Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover

I personally prefer the word "diaper" for several reasons. Zinaya kind of touched on the main one though, which is that "diapered, diapering" and various other tenses of the word seem to sound more natural (at least to me,) than terms like "nappied/nappying" do. There's also the fact that "nappy" sounds like baby talk for taking a nap, which changes the entire context of a sentence to the effect of "does baby need a nappy?" I have to agree with this though. "Daily Diapers & Nightly Nappies" does sound like the title of a movie, or even a play. (For some reason I'm picturing a varation of "Glenngarry/Glenn Ross" called "Daily Diapers/Nightly Nappies" about advertisers who sell diapers.) As far as the use of the word "film" vs. the word "movie," it actually depends a bit on the context in the states. "Movie" is probably the most common today having replaced the term "motion picture" which hasn't been widely used since the 1970's. "Film" was interchangeable with either term until about a decade ago when digital video became good enough for use on the big screen. (While there were some major movies shot at least partially with digital equipment as far back as 2002, the technique wasn't nearly as common as it's become, and movies like Episodes II & III of "Star Wars" were shot on cameras in a resolution comparable to what a regular 1080p HDTV displays.) Early on, the term "digital filmmaking" was used to describe this process, but it came with more confusion than people expected. "Where does the film go," was a common question from people who were introduced to so-called "digital film" cameras. This might sound ridiculous, but keep in mind that at the time, "digital video" cameras still used tape, and that digital videotapes had been around for several years, so the idea of "digital film" wasn't as far-fetched at the time as it probably seems. Early "digital films" were basically shot on HD videotape, so when better cameras that could record at resolutions much higher than HDTVs came along and didn't use tape or film, the term "digital cinema" came into use to describe what these new cameras were used for, and "digital cinematography" became the term to describe shooting with them in order to avoid the headache associated with the term "digital film." Around the same time, digital projection started to gain popularity, which lead to a lot of movies that were neither shot on film nor displayed on film, which made some people realize that it probably didn't make sense to keep calling them "films" when no film was involved. While you still occasionally here people use the term "film" the way they use "tape" to describe recording something, (even when no "tape" is involved,) "movie" has become the more common and more accurate term as a whole. Think of it this way, "The H8ful Eight" is a film because it was shot (and distributed) on film. "Toy Story 3" is a movie, because it was created with computers and most (if not all) movie theaters showed it digitally. The new "Star Wars" movie could technically be considered a film, because even though it was usually projected digitally, it was shot on actual film and the IMAX 3D version was shown on film. Oddly enough, the term "cinema" hasn't caught on in the states outside of people who actually make movies and use digital cinema cameras to shoot them, or who create digital cinema packets (the thing that movie theaters show) to distribute them. "Cinema" as a description of where movies are shown is still unheard of here, but oddly enough, it's not uncommon to see "theater" written as shorthand for a movie theater/cinema, and "theatre" used to describe a place used for a live performance of some sort. (Let's here it for mixing American and British English.)

As a nation as a whole, Japan is actually even more conservative than the US in this sort of matter. In terms of the kind of metropolitan audience that a variety show is typically aimed at, they're probably a bit more accepting of this sort of thing. What most people don't realize is that Japan is basically "a western country with an eastern history and language." It's really not that different from the US or the UK, despite how it's frequently portrayed, or how a handful of cultural differences might really stick out to people from another region.

This is exactly why DD is still on the top. The atmosphere is definitely more casual, and unlike ADISC, the drama is kept to a minimum. ADISC lost a huge chunk of its audience when it became an 18+ site and changed from a resource site to a discussion site, effectively becoming "DD lite." The drama and damage by at least some of its staff have also been problematic for it in terms of retaining members, and the inability to do away with high school style cliques are part of the reason why ADISC isn't more competitive with DD. It does have some things that I like, such as new GoodNites and similar "baby/toddler/youth" diapers getting more attention when new designs roll around, but as a whole, DD seems a bit more civil to me.

