Not A Dl Not A Ab

[Rhezz]

i first got into diapers about August ish, i think. And since then ive had plenty time to explore myself and learn others experiances, and like most i have tried to categoriese myself an AB or a DL, and i always thought of myself of a DL with some aspects of an AB, but isnt it inevidble to have some features of both preference?

DLs who wear diapers intentionally, and not for medical reasons will say that they ONLY wear diapers and thats it full stop, that was my case not so long ago, but in the chat recently i have became alot more Role playing and adopted a babyish personality, but i still would never ever get in a Cot or wear full fitted AB gear, like those one size things or "costumes", dont know the name.

However i have found my self intruiged by the idea of using a Dummy/pacifier/soother what ever u call it. And actualy have ordered one and some baby wipes, well i have used baby wipes before, just for grooming purposes as adults to actualy use them to.

So i ask you, is their a new edition to the whole community, not a DL or AB or a mommy/daddy, but a RP-DL? (role playing/Diaper Lover)

[diaprbayb]

Nothing new about that! In many ways this is all RP. Some more than others. Unless you have any way of really confirming what people say in to be fact without a doubt. We have assume that it is RP. Some are exactly what they say. That still is the roll they play "here".

PS:

[babybrian1973]

hi there.

i say call it what you like.. you do what makes you happy.

there are as many differences in sexuality,promisquity, gender, and

sexual preferances as there are people in the world! remember that

the only "norm" on this planet of ours is that we are all different.

well, whatever you do or whatever you call what you do...keep that

baby powder handy!

-baby brian

[Rhezz]

what im trying to convey is that i think theres more than 2 main categories than AB and DL, i know it sounds daft but there is a 3rd MAIN category.

[diaprbayb]

So i ask you, is their a new edition to the whole community, not a DL or AB or a mommy/daddy, but a RP-DL? (role playing/Diaper Lover)

Oh what about AB's with long hair. DL's that only wear on week ends. or DL's that hate AB's. DL's who wear cloth with the pins in head down.

Why are you afraid to be associated to AB/DL?

[Rhezz]

not i just hate the fact people have to be categorised into 2 groups, i wanna make a 3rd

[Buster]

Well, it seems to me, since none of these classifications of us are exactly official, you can call yourself whatever you want to call yourself, and we'll all agree that that's what you are. How that sound?

[johnnyirish]

Heres my two sense. I think the community as a whole could use a little change.. I think we should all vote on some offical titles that we can adobt as a community.

If you think about it, there's alot more then just AB/Dl.

Whats everyone else think?

[Sissy Isabella]

So, I once thought about what I wanted to be called. I wasn't into the baby stuff, but was into the diapers. So I considered myself a DL. But now, a few months later after classifying myself as a DL, I've grown fond of baby stuff. I'm going to drink from my bottle tonight, and if I find it, sleep with my pacafier. Now I consider myself an AB.

Call yourself what you want to be called. If you want to create a new category, go right ahead. At some point there wasn't a category AB or DL. They had to be created. So, if you create a new category, who knows? You might start a trend!

[Rhezz]

Heres my two sense.

[babybrian1973]

this is what gets me, why do people feel compelled to be

classified/categorized? everyone is a little different in what

they like. if you are driven to be categorized then how about

a DU (diaper user) even if you dont wet or mess, if you use a

diaper for stimulation (physical, visual or emotional) you are a

diaper user.

[diaprbayb]

thats what im trying to say, so far realy all we have are:

-Adult Babys/Sissy Babys

-Diaper Lovers

If you want more specific cats. then why did you lump AB's with SB's. they are not the same. We can go at this for ever. If you want to be label that isn't here find the site that does. This not the only forum I go to. There is

Sissy Kiss for my little girl side.

Silken Trap for the "forced to do it side.

And I come here for just Diapers(Daily) side.

I think every body can tell what I am into from My Avatar and Siggie ( that's what they are for. Another type wouldn't change anything. I posted many replies in the Sissy room forum and nobody is repling back. All the traffic seems to be here in "General Discussion". Last year I was looking for a chat room and found "Sweet-n-Sassy Subbies". All those s's attracted me. This room had nothing to do with Sissies, yet I was accepted because who is more sub than a sissy in diapers. Let others know that you are different but I don't think you need to put up a bill board.

Now I am getting crankie and need a nap. talk later.

[Sissy Isabella]

The reason we use categories is who we can know quickly stuff about the other person. This gives us something to talk about immedietly w/o knowing the person. Maybe it's something in common. Categories can be used as a conversation starter. If you don't know anything about the other person, they it's harder to start a conversation.

You could argue that you're here at a diaper site, and that is information that can start a conversation. But I may just be looking to talk to a Sissy Baby at the time.

