Jump to content
LL Medico Diapers and More Bambino Diapers - ABDL Diaper Store

Fishy About Abu Bmx Diapers


Recommended Posts

well those people are affraid of exposure, well I dont want to sound like I'm for it. I did not know that was a child pic until someone mentioned it. but other than that who cares? The pic on QD was not a suggestive one, and for those arguing about Tigers products I read over their site, and it stated all young models parents were present during the shootings. so maybe this was the case for the kid modeling the BMx diaper. Some of you are just drowning in a cup of water, relax! :angel_not:

Link to comment

Why don't people get in an uproar when they see advertisements for baby and children diapers on the television? They show the actual product, whether it be a diaper, pullup or goodnite modeled on a child. There is evident adults present in the ads as well. So are these commercials considered wrong, creepy, pedophilia in anyway? Why not?

Because advertising Pampers in the middle of All My Children is fine. Displaying pictures of children on fetish sites is not.

Link to comment

Did your post have a point other than an attempt to shout down the opinions of others? Kudos on your support of ABU. Some of us aren't okay with their actions. Strangely, the rest of us seem capable of discussing it without petty insults and bumper sticker platitudes.

Never once have I used a platitude - but good on you for actually reverting to the very thing you accuse me of. Debate all you want - just pointing out it is a worthless endeavor. If you choose to spend your time that way - so be it. Besides, I would hardly say I have been shouting... HAVE A NICE DAY!

Link to comment

Never once have I used a platitude - but good on you for actually reverting to the very thing you accuse me of. Debate all you want - just pointing out it is a worthless endeavor. If you choose to spend your time that way - so be it. Besides, I would hardly say I have been shouting... HAVE A NICE DAY!

Your incapability to define a word does not mean you aren't fulfilling its definition. Pretty much the entire body of text that you have submitted to this thread has fulfilled the definition of "platitude" quite perfectly. Perhaps you should look it up before denying so vehemently. For the record, the specific platitude that you keep using is that reference to "diaper morality" as if most of us aren't looking at this from a common sense and public perception standpoint). You have made bold assumptions about those of us who have an issue with this action which can be resolved simply by looking at any one of the ABU review threads, where many, if not all, of the people in this thread have posted positive remarks and reviews in the past. You have conveniently ignored the calls to hear ALL opinions on this matter, be they positive or negative, in favor of flinging low-brow insults at the people you disagree with and calling them purveyors of "diaper morality" rather than actually addressing the content of anybody's post. We get that you have no interest other than supporting ABU in this debate. We get that because your posts in this thread and the other have consisted of precisely two assertions:

1: ABU is good and they did nothing wrong, ever.

2: People who have an issue with this are trying to purvey some sort of "diaper morality."

We get this SO much that your further posting, if, as you have said, you have no interest in this debate and your opinion is absolutely unlikely to change, is pointless. The rest of us, however, who may actually have interest in exploring the facts of this issue (those pesky inconvenient things like definitions of "fetish" and "corporation" and the past history of the involved sites) are already here as you shout from the peanut gallery and we are examining this issue as facts present themselves. If you choose to do so, you are welcome to join us but remember, just like the other thread, that when you make a point based on complete falsehood, as you did in the other thread, you certainly will be called on it.

Your accusation that this debate is a worthless endeavor is pointless and hypocritical as long as you continue to post in this thread. If you aren't posting in this thread to participate in a civil debate on this matter, but just to argue with those of us who are, please keep in mind that the name of the practice of arguing just to argue is called "trolling" and is, last time I checked, against the rules.

This may shock you, but some of us discuss to explore and hear the opinions of others (when they are well-thought) rather than change them or shout them down.

(The reference to "shouting" is obviously figurative, as these proceedings are in text, but thank you for glossing over that. It is in reference to the act of saying something over and over, not unlike a child shouting "I'm not listening!" at the top of his lungs when other people say things he does not want to hear.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Add another vote for creepy. And the problem isn't so much with ABU, but "Quality Diapers" just looks like child porn. There is no real product description. The only focus of the whole site is on the kid in diapers. And on top of that, the photos are so poorly taken that it just puts off a horrible vibe. I can't imagine that any parent who isn't already a diaper fetishist would buy their kids something from that page.