This is a follow up to the first post I shared with you guys. Subject: Thank you so much. In the past 2 days, over my various social media sites, I have received an incredible and overwhelming outreach of support. Thank you so much to all the messages I

Having been a staff member on other sites many years ago, I can tell you my take on why it's normally not a good idea to publicize bannings. One site I was involved with kept them quiet, if a member PMed one of us on staff about a specific member, we'd usually tell them what happened and ask them to keep it to themselves. Occasionally if it was someone who was really high profile we'd publicize the banning just so to avoid a deluge of messages. On another site all bans were publicized and as Mikey has said, it's like pouring gas on a fire. It becomes very much a clique, people badmouth the site, or reregister and try to do more damage, and it changes the overall site tone from positive to extremely negative very quickly in my experience, which is why I'd likely argue against it in the future. One other site I frequent generally doesn't say why someone was banned unless a member asks, in which case the staff may occasionally mention the reason, especially if the member making the inquiry was involved in a discussion with the banned member, but for everyone else life just goes on as usual. One of the few exceptions was when a staff member self-destructed, and the staff made it very public, but that was to prove the point that the staff isn't above the rules, and to serve as a warning to other staff members and avoid a barrage of messages from people who missed the way this member came apart. I should also note that under previous management, this same site did publicize bans, and it got to the point where they were almost glorified so people wound up trying to get temporary bans just to be part of the "clique." The clique mentality went away along with the public bans when the site changed staff members, and the end result was a huge improvement. While I admit I'm sometimes curious why a certain member was banned, I usually don't ask because I tend to trust the staff unless a lot of respected people tend to drop like flies, in which case there's usually more to it than a member just "acting out" and being reprimanded for it with some sort of ban. Mikey and the rest of the staff here handle this correctly in my eyes, and I applaud them for that. Having sat in a similar position before, I understand and agree with their reasoning.

I honestly had no clue about this until just now, but my thoughts/prayers are with Repaid1 and his wife during their time of need. I'm so sorry to hear about this situation, and can hope that it improves soon.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid Bettypooh is right and I'm aware of this as someone who hasn't had to go through the system. (I just know enough lawyers in different fields to know what some of the dirty secrets of the system are. I also have a friend whose done opposition research to ensure that people have a fair or in some cases, unfair trial depending on what the job called for.) It's a sad statement of fact, but you're absolutely right about US Jails being full of poor people who couldn't afford a better attorney, guilty or not. The reason I was hoping an Admin from DD would contact her is because if what she's saying is true, than it potentially affects all of us and sets a dangerous precedent for AB/DLs as a whole. If nothing else, I was hoping that some of the useful information that's already been mentioned here could be passed along to her. Having said that, I'm not really suitable to be "the ambassador from DD" since I'm not an admin or a mod, and feel that it would be better if a staff member reached out to her for additional information rather than me. While I would like to know more about the situation, I don't want to pry, and feel information relayed to DD would be better going through the DD staff than through me and then the DD staff. Given that this woman did leave an e-mail address that she could be reached at, I'm hoping that someone on the staff might get in touch with her. Given that you can empathize with her better than most of us probably can Bettypooh, is there any chance that you could reach out to Misspandapants and attempt to verify the veracity of her claims? (Her e-mail is misspandaxxx@gmail.com.)

