wsdler

Just wanted to drop by with an update... I've been doing lots of research on ADD the past few weeks and as I mentioned before it's actually medical issue (bio-neurological... not enough dopamine getting to the prefrontal cortex) and not a personality disorder as I previous thought. As such it should be medically treated. I started getting treatment a few weeks ago and started medication to increase dopamine levels a little over a week ago. I haven't worn a diaper in a week. I also haven't been visited DD that much either (the only time I logged in was to check this thread) where as it used to be something that I did rather frequently. Now, my diaper interests have always ebbed and flowed so it's possible that this is a coincidence but I don't think so. When I first took the medication I was wearing a diaper and a few hours later (after it had hit its peak) I wanted to get out of it and take a shower. I'd come to terms with my diaper wearing a few years ago (stopped doing the binge and purge thing) and just accepted that it was part of me but I'd still always felt that if I could do away with that aspect of myself, I would. In terms of frequency this past year I was wearing almost 24/7... usually at the very least I'd be diapered at night so the frequency was high for a straight year (even in the summer when I typically lose interest) without any "ebb" in the interest. All of a sudden, BOOM! The thought pops in my head sometimes, usually towards the end of the day as the medication isn't as effective but the desire quickly dissipates. It's hard to explain. Previously it would be "must put on diaper RIGHT NOW" and now... "meh... I can't be bothered, not really interested". Obviously this is unique and individual to my case and I think it's partly due to the fact that I wear diapers not for the sexual aspect but for the "calming" effect. If you read about ADD you learn that the untreated ADD mind will seek stimulation (stimulation = dopamine release) at any cost. That could come from intense activities like sky diving, white water rafting, auto racing, etc... people with ADD statistically seek out more "exciting" things, or things that are more stimulating. Wearing diapers is of course very stimulating so my theory is that for me personally the diapers were a form of self medication. Now that my brain has the proper levels of dopamine, the "need" to wear diapers is not so overwhelming that I must act upon. We'll see, this is only the first week. I'm cautiously optimistic and based upon past experience I'll probably wait a few months before I "purge". Other effects of the medication... A room that I've been trying to clean for a year (the office)... actually the week prior to cleaning it I'd spent 3 days working on it but it didn't really get better, piles of shit moved from one side of the room to another. Anyhow within a few hours of taking the medication (and it does work that fast as it instantly stimulates dopamine production) not only was the office practically clean, but I cleaned the dining room (you couldn't see the dining room table) and most of the family room as well. It was pretty remarkable. Things that used to stress me out tremendously just really aren't all that big of a deal anymore (it's not that I don't care, it's just that the part of my brain that deals with "executive function" is working properly now). So, that's all. I just wanted to mention that. Again, I doubt there would be any kind of significant connection between diapers and ADD but perhaps there is a subset (I think it probably depends on how and why you wear diapers) where it does make the impulse to wear much much much stronger. Time will tell. I'll drop back from time to time but 1 week without diapers (and to be clear I'm not "trying to quit", I just don't have a really strong interest in them anymore) is the longest I've gone diaper free in at least a year. We'll see.

Strictly DL. Don't like anything that has to do with age regression including the Bambinos with prints. Don't like baby talk or imagery, I actually use AdBlock Plus to block all of the baby/age regression content on this site as I don't care to look at it. Wearing and wetting, while it used to be a sexual thing when I first started wearing diapers is not longer that. It's a means to relax. I see threads that pop up here every now and then which often seem to try and make the connection that because you're a DL you're also an AB or vice versa and nothing could be further from the truth. It's like saying because you drive a Chevy you like Nascar or, that because you wear diapers you're into wetting (which is not always the case). Everyone is different and I think that's what it boils down to. Whatever floats your boat! I know there's some folks who like the sensation of wearing diapers, but who are not into actually wetting. For me, if I put on a diaper it is with the express intention to wet it so I don't identify with those who don't like to wet but hey, it's fine by me. I like the sensation of wearing to a certain extent but for me it's all about the wetting! It's all about whatever makes you happy! Enjoy! I'd say stay wet but hey if that's not your thing...

I think there's something to that statement BUT... I don't think there is necessarily a decline. I've been doing a lot of research lately and one of the ways the medically untreated body copes due to the lack of dopamine is to seek out stimulation. Getting the snot beaten out of you would certainly be stimulating and create feelings of anxiety, fear etc. so it's possible that that could have been a substitute (albeit a bad one in my opinion) for "treatment". The question I would ask is, seeing as it is an actual biological disorder and not a personality disorder, what's the better way to deal with it? Medication or beating? Beating a kid for having ADD is like beating them for needing glasses, having asthma, or wetting the bed. In some cases the added stress can actually make the condition worse. Food for thought.