Link to comment

Add another vote for creepy. And the problem isn't so much with ABU, but "Quality Diapers" just looks like child porn. There is no real product description. The only focus of the whole site is on the kid in diapers. And on top of that, the photos are so poorly taken that it just puts off a horrible vibe. I can't imagine that any parent who isn't already a diaper fetishist would buy their kids something from that page.

So basically you're saying you feel the site is a child porn shop fronting as a company who sells diapers? Oooooooooooooooookkkkayyy!?!?!?

So let me ask you how you'd market these diapers right of the gate. We already know from DD's post that they got the container shipped and had very limited time to get a website up and running to sell their products and start recooping some of their costs. I'm sure the site will get better over time.

PS. 1,000th POST!!!! Yeeh me!!

Link to comment

So basically you're saying you feel the site is a child porn shop fronting as a company who sells diapers? Oooooooooooooooookkkkayyy!?!?!?

So let me ask you how you'd market these diapers right of the gate. We already know from DD's post that they got the container shipped and had very limited time to get a website up and running to sell their products and start recooping some of their costs. I'm sure the site will get better over time.

There's a difference between claiming it is pornography, and saying it has the appearance of porn, of which this site has the latter.

Not putting pre-pubescent children in nearly naked photos is one way to market this. You will never see a major manufacturer market this type of product in such a fashion, because it leaves a bitter taste in people's mouths. Wearing a shirt, or cropping like ABU did would be much more acceptable.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. If this guy sells his inventory, well, then maybe the others and I are a bit prudish. But we'll see.

Edited to add: Hell, Repaid1 was deleting instances of these photos that people attached to posts here. It's seriously not hard to see this as bad. I'm not a member of the hide your diapers from the world crowd. But when dealing with kids, you have to draw some serious boundaries.

Link to comment

As it goes for DK Enterprises, QualityD's, Tiger, You-Know-Who, etc:

Concerning authorship, there seem to be a handful of possible people from our community- or spurned by our community- who could be behind DK Enterprises. The sites involved don't even give any real names of owners or any of the identifying trappings of a legitimate online store. Gosh, that seems like enough to think that they may not be doing what they say they are doing.

"I have seen the pic, and I don't find it adorable, I find it creepy. I find it rather disturbing that a child would be used to advertise a diaper like that."

"Add another vote for creepy. And the problem isn't so much with ABU, but "Quality Diapers" just looks like child porn. There is no real product description. The only focus of the whole site is on the kid in diapers. And on top of that, the photos are so poorly taken that it just puts off a horrible vibe. I can't imagine that any parent who isn't already a diaper fetishist would buy their kids something from that page."

"thats kinda.... creepy. this is prolly where people get bad thought about us."

"But when dealing with kids, you have to draw some serious boundaries."

If this is the reaction of seemingly half of us, members of a community where wearing and seeing diapers is welcome and normal, what might prospective customers of this site think? We are meant to believe that they are really marketing to the parents of bed wetting or incontinent youth with this site? It just doesn't seem like that is the case to me. Really, they can have that sort of site if they wish... and we can think it as wrong or right as we like. We can argue about it all we want, the choices they made are theirs to make and those kids are not naked or being abused, in the pictures. It just seems like they're lying about the intent, and that raises some flags for me.

So we are left with a site that is anonymous and controversial.

As it goes for ABU and its connections or choices:

I'm not trying to make any assertions about the 'moral consequences' of something like this, I just really hope that we are not stupid enough to think that this is a legitimate way of selling the product to the supposed audience. The real issue, to me, is that what we thought of as a trusted supplier of adult FETISH products seems to have a connection with a site like this at all... shoddily constructed, controversial, dealing with minors in diapers. 'Fetish' and 'minors' don't need to be near each other, and I think just deciding to use that image shows a serious lack of judgement.

Let's take QualityDiapers/Tiger/DK at face value- anonymous and controversial at best. I mean, we could argue and speculate all day about who is doing it (since there isn't a clear CEO or owner being named and no full address) and we could talk about the images all day too (even though they don't seem to match the way the rest of their supposed industry sells the same type of product, and lots of AB's even think they're creepy) and we could debate about quality of design or coding of the website and how that reflects on a company that is supposedly legitimate (even though it looks unprofessional, and yet again doesn't seem to match the rest of its supposed competitors).

