The Times They Are A-Changin'

[Kari]

Who else for a middle aged guy to quote than Bob D.

I have ether thought I've seen or it's a fact.

Back in the late 60's / early 70's

It was very rare to see a kid in diapers past there 3rd birthday.

I remember numerous times I'd at least make a big wet spot in my pants.

This went on for years and ignored by my parents.

And bed wetting was very consistent.

My Mom thought it was better to let me pee all over the bed and sheets than give me protection.

Now I see older kids like 5+ wearing Pull Ups.

I am a little envious that I had to be teased for my wet spots.

Rather than being "one of those kids" that wore absorbent underpants.

So is it me, or are parents more open since they now do have alternatives.

And why have our previous generations been so "weird" about "flow control"?

[drynot]

Don't forget that many of those who were kids back in the 60's and 70's (and 80's I might add) were subject to the same humiliation like you and me and don't want their children exposed to the same kind if ridicule. I was fortunate as diapers weren't seen as such a stigma and my mom bought me diapers until I could afford my own. My dad was another story so I continued wearing diapers and hid my bedwetting from my folks for many years.

A buddy of mine had 3 in diapers at one time. A five yr old, three, and a newborn. We were joking about it one day and he mentioned that he wet the bed until he was thirteen so he wasn't worried about his oldest wearing diapers until she became a teenager

I don't know how this shift in society norms will play out long term but I do know that no kid should be humiliated and shamed by his parents for having to deal with something that he or she cannot control.

[WBDaddy]

I am a little envious that I had to be teased for my wet spots.

Rather than being "one of those kids" that wore absorbent underpants.

So is it me, or are parents more open since they now do have alternatives.

And why have our previous generations been so "weird" about "flow control"?

Hey, look on the bright side. She didn't tan your bottom, put you in a big crinkly Huggies, and make you walk around with no pants all day, reminding you at every opportunity what a baby you were.

I gotta figure, back then most parents were still doing cloth, so a wet sheet was no different than a wet diaper as far as they were concerned (laundry-wise, that is).

[DailyDi]

I think a lot of it for my generation (70/80's) was parental competition. "Oh you billy is still in diapers? Susie was trained at 18 months!"

[rusty pins]

I think a lot of it for my generation (70/80's) was parental competition. "Oh you billy is still in diapers? Susie was trained at 18 months!"

That and the fact that society had changed in the 70's and 80's. In the late 50's and early 60's it was still a common thing to have your bedwetting kids wear a diaper and plastic pants to bed. It was just the natural solution to a problem and many mothers used diapers for bedwetting kids at night up to age 7 and maybe even older. Then the psycologists in the late 70's and 80's started screaming about how bad diapers were for a kid's self esteem and said diapers after potty training for any reason were bad! Then along came Goodnites! With sized to fit younger teenagers, it shifted from an embaressment and self esteem problem to a solution to a wet and uncomfortable cold bed! Sure, part of it is marketing to sell a product, but it's also a practical solution to a common problem like bedwetting. Huggies did it in a way as to make it better for kids. At least they don't refer to them as diapers as much as bedwetting underpants!

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I disagree with an implication of the OP's premise that since you did not see anyone in diapers past their third birthday they were not wearing them. I know for a fact that in many cases it was just flat out false. The thing about it was that children over a certain aged were changed in private as part of modesty. I have explained elsewhere that in my area and at the time I was little this was somewhat common for little girls up to age 7-1/2 to 8 under certain circumstances. You just did not see it. Under certain circumstances I was in dipaers for bed up until I was about 9-1/2 or thereabouts

[babymaggie]

The knowledge of why some children still wet the bed is greater known now than back in the 60's-80's. Parent's now have the knowledge that some children's bladders are small and grow at a different rate. Also parent's have more of an understanding and more options like Goodnight's and are better able to cope with their child's bedwetting. Unfortunetly there are still many parent's out there that destroy their child's self esteem and ridicule them for wetting accidents.

[Crinklebritches]

... Then along came Goodnites! With sized to fit younger teenagers, it shifted from an embaressment and self esteem problem to a solution to a wet and uncomfortable cold bed! Sure, part of it is marketing to sell a product, but it's also a practical solution to a common problem like bedwetting. Huggies did it in a way as to make it better for kids. At least they don't refer to them as diapers as much as bedwetting underpants!

I think the big diaper companies did a lot with removing the stigma of kid’s needed to be out of diapers by the age of 2. I remember when pampers came out with the larger size 5 diapers and soon after that Size 6. Right at the time parents were being told not to push the potty training, they’ll learn when “they

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

The onset of bedwetting is not confined to the 5-7 age group, I had a couple of incidents when I was 10, woke up soaked which had never happened before. It seems that the onset of puberty can also trigger bedwetting as the reproductive organs move into place

I do not think that the stigma has gone away but simply gone underground, I can guarantee from my observation that it is still alive and well. A person can control his/her facial experssion and that is well-learned in this society. What they do not learn to do is control a turn of voice. In a culture that does 85% of it's work visually, it would not occur to ordinary persons to learn the art of controlling the more subtle vocal characteristics