It's possible that you were mis-diagnosed however the fact is that ADD is probably the most underdiagnosed condition in the USA, especially if it's not caught before you're 18 as by the time you get to be an adult you start to develop coping or masking mechanisms. ADD/ADHD is not a personality disorder, it's actually a neuro-biological disorder affecting the prefrontal cortex that is clearly visible using nuclear scanning techniques. In the normal brain when given a task to focus on you can observe normal blood flow in the prefrontal cortex however in the ADD/ADHD individual you can actually see two holes in that region. ADD/ADHD is caused by a lack of dopamine. As a result the region of the brain which is responsible for "executive function" is not able to deal with incoming stimulus fast enough and causes the brain to give attention to much of what is coming in. ADD/ADHD is mostly treated medically with stimulants (Adderall, Ritalin, etc.) which increases the release of dopamine and allows the prefrontal cortex to function more normally. Depending upon when one is diagnosed and treated, psychological treatment may be needed as well to heal the emotional scarring resulting from the difficulties of kind of struggling through life. With regards to diapers, I've kind of wondered if ADD (I have ADD w/o hyperactivity aka ADHD inattentive) if the ADD is what drives that desire in me. I say this because my diaper interests sometimes come and go and I'm now thinking that this may have to do with bio-chemical balances in my brain. One thing that's common of all people with ADD is that they seek out stimulation. The brain needs to be stimulated in some fashion in order compensate for that lack of dopamine. As it is a biological need the individual with ADD *WILL* find stimulation one way or another (it's a form of self medicating if undiagnosed and not being treated medically). When I wear diapers, it is of course very stimulating. The feel, the excitement of wetting myself, and even the negative aspects like worrying about others finding out, hiding my diapers etc. I just got a prescription for Adderall and I'm really hoping that it turns off some of the "noise" so I can just go about my life in peace without the torment of being distracted by every little thing that crosses my path. I am wondering however if my interest in diapers will fade once I'm on the Adderall. I've come to terms with my diaper wearing and have since stopped the binge/purge cycle a few years ago accepting that I need to wear them but if this turns off that desire I certainly won't complain.

I'd rather not see any diaper related photos posted in the non-photo sections of the board (in case someone walks in on me while I'm reading the forum), especially the "molicare/abena/etc. user and similar such images in the bottoms of signatures (especially the larger ones) but you know, there IS a solution if you don't want to see that stuff. Just use FireFox 3.0 which has AdBlock Plus built in and AdBock those images. Problem solved, everyone is happy.

It wouldn't let me vote. You need some choices for "I don't use these" for powders, wipes, bottles, and pacifiers.

$3.20 for the cheap stuff.

Peace... feel better soon. Enjoy the Vicodin. (personally I can't stand the stuff... it only delays the pain, take your pick... pain now, or pain later in the form of the massive cantelope sized dump you'll have to take later You just can't win)

