Regressive Behavior Linked To Childhood Trama?

[cascadebaby]

I've been reading some interesting articles online dealing with the phycology of infantilism in adults. Outside of the AB community there is little to no understanding of the phycology of an AB. Usually it is thoaght of as a practice to avoid respondsibility. Although inside the AB community we have a first hand understanding. Many of us have a different story to tell though the underline reasons are the same.

I read an article that I will try and reference later stating that infantilism is not a sexual fetish but a regressive tendency started at a very early age. I myself started to fantasy about being diapered at the age of four. I believe the reason for these fantasys is due to the fact that I was the youngest of three children and grew up around phycological abuse. When it was time for me to grow up I just held on to the one thing that I found most comforting and that was to be babied. (Simple) I believe that the media has exploited are lifestyle and turned it into a sexual fetish. Resulting in a confusing outlook for both AB's and the outside community.(not so simple)

Thank you for your time

[tris]

OOoohh, man! Cool shit! I totally support ANY official R&D of the AB World.

Other than that, I have no response to your post, which, is also confusing.

As for the media, they are a shallow bunch who rely more on outward appearances than any iota of factual or background information. Hence, any unorthodox activity that a person does with an erection, is a Fetish. That's all they're seeing anyway - The D. (But if it's a chick, it's gets Lifestyle status.) And of course, the age-old question -- Whaddya say to a guy in a diaper? I mean, who wants to report on that? Just snap a pic, make your best call, and move on! But, fundamentally, I concur: The Media sucks.

[sarah_ab]

i think part of the issue is that people do not make a distinction between infantilism and ab play. keyword being 'play'

I think there is a big difference between infantilist for whom this is not sexual and those who engage in abplay for both a physical and mental sexual release.

If more people recognized and understood this difference i think it would clear up a lot of confusion in the medical and psychiatric community. Not everyone who engages in ab type behavior is an infantilist, some people are just in it for sexual pleasure, and i think this is where confusion can lie for those who may attempt to treat someone who engages in ab behavior, the doctor may be confused if they are treating a person with a sexual fetish or a person wth another 'issue' (for lack of a better word), and therefore may not be treating the person appropriately.

Also while there is a lot of literature out there about sexual fetish's in men, there is little out there about women with fetish's. This also needs to be addressed within the medical and psychiatric communities.

I would be interested to read these articles if you can remember where they are from.

[enfant]

I read an article that I will try and reference later stating that infantilism is not a sexual fetish but a regressive tendency started at a very early age.

"It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!"

Infantilism is a sexual fetish. That's not the only thing it is, but it absolutely is one of the things it is.

Yes, it does often start in early childhood. So do lots of other fetishes: shoes, cross-dressing, leather, rubber, you name it.

Some people want to think that their interest isn't sexual because they find it the idea embarrassing or shameful or weird, or because they're afraid of being mistaken for pedophiles or some such. For some of them it's probably true, too... but I suspect that's comparatively rare. Bluntly speaking, if the thought or the reality of wearing diapers makes your penis erect or your vagina wet, or if you often think about baby play during sex or masturbation, then you've got a fetish. (Or, more accurately, a paraphilia, but I don't stand on precision and I like "fetish" better.)

I regress too, and often I enjoy wearing diapers and feeling little without doing anything overtly sexual at all, but that doesn't mean it's not a fetish.

[enfant]

Not everyone who engages in ab type behavior is an infantilist

This statement is only true if you redefine the word 'infantilist' to mean something other than what it generally means.

[gweg]

"It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!"

Infantilism is a sexual fetish. That's not the only thing it is, but it absolutely is one of the things it is.

Yes, it does often start in early childhood. So do lots of other fetishes: shoes, cross-dressing, leather, rubber, you name it.

Some people want to think that their interest isn't sexual because they find it the idea embarrassing or shameful or weird, or because they're afraid of being mistaken for pedophiles or some such. For some of them it's probably true, too... but I suspect that's comparatively rare.

So where do I fit in here? I did hide and wear diapers up to 11 (I was a bed wetter and was diapered off and on till I was 9).

I got hurt seriously when I was 34... By the time I had 2 surgeries and the nerve damage was so bad that I was left incontinent. I struggled for a few years than I used infantilism and Regressed from there til I learned to survive and accept myself... My question than is where is your claim of it being a sexual fetish in me?