I mean Darth Vader taken as a whole, but mostly the newly minted Darth Vader from RotS for comparison purposes. Once you factor in the fact that he was an Emo bastard in the prequels, his actions in the original trilogy make it clear that while he's definitely dangerous he's dangerous because he's calculating, but his ultimate goal is to capture Luke and turn him to the dark side, not to kill him. (He had the chance to do so multiple times between ESB and ROTJ, and it's only through his grace that Luke survives the Emperor's lightning in ROTJ.) Kylo-Ren is definitely less focused and more bratty, but that's what makes him so more dangerous than Darth Vader. Vader is calculating, to beat him you have to be intelligent and able to outwit him. Kylo-Ren is far less predictable and far more impulsive, that makes it a lot more difficult to outwit him using rational thought, because of how unstable he is. The movie didn't mention this, but Kylo-Ren's lightsaber has those "guards" because his crystal is cracked and unstable, a reflection of its owner. (A shame this was omitted, as it would have been a nice little allegory to include.) However, that one thing he did that I won't spoil is something that Vader never would have done, (it goes against everything that made Anakin become Vader to begin with,) and proves that Kylo-Ren at the very least has the potential to be even more ruthless than Vader. If you look at Kylo-Ren in this film as being comparable to the newly minted Darth Vader in RotS, they are very much on par with each other, with Kylo-Ren being a bit more dangerous because of his instability. We haven't seen enough of Kylo-Ren yet though to compare him fairly to the older Vader that killed Obi-Wan in ANH. I have a feeling the next movie will show a more calculated Kylo-Ren whose learned from his mistakes based on what's being said about it already, particularly about it being much darker than previous "Star Wars" films. While I agree that it would have been better if Lucas had gone with more of a Walter White route for Anakin, it sounds like Abrams is going to make Kylo-Ren about as redeemable as the characters in "The H8ful Eight" if there's any truth to what's been said publicly so far. I wasn't expecting too much to be said about the New Republic, but it wouldn't have hurt to have some information about why The First Order had overpowered them, and what left them so toothless that it could happen to begin with. If nothing else, it would have made losing them a bit more meaningful instead of feeling like a scene that existed for the sole purpose of showing off the big scary round thing's big scary weapon. Starkiller base didn't even have to fire a shot to be intimidating which is why this scene seemed like such a waste to me. I agree with you that someone could have salvaged the lightsaber within the context of the Star Wars Universe, but as you've said, it could have (and probably should have) been explained a bit better, as it was one of the few things that left me scratching my head in the film. Oh, and I'm surprised you say that you didn't understand what was going on for the first 40 minutes of the film, because I picked up on it right away. It was obvious that Poe was a Resistance pilot, (outright stated that he was the best,) and that he was with BB-8. The crawl at the beginning of the film explained (enough of) what happened to Luke for the first few scenes to make sense without completely giving everything away. As for Finn, it's obvious that details about his motivations are being kept under wraps for future films, beyond the fact that he doesn't want to kill for The First Order. Rey I picked up on as being important from the get-go, even if I couldn't tell if she was going to be someone like Han or someone like Luke until later in the movie. As for Kylo-Ren, I have a feeling you'll get your wish about him being forced to grow a pair, and that he's probably not going to die until the end of the trilogy. He's made himself irredeemable already, so I say when the time comes, kill him in the most satisfying way possible. As far as the Sith go, my understanding is that there aren't just two of them at any given time, but that they always work in pairs, so if you find one, a second one won't be far behind. Palpatine killing off Dooku seemed like it was the result of Dooku being a threat to Palpatine's plans more than a surplus of Sith, but I could be wrong about that.

I'm not sure where to put this since it's not really "news," and seems like it fits more in our "Lifestyle Discussion," so I'm fine with mods/admins moving it, but having just seen this, I felt that it's worth posting here. Please note that the original material is italicized as it seems no longer possible to stick text in a quote that isn't directly from another forum post. Subject: This Pertains To Anyone Who Has a Kink or Fetish: On May 9th, 2015 I was violently raped by a member of the kink community. I was not dating this person, he was involved with another girl who I