So, do any of us really want the connection between a site for adult fetish products and a controversial site with images of a minor posing in diapers?

Do we think it was OK to use an image of a minor on a fetish product supplier's site? Or that they deal with Tiger at all or share products with QualityDiapers?

Of course, it was ABU's choice to use that cropped image of a minor and they can do what they please... but I certainly don't want my money in their pockets if these are the choices they make. ABU can make their choices about the associations they make, but old connections to... that guy, to Tiger, now to QualityDiapers... too much for me, I fold. Now, I suppose I've done what everyone else has done.

But, consider this: I think everyone should take into account that this is controversial. If that is the case, do you really care enough about ABU's products to keep buying from them when there's even a shadow of a doubt about how clean they're keeping their noses? Gosh, I'm just tired of seeing yet another instance of "uh, oh... ABU is doing x" on the forums. I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to find out later, without doubt, that they are involved with unsavory folks who make my community look bad and think "Well, crap, I could have just bought diapers somewhere else." The information we've gotten from ABU seems scant, unapologetic, vague. To me, even if I didn't think that QualityDiapers was creepy, that would be enough to just shop somewhere else.

Link to comment

Honestly I find ABU's behavior suspicious, their products low quality and their intentions questionable. They've lied to people and misrepresented themselves from the very beginning, and I guess I shouldn't be but I am surprised that so many within the community are OK with it.

Link to comment

Honestly I find ABU's behavior suspicious, their products low quality and their intentions questionable. They've lied to people and misrepresented themselves from the very beginning, and I guess I shouldn't be but I am surprised that so many within the community are OK with it.

Can you explain more about how they lied? The reason I ask is because I agree with you I have found their quality to be poor and some if their ads questionable. I'm curious about the lying because I haven't heard about it before -- just curious

Link to comment

Can you explain more about how they lied? The reason I ask is because I agree with you I have found their quality to be poor and some if their ads questionable. I'm curious about the lying because I haven't heard about it before -- just curious

Their most notorious form of lying is having sock-puppet forum members register and post at forums as "satisfied customers" and shout down any people who claim to have had issues with their products, proclaiming that those issues aren't valid. They have had those sockpuppets banned at several places for those actions.

Other than that, I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

and I guess I shouldn't be but I am surprised that so many within the community are OK with it.

This. 100 times, this. I am honestly staggered so many people are supporting ABUs actions in the introduction of their new line as not a big deal or even that it's perfectly acceptable...

Link to comment

This situation is frustrating, and I think shows some bad judgment at the very least. I first came upon this controversy on RUP. Toddler had taken a very strong stance on the issue, and urged a boycott of ABU because of their advertising stance. He went so far as to post the Federal statues on what constitute wrong doing in this case. People, both pro and con to Toddler’s position, spoke. You may see this conversation at the following link if you are a member of RUP:

http://rupadded.com/m/news/view/Boycot-of-ABU

In the various discussions on RUP it was alleged that pictures of non-baby, non-toddlers models have never been used in the promotion of incontinence/diaper products for the youth market. I have done some research on the veracity of this, and have found that the answer is yes they have been used, and in nation wide advertising campaigns. Beyond using teen and preteen models for such incontinence items as Pull Ups and the like, there have been older products that have done likewise. Please see this link, thanks to the Daily Diapers archive:

http://www.dailydiapers.com/content/staydry.html

I remember seeing these advertisements in magazines, and newspapers when I was a kid. It was the first time I understood that I was not alone as a bed wetter.

Upon further reading at the Daily Diapers Forums, however I did come across a troubling posting that shed some additional light on the issue, and may provide some further insight into the situation. Among other things in the posting it stated that:

“DK Enterprises also owns tigerunderwear, a website that manufactures toddlerlike underwear for boys and men. Amongst the photos on the site are some very sexually suggestive photos of the same boy that is in the BMX diaper photos

  • Like 1
Link to comment

(Moved from JustDiapers forum)

FWIW, I'm going to lay some stuff out here that pretty well damns Kyle even without the supporting "proof" that DK Enterprises = IDK Enterprises = D***er.

