jellyjigger

#1 - Attends Poly Briefs are nice and plastic backed, and they make a bunch of noise. This is because they didn't skimp on the heavier gauge plastic like McKesson's poly and Covidien's Poly Wings. They are also very thin causing them to move and crinkle more with your body. They will also barely hold one wetting and only when in an ideal position so they are nice if you don't tend to flood much at a time. For Mediums they are $36 per case of 96 from Amazon which is 38 cents per diaper. https://www.amazon.com/Attends-BR20-Poly-Briefs-Medium/dp/B00WAYJ78K. #2 - Traquility is the only other medical diaper company that doesn't skimp on the plastic. The Select line are identical to Slimlines, but have less absorbency and the inside leak guards are missing, making them $5 cheaper per case than Slimlines. But, they are thinner and move more with your body more than Slimlines and especially ATN, so they will crinkle more, but still not as much as the Attends Poly briefs which are loud. For Mediums, these are $56 on Amazon for a case of 96 which is 58 cents per diaper. https://www.amazon.com/Select-Fitted-Briefs-Tranquility-Medium/dp/B000FCIUY6

Botox would be great, but you'd still need a willing doctor and I believe it needs to be re-done every 6 months to 1 year. Besides that, Botox would make sense. Maybe given the temporary incontinence you'd gain would allow you to atrophy the reflex long enough that you'd be incontinent much easier after 6 months? Hmmmm.... makes me wonder if could you work up some sort of lie that you wouldn't have to "prove" over many expensive tests have retention and have this done over the weekend in some outpatient clinic? I'm assuming BrownBobby had some other stuff going on in the bladder area and the doctor probably thought they were helping, but some details on how you were able to get the doctors on board would be interesting if you'd be willing to share. But, the fact that a sphincterotomy gone bad could result in retention or continence coming back certainly seems like the efforts and risks outweighs any gains. I guess people wanting incontinence should really just stick to the slow and hard way of wearing 24/7 and trying to remember to release all the time. Inserting catheters to leave the sphincter open isn't really my cup of tea either - I've tried it 2 or 3 times with straight temporaries (non-foley, no baloon), but was never able to get any confirmation from online sources that is was safe to leave in for very long so I was worried about leaving it in and always pulled it out after 30 minutes or so. It was uncomfortable going in and out. I didn't like the idea that I see a little blood too as I worry about if something bad was to happen, how to explain to the ER people I was playing with catheters. Maybe my fear is unfounded as I see that a lot of people use them, but do you have to pull them out to have sex or masturbate? Seems you would. hmmm...

Philisophical dillema: If the primary desire for opting for surgical incontinence is because you don't like the idea of "having to lie" so as to gain *social acceptance* for the emotional void in your lifetime that is somehow filled by diapers and/or adult baby play [because you would be truly incontinent]. This would allow coming-out-of-the-closet in your newly justified diaper wearing to pretty much the rest of the world (the holy grail of ABDL acceptance); you really probably wouldn't lose too many friends (if any), and coworkers and family members would be normally very supportive. Its easier to justify the "alternative truth", because nobody is asking the *right* question. Ommission of information is a type of deception itself and that's the moral dilemma with surgery in addition to potentially causing irreversible damage to your self and any risks associated with general anesthesia, etc. The option might be to "white-lie" to the world that you are incontinent, when in fact you are not. This would be a complete lie, perhaps a white lie, but the moral dilemma here might not be much different than the dilemma for surgery. You'd keep the secret even from the most closest people in your life (family, extended family, kids, spouse, etc) so you could live the life of an incontinent, relying on likely idiopathic incontinence diagnoses to account for the fact that current medical science can't prove you *cannot* have either enuresis or urge incontinence -- peeing on the way to the bathroom can happen to anyone and wetting the bed can be due to deep sleep. Period. The question with this scenario, is that is THIS overt lie much different, morally speaking than going the surgical route. There is no black and white right or wrong answer. Option A or B fits your lifestyle or it doesn't depending on the chaos in your life that might result. Both options involve different kinds of deception and have pros/cons. But, IF this deception makes you feel WHOLE more than anything else going on in your life right now, you *MIGHT* be justified in living in one of these minor indiscretions because being "TRUE" to yourself MAY take precedence for purposes of spiritual healing, right? As opposed to living your life as a sheeple drone zombie the general public has been trained in that will always be depressed, and unknowing about anything in their own bodies and must rely 100% on external humans to tell them what's wrong with their own body. Oppositionally to this is a person diving deep inside and using intuition to be your own doctor, psychologist, counselor and listening to what you think your body needs. (this process actually helps with a bit of cannabis and I'm being 100% serious) If you've hit a dead end in your life and you happen to have AB/DL tendencies and you have childhood trauma healing to go through, becoming incontinent *MIGHT* help you? Take that last sentence with a grain of salt, because that depends on what YOU really need. Big-pharma or the medical industrial complex aren't going to get to the bottom of any condition, EVER because there's no money [or power] there, so you have to take some things in your own hands. Becoming incontinent could be theraputic for some. If something like this allows someone an opportunity to heal childhood trauma as a result of becoming incontinent in some [creative] way, option A or B actually hurts no-one IMO, you just also have to be conscious not to allow it and be willing to go 100% incontinent everywhere in your life or none at all; this will avoid chaos.