Actually it wasn't (a lie). One needn't be on the "net" to be online which is what I said. Prior to that there many BBSes and a network similar to usenet called Fidonet. Ever hear of an acoustic coupler? OK, I'm not quite that old but I remember my father using one. The first modem I used had a baud rate of 1200. On a straight download it was nearly 140,000 times slower than my current connection (and connections were frequently dropped). 99%, of course, is not a literal number, of course you have to use common sense. This is my point. You're making these grandiose statements but you're framing them as if they were facts. The fact is that I can go online right now and purchase a .org TLD and say whatever the heck I want. The fact that something is a .org or a .edu doesn't lend much credence its accuracy, reliability, etc. Although .edu TLDs are restricted the content that goes on them can still be suspect depending upon the subject involved. For science, yes. Generally you'll find the information to be of a higher standard but when it comes to politics there's often bias on both sides. Just because information is being presented in an academic framework doesn't always mean that it's correct. Generally the process will introduce more rigor into the methodology but you can still be mislead or not. It depends. You based your argument solely on the fact that I provided a link to a .com because edu and org TLDs are reliable sources of information "99% of the time". That's a weak argument and I called you out on it. That's all. Also, to say that PhD's, professors, and educators have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to citing sources makes me want to say something. Johnny if you will please: I didn't say that. What I was saying was that it's beyond the scope of an English teacher's specialty. You wouldn't get medical advice from a tailor because that's beyond the scope of their expertise. That was my point. Sorry to hear about your root canal but... I'm guessing you had it done by a dentist and not a carpenter (not that the end result feels any different but I betcha going to carpenter probably wasn't high on your list of options ). You are certainly right, the people in this country that pay the most taxes will get a bit of a break. They already pay much much more in taxes than you do. Yes, they pay more because their payments are based on higher earnings. Why should they get tax breaks just because they earn more? Greed and entitlement come to mind. These kind of policies and that mindset is contributing to the destruction of the middle class in this country. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. If there's no middle class in this country, we're done for. It doesn't make sense to me to give tax breaks to those who need it the least and leave those who need it the most holding the bill. Why should we continue to reward these large multi-national corporations that continue to ship US jobs overseas? Do you seriously think Obama will do everything he says? I don't think that's a really strong point as I could ask the same question of you and your candidate and the result would be a stalemate. Yes, as that is a major campaign point I expect him to follow through. If you have no expectations of the candidate you support, why even bother voting? Whether or not he can get such legislation passed through Congress is another point entirely but the country being fed up as it is with the current situation we'll have to wait an see what happens at election time. Bush in the early part of this administration with a Republican Congress pretty much had a free ticket to do whatever he wanted so it's definitely possible. There is not enough money to possibly give tax breaks to all of these people like he says he wants to do. What are the numbers to support that statement and what are the sources? The income of the rich (especially large corporations) is totally disproportionate to that of the middle class in this country. I think you'll find it balances out quite well. Clinton said he would do the same thing in 92 and not even a month after being in officer what did he do, he went on national TV and RAISED TAXES. Yes, that was Clinton, this is Obama. Two different people. As for Clinton's hike the bulk of the increase fell on the top 1 to 2% of earners. For the sake of argument though Clinton also left us with a rather large budget surplus where as Bush.... not so much. The fundamentals of our economy aren't strong right now. We are in some serious danger. I do think we'll come out but the economy, fundamentals included, are on some pretty shaky ground. You're absolutely right in saying that if we tank the world tanks. In the news yesterday many countries around the world are feeling and reacting to what's going on over here (including issuing their own "bailout" packages... not the best word for it but that's the hot buzz word, Ireland comes to mind). Canada's economy is being hit because of the housing market here as orders for lumber have dropped (not as many new homes being built) and they are seeing layoffs in the auto manufacturing industry as car sales are down over here. Again, you're twisting my words around and putting your own spin on it to serve your own objectives. I specifically said: "The Bush administration has been saying that the economy is strong, nothing to worry about etc. (not recently but in the past)." Your link is to a September 2008 article. 'If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down,' President Bush declared Thursday Right back at ya, good job on not paying attention. The Community Reinvestment Act was created because banks were discriminating against giving loans to people who could otherwise afford them because of the neighborhoods they were in. John McCain shares a lot of the blame for this current fiasco as he was one of the folks (the other being Phil Gramm) who authored the law (Commodities Futures and Modernization act) allowing the unregulated trade of all this bad debt. That is one of the main reasons why we are where we are now. In the eighties the Republicans fostered the environment with deregulation that led to the savings and loans scandal which resulted in a taxpayer funded bailout to the tune of $160 billion. John McCain had his hands in that mess as well.

If there's a group getting together in the Boston area I might be interested but I'd still be a bit nervous (my girlfriend is the only other person who knows I wear).

Are you 19 or 10? Are you actually threatening me? Maybe not but it certainly seems like it based on your tone. Or what? You're going to type some more? You're putting words into my mouth and spinning what I said into something completely different in order to serve your own objectives. I never questioned your credibility, I questioned the credibility of the people whom you are defending. I think you need to correlate what's been said with what's actually happened. If you're really 19 you probably wont' remember a lot of it because you would have been about 11 when this administration was put into power. Perhaps you were interested in politics at a young age, I don't know but if you were that would have been a little bit out of the ordinary (kudos to you if that's the case though). I've been online for longer than you've been alive and your comment reveals your arrogance. A certain top level domain does not automatically make something "reliable 99% of the time". Why would you trust an English teacher to tell you about the accuracy, credibility, and reliability on the net? They have absolutely no knowledge on the subject. That's like going to a tailor and asking them to diagnose and treat a physical ailment. If healthcare continues on the path it's currently on it may come to that but I hope not. 99% of the time? Wikipedia (a .org TLD) is notoriously inaccurate. If you researched papers using a source like Wikipedia you've been grossly mislead on a lot of things. What about Craig's List? That's a VERY popular website and it's a org. I suppose 99% of the stuff on Craig's list is reliable. Have you seen the headlines the past few days? The Bush administration has been saying that the economy is strong, nothing to worry about etc. (not recently but in the past). Guess what, it wasn't strong and there's a lot to worry about. Fact is .org, .com, .edu etc. lends absolutely no credence to credibility or accuracy. The fact remains, under McCain the rich minority will get bigger tax breaks than the lower class and the middle class which in light of current events will bear the brunt of paying for this economic relief package if it gets passed. Under Obama the people who make the most and bear most of the responsibility (not that folks who signed up for ARMs don't share some of the responsibility for not being able to balance a checkbook but many of them were deliberately mislead) for this current situation will pay more taxes. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mo...deceptions.html Now, the above website is one of the most non-partisan websites I've seen. Check it out for yourself. They deal with facts and point out lies, stretched truths, and discrepancies on both sides and there's PLENTY of it to go around from the both of them.

