Bridal Diapers Debunked

[Pixie_Stix]

This is one of those true and not true things. Yes, it happens, probably more than you might think, but most of the material you're going to find online about it...yeah, bogus. Trust me, brides who wind up wearing a diaper on their wedding day probably aren't going to be telling anyone else about it. Also, what most people call "diapers" these days aren't really diapers at all but those adult pullups.

The very *FIRST* "wedding diaper" story I ever found online was back in 2005, it was *NOT* a first person account, but by someone there at the wedding and, not surprisingly, it was *NOT* in support of actually wearing diapers and posted on a kind of "true and embarrassing stories" web page. Here's the text from it:

I don't know if you allow 3rd party embarassing moments but I was a witness to this one.

My older sister Dee got married the weekend before the 4th of July. I was in the wedding as a bridesmaid and my neice and nephew were too. They were co ring bearers. Amanda's 3 and very talkative. On the morning of the wedding my sister was very very nervous. The service was for 11 am and we had to be all done and out of the church by 12:30 because another wedding was scheduled. When my sister was getting dressed she got hit with a diareah attack. Just as we were about to leave for the church she got hit with another and became very concerned that it would happen again during the service. My aunt has some sort of incontinence and wears adult diapers on long trips. She suggested that Dee wear one but my sister said absolutely "no". When it got to 11:15 my mother told her we had to leave "or else" and she better make up her mind. Very reluctantly Dee agreed to the diaper and we were off. When the procession started, my neice decided she was going to "visit" with people along the aisle. As she did she very proudly announced that she wasn't wearing a "didee" but her aunt Dee was.

We don't know how she knew about the diaper but she didn't waste any time getting the word out. When we found out what she'd done we all thought it was hilarious. That is all of us but Dee. She didn't want to show her face at the reception but she eventually did.

-- Meghean

All these "communion diapers" stories though...yeah, they're *ALL* bogus. Several of us in this community did some *REALLY* in-depth checking and not a *SINGLE* story or instance could be corroborated in *ANY* manner. Further, we found tons of evidence that showed mass levels of really obvious "sock puppet" usage, where one person would create multiple accounts, sometimes using proxies and posting multiple "true stories" and agreeing with themselves in order to try and make it look like it was a common and widely accepted thing.

The poster or posters in question, like this "babykeiff" fellow all had almost identical typing styles (although since pointed out they have been getting better at trying to mask it) and they almost always followed the exact same pattern of posting. Usually making a completely absurd claim, being called on it, making more absurd claims, being ripped apart, then backpedalling on the claims, then ripped apart further, then resorting to fallacies, arguing semantics and trying to veer the discussion off course in one manner or another.

In almost every instance not one single bit of proof was ever given and, in those threads where some "proof" was given (names of churches and such), it was immediately checked into by multiple posters who found that it was ~completely~ bullshit. In most of them the church either didn't exist at all, or if it did the pastors of the church had absolutely no idea what they were talking about and vehemently denied *EVER* promoting the use of diapers for communion ceremonies.

The quickest way to end this idiocy with "babykeiff" and all of his/her endless socks is to simply ask for the name(s) of the church(es). He'll *IMMEDIATELY* trip up at that point and that usually ends it. If his story was true at all he would be able to give the name of the church and it could be *EASILY* corroborated, so he'll either give a fake name that can be instantly debunked, give the name of a church that will completely deny his idiocy, or he'll immediately try and backpedal.

Oh, also, the "letter sent home" to the kids is one of his *FAVORITE* whack off fantasies, he uses that one a lot, on many different sites and web boards, in *EVERY* single one though he never manages to actually produce this famed document, which of course would list the name of the church on it, as well as the names of those in charge, etc, etc. Again, such information would immediately wreck his little whack-off fantasy and the truth would be revealed, which is why he'll never post it and always has a lame excuse for why.

I truly believe that this poster "babykeiff" really does have something wrong with their brain and truly needs psychiatric help, because the kooky lengths to which he is going to try and inflict our fetish onto other people is far past absurd and bizarre and is now bordering on schizophrenic, with stalking like behavior he's shown on various religious/communion oriented sites and web boards, coupled with *REALLY* obvious self-reinforced delusions. This man is clearly not right in the head and he needs to be stopped before he winds up doing crap in the real world...like that guy who spent 10 years flashing his diapers off to little kids before they finally locked him up. That's the road he's headed down I believe, it's only a matter of time.

[AutieAB]

Ugh. Why... Won't... This... Thing... Just... Die???

A lot of us disagreed with what was suggested earlier in this thread but at least we managed to argue our points without resorting to a personal attack, huh?

[Pixie_Stix]

Ugh. Why... Won't... This... Thing... Just... Die???

Is there someone forcing you to read this thread? You don't have to be a "victim" you know, tell us all what's really going on, we'll help stop that bad man forcing you to read things on the Internet! You don't need to be a "victim" any more! Show us all on the teddy bear where the bad man touched you. ^__^

A lot of us disagreed with what was suggested earlier in this thread but at least we managed to argue our points without resorting to a personal attack, huh?

...what personal attack? Saying that the man needs psychiatric help is not a personal attack, it's reality. I was being serious, not factitious. By the mostly unwritten rules and laws of Usenet, this man clearly falls under the protection of Formosa's Law, and as such I wouldn't flame him or verbally attack him in the manner you're insinuating. I am genuinely concerned not only for ~his~ mental health, but for the effect that his actions have, and are ~going~ to have on this community in general.