Surgery designed to induce incontinence IMO seems to be in the ball-park of assisted suicide; physicians intentionally causing harm, but providing some human benefit to the patient (reducing distress). This is always going to be controversial. Thanks for your careful responses ~Brian~, they have been taken to heart and I don't disagree with your posts. Its easy for one to desire incontinence when they are continent as the grass will always be greener on the other side. One thing I will say is that for those who have tried to achieve this for decades, even wearing 24/7 with little to no positive results, and not wanting to harm the body with prescriptions or alcohol (which seems to work better than prescriptions), it seems surgery would be the healthier choice, but one that requires the consent of a 3rd party. I started this thread because I'm curious about the physical mechanics of the "ideal" surgery if one were ever available, no different from a "magic" pill, and I appreciate all insight including those that discourage such an option if it were available as this is certainly a bad idea in general for many reasons. I was originally thinking urinary sphincter muscles while still maintaining bowel continence, but the responses bring up an interesting point I did not consider. Could an anal or urinary sphincterotomy result in loss in sensation and thus loss of or diminished orgasm? I thought sphincterotomies (cut to the muscle) would only alter physics but not nerve sensation? If that is the case, would an implanted stent in the bladder be a better option so as to not prevent a loss in sensation/orgasm while still achieving incontinence? All of this is theoretical incontinence achieved by surgery with the idea that sexual functions would remain intact. The only caveat here is that complete stress incontinence, i.e. both sphincters in a permanently open state (known medically as "stovepipe urethra") will almost always result in some level of retrograde ejaculation, at least in males.

Agreed. This is not the kind of thing you want done in a back-alley or by unqualified doctors or in substandard environments! At this point the question is more fantasy-based than anything. The slow but steady diaper training is still probably the best way to go should one want to achieve incontinence. It would be neat if we saw something in our lifetime where surgery would be an accepted option, no different than a sex change, and could be performed with consent to induce incontinence say by means of an artificially implanted mini-stent that could be removed or something along those lines. Because doctors could be working with you, this would be no more permanent than a tattoo as the surgery could be reversed. It also has me wondering about those devices that allow an external button to "open" the bladder. For people that have such devices, I wonder if just keep the button depressed all the time, if that is even possible, would cause constant leaking or not. It probably depends on the person and which sphincters are actually functional.

As a US citizen, could one go to some other country with more relaxed laws, such as Mexico and pay some amount of money for a doctors to perform surgery to make you permanently incontinent for that reason and that reason alone? Based on the information I've gathered from various posts in various sites, it seems like a sphincterotomy is the name of the surgery that will allow you to never hold back your urine resulting in stress incontinence of its purest form. Would I ever actually do this? Probably not because I am broke and I'm not sure I'd want to do something permanent, but I am curious if someone had the money and they were willing to travel outside of the country, would it be hard to find a doctor perform this and in what country? It seems most doctors would refuse this as it is a violation of the Hippocratic oath. Secondarily, when one gets a sphincterotomy, does this prevent getting erections or otherwise prevent orgasm? At the very least it seems you would get retrograde ejaculation, but that's about it. This would at least solve a urinary retention problem I've had for a long time. Please don't hate on me for asking.