Would This Have Changed You?

[Baby Drew]

I read this article in a British newspaper a few weeks ago and thought that it was quite interesting. I was wondering that if your parents had brought you up this way would you still be as interested in nappies (diapers) as you are now?? Obviously I am talking about the people on here who wear for pleasure not medical necessity.

My kids never wear nappies

MAGGIE Howell, 37, a hynotherapist, and husband Phil, 40, from Headley Down, Hants, have three boys: Joseph, five, Toby, two, and Jacob, eight months.

WHEN I tell other parents that my baby son doesn't wear nappies, they're amazed and very sceptical about how we cope. But apart from occasional mishaps, which are becoming more infrequent, my three boys are proof that there's an alternative to using nappies all the time.

I first came across the idea in Kenya, where I grew up. I remember seeing the African women carrying their babies, who were bare-bottomed, on their backs. I wondered why they weren't covered in wee and poo. I later discovered it was because they're in touch with their babies' toilet habits.

That idea stuck with me and I found out more about how it worked. I read that in the same way a newborn baby can tell you when it's hungry or tired by crying, it can also communicate to you when it needs to go to the toilet. It seemed to make sense. When my first child, Joseph, was about four months old, I decided to give it a go.

So for two days I sat down opposite Joseph with a notepad and pen and jotted down when and how often he went to the toilet and what signs he made before he went. Sometimes it was kicking his legs, fidgeting, grunting or arching his back. I soon became attuned to what his signals were indicating.

I also realised I had to be very aware of timing. Babies usually want a wee after eating so I'd hold him over a toilet or a potty after feeding and know I had about 20 minutes or so before he'd need to go again. At first I did get weed on and worse - sometimes when out in a supermarket or somewhere where I couldn't get to a loo in time - but slowly I learnt to understand what he wanted.

Joseph and my two younger boys all give the same signals. I'd also make a "weeing" sound when I held them over the loo so they knew it was time they went. Even at night I put them to bed without nappies.

There are times when I do have to use nappies. If someone else is looking after Jacob it's only fair to put on a nappy, and I also use them if we're on a long car journey or going out on a special occasion.

But I've never liked the idea of babies having to sit in their own mess. We wouldn't want it, so why should they? As well as saving a fortune in buying nappies, it's just a much more natural way of parenting.

Copied from the Daily Mirror website.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/

[drynot]

This isn't toilet training...its really parent training. They talk about being in tune with their childs needs but it really just comes down to recognizing the signs that your baby needs to use the toilet.

I have to wonder if they use diapers at night. What method do they use to control bedwetting? Do they get up every hour to hold junior over the bowl or what?

I mean, it all sounds well and good IF you have the time to manage your childs toilet habits. Most mothers I know are run off their feet just trying to meet the other needs of their children.

Would it have changed me? Not sure. I was put in diapers for bedwetting which has continued to this day. So I would have to say no, it wouldn't have changed the fact that I need a diaper to remain dry at night. Would it have changed the desire to wear them constantly? Who knows.

[Rhezz]

I think the whole point of nappies is hygenine, and that means germs are open to more areas of the body when not protected with such a garmant etc, and you have to think a baby will fidget and touch , then suck his/her fingers later, e.g hygenie issues. So if shes avoiding nappies i think its just stupid, also it acts a development in the psychy where all children, no matter how well looked after need a security blanket to refer to even when they have been denied by those close to them, e.g not alowd to have a biscuit or something, its more important pyschologicaly to give them the option then for physical hygenine.

[DollyDiaper]

I don't know how to post the link to this but Babie Rosie posted this topic on October 15th in Diapers in the News forum just down the page.

Dolly

[DailyDi]

I think this sort of thing might encourage diaper fetishes later in life unless it becomes the social norm. My thinking is that a child who never wore diapers will see children who do, getting loving attention during changes and miss that part of childhood (like they say about children who were not held, breastfed, etc..)

I can't imagine... in today's world.... the no-diaper lifestyle being warm and nuturing all the time. I picture the Mom holding the kid over the toilet, waiting impatiently for him/her to "go" so she can get on with the rest of the tasks for the day. Maybe that's just me.... but I know after a few weeks the gimmick of being the mom who doesn't use diapers would wear off and my mom would be yelling at me to hurry up and go!