If the site doesn't currently have an "other" category to describe yourself, maybe you should ask them to have one.

[abdljoey]

I can understand why this confusion happens. People automatically think of ABDL as "AB or DL". Hence: "categories." But I don't think most people in the community here think of it that way. Rather it is more realistically a community of people who like diapers, in one way or another and see themselves along a spectrum (or continuum) of AB to DL. Thus instead of categories, picture it more like this....

Where on the line do you see yourself?

DLI------I------I------I------I------I------I------I------I------IAB

DL=Enjoy Diapers Only

AB=Includes Baby Clothes, Objects, RolePlay, and/or Feelings

And personally, I see this only as a start. That's why categories don't work for me. Each person has a unique blend of preferences, interests, and activities that revolve around the diapers. It is more simply "described" than "labeled." Yes, we will use labels, but they do not do us justice, no matter how many labels we come up with as has already been mentioned.

In describing ourselves, we find that there are many other spectrums that are part of us who love diapers. One diagram that helps show this is found on Bittergrey's site (look half way down this page):

http://understanding.infantilism.org/what.php

I have tried my own version, and have pasted it in below.

Here's the idea- If you are on this site, chances are you have an interest in diapers. But are you simply a DL? Perhaps. But more than likely you have one or more colors to add to your diapers (the canvas). And this is also true: The amount of color and the shade of color that you add will likely differ with others. Of course, some will paint their diapers with various hues of many of the colors.

Oh - you may have additional ideas. Perhaps they fit under some of the existing "color spectrums" or perhaps new colors should be added. Into leather? perhaps under fetish (white) or BDSM (blue). It may depend what part it plays in your life. You get the idea how the diagram can be interpreted in various ways; in addition the palette can be expanded with additional colors (spectrums of interest/preference).

Here goes:

[Rhezz]

I can understand why this confusion happens.

[Buster]

Thanks AbdlJoey, I think you have said it quite well. Labels invariably fail to describe any of us accurately. We all have our own unique variation of interests in diapers and baby things. Some days they are sexual, some days they are a comfort, some days they are just for fun. For me, I don't really know, it all depends on what feel like on any particular day. That's why I have never tried to figure out exactly which category I fit in, I just tried to figure out what made me happy.

[laxed_mikey]

I think labels are for losers! Be who you're without having to be categorized.

[Rhezz]

I think labels are for losers!

[Morv]

The only real issue, I think, is that whether you like labels or not, they will be used. I mean, I presonally don't believe in golf, but from the number of people that play and my dad's 3 bags of golf clubs that he has in the basement all winter, I'd unfortunately have to venture the guess that whether or not I believe in it, it still exists. The same for labels.

Personally I don't really care all that much about them, but where they become important is how outsiders view us. I think we've all pretty much agreed that we understand there are dozens of variations. However, outsiders simply know the term "AB/DL" or many just know "adult baby" -- more likely than not from media coverage from great people like Jerry Springer or what have you.

I'd almost wonder if there weren't a more scientific way to break it down -- no offense meant, but neither of the diagrams scream "in depth analysis" or "scientific method" to me. Don't get me wrong -- they prove their points. The diagram at http://understanding.infantilism.org/what.php seemed to go a little more into combining the "what" with the "why," whereas that paint tray diagram didn't. The http://understanding.infantilism.org/what.php page, though, still fails to make an in depth analysis of the information it presents... basicly, it is a single, short page. It does tout a lot of sources, but that also makes me wonder how much information was in them if this survey of all that writing only resulted in that one page. Most of those sources also are at least 15 years old; one of them is from 1969. Not that the age makes them bad sources, but I'd think there'd be more recent information out there.

Really all the paint diagram does is point out there's many different types of people. It doesn't seperate what/why, make any attempt to talk about the drive behind what goes on, and for that matter, many of the categories are inherently all inclusive. That would be anything that ends with "or not" -- a logical fallacy. Everyone falls into a category that includes "you do this, or not." For example, "you are a fish, or not." Everyone falls into that category, because either you are a fish, satisfying the first half of the or statement, or you aren't, satisfying the second half.

Anyway, I guess my real points are that we can't escape categorization and there doesn't seem to be a recent, laudable scientific analysis of what I suppose we could refer to as our general phenomenon.

[abdljoey]

Morv,

I appreciate your thoughtfulness here, but just to put my "paint diagram" into perspective of this thread:

"Personally I don't really care all that much about them, but where they become important is how outsiders view us." --> That's fine, but that's not what I was writing about. The original post (and many others in the past that I have seen) began with one of the community trying to understand which label applied to themselves. Granted, my explanation and "paint diagram" does not necessarily help the public understand us.