Ya GOTTA tell your doctor everything. They see everything ALL the time. It won't phase them. They'll think nothing of it. It's just another day in the office and you definitely won't be the only person that they see that day with incontinence who has to wear diapers. You ESPECIALLY need to tell a neurologist or back specialist. The consequences for non-disclosure are potentially robbing yourself of a treatment that could make the situation more manageable for you. They won't even bat an eyelash. People who deal with spinal injuries on a daily basis are going to see lots of incontinence cases. Just tell them. Think about it this way. How many patients does the doctor see in a week or even a given day? They're not even going to remember. It's just data in a chart. Best wishes.

Yes, I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. .org vs. .com vs. .edu is a COMPLETELY reliable yardstick for credibility. "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" "We will be greeted as liberators" The justification of killing in the name of God (I'm not religious but there's the one commandment that I really like... actually the commandments are pretty cool... anyhow it goes something like this: "Thou shalt not kill" ) "I think it'll go relatively quickly, …Weeks rather than months." Lied about the cost (and duration) of the war no-bid contracts that went to Haliburton Yellow cake uranium. No child left behind Breaking the cover of a US agent because Bush didn't like their spouse's politics (if it was a Democratic president the Republicans would have been screaming "treason"... too bad the dems don't have the backbone to do that) The firing of US attorney generals that weren't willing to turn a blind eye to crimes committed by Republicans The wonderful response in the wake of Katrina "Global warming doesn't exist" The death of habeas corpus Less civil liberties than we've ever had in the history of this country Alqueda stronger than they've ever been More threats to US security than there has ever been. More terrorism throughout the world than there has ever been Torture Dubai ports deal Pulling troops from Afghanistan before the job was done and letting Bin Laden get away (I want that man's head on a stick) I think if you're going to bring credibility into question you need to look at the policies that the party you're defending has put into place over the last 8 years. McCain supports pretty much all of Bush's policies with the exception of torture. How can you possibly support and defend more of the same? Anyhow, under McCain, yes, the middle class will be paying more on taxes than they would under Obama and Obama will continue to give companies like Exxon/Mobile huge tax breaks whilst they continue to pull in outrageous profits. These companies don't need tax breaks. Lower and middle class families do. They are what drives the bulk of the economy.

Calculate your taxes under the candidates' current tax plans: http://www.electiontaxes.com/

I'm voting republican and you should too... here's why: http://www.imvotingrepublican.com

Hi Brian, I'm in Southern NH but am in the Boston area and North Shore area quite a bit (I often buy my diapers from Continence Connection in Rowley).

It would get a pretty good reaction from me, that's for sure! Do it (lucky guy)!!!

I *LOVE* watching a woman wet herself. It's always turned me on, for what reason I have no idea. Diapers used to be a sexual thing but they're not anymore. Although I enjoy wetting I just don't really find them to be a sexual turn on. I told my GF about my interest in watersports and diapers about 4 years ago now (I think). I like it when she sits in my lap and wets her panties. We don't do it that often but every now and then it's fun. She's not really into it but knows I enjoy and doesn't have a problem doing it for me.

Just a heads up... if you're not already aware, continenceconnection.com is based in Rowley, MA and if you call you can arrange to pick stuff up at the local UPS store. I've been buying my Abenas and Molicares there (although the past two boxes of Abenas I got from drugstore.com as the 20% off coupons I had brought the price down to about $50 shipped).

