week or so coughing and sneezing until you recover. Conclusion What can we conclude from this in relation to the virus Covid and all virus' It mutates / changes Vaccines aren't guarenteed Immune system is 'flawed' People will get covid, and different versions at each time. Good hygiene will help prevent it so, as @foreverdl states The germs will not go home with you Complete avoidance to exposure is counterproductive. A strong healthy immune system is all that is between living and dying from any infection Your survival is based on how you handle items like this - how healthy you are in the first place. Life is not a reharsal or a practice. You only get one of these, and you can't come back and warn yourself to do better next time - cause there is no next time. I have found that being happy with yourself / others is all that is required - so if you find happiness being in a wet and messy diaper cuddled up with a plushie and blankie - go for it and enjoy the only life you have.

Is that the source of Covid.... having sex with all the sick people... so following your logic, if we have sex with one sick people instead of all the sick people we will be safe