All right, I'm going to try to avoid too many spoilers, but seriously, your spoiler space has expired for this one. If you haven't gotten to the theater yet and are upset by being spoiled, you have no one to blame but yourself at this point. Having said that, some spoilers may follow. Okay, so I actually liked this movie quite a lot. The post-conversion IMAX 3D didn't suck like it usually does for films that aren't shot digitally, (this was shot on film unlike episodes II & III that were shot in 1080p,) the standard 2D version was equally awesome, and the film as a whole just felt like "Star Wars" again. Yes, it was basically a remake of "A New Hope," but I'm fine with that since "A New Hope" is what launched "Star Wars" as a Force to be reckoned with to begin with. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Actually "The Phantom Menace" was also a remake of "A New Hope," it was just a really crappy remake of "A New Hope" that did a terrible job of telling a story about blowing up a giant round thing. This is where "The Force Awakens" separates itself from "The Phantom Menace" in how it remakes "A New Hope." Unlike the first prequel, the first sequel is actually fun to watch has an aesthetic that feels like "Star Wars," and actually makes me want to see the next film without adding "because I hope it'll be better" as a qualifier. This is definitely the most humorous of all seven "Star Wars" films to date, but the way the humor is handled is significantly better than in previous films, and there's plenty of serious moments to counterbalance the humor. As for Kylo Ren, I actually read something elsewhere that sums up my feelings about him perfectly, but of course now that I want to link to it, I can't find it. Basically, Kylo Ren is really no different than Anakin/Vader was, but how he's portrayed definitely is. Anakin was always portrayed as a sympathetic villain who had a reason for doing what he did, even if his actions were severely misguided. The music, the dialogue, everything about Anakin made you believe that underneath all his hatred, he was a well-intentioned whiny Emo Kid who just couldn't keep his emotions in check. Kylo Ren is a whiny Emo kid whose portrayed as such. When he loses his temper, the music isn't sympathetic, nor is what we see on screen, especially when Stormtroopers just walk away from him while he throws a temper-tantrum like a baby. Anakin was a spoiled brat portrayed as someone you could related too while Kylo Ren is a spoiled brat whose portrayed as just that. For that reason, I actually find him more threatening and intimidating than Darth Vader, because Darth Vader is a spoiled brat who actually means well while Kylo Ren isn't. Oh, and there's that thing that he did, (and if you saw the movie you know what I'm talking about,) that was more reprehensible than anything Anakin would have ever dreamed of. Now as much as I loved the film, and while it's probably my favorite "Star Wars" movie now, dethroning "Return of the Jedi" as my previous favorite, there are still a couple of things that I wasn't fond of. The first was mentioned already by PetahPetah, and that's the idea that the Lightsaber handed to Luke is one that belonged to Anakin. The only thing I can think of is that Luke somehow built a second lightsaber between "A New Hope" and "The Empire Strikes Back," but if that's the case, it should have been mentioned in the film. (I seem to recall the hilt being different between ANH and ESB, so this is certainly possible, although I don't know why they didn't just use the lightsaber from RotJ since Hasbro even reissued the toy of it and it would have made a lot more sense.) There is one other idea, and it's a little more contrived, and that's that the Lightsaber that Luke lost with his hand was somehow recovered by someone before eventually finding its way into the hands of Maz, and if that's the case, then there really should have been a line of dialogue in the film from Han to the effect of "I thought Luke lost that thing along with his hand!" At least then we know that the Lightsaber somehow indeed managed to survive. The second is that we never really got much information about the New Republic, and that it was just there for the giant sphere of doom to destroy, which completely defeats the purpose of showing off the big deadly round thing to begin with. (We get it, it blows shit up, you didn't have to fire it to prove that, but if you're going to fire it, give us a reason to care.) It was far more intimidating to see Starkiller Base nearly wiping out characters we've known for ages than it was to see them wipe out a the New Republic. Still, if that Lightsaber issue is explained in a future film, I'll be happy, and can even overlook wiping out the Galactic Republic for the sake of blowing up some planets. I just hope that the Blu

I'd love to buy a package of these and the Amors for my diaper collection, but the cost of shipping has priced me out of the market for the time being. $74.47 for a package of Idyls and a package of Amors is just more than I can handle for a mere 24 diapers. I'd love for Jermey's sales volume to increase to the point where he could get a shipping discount or at the very least offer economy shipping options if they'd save a few bucks here and there.