FWIW the Northwest Passage already briefly opened up in September of last year for the first time in recorded history. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/2...ting/index.html

Again, an explanation is needed. Please explain how 18.4 cents per gallon of gas is "most" of the money from a $4.00+ dollar per gallon price tag. By my calculations that's 4.6%. My home state takes another 20.6 cents per gallon cut (taxes and fees). Total state and federal tax comes to 9.75%. That's not even close to "most".

Dude, you're off your rocker. Comparing Obama to Hitler? What, is he going to round up all the white people in America, put them in concentration camps and start world war III? You're more than just a little out of touch with reality but I'll give you a quick check, it's Bush who is responsible for killing over 200,000 people. Even so, not even Bush deserves to be compared to Hitler. Your comparison is outrageous and more than offensive. And now you're comparing a many members of this forum to Nazis, or at least suggesting it? Unbelievable. Guess what, Sweden, Canada, England, Japan and many other countries have healthcare provided for them. None of those systems are a perfect utopia but they're much better than what we have here. Many people in this country don't have health care because they can't afford it. Massachusetts passed a law requiring that people have insurance (which they must buy from a private company). What I can't get over is that in this case the Democrats signed on to it. Anyhow, the only people getting rich are the insurance companies. My friend as a result is now breaking the law. He literally can not afford health care. Your implication that nationalizing things doesn't work is also wrong. In the vast majority of cases nationalizing something is bad, bad for capitalism however in some cases it's required due to the extremely greedy nature of for profit companies who will stop at nothing to increase profits. Can you imagine what life would be like if the police departments or fire departments in the US were privately run? "We're sorry, we realize you're being held up but company policy is that we will only dispatch an officer if shots or fired". Fire departments would let forest fires burn because they're too costly to put out (sometimes that's actually a good thing for forests but sometimes it's not). If your fire policy wasn't paid they might come and save anyone trapped but otherwise let the house burn down. Think it's crazy? Insurance companies let people DIE because their policies don't cover life saving procedures. Privatization is what has dramatically driven up the cost of healthcare in this country. Guess what over 50% of the operating budget of a hospital is for? No, not to pay surgeons and doctors. No, not to pay for expensive equipment like MRI and CT scanners. No, not for malpractice insurance for doctors. It's for human resources. Human resources to push around paper. Over 50% of a US hospital's budget goes towards paying employees to push around insurance company red tape. Heart bypass surgery in the US costs over $100,000. In India it costs $18,000 and their doctors are just as good (trained at Harvard, and Stanford, etc.). It's a catch 22. If the insurance companies weren't for profit organizations then hospitals wouldn't have to pay so many people to deal with all the paperwork and as a result health care would be much less expensive. Back to the climate. In the news today... scientists believe there's a 50% chance the the polar ice cap will completely melt this summer marking the first time in recorded history that this has ever happened (right now it's the thinest it's ever been). I betcha anything Al Gore is up there right now with a hair dryer personally melting the ice.

With the initial release I'd have agreed but with the new pricing... take a look at how the iPhone compares to a crackberry or some other PDA based phone. It's VERY competitive. It's just unfortunate that it's with AT&T.

That's your argument? Homeowners Insurance? Homeowners Insurance is NOT flood insurance (I suggest you read your policy to find out if yours covers floods, most likely it does not unless you've purchased a specific flood insurance policy). You should have no problem getting homeowners insurance in the areas devastated by Katrina. I'm guessing that flood insurance however, costs an arm and a leg (or perhaps it isn't even available).

Sorry you're wrong. Please explain to me how a world wide population of 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears can be classified as "over-running"? 60% of the population lives in Canada. The population in Hudson bay has declined over 20% since the eighties and it's been directly linked to the ice break up in Hudson Bay. The US has classified polar bears as "threatened species". Russia and Canada have classified them as "species of concern". Also if you wouldn't mind, I'd love if you could explain how it is you can classify scientific data as "alarmist crap". They're facts. They don't have opinions. They're not affiliated with any political party, they're just facts. The facts are that declines in polar bear populations have been directly linked to disappearing ice pack. Feel free to debate the cause of the ice pack break up but like it or not the declining ice pack in Hudson Bay is quantifiable. The melting and disappearance of many glaciers around the world is quantifiable. The alarming death of coral reefs around the world are quantifiable. 97% of elkhorn and staghorn coral have died off the coast of Florida since 1975. 75% of the kelp forests in southern California have died over the past 50 years. 90% of the world's stock of tuna, cod and other large fish have disappeared in the past 50 years (a combination of changes in climate and over fishing). I suppose you'd probably argue that the glaciers, coral reefs, kelp forests and coral reefs are communists or bleeding heart liberals conspiring against us?