Funny Thing About Pampers

[sarah_ab]

Lets me clear, i said "you may be a really nice guys but you come across as...." so i admitted i do not know you and gave you the benefit of the doubt, and then stated not who you are, but how your posts make you come across..

just like if you said "you could be really nice sarah_ab but you come across as a bitch in your posts."

and you are right sometimes i do not read all your posts in depth because i find them rediculous... YOU CHOSE TO PUT A DIAPER ON> boom end of story. no one makes yuou, no one forces you. Its a choice you made all by yourself.

also... you chose to go out in public dressed as a baby and play in the park.... and then someone just randomly apporached you to do a show... which you chose to do.. so you chose to get your 15 minutes on tv.... most people who just want to live with private lives enjoying what they like would not agree to air their dirty laundry on tv....

i'm glad for you that you have such a hot girlfriend, because apparently appearances are extremely important to you. THe problem is we don't want 'fat old guys in diapers" representing us, we don't want "fat girls in diapers" representing us.... we just want "normal, well rounded people" representing us..

but normal well rounded people know where to draw the line between private behavior and behavior you put on tv....

[Leilin]

The lack of choice part is in the thoughts and feelings that drive us to do this. I never asked to be turned on by disposable undergarments.

That is very correct.

In my case:

I do not choose to wet the bed, or, when I fall asleep during the day, my clothing.

I DO choose to wear diapers for it.

I DO choose to ageplay, when I feel like it, and to wear cute and often babylike things.

I take responsibility for that, and, even to a degree, my bedwetting, as it was caused by a clumsy-related injury in my childhood.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

Babybrett, if you're still reading this site, please check your messages.

I'll end this post by trying to steer things back on topic: Market trends change. Just because there was no (significant) market for a larger diaper from KCWW/P&G ten years ago doesn't mean that there will be no market for such a product now. Ten years ago KCWW released "Huggies Convertibles" in the states--they sold very poorly and disappeared from store shelves quickly, because there was no market for a pull-on baby diaper in the states. This year KCWW introduced "Huggies Little Movers Slip-ons," which are essentially a modern version of "Huggies Convertibles," and which are selling rather well. In the states, there was no market for this product in 2001, but there is a market for this product in 2011. The same may very well be true of larger sizes of KCWW/P&G products. Here's a non-diaper related example: When Apple approached Intel to design a chip for the MacBook Air, Intel was initially at a loss--they had no processor that would meet the specifications Apple needed. Intel went back over designs they had created, but dropped from production because there was no demand for them. Eventually Intel found a processor design similar to the one requested by Apple--they modified that design, and it became the first processor ever used by the MacBook Air, and the basis for future Intel processors of a similar design. Just because there was no market for the processor when it was initially conceived of didn't meant that there wasn't a market for it when Apple asked Intel to produce a similar processor. It should also be noted that just because there is currently a demand for a product doesn't mean that there will always be demand for a product. Dedicated handheld video game systems used to be an incredibly lucrative market for companies like Nintendo, and to a lesser extent, Sony and Sega. Today, dedicated handheld video game systems are struggling, because smart phones have largely eroded their market. Just because larger KCWW/P&G baby/youth products weren't profitable at one point in time doesn't mean that they won't be profitable in the future, or that they're not profitable now.

[waynecook52]

I want to add my two cents in.At one time there WAS a baby diaper that would fit alot of adults.How many of you all remember the toys r us supper toddler diaper?It said right on the package that it was a half size bigger then a pamper.That it would fit up to a 29 inc. waist.BUT,back then there just was not enough people buying it to justify making it anymore.

[babybrett]

Well I only came back to check the thread because more then one person emailed me to not leave. I guess you always have 2 sides, and who knew that other AB's are so judging of each other. That right there is sad. But live life how you want i live mine how i want. back to the task at hand.

Um, I honestly just think it will be a matter of time, someone will want the money sooner or later. For me I will be done posting my sucess failure with what happens with this ordeal, really this site has opened my eyes that alot of people have shut eyes. Again no worries you hide and such if thats what gets ya through the day more power to ya.

If you do want updates on what is happening with the ordeal just private message me, I can tell some members are really wanting to know more, when others just decided to shut the door and not care about anything I say. So I figured out there is always two sides, and I'll be on this side with people private messaging me and the others can boast about how i am wrong about everything i dont give a #$%*

Have a good one, and i will stay because 6 members decided to private message me, and show me that they wanted me here. Thanks.

Also i will be updating my blog around 3 times a week, if you want that i put it under links and its also on my profile.

Have a good one for now

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

I want to add my two cents in.At one time there WAS a baby diaper that would fit alot of adults.How many of you all remember the toys r us supper toddler diaper?It said right on the package that it was a half size bigger then a pamper.That it would fit up to a 29 inc. waist.BUT,back then there just was not enough people buying it to justify making it anymore.

I knew about Benetton, but I honestly didn't know about this particular brand. Just out of curiosity, how long ago was this? Also, what was the sizes on the Toys R Us diaper--was it labeled as "size 6," "size 7," or as something else entirely?

[waynecook52]

I knew about Benetton, but I honestly didn't know about this particular brand. Just out of curiosity, how long ago was this? Also, what was the sizes on the Toys R Us diaper--was it labeled as "size 6," "size 7," or as something else entirely?