Although I'm now a diaper "lover," there was definitely a time where I would have identified far more as a diaper "liker." When I was first old enough to view sites like DD, I had a hard time figuring out what to identify myself as, because I wasn't an AB and I wasn't a DL at that point either. As a teenager I'd been exactly what you describe as a "diaper liker," and didn't have nearly the interest in them that I do today. Over time my feelings towards diapers changed though, as did how I identify myself. Diaper "lover" fits me a bit now, but diaper "liker" is more appropriate for what I was. Personally, I think "Diaper Fan" would be a better quantifier for diaper "lovers" and diaper "likers," but the term Diaper Lover far predates anything I've posted on DD.

This has basically been what I've heard from most people who've upgraded as well. People on Windows 8 or 8.1 tend to be thrilled with 10, while people on Windows 7 usually seem to despise it, although it does have a few converts. Having said that, my advice is to look up the stack of privacy issues with W10 before committing to an upgrade. If you don't mind having W10 whine at you for using an offline profile, and going through pages of security settings to keep your private data private, you might benefit from W10. If this is something you're not comfortable with, stick with W7 or W8/8.1 if possible. If you absolutely need a new OS it might be time to look into alternatives to Windows if W10's privacy issues are a concern for you and you can't stick with an older version of the OS. Also, I wouldn't upgrade to one of the non "pro" versions that doesn't allow you to shut off automatic updates. This is just a disaster waiting to happen, and has posed problems already when botched updates have been released, so it's something I recommend avoiding. While Windows hasn't been my primary OS in over a decade, I do try to keep one machine with a recent copy of it installed available in case I need to use it for a particular piece of software. Unfortunately, my W7 box appears to be fried, and I'm not personally ready to trust W10 yet, so I'm holding off until some improvements are made.

This one's simple: DD managed to change with the times without changing its core in the process. The site started out as a website that was updated daily, (hence the name Daily Diapers,) and competed with similar fetish sites that used a format similar to a newspaper. When forums started to catch on, DD added one, and it picked from one of the top two forum software providers at the time, Invision. (The other being vBulletin.) Since those two pieces of forum software were the two people were most used to, it gave people a reason to come here and post since our forum used a familiar interface. While DD dropped the daily updates when they no longer made sense, it did retain the same basic sense of community that it always had, and became a name recommended by word of mouth, or at the very least, word of Google. Also, DD has been pretty good about avoiding "software fads," such as unnecessary use of social media or social media features just because they exist. (The like button being an exception to that rule.) Most importantly, the site has remained free, allowing anyone to access it without a fee, which is something that can't be said of some other sites. Most importantly though, and I cannot stress this enough, DD has been run consistently by someone who doesn't have an ego the size of Jupiter, and who hasn't let his success go to his head. Mikey doesn't turn this place into a "the universe revolves around me" drama-fest the way a lot of other site admins do, and it's that constant site-drama that is frequently the downfall of other sites. Most site owners also won't terminate a mod/admin that they're friendly with, even if that mod/admin is out of control, which has also caused other sites to fail. Mikey has been good about this too, and to the best of my knowledge, we've never had a staff member whose been permanently banned as a result of flying off the handle and into the next county. Again, this cannot be said for other sites. As for why DD beat out other sites of its era, most refused to adapt to the times, or to value new members as much as old ones. Once the old members got bored and left, there was nobody new to come in and take their place to keep things going. With DD treating everyone fairly, new members have been welcomed as much as old ones, and that's helpful at keeping this place alive. Mikey and the staff here do a superb job at running this site and working as a team, and that's also hugely important since a staff that's incompetent can kill a site that would otherwise be successful. Since I saw a "that site" reference in this thread, I should also point out that DD has kept the crazier people out of DD that could have potentially ruined our reputation or given law enforcement a reason to shut us down. Basically, DD is successful because it has the right combination of staff, atmosphere/attitude, and ability to stay relevant.