[timmyc]

I think the big diaper companies did a lot with removing the stigma of kid’s needed to be out of diapers by the age of 2. I remember when pampers came out with the larger size 5 diapers and soon after that Size 6. Right at the time parents were being told not to push the potty training, they’ll learn when “they

[d_drew12]

Boils down to one thing. PARENTING! Lazy parents, broken families and parents who just don't care if their kid takes 10 years to potty train. They're just worried about the other 80 things they have going on in their life and potty training isn't one of them when there's a simple solution. Diapers! Call 'em pull-ups, training pants, protective underwear, at the end of the day, it's a diaper. If the majority of kids could be trained by age 2 a few decades ago, no reason they shouldn't be able to now. Of course there are the exceptions in any generation where there were actual physical problems they couldn't be trained. I'm not talking about those kids. The current generations are actually devolving themselves instead of evolving over time. Makes me wonder where we'll be in a hundred years? Even though I may be a DL and others AB, it's not cool to put diapers on a kid because the parents so easily give up on the child. The child loses, and isn't given a fair shot, that's what upsets me. Even though it may be some fantasy to some of us to have our parents force us into diapers and or, wear them our whole entire life from birth, in reality, every kid should be given a fair shot at being out of diapers as soon as possilbe. Not when they're 5,6,7+!

Also, decades ago, people weren't afraid to discipline other peoples kids. It likely would be an embarrasement to the parents to have a 3 year old in diapers and people woud probably say something straight to the parent face. It'd be motivation for the parents to work with the kids. Also, moms usually stayed home so the opportunity to work with the kids potty training would be much easier than in todays society. Not only that, diapers for olde children weren't so readily available so it was a MUST to train them. Now, it's just like, "oh who cares, they'll learn whenever and don't tell me how to raise my kid". Nothing like a 3 year old running the family. "I'll let hime decide when he's ready", oh really, your 3,4,5 year old's going to make those decisions? Nice!! Again, how about being a PARENT!! Right???

I guess, times are a changin'!!!

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Children were never trained by age 2. Usually in such cases where the claim was made, the parents were nearby with a potty of some kind or there was a case of very early cranial development. For 35 years it has been understood that 36 months was the earliest time to start. There was a Dr. Money who developed a system that would have a child trained to be daytime dry, under ordinary developmental circumstances, in from 36 hours to about 3 days.. Add to that the medical fact that there are some conditions of brain or body that delay development for months to years. Some of these are normal and some are abnormal and there are times when it is just laziness. So everyone is right here, it just depends on cases

as far as disciplining other peoples' children. The culture was more uniform. "Treat him/her like one of your own" was successful because standards and practices were pretty uniform 45-60 years ago so that there was little difference in disciplinary methods in the huge Middle Class that was the rule and if the kid complained he/she was told that you were in their house and they were the boss. Also the families knew each other very well, and were most likel blood or marriage kin, so the issue of trust did not arise; it was presumed. You would not dare do that today as there are some real mondo bizarro methods in practice by persons with som mondo bizarro beliefs. And as you say in the case of a broken home the two "parents" use the kid to get badk at each other. Also discipline and the like had a gender component. Girls were punished differently than boys and there were gender-related differences in the reasons for some of the punishment

[rusty pins]

Boils down to one thing. PARENTING! Lazy parents, broken families and parents who just don't care if their kid takes 10 years to potty train. They're just worried about the other 80 things they have going on in their life and potty training isn't one of them when there's a simple solution. Diapers! Call 'em pull-ups, training pants, protective underwear, at the end of the day, it's a diaper. If the majority of kids could be trained by age 2 a few decades ago, no reason they shouldn't be able to now. Of course there are the exceptions in any generation where there were actual physical problems they couldn't be trained. I'm not talking about those kids. The current generations are actually devolving themselves instead of evolving over time. Makes me wonder where we'll be in a hundred years? Even though I may be a DL and others AB, it's not cool to put diapers on a kid because the parents so easily give up on the child. The child loses, and isn't given a fair shot, that's what upsets me. Even though it may be some fantasy to some of us to have our parents force us into diapers and or, wear them our whole entire life from birth, in reality, every kid should be given a fair shot at being out of diapers as soon as possilbe. Not when they're 5,6,7+!

Also, decades ago, people weren't afraid to discipline other peoples kids. It likely would be an embarrasement to the parents to have a 3 year old in diapers and people woud probably say something straight to the parent face. It'd be motivation for the parents to work with the kids. Also, moms usually stayed home so the opportunity to work with the kids potty training would be much easier than in todays society. Not only that, diapers for olde children weren't so readily available so it was a MUST to train them. Now, it's just like, "oh who cares, they'll learn whenever and don't tell me how to raise my kid". Nothing like a 3 year old running the family. "I'll let hime decide when he's ready", oh really, your 3,4,5 year old's going to make those decisions? Nice!! Again, how about being a PARENT!! Right???

I guess, times are a changin'!!!