Sorry i should have said how long ago.Back in the late 70's and early 80's.I was just called supper toddler.I know i talked about them in a post with someone here but ill be danged if i can remember who.

[sarah_ab]

ok i think there needs to be clarification between P&G making an adult sized diaper, and P&G making an AB diaper..... and adult sized diaper is one thing, a diaper targeted for AB's usually implies a babyish or childish design etc... on it....

I can see P&G or a subset company making adult sized diapers as there is a LARGE market of teens/adults who wear incontinence briefs... but comparitively there is a VERY SMALL percentage of adults who wear diapers with babyish prints on them.....

[Leilin]

ok i think there needs to be clarification between P&G making an adult sized diaper, and P&G making an AB diaper..... and adult sized diaper is one thing, a diaper targeted for AB's usually implies a babyish or childish design etc... on it....

I can see P&G or a subset company making adult sized diapers as there is a LARGE market of teens/adults who wear incontinence briefs... but comparitively there is a VERY SMALL percentage of adults who wear diapers with babyish prints on them.....

Agreed.

Similarly, there is a difference between "bigger" diapers (Diapers will get bigger for as long as American continues to have a widening waistline) and adult baby diapers. There is absolutely no reason to correlate the two. It is unrealistic to the point of being delusional.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

Okay, just to clear one thing up, when I refer to a "larger diaper," I'm referring to a larger diaper sold under the baby/youth brand names used by KCWW/P&G. KCWW already makes a "larger diaper" for adults--they sell it under the Depend brand name. P&G owns Attends outside of the states and others here have stated that they supposedly have investments in Tena. Although a "size 8" from P&G, and a "size 7" from everyone else would certainly qualify as "larger diapers," that's only a small part of what I'm referring to.

What I'm thinking of is a diaper made by KCWW/P&G, sold under a brand name like Huggies/Pampers, and intended for use by adults. This is not necessarily an adult baby diaper, but merely a product intended for adults sold under one of the brands that is traditionally associated with baby diapers. Now whether or not this product would look like something sold under the ABU/Bambino brand names is entirely debatable, but my guess is that it would more then likely have some sort of graphics that invoke emotions associated with youthfulness and the Huggies/Pampers brand names. The variable here that no one knows, unless they're privy to the inner workings of KCWW/P&G, is what the most recent market research those companies have conducted has revealed about such a product. All we know is that KCWW and P&G have supposedly been keeping an eye on this market, and that they've had a large volume of requests for such a product in the past. My guess is that if KCWW or P&G see that they're losing a decent number of customers to ABU or The Bottom Half Group, they'll start developing a product to compete with ABU and/or The Bottom Half Group. If this means a Huggies or Pampers product for adults "with youthful designs," then that is what we will get.

Waynecook52: The age of the product would actually explain why I hadn't heard of it. Thank you again for the information though. I can actually see why TRU pulled the "Super Toddler Diaper" when they did though. Remember, there was a recession in the late-70s/early-80s. Additionally, that recession lead to staggering prices in oil, which would have made the production of a larger diaper cost-prohibitive. Now combine a recession with an item that's expensive to produce and you have a recipe for something that wouldn't last long on the market.

[WBDaddy]

If KCWW slaps cute graphics on a Depend, they'll put Kyle (ABU) out of business, but loyal Bambino fans will keep buying Bambino.

If either one of these companies are doing REAL homework on this (roughly 1 in 1,000 people, or a potential market of around 350,000 in the US and several million worldwide) market, they already understand that products like Depend and Attends are not well-respected, and that slapping a Pampers-style print on one won't change that to any significant degree.

[Leilin]

Those numbers are unrealistically high. Furthermore, I think you underestimate two things:

1. The cost of placing those prints on the product, including the necessary market research design firm payment, ink costs, etc.

2. The number of customers they'd lose by placing an infantile image on a product which is vocally intended to preserve dignity.

The overestimation, of course:

AB population. 1 out of 1,000 is mindblowingly, unrealistically huge. Probably closer to 1 out of 100K or 200K on a national average. Of course, this is untestable.There is no accurate way to get a read on the AB/DL population. Most of the groups that have "tried" have a metric which is laughable. Most of the people even trying to make a count can't actually agree on what an ABDL is.

[WBDaddy]

Those numbers are unrealistically high. Furthermore, I think you underestimate two things:

1. The cost of placing those prints on the product, including the necessary market research design firm payment, ink costs, etc.

2. The number of customers they'd lose by placing an infantile image on a product which is vocally intended to preserve dignity.

You and I are on the same page here, just approaching from different angles. Cost/benefit analysis certainly entails both sides of that equation for a monster company like P&G, regarding how much their public image would be tarnished by offering a product to serve a small, publicly perceived as deviant, demographic.

Now, as to population estimates, I quoted Enfant Mel's calculations ( http://understanding.infantilism.org/population_estimate.php ) , which aren't particularly scientific, but are far, far more rigorous than the number you essentially pulled out of the air there...

I also would raise the point that more and more young incons are gravitating towards AB'ism as a way to cope with their incontinence, which is swelling the ranks. Some of our most high-profile members here fit that description (Angela Bauer and Adrