Abu Bmx Diaper

[bibabyboy]

Looks and awful lot like these...

http://www.qualitydiapers.net

In fact, This is the same image the one above is cropped from.

Edit: Removed the picture... did you think it was okay to show a child vice a cropped picture???? (Repaid1)

[BigKidNKY]

Wow - you're right bibabyboy, there's an amazing resemblance there.

[square_duck]

Quality diapers.net? owned by "dk enterprises" ?? showing only pictures of nude young boys in diapers only??? and they only carry this one (1) item???

Sounds a L*O*T like the old site that has been banned and is unmentionable here ....D33k3rs which did much of the same thing...

so now ABU is aligning themselves (or ripping off from) a borderline pedophile site??

Nice.....real nice

we need a 'thumbsdown' emoticon here really

[babyforyou]

I dont like the diaper at all not much of a print there is more white then anything. I thoungt it was going to be an all over print or at least more then what it has..

[AutieAB]

Bloody hell. OK, I'm creeped out by that other site and very concerned as to why ABU are associating with them. Where did they come from (that other site) and WTF is with those photos?! I guess it explains why they're only available in small sizes

Suffice to say I've edited out the photo I reproduced from ABU's website a few posts back now that the uncropped version has been discovered. Shame on them for using a photo of a child on an ABDL site, cropped or otherwise. There's a level of trust that is expected by ABDLs when visiting ABDL websites that they will try to keep underage content away from the site so as not to expose their customers to risk. ABU have violated that trust (again - remember the "D incident"???).

[DailyDi]

Looks like the same photo style of Tiger Underwear. Personally i think the idea of a quality diaper for kids and teens (wetters, disabled, etc..) is a good idea. The photos don't bother me on the diaper sale site as it's stigma-free marketing. But they shouldn't be posted to the fetish sites.

[AutieAB]

Honestly, the Tiger site has always made me uncomfortable too. It's the photo on the buy now page (of the site mentioned above) that tipped it over the edge into unacceptable, IMO. I think it's a suggestive pose and totally inappropriate.

Quite aside from that, what about the poor kid in the pictures? There's a reason these photos are normally either modelled by an ABDL or with a manikin.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

so now ABU is aligning themselves (or ripping off from) a borderline pedophile site??

How is "Quality Diapers" a borderline pedophile site--is "DK Enterprises" a front of some sort? The last time I checked, "Quality Diapers" had photos of a (very young) male model wearing what is effectively their product. They're marketing to parents, not AB/DLs, and they have a product in stock, even if it's only one product in one size, with an additional size "coming soon." While their site indeed looks primitive/unfinished, I've seen other company sites run by upstarts that are of the same quality, (Cool Diaps' website comes to mind,) so that's certainly no reason to brand "Quality Diapers" as being a pedophile site.

The photos don't bother me on the diaper sale site as it's stigma-free marketing. But they shouldn't be posted to the fetish sites.

I agree 100% DailyDi, I only checked out the "Quality Diapers" site because I wanted to see what diapers they offered. (Imagine my surprise when I found out that it was only the ABU BMX design.) Likewise, I agree that the photos shouldn't be posted on fetish sites, or on sites like ABU that market to AB/DLs. The difference between the cropped photo and the original photo, is that the original photo is being used to market to parents, while the cropped photo is being used to market to AB/DLs. ABU seemed to hope that we wouldn't find out about their shoddy cover-up, and unfortunately, we did.

It's the photo on the buy now page (of the site mentioned above) that tipped it over the edge into unacceptable, IMO. I think it's a suggestive pose and totally inappropriate.

Quite aside from that, what about the poor kid in the pictures? There's a reason these photos are normally either modelled by an ABDL or with a manikin.

A suggestive pose does not constitute pedophilia. Several children's clothing catalogs use the same type of suggestive posing, even in their underwear section. (I know because my family used to occasionally buy clothing for younger relatives.) In a setting like a children's clothing catalog, such photos are perfectly acceptable, but if those photos are scanned and posted on some fap site, then they become child pornography. The very fact that the photos in question, (both on "Quality Diapers" and in my example,) are being used for instructional purposes to illustrate the product in use means that they fail the Miller test, and thus fail to qualify as pornography.

As to your second question, the kid in the photos was likely a professional model. He was compensated for his work, or at the very least his parents were. A modeling job is a modeling job, the kid and/or his parents could have turned it down if they weren't comfortable with it.

Back on-topic: What really disgusts me is ABU's deceptive marketing tactics. They claimed that this was *their* diaper, implying that they designed it. No where did ABU state that they would be selling a repackaged version of a diaper manufactured by and for someone else. The appropriation of a photo involving a child, cropped to hide the fact that the photo was of a child, is also of significant concern. ABU could have simply stated that the ABU BMX would be a repackaged diaper, and they'd have avoided being deceptive about their product. Likewise, if this isn't the final version/production model, all they needed to do was to add that they'd be basing their new diaper off of the product sold by "Quality Diapers." If they wanted to show the image that they used without causing controversy, all they had to do was to cut the diaper out of the image with the child, and place it on a "digital mannequin." Again, if the design wasn't final, the words "prints not final/non-final version" would have put to rest any of the additional controversy about the diaper itself.