I like this definition here: "While infantilism has appeared on a few TV shows such as CSI, it isn't widely understood. Paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishes are both deep and lasting urges with a specific focus: diapers and/or babyhood. The urges differs from person to person. Infantilism isn't a fetish per se, but may coexist with a diaper fetish. Neither involve actual children. Infantilists and those with diaper fetishes are often called Adult Babies and Diaper Lovers (AB/DLs or ABDLs)."

[babykeiff]

Cascade baby is trying to specify what infantilism is - which is in my opinion, a futile effort as infantilism is different in how it applies to everyone in the world, and in that makes defining same futile. There is the fetish side to infantilism, but not all 'abs' are intrested in the sexual fantasy - yes it is a fantasy to most - be treated as a baby and to behave like a baby and most important, to be loved and cared and nurtured for your infantile actions - that is - to get away and be fully accepted for acting infantile, selfish, self-centred etc, but it is a fantasy life - so in simple terms, infantilism is a healthy escape from reality for a time period without any side effects physically or mentally (as long as you don't get diaper rash etc). Also, encouraging ones immagination - as an infantilist does, developes the human brain - which is ironic, the more one acts like a infant, the more mature their brain will develop - correspondingly, the more infantile a person acts, the more mature they actually are.

I verhmently disagree that infantilism is sexual in all cases as enfant has incorrectly assumed. It is a sexual fetish in some, but not all.

[superdiaperbaby]

How about these proofs:

Anything that touches sex organs is sexual.

Diapers and Underwear touch sex organs

therefore diapers and underwear are sexual

A fetish is something nonsexual, such as an object or a part of the body which arouses sexual desire or is necessary for one to reach full sexual satisfaction;

A diaper is sexual since it touches sex organs

Therefore a diaper is not a fetish, but is sexual

SDB

[enfant]

So where do I fit in here?

How would I know? I don't know you. I take it you're saying you don't find infantilism to be a turn-on. That's fine: I never said such people didn't exist; I said I suspect they're comparatively rare--most of us get a sexual buzz from what we do. (And babykieff, please read what I wrote again. The words "in all cases" did not appear there, nor anything similar.)

But Lord, people have such a limited idea of what sexuality is. I mean, let's imagine a totally vanilla, straight, middle-of-the-road heteronormative couple, married to each other and very much in love. They have lots of feelings for each other--romance, protectiveness, comfort, happy memories and shared inside jokes, mutual respect, shared love for their pets or children... the list goes on and on. They're also horny for each other sometimes, so they make love a couple of times a week.

That's a sexual relationship. A good, happy one. It's not insulting to them to say so, nor does it denigrate or deny all the other feelings they have for each other when they aren't horny. It merely acknowledges that sex is part and parcel of the relationship. It's important, and it's beautiful. It nurtures them, and keeps things warm and happy and alive.

Now let's imagine another couple, just like the first one but into ageplay. Baby and mommy, or baby and daddy, it doesn't matter. One of them likes to wear diapers and drink from a bottle, and the other one likes to diaper and feed. It nurtures them, and keeps them both feeling warm and happy and alive. Maybe this couple doesn't find sexual intercourse to fit in well with baby play, so they never have sex when the diapers are on... but the diaper play might still be nourishing them in the same way that conventional sex does for the first couple we talked about. Or, maybe this couple does have intercourse with diapers on... but they're so content in their roles that they continue to be baby and mommy or daddy 24/7, even after the orgasms are done... so that most of the time, just like the first couple, the relationship isn't about horniness, it's about other feelings. But the horniness is a piece of it, and an important one.

What I'm saying is that, for most of us, infantilism is a sexual thing. But it's not just a sexual thing. (As if anything should be called "just sexual". Sex isn't a triviality, it's one of the greatest and most important things in our lives, and IMHO it should never be insulted with the word "just" in front of it.)

[sarah_ab]

How about these proofs:

Anything that touches sex organs is sexual.

Diapers and Underwear touch sex organs

therefore diapers and underwear are sexual

so when i go to the doctor to have my pap smear the q tip she sticks up there is sexual?

what about the duck lips she uses to spread my vagina apart to get the q tip up there?

[Vic]

Okay, great, we have another discussion going on about whether what we are into is "this" or "that" and we're bemoaning the fact that the media love to misrepresent our particular "kink" (and by "kink" I don't mean that it is sexual, just a part of us that sets us apart from what John Q likes to call "normal").