1) DK Enterprises was the designer of this diaper. How do I know? Because DK had the prototype, and they shot their own model in the prototype. If Kyle had designed the diaper, he would have put one of his girls in the diaper to shoot it. Even if he had engaged with DK at prototype stage, either it was the height of laziness or he just didn't care enough to bother with anything more than cropping a photo of a known underage model to sell his product to an adult audience.

2) Pursuant to #1, DK Enterprises approached Kyle about "splitting a carton" (Kyle's words). If we assume Kyle knew nothing about this company other than they worked with the same Chinese supplier (again his words), then he failed to do his due diligence investigating the partner he was about to engage in commerce with. This is a basic tenet of corporate interchange the world around - if a company heretofore unknown to you approaches you about some sort of business arrangement, you investigate the company. Kyle apparently wasn't even so much as impressed when DK sent over their model shoots of an underage boy.

3) Therefore, if we employ Occam's Razor, either Kyle was so incredibly stupid he could not have foreseen the backlash from a community known to be highly sensitive about connections with pedophilia, or he went in with both eyes open, arrogantly assuming there are enough creepers in this community to overcome the loss of sales he'd experience from the non-creepers walking away from his business.

So, you choose. Is Kyle retarded? Or does he not GAF about being a responsible member of the community as much as some extra profit?

All the above is conclusions based on the facts in front of us, not speculation about who is connected to what or why.

Sadly, based on my review of this thread, it seems that people who were already not customers of ABU were merely reinforced in their resolve not to buy from them, and for the most part, customers of ABU (self excepted, as I was a customer of ABU) were equally not dissuaded.

Link to comment

If you disagree with me concerning the actual legality of these pictures, then I strongly suggest you contact the proper authorities with your complaints. That is your right, and indeed your duty if you feel that strongly. Let them act on the information provided; they will if they feel that action is necessary.

Surely you understand the difference between that which is illegal and that which is morally reprehensible and/or unethical.

Link to comment

well those people are affraid of exposure, well I dont want to sound like I'm for it. I did not know that was a child pic until someone mentioned it. but other than that who cares? The pic on QD was not a suggestive one, and for those arguing about Tigers products I read over their site, and it stated all young models parents were present during the shootings. so maybe this was the case for the kid modeling the BMx diaper. Some of you are just drowning in a cup of water, relax! :angel_not:

My wife is a photographer, and has been for several decades. She can tell you from experience that certain parents out there will fall all over themselves to get their kids into advertisements and film work. She had the father of a 14-year-old girl argue with her about whether his daughter was appropriate to shoot lingerie (the casting call she was dealing with at the time), including thongs.

Don't believe for one minute that there isn't a parent out there perfectly willing to put their child in any sort of dangerous situation so they can (vicariously) have their 15 minutes of fame.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Surely you understand the difference between that which is illegal and that which is morally reprehensible and/or unethical.

Rest assured that I do understand the difference, WBDaddy. I was leaving it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions, and take whatever actions they deemed appropriate.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

DK Enterprises is new, better website is probably still in development, but no one wants to sit on a warehouse full of diapers they could be selling.

well you where right! they did update the site now there is MORE photos that dont make sense and are questionable......

  • Like 1
Link to comment

If you disagree with me concerning the actual legality of these pictures, then I strongly suggest you contact the proper authorities with your complaints. That is your right, and indeed your duty if you feel that strongly. Let them act on the information provided; they will if they feel that action is necessary.

My most recent comments on QD can be found here. I largely agree with you on this matter, particularly on this paragraph though. QD could honestly make their photos far less controversial though by digitally adding a shirt to their photos.

My real issue though is with ABU. They need to explain why they used QD's model in the first place, and more importantly, why they're taking credit for diapers that aren't necessarily their design. They had "picture coming soon" up for quite awhile, so I see no reason why they couldn't have kept that placeholder up until their diapers had arrived and could be photographed. I do feel that the photos used by QD crossed a line when they were used by ABU, but that's because ABU has a different target market then QD. I'll reserve final judgement of QD until someone can show me some hard evidence that proves they aren't who they say they are. ABU is another story though, this is the second time they've deceived the community either intentionally or unintentionally, and as I mentioned above, they need to explain themselves if they want me to consider them a reputable business.

Link to comment
  • 5 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...