Personally, I feel that what ABU did was sloppy and deceptive. When they claimed that they were making a new diaper, I expected it to be a diaper that was actually new--not a repackaged product made by someone else. If they were going to be repackaging another company's diaper, that wouldn't have bothered me, just as long as they hadn't tried to pass it off as their own.

[DailyDi]

I now KNOW the pics were taken at a Tiger Underwear photo shoot, so likely they are the partner. Looks like a great diaper. They (Tiger) now also have their step-in plastic pants in bright red and deep blue!

[adriansurley]

Suggestive poses aren't considered "pedophilia" necessarily in all cases but it also has to be taken in line with the entire "picture". I don't consider it pedophilia what is on Quality Diaper but it is borderline with how unprofessional the page is and the poses the model is in; in combination with it is the only product they offer as well as the wording used. It seems like they know who they are "targeting" and its not just parents with older kids in diapers...they know who will see their page and their "targets" which is why the site is borderline "suspect" in my mind.

Just not sure why a company like ABU would even remotely engage/partner with such a site that is even borderline like that.

[bibabyboy]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be bad. I was just trying to help....

[AutieAB]

A suggestive pose does not constitute pedophilia. Several children's clothing catalogs use the same type of suggestive posing, even in their underwear section. (I know because my family used to occasionally buy clothing for younger relatives.) In a setting like a children's clothing catalog, such photos are perfectly acceptable, but if those photos are scanned and posted on some fap site, then they become child pornography. The very fact that the photos in question, (both on "Quality Diapers" and in my example,) are being used for instructional purposes to illustrate the product in use means that they fail the Miller test, and thus fail to qualify as pornography.

Indeed, I generally agree but my point was all about the context. I visited the quality diapers site via the link in this thread and of course indirectly via ABU. That changes the context of how the images were seen (by me personally) and it made me very uncomfortable when I saw the pictures on that site. If I were a parent looking for diapers for a disabled child, and hadn't come from a fetish or otherwise adult website, you're right, I would probably have seen the site in a more innocent context but that wasn't the case.

That uncomfortable situation is entirely the fault of ABU who rather than take one of the diapers and get an adult model to wear it for the promo photos, obviously thought it was acceptable to take a photo of a child (who, lets face it, is no older than about 10 to 12), crop it so you can't tell it's a minor and post it on their site, which is visited in an adult/fetish context. It's just not on to publish photos of children in diapers on ABDL websites, period. It's ABU I'm angry with here.

I'm angry because when I posted here yesterday morning, I took the photo ABU displayed on their website on trust that they were reputable enough not to post underage material on their ABDL fetish store site and reproduced it here. I trusted that they had learned from the 'D****r incident' from the past and subsequent grovelling apology. I felt like that trust was betrayed when I found out that it was a photo of a child that they had carefully cropped to make it look older. In slightly different circumstances, my own reputation could have been seriously damaged by their deceit. I feel just as angry about that now, 24hrs on.

Likewise, I agree that the photos shouldn't be posted on fetish sites, or on sites like ABU that market to AB/DLs. The difference between the cropped photo and the original photo, is that the original photo is being used to market to parents, while the cropped photo is being used to market to AB/DLs. ABU seemed to hope that we wouldn't find out about their shoddy cover-up, and unfortunately, we did.

and

Back on-topic: What really disgusts me is ABU's deceptive marketing tactics. They claimed that this was *their* diaper, implying that they designed it. No where did ABU state that they would be selling a repackaged version of a diaper manufactured by and for someone else. The appropriation of a photo involving a child, cropped to hide the fact that the photo was of a child, is also of significant concern. ABU could have simply stated that the ABU BMX would be a repackaged diaper, and they'd have avoided being deceptive about their product. Likewise, if this isn't the final version/production model, all they needed to do was to add that they'd be basing their new diaper off of the product sold by "Quality Diapers." If they wanted to show the image that they used without causing controversy, all they had to do was to cut the diaper out of the image with the child, and place it on a "digital mannequin." Again, if the design wasn't final, the words "prints not final/non-final version" would have put to rest any of the additional controversy about the diaper itself.

Personally, I feel that what ABU did was sloppy and deceptive. When they claimed that they were making a new diaper, I expected it to be a diaper that was actually new--not a repackaged product made by someone else. If they were going to be repackaging another company's diaper, that wouldn't have bothered me, just as long as they hadn't tried to pass it off as their own.

I agree entirely on all points.

[DailyDi]

ABU needs to take their own pics as soon as the diapers are in.

But on the QD site, I don't even find them suggestive.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

Just not sure why a company like ABU would even remotely engage/partner with such a site that is even borderline like that.