In the thread "are diapers an addiction?" I have already had a say on what I think about what the psychiatric world thinks of us, so I will NOT go back over everything I said in there, but I do wish to add my two cents worth here. You may or may NOT agree with me, but I hope we can have an intelligent discussion about the AB/DL world.

Wearing diapers has a different meaning for everyone here, obviously. I might find comfort in them and wear them for peace of mind, a balm, as it were, for my soul. You might, however, get a big sexual charge from them, to some people here it is part sexual, and part comfort.

We are all different, some of us (who are AB) like age play and some don't, some AB's just wear onsies and suck on a bottle, and that's as far as it goes, while other AB's want to totally regress.

To some it is non-sexual, while others are very sexually turned on by being (or fantasizing about) being regressed. Some of us like the BDSM kind of diaper play, where we are humilliated and forced to wear diapers, and we won't even mention all you DL's out there who are totally (and understandably) pissed off by being lumped in with AB's by John Q (nobody likes being stereotyped, especially when there is such a HUGE difference between AB's and DL's).

This conversation about the "who", "what", "where", and "how" has been going on in our community for ages, and it seems that everyone of us has a different take on the whole AB/DL community. No wonder the psychiatric community is so confused by us, and how we ourselves are so divided over such issues as whether or not it should be called a "fetish". Sometimes we even get into flame wars over this.

Some of us think that we are the way we are because of childhood trauma, while others think we were just born this way. Really, none of us seems to really know, nobody has the catch all phrase for what it is that makes us who we are. Is it nature or nurture?, is it a sexual fetish, or a source of comfort for us??

Is there a way we could all just talk about it without being judgemental of each other? A way we could say what it is for me, and you, and you, and you?? Is there a way we could all discuss the subject and come to some sort of understanding of ourselves and each other?

Hey DL's, I know you HATE the way we are portrayed in the media, but you should know that that is how they are going to treat us. The media goes for whatever they think will get them more viewers, and sensationalizing anything different is par for the course. They aren't concerned about understanding something when they can point their cameras and shout out "LOOKY HERE!! AIN'T THAT WEIRD"??

Here in America, if I were to believe everything I saw on TV I'd think that sex and violence is all that we here in America are about. The media in this country is kind of sick and twisted, and they love to label everybody, since we're NOT the norm, they'd rather slap a "perverted" label on us and leave it at that. And yes, the AB's here are just as pissed off as you are when they see stories in the news about how somebody into diapers did "this" or "that", but, again, that's what you get from the media.

What I'd like to see is a study, a real study of what it is to be an AB or DL that would (ideally) be carried out by a psychiatrist or psycologist who was into this as well (so he or she had at least a partial view or general knowledge of what being into this is about). I'd like it to be an impartial view, without the desire to make it conform to their own views.

I don't know if this is possible, but I'd like to see it. I'd also LOVE to see a discussion here where we could all have some input, and still come away with some kind of consensus. I don't know if this is possible, but if YOU would like to see this too, then please, speak up and voice your own opinion.

Rock on,

Vic

[wolf pup]

I would like to know about the articles you refrenced.

I have been an AB/DL since betune 5-7 years of age. I was placed in the nut house over it as well. To me it is not esy to say it is or is not sexual. Some times it is, but much of the time it is a comfort for me to feel safe.

[RandomDL]

being on the inside of the trend and not being on the outside and especially not being a psychologist i would say that it has nothing to do with childhood trauma because i cant remember much besides stuff that happened perhaps a maximum of 4-5 years ago and i remember nothing before then and most people probably dont have memories of things that happened while they were young enough to be in diapers (what society would call young enough) which would be i would guess around 3 or younger though idk anything about what society would have called an appropriate age a while ago (as in XX years ago), anyways as i dont remember anything from back then id say its more of a discovery of how good it physically feels to wear and use them, which for some would have been at first just a need though i so far havent as far as i remember ever had a need past a normal age (once again what society would call normal), for now ill leave you with, this society can just as bender from futurama would site bite my shiny metal *** (which of course i dont have lol) ; because what society would call normal for a lot of things sucks and if going against anything society feels is normal makes you weird then its good to be weird (which i would say no1 here is, and perhaps society is the weird one here) so just remember do whatever you want as long as there is nothing wrong with it and its not illegal.