Some very valid points here! I live in an area where there are a lot of minority people on welfare and aid. Not knocking those races at all, but in my area there tends to be a lot of people who do not work, don't care to work, have many kids and get welfare and food stamps. This has been going on for 50 years, not just the past few years with the recession. Quite often these mothers with their kids are in the 200 to 300 pound range, making me believe that they fall into the "lazy" catagory as d_drew12 mentioned above. Most often I see 3, 4 and yes, even 5 year olds still wearing diapers. Not pull ups, mind you, but actual diapers! The other month I was at the Secretary of State with my dad to get his state ID renewed. We had to sit and wait our turn and there was a large woman with a kid that was at least 5, probably closer to 6 years old. Her pants were too large to properly fit her and you couldn't mistake that she was wearing a tape on disposable diaper since her pants had fallen half way down. The mother didn't care as she was talking with someone else and in over hearing the conversation I discovered that she didn't have a job, wasn't interetsed in looking for one and was on welfare, ADC, ect. Then you see some of these people with their older kids shopping with a cart load of Pampers size 6 and 4 and 5 year olds in diapers. You know when you see that many older kids with so many different welfare parents that they don't have medical needs! The parents just don't care about toilet training the kids. Maybe they get more money from the state if their kids are still in diapers! Parents like that just make me sick! It keeps a cycle going and when their kids grow up, what will they have learned? That you don't work, you go on welfare so others support you, you have as many kids as you can so you can get as much aid for them as possible, and you are so lazy that you keep your kids in diapers until they are 5 or 6 or even older!

[kirababy]

i have also heard the theory that disposable diapers are so much better at wicking moisture away that the baby does not feel wet and uncomfortable so they don't WANT to change their diaper.

that may be part of it also

[Marcuss]

Parents may not be self conscious about their child being in diapers at 5 but i dont believe that a kid in first or second grade would want their classmates to know they used diapers at night.

[Floaty_Boy]

I think a lot of it for my generation (70/80's) was parental competition. "Oh you billy is still in diapers? Susie was trained at 18 months!"

Oh yeah. I can identify with this big time. I remember my mother's mother proudly proclaiming that she had my uncle potty trained by 6 months (yeah, right) as a way to make herself seem so much better than my parents.

--Floaty

[Guest scenarioX]

Back in the late 80's I wa sat my neighbors house playing around. At around 9:30 I see the oldest daughter pulling a Huggy out of the bag. She was like 8 or so... She had to be that age, fully talkative and we rode the three wheeler together a lot. I was around 11 at that time.

Well they didn't have babies in the house so I wondered what was up with the diaper(I never seen diapers at that house before)

She took it into the bathroom then scurried into her room for bed time.

A few days later my sister(who babysits those kids) says she wets the bed.

LOL..for an 11 year old DL who did not have or ever could get real diapers yet, this was real good news.

One time after I was given a job to keep watch of things while that family took a vocation.. I was all set, I had the house keys and I was gonna get me one of those diapers! All excited I searched for them...I couldn't find them! they had none!!

Boy that sucked.

[Diapered Jason]

Come mothers and fathers

Throughout the land

And don't criticize

What you can't understand

Your sons and your daughters

Are beyond your command

Your old road is

Rapidly agin'.

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin'

Bobby Dylan sure has made some great lyrics to his songs with messages that are still valid today mostly because somethings just never change.

Now focusing on the some of the comments made towards the younger generations (my generation), I see too many assumptions being made, which have led to some very pessimistic conclusions. "The current generations are actually devolving themselves instead of evolving over time." That is a statement based on nothing, because regardless of where you get your potty training statistics, there is no good connection between that and how a generation is evolving. I also think some people who posted comments on this thread failed to see the many situations which could have lead to the circumstance they are basing their conclusions on, or they are using extenuating circumstances to draw conclusions. Either way, I question the logic of these arguments as there are many other known as well as unknown factors that could lead to older kids still in some kind of absorbent undergarment. There are cases for which the comments describe, but you cannot use them to characterize an entire generation.

I hope this changes the impetus of the argument as Christine brings up some valid points, which I noticed have been cast aside.

[Rihanna]

....Bobby Dylan sure has made some great lyrics to his songs with messages that are still valid today mostly because somethings just never change......

Bobby Dylan? If we're talking about the same artist that I've known since before he made it 'big time,' he has always been known as Bob Dylan, never "Bobby."

Side note; Many of you will never experience the Bob Dylan stuff broadcast on "underground" (FM,) radio back in the mid-to late 1960's. I suppose that now w/things like youtube and others, one could find them, but nothing beats having been there in the first place.

[Diapered Jason]

Bobby Dylan? If we're talking about the same artist that I've known since before he made it 'big time,' he has always been known as Bob Dylan, never "Bobby."

Lol, they are the same artist, and I have heard him called Bobby many times. Do a Google search with Bob Dylan or Bobby Dylan and you get the same results.

[Rihanna]

Lol, they are the same artist, and I have heard him called Bobby many times. Do a Google search with Bob Dylan or Bobby Dylan and you get the same results.

I see your point, but most of the first 3-4 pages of google refer back to "Bob."

Not arguing here. I see where you have have seen him called "Bobby." Until now, and I've known him & his work for years, this is the first time I've seen him called "Bobby."