[Guest Guest]

It's a medical fact that no child can be toilet trained before approx 18 months. That's all it is, parent training.

Pampers should offer them a lifetime supply

[Viczindahowz]

Hmmmm, interesting, but what makes someone think that this may keep a person from wanting to wear diapers later in life?

I just knew that I wanted to wear diapers from a very early age, and I can't give any kind of reason for the desire, other than it was just there.

If you check with this woman's children after they've grown up, and one of them wants to wear diapers all of the time, what then?

I mean, my brother was a transvestite, and when I talked with him about it he said that he'd always wanted to wear womens clothes.

I mean to say that he NEVER dressed in girls clothes EVER as we were growing up, so if you never wore diapers when you were growing up, you could still become an AB or DL, right?

Vic

[Morv]

dailydi, I think I have to disagree with you. You mention undiapered children missing out on "getting loving attention during changes," which seems to suggest they will lack some sort of intimacy with their parents. In the parenthetical at the end of that sentence, you specificly mention children "being held." Though this woman's initial description of technique is a bit cold (sitting with a notebook, observing), I don't think anything in the article suggested that she wasn't close to her children in a physical or emotional manner. In fact, it sounds like both parents have to be especially attentive to their children, which is the exact opposite of what you seem to be suggesting what could happen. The indicators mentioned in the article "kicking his legs, fidgeting, grunting or arching his back" are all things that a parent is more likely to notice if they are holding their child, not just in the same room and watching TV or reading a book.

I think I agree a lot more with the possibility that the novelty could wear off and the frustration could arise at the child not going fast enough. If that's the approach a parent took, I don't think it would breed that intimacy; however, if the parent actually was attentive and patient, I think the results would create a strong parent/child bond.

As to Rhezz's comments -- I that it limits exposure of parts of the body to the outside world, but presuming the parents clean the children after their toilet use, the children would still be picking up more germs from the rest of their environment by things they touch with their hands.

Yeah, it is parent training, but is that really all that bad? My impression of the society around me is that anything to encourage parents to pay more attention to their children is a good thing.

The one place where I totally agree with this approach is that it is better for the environment. Disposables are exactly that, another throw-away product of our society. (And it absolutely drives me nuts that I like them.) Yes, there is cloth and plastic pants, but even then you're doing extra laundry. So, I see this from a conservation standpoint, but I don't see it as a huge advantage over cloth/plastic pants.

here's a link to the other topic about diapers in the news:

http://www.dailydiapers.com/board/index.php?showtopic=1507

[Valentine]

Reply story

Here is a reply to the first story

[Guest VladYvhv]

I don't remember being diapers or being potty trianed... So, to me that's close enough to having not worn diapers, right? If you can't even remember something that happened to you, then memories assoiciated with that event/sensation/etc. are irrelivent to your consious decisions (if anyone has contridictory facts, direct me to them, please [i'd ruther learn that I'm wrong than not know and come off looking stupid, y'know?]). There may be some unconsious memories associated with the sensensations of wearing diapers, but that's speculation and hard to confirm or discount. Anyhow, my conclusion is that no, it wouldn't matter if I hadn't worn diapers as a baby, since I would still have no memories from that period of my life. I wear them because they feel good, provide a convenience, and have a theraputic quality... I just feel more relaxed and natrual wearing a diaper than wearing regualar underwear or nothing at all. Although, perhaps I would be more obsessed with them... After all, Elvis grew up without carpet and became obsessed with it when he became a star... I've had very little contact with technology as a kid, and I've developed a fascenation with Sci-Fi stuff and all manner of newer (and future) technologies. I was banned from playing videogames (by my folks) until I was older, and I love playing videogames now. On the other hand, I was tought the basics of gun safety and how to shoot when I was old enough to understand them and hold a .22 rifle, and now I enjoy target recreational target shooting and have an interest in hunting... There're many things I've always been told to avoid (such as alcohol), which I have no interest in, too... So, it could be argued that some aspects of one's personality may be inevitable, while others can be influenced by experiences. But, unless we can get a psycologist (and/or behaviorologist) or 3 to adress the issue, it's up to interpretation, right?