Are we becoming more accepted? Yes, definitely. 10 years ago diapers were the kind of thing that you didn't even bring up as a possible fetish unless you wanted to be laughed at, today a diaper fetish is more vanilla than taboo. Are we more accepted because we're not on a list of freaky fetishes? Not only no, but hell no! We'll still be on those lists at some point because any idiot with a keyboard can imitate buzzfeed and create such a list with no real metric to measure the top 25 cutest cats and top 5 nastiest fetishes other than "meh, I think they are so they are." Are we as accepted as other fetishes? No, and we've got a long way to go, but we've come very far just in the past five or six years. Sometime around 2010 or 2011 diaper fetish material seemed to become quite a bit more common and less stigmatized, and that trend has continued. I have no clue what lead to this change in attitude, but we are no longer the really weird freaks we once were, at least not outside of the bubble that is online comment sections. My experience has been that people with this fetish thing they're far weird than they're actually perceived to be by "outsiders."

For those whining about Padded_Pondering not wanting to help his dad, please see the quote from the original post below. Text in bold emphasized by me. A tedious job is tolerable when you get along well with someone, when it will inevitably lead to an argument or disagreement it's better to avoid it as politely as possible. So what if Padded_Pondering's father is letting him stay at home for free during the break between semesters? If he doesn't get along well with him or gets along just well enough to have a roof but not a relationship, it's best to avoid any unnecessary contact with an unnecessary headache. (And yes, I know other people who get along well enough to live under the same roof as long as they aren't involved with each other, and sometimes that means you don't get help from another family member when you want it, even if you're paying for them to stay with you.) Now, as far as the main reason for the original post goes, there are a couple of really simple things that can be done to prevent a rash before hand if you're working up a sweat in a wet diaper and don't regularly do so. First, grab some cornstarch baby powder and just put some of it in your diaper. This will solve most of your problems if you're not ready to change and don't want to wind up with diaper rash. The fresh powder will extend the life of your diaper and help avoid chaffing and chapping caused by the additional liquid. If you've got a travel size powder bottle, throw it in a pocket before you leave so that you can duck away and add a little bit more if need be while exercising. Second, it doesn't hurt to add a little pre-emptive diaper rash cream if you think you're going to develop a rash in a situation like this, if nothing else, the cream will slow things down and you'll be home and able to change by the time you start to feel uncomfortable. Also, I've found that the best time to exercise is right after changing into a fresh diaper. The reason for this is that the diaper will soak up the sweat as you'd expect it too, but if you finish exercising are going to jump in the shower anyway, it's a perfect time to change out of the diaper before it causes a rash.

A Are your diapers completely concealed by your AB clothes? If the answer is no, it's not even worth considering. If your diaper is completely concealed by your AB clothes though it's still probably not worth doing. How many people are usually in the park? If it's dead of winter on a weekday and nobody's going to be there, you might as well try to enjoy yourself. At most anyone else passing through is just going to assume that you're "some kook," and avoid contact with you. Likewise, you shouldn't have a problem avoiding anyone else seeing you if the park is largely deserted. If the park is busy, you should probably avoid it though, as someone likely will raise a stink even if you're not doing anything illegal while fully dressed. (As soon as you're in just a diaper though, you may be breaking local ordinances for indecent exposure.) If you're fully dressed as an adult with a diaper underneath you, by all means go to the park though. Nobody has any business pointing out what kind of underwear is underneath your clothing so long as you're wearing clothing. I'd advise against going in full AB gear though, unless you know you and your girlfriend going to be the only people in the park.

