doogles

This is a really powerful couple of questions that really get at the heart of this forum. It's actually crystallizing my own desires. Wearing diapers is such a comforting and protecting experience that I remember how I would immediately gravitate towards them any time I felt stressed. Now, I am always stressed, and I worry that life will somehow take away this refuge. I would rather need them than risk the trauma and realization that life will inflict such cruelties so efficiently that it seems to be designed that way. None of us are asking for special treatment or anything outside the system. We definitely don't want to force the spectre of our needs into the public. It's the self care that works for us.

It's officially been two months, and I've had double digit instances of waking up in a wet bed or a diaper I do not remember soaking before I went to sleep. In addition, upon awaking, I generally don't need to use the bathroom, and I'm staying pretty hydrated. I feel pretty convinced that it is a big risk to sleep without protection now. That is 100% the feeling I have.

Yeah...don't know what that was about, but anyway... It's a weird feeling because I know a lot of people here would be envious of me, but for me, the draw was that I could go back to normal at any time. I think what I'll do is just try to enjoy it as much as I can.

I guess I got a bit of what I wanted: I'm now a bedwetter. No stent involved. I'm really not sure how to feel about this, but I guess I'm going to have to pack diapers any time I go on vacation now.

"Conspiracy theory doctor surrenders medical license" I'm not watching a video from a guy so insane that he got AND LOST a medical degree. He got put on probation for prescribing not medicine to a cancer patient. This guy is dangerously insane. If you can explain how germs outside your body cannot get inside your body, I'll be stunned.

I took honors Bio almost 20 years ago, and I remember the name Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. The guy invented the concept of a microscope. You could SEE microbes fucking around EVERYWHERE. These things are on everything and everywhere. Alcohol and other things kill them. You can watch it in real time, as I did in a lab in high school. I am questioning whether @Cathdiap is joking or honest. This is science settled and reproduceable 300 years ago. I'm so shocked by this ignorance in the face of facts that are five times his age.

Well, make sure you've got great health insurance first. Then start learning how to safely use a cath from basic medical resources. You will need to get familiar with how your body reacts and whether or not you are prone to infections.

Wow, that's a 30fr right there. Scary. I would get something smaller and see if it works. You may not need something outrageous, rather, you want the differential between the tube and the cap to be large, that prevents migration. As a guess, you'd want your anchor caps to be twice the size of your tube. Too bad urethral stents for this purpose don't have any research. Ok, not the case for me, and the research I've done falls in line with my anatomy, but we are all different. One other note I thought of recently on your design on July 7: you have your retrieval line double backed through holes in the proximal end. If those become taught, they will become uncomfortable cutting wires on your internal sphincter. I don't have an immediate solution, but I've got my gears turning.

@Ferix If it doesn't pass the meatus, which is the largest diameter of the urethra, it will not pass at all. Buy new fittings that are sized to a larger bore catheter. I use a 16 fr for my stents, and I don't even know they're there. If I needed something to really stay put, I'd consider something in the 26 fr area, but that's just me.

@FerixAny update on your design?

Okay, with a little more time, more thoughts/concerns: 1 - Curling of stent. I used the same idea of looping through the distal end of my stents because basic knot theory tells you that harsher angles in lines will compromise the integrity of any knot/line. Looping through an existing hole is less harsh than finding a good place to anchor your line. Further, it can help distribute tension. These are true, but if your stent curls at the end at a severe enough angle, your stent turns into a literal hook inside your bladder. This is almost a guarantee if you have reactive sphincter muscles. It is much simpler than other designs, but it isn't fail-safe. Your best bet is to anchor near the distal end of your stent with some mechanism to taper down from that end to your retrieval line. Anything too harsh will cause that "cutting" feeling you mentioned. I use a ~2mm hollow rubber tube and thread my line through that. I use two independent 20-lb test lines. Strong enough to withstand an unreasonable amount of weight. 2 - Stent heads. You have two heads screwed, I think, into a polymer tube. Personally, I wouldn't assemble any stent where ANYTHING could come off in the bladder. If it does, that's an instant ER trip. I can't risk it. 3 - Retention. I'm not sure how this will stay in place. All other stents here have a bend to take advantage of the male anatomy. The bulbous ends are usually a preventative measure to prevent internal migration, and the distal end is larger to underline this. The best one I've seen was that titanium one shown on one of the previous pages. Most angles are between 90 and 120ish. An acute angle might push into tissue if you sit down. 4 - Preparation. I hesitate to use boiling water because temperature might change the fitting of parts, but I do use a 70% isopropyl soak. After that, I treat it as sterile, rinse with DI, lube, proceed. I don't seem to get UTIs, so my methods are more relaxed. YMMV. I'm curious to see what comes of this, though.

I recommend VERY strongly against using this design, but I am too tired to go into more detail than: your retrieval line design will curl the proximal end of the stent, doubling over your whole apparatus. I can't overstate how serious I am.

Don't wear a stent. If they decide they need to catheterize you during surgery, then you're going to need another surgery. Wear pullups or diapers if you want. They don't care. You should be honest with your doctors about your health ALWAYS. I'd rather be the sorta weird story than dead.

If you build a world that makes people reel in disgust or sigh in euphoria by the nature of that reality, that's my very definition of art. People are not complaining about trivial matters like grammar, flow, dialogue, or format. People aren't even complaining that @WBDaddyis plagiarizing The Handmaid's Tale (he isn't, and I could write a white paper on how he isn't). People ARE complaining that it's shoehorning politics into a fantasy story. Three things: He's doing so because he's writing a story that benefits from a whole atmosphere permeating the choices and minds of the characters to *show* motivations without *telling* us via exhausting internal dialogue. This also gives him the opportunity to tie the reader to just the main character, isolating both. This is what's called "good writing" Creating a world is practical to justify themes and plot. It's one thing to be able to anticipate the motivations of characters, but they need impetus. None of the actions taken by Penny's captors are arbitrary or capricious. They all comport to the world, their roles, and personal motivations within their milieu. I know this is a fetish site, but damnit, we're gonna get some stories with some meat on the bones. @WBDaddy chooses to write in a certain style, as do all writers. His style is, with apologies: rich, rigorous, and slow. The first two require a certain amount of verisimilitude to logic and culture, which are relevant to the above. Other writers can choose to write stories that do not require the same features, and they do so admirably! All of this is to point out that this story carefully selected this world, built it into an atmosphere, and we are seeing the logical progression (with the slightest illogical infusion of our fetish). Any complaint around using this specific kind of theonomic, misogynistic world isn't because of fatigue from having to reread Margaret Atwood. It's a paucity of outrage for the realistic trends mirrored. It isn't trite writing that offends the detractors, it's speaking truth to those who refuse to acknowledge reality. This is also "good writing".

It seems to me that the ideal scenario is to, first, get people to the point where they don't *want* to injure themselves in vain. Then we should provide them with the means to not live every day as a waking nightmare. After that, help them feel safe, and so on... Most people do not need this help, but I would not want to be remotely associated with anyone who doesn't think that kind of compassion and stewardship is a fundamental human goal. This is why being American is so maddening. Most people in my country would view Goerge as a "drain" or a perverted miscreant. Goerge is a person with serious needs and struggles who *deserves* help. It is merely the minimum to attend to someone in this way, but my culture puts value on people based on a dollar amount.