But on that point, the issue of labels I peronally feel should always be addressed because they do not accurately describe people IF the labels are meant as categories. For example, how do we describe people if the only to available labels are "brilliant" or "dull"? I am not a fan of Myers-Briggs, but even there, blends of categories are used, which is better than if they didn't do that.

"That would be anything that ends with "or not" -- a logical fallacy. Everyone falls into a category that includes "you do this, or not." For example, "you are a fish, or not." Everyone falls into that category, because either you are a fish, satisfying the first half of the or statement, or you aren't, satisfying the second half." --> In your example (fish), yes, one is either a fish or not a fish. Most if not all of the descriptors I listed are in fact spectrums, as I described in the letter and are not like your fish analogy. I believe it is more accurate to say that "Everyone falls into a spectrum that includes an extreme dark hue on one end and a fading to absence of the color at the other end." And regardless of that, the more important point I wished to make, with respect to the original poster, is more like... "SOME of us MAY fall into the spectrum SOMEWHERE, but the degree to which we do can vary."

Not so long ago I tried to start a thread that addressed this by asking, Why is it that people affirm they are NOT ABs, only DLs but --by the way-- I like sucking on a pci and like printed plastic panties. My personal view is that such people are in fact "somewhat" AB.

You are certainly right in saying that the diagram does not answer "why"-- for the public or ourselves. That question has been addressed by many posts and threads... but let's face it, no matter how many anecdotal histories we present, the explanation remains fairly hypothetical. I have not found any "science" to describe us; however, I do not spend any time at all in researching fetishes or the like in behavioral science journals. Then again, with competing views of behavior (it is learned, it is inherited, it is psychosexual, it is unconscious, it is transactional, etc etc ad nauseum) I am not expecting any great "science" on this in my lifetime. Just more theories.

For now, I am OK with my own reasons for "why" I do what I do.

[mogumbo]

For what it's worth... one of the primary drives we humans have is the need to belong. It's the imbedded instinct to join others who share our values, dna, drives and hobbies amon other things. It's the drive that bond families, create societies and cultures and gives rise to such things as gangs, tribes and clubs.

We all look (both consciously and subconsciously) for opportunities to flock together. I think abdljoey did a great job "diagramming" our particular subculture.

Mo

[Morv]

Ok, Joey, let's try out your diagram:

you have 9 categories.

1 prefer opposite sex, same sex, or not at all.

2 fetishist to varying degrees/or not at all

3 BDSM, humiliation in varying degrees/ or not at all

4 prefer animal or furry stuff/or not at all

5 roleplay on-line, live, or not at all

That's over half of your categories that provide logical fallacies. You may present aspects that ab/dls have, but even if you describe them as "ranges" that vary, it is a joke. People that have NO connection with ab/dls fall into all of these categories. Normal adults and children, and rocks satisfy 5 of your nine categories.

Basicly, I don't think that these categories have anything to do with being ab/dl because people that are obviously in no way ab/dl satisfy every single one of these things.

You'd be better off saying that "many individuals categorized as ab/dls" also fall into these categories, then list those categories without the "or not at all." And the same/opposite/no sex thing should probably be tossed.

[Dill_Pickle]

IYou are certainly right in saying that the diagram does not answer "why"--

[Morv]

The best theory on AB/DL behaviors comes out of the post-traumatic stress experience....in reverse...

That is, people remember unconsciously the love they got when they were diapered/babies, and they often end up in that same, happy state of mind when they do those things again...

That does provide a partial explanation, and I totally agree with it. However, that doesn't explain diapers as a purely sexual fetish... especially if the fetish is having them on your partner, not your self.

[superdiaperbaby]

I think we just don't know. There is no way to know exactly why we have this attraction. Even if I can pinpoint everything to a "trigger" moment the fact is when we were children we did not have the faculties to understand our own psychology. Heck, I think most of us don't have the faculties even grown up. The fact is also that as unique beings with different ages, different experiences, different chemical balances and different intelligences we have no way of determining all of the factors that contribute to our love of diapers.

Now, if you wanted to define what we are in relation to diapers, we have to use generalizations. I actually think even AB/DL is not general enough. It is obvious that the disagreements evolve because people think they are one or the other or a combination. It is obvious that there is no true definition. I always thought the only commonality that most of us have is just diapers, but then I found those "innerkids" who don't wear diapers at all but are into baby things. So now it is all blown away. However, I think that a good generalization is "Diaper Fixationist" or DF. It doesn't matter if you are into baby things, or diapers on others, or just get aroused by diapers we are all here because we have a fixation on some aspect of diapers. That's about as general as you can get.

Hugs.

Super Diaper Baby

That does provide a partial explanation, and I totally agree with it.