Well, they kind of did something similar before from what I understand. It appears that QD is a legitimate company, so I could understand why ABU would partner with them. Their previous partnership is the one that really made no sense, and I'd think that after that incident, they'd be vetting the people that they partner with, as well as what they put on their own site. ABU can't afford to shoot their credibility a second time so close to the last time that they did so.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be bad. I was just trying to help....

You weren't bad, Bibabyboy. If anything you helped expose ABU's shoddy cover-up. You made a mistake when you posted the picture, it happens, and it's not the end of the world. The important thing is that you also posted the link to the source image, the one ABU cropped and appropriated, and now we all know that this isn't a diaper that they designed, and that they used an image that they shouldn't have.

ABU needs to take their own pics as soon as the diapers are in.

But on the QD site, I don't even find them suggestive.

I'm in agreement with you DailyDi. I see no problem with the use of the image on the QD site, it's the use of the image on ABU that I take issue with. Considering that we know the diapers exist, (they had to in order for QD to have a person model them,) what I don't understand is why ABU didn't just buy a bag from QD and take a photo of the product itself. If ABU absolutely had to use the photo from QD, they could have painted over the model in Photoshop and just shown the diaper without any portion of the model's body. Even then, ABU could have just left the "image coming soon" placeholder up until they had the ability to photograph their own product.

[messyman]

Just not sure why a company like ABU would even remotely engage/partner with such a site that is even borderline like that.

It's a company that cuts up industrial absorbent mats and sells them as stuffers. And sells Chinese plastic pants and diapers at a huge mark up. And has fail to deliver products in the past knowing that their customers would be to embarrassed to call the cops.

[Santiago]

You can keep your screwball face to yourself. If one were to post cropped kiddie porn - well sure that would be a problem. The picture in question however is not kiddie porn, and it is only irrational paranoia that makes some see it as kiddie porn - hence the apparent attempt at cleverness with a screw face which is nothing more than a failed quip at making a point that is moot. The photo is merely a legitimate and legal marketing tool for a product that it appears ABU will also be offering - so what is the problem?

So it's OK to put pictures of young boys, naked except for a diaper, on ABDL websites, so long as you can't tell?

[BBB]

So it's OK to put pictures of young boys, naked except for a diaper, on ABDL websites, so long as you can't tell?

+1

[Santiago]

+1

thanks for that contribution to the healthy discussion of the non-issues above.

[BBB]

thanks for that contribution to the healthy discussion of the non-issues above.

No, it's an issue with pretty much everyone except for you.

It's an adult fetish product, they should not be using a child in a picture.

[adriansurley]

It amazes me people try to justify or even not see it as a problem was QD and ABU are engaged in. It does not matter what "we" think it is or isn't...we can sit here and say all day its innocent it doesn't matter...but to the outside public they see that and ABU who sells to AB/DL community and it just creates a further problem and stigma for the ABDL community. It is things like that, that can end up adding to the already "pedophilia" stigma of diapers and ABDLs. I would rather err on the side of against it then sit here and try to justify in my mind that its OK to take a photo like that. It is wrong, especially how it is used and portrayed/advertised...period.

[Santiago]

Public perception isn't everything - and face it - diaper fetishism will always be an underground phenomena. I defer to you and your followers on determining the moral high ground for our secret society as clearly there is little room for dissension that does not involve getting labeled a screwball or worse. At this point I agree to disagree as we will never agree on this. I appreciate the discourse and look forward to future encounters.

[shinjie]

Hey y'all,

I'm excited for these new designs and it's been a while since I ordered from abu, about July '08.

Do they still use that junky, super-rustly "plastic bag" covering on their diapers, and does the absorbency suck as much as it used to?

I just don't want to spend $100 on these to find and they still suck, even though they're really unique.

Edit: Wow, they did just use the image of a kid, that's Sofa King lazy. Still, we're interested in the diapers, so I don't see the harm. Get your butts out of the gutters guys!

Edited July 14, 2011 by DailyDi
Photo Removed _ No kid pics

[Santiago]

I don't know what ABU used to be like - but their products seem pretty good to me now. Without a booster they are decent on capacity, but are fairly thin and I actually think the plastic could be a bit noisier (though I don't hold it against them). Personally the design does not do much for me - I like their Cushies better as far as that goes... though I think these might fit a little better because of two tapes instead the single mega tape.

[DailyDi]

They used the pic from QD because they didn't actually have the diapers in hand yet.

Sales are supposed to go live sometime today.

[DailyDi]

Available in:

....."X-Large Youth (Adult Small equivalent) and Abult Large sizes."

Nice going, no mediums, go ahead, cut out the majority of the wearers in what ever market you have...and a nice typo on top of everything

GAH!

Oh! and they still haven't figured out how to get an elastic waistband on these silly things

Medium will be in the next order, approx. 90 days from now according my rep at ABU