I actually don't feel guilty about my diaper use, and I don't feel guilty about it because I've offset my carbon footprint elsewhere. I don't drive, (granted, I too get rides from people, but I walk more than most in my area,) my primary computer for simple tasks draws a paltry 13W of power per kW hour, while it's successor will likely draw about half that, I recycle as much as possible, and I just switched by electric candles from incandescent bulbs that would last between 3-8 months to LED bulbs that should last 45 years minimum. My bedroom's "real" lighting is mostly CFL, although I intend to switch that to LED soon as well. (It's been CFL for about 10 years, drawing just as much power as my computer.) I should also note that I usually sit in the dark rather than use light unless I'm working with cameras as I find it more comfortable, because I'm inherently weird. In essence, my carbon footprint is incredibly low compared to most other people. The most damage I do is in the form of baby wipes which I use diapers or no diapers, and you can pry those out of my cold, dead hands. My bedroom trash can, (about the size of what's used in most kitchens,) arguably the only thing with a higher carbon footprint than the aforementioned wipes, hasn't been emptied in a little over a year now, and that's an "accomplishment" that I'm proud of in an almost devious sort of way. I also run my diapers into the ground to the point where they're practically falling apart when I throw them away, so even if I get rid of a bunch at once, I'll have gotten far more use out of them than most people would.

I have to complete disagree with this sentiment. The problem is who we have representing us on TV and where we're being represented, not that we're being represented to begin with. (There's a smaller problem that this community can't take valid criticisms of itself and expects a puff piece, but that's below the larger problem of who it puts forward.) The people who should be representing us won't step forward for legitimate interviews and the ones who shouldn't are too eager to do so. Having said that, here's what should be expected from anyone whose willing to give an interview: 1. Get it in writing! If a show's producer says they're going to portray AB/DLs positively, get it in writing as part of the contract for your appearance. Don't hesitate to negotiate either, if a producer wants footage of you undergoing a diaper change, make it conditional that they also have to match that footage with footage of you doing something completely normal, and that use of the diaper change is conditional upon use of the footage of an everyday task. Again, get it in writing. Also, get it in writing that the footage can't be edited out of context to make you string together a sentence you never said. 2. YOU'RE ON TELEVISION! (So act like the whole world is watching.) This is what people never seem to grasp. If you're going on television, assume the whole world is watching and that anything you say or do WILL appear in the show. If you wouldn't put it online, don't put it on television. Think before you answer a question, and make sure the answer you give cannot be misconstrued as something that you don't mean. 2A. YOU'RE ON TELEVISION! (So dress for the part!) Again, this is something few people seem to think of ahead of time. Look in mirror before you enter a room with cameras. How do you look? Would you want to see someone who looks like you on TV? Would your friends? If the answer is "yes," you probably figured this one out. If the answer is "no," put on something that makes you look like a quote unquote "normal" person. Avoid clothing that lets your ass hang out or that otherwise looks unflattering. Dress like you're a courtroom defendant in a criminal case, and your lawyer put you a suit/dress to make you look less likely of being guilty. (This is actually a common tactic.) The more sane you look when you're not wearing diapers, the better you'll make the rest of us look. 3. Be interesting, but not idiotic. Why are you going on TV? If someone writes a book about you will I want to read it? If the answer is "no," you shouldn't be going on TV. Are you just an AB/DL, or do you have some other interest that people can relate to? Play up your other interest so that your portrayed in a balanced fashion, and that you come off as someone whose not just a bit nutty, but whose actually a balanced person. 4. Be the master of your own promotions. Get it in your contract that you get to promote your appearance on the show, and to discuss it. If you don't get that, don't do the interview. (Anyone desperate enough will eventually concede if everyone makes this demand.) Once you've got permission, promote the hell out of your appearance, out of what you did for the show, and make sure your promotion is tied to places where viewers of the show are likely to see it. Live-tweet/blog your episode, and make sure you're controlling the narrative around you. 5. Don't do a show you haven't seen before! This really should be a no-brainer, but it apparently isn't. Yes, being on TV is fun and exciting, and yes there are plenty of shows that are done well, but there's also plenty of crap. Don't sign up for something that you're not at least somewhat familiar with, and for everyone's sake, avoid anything on TLC and similar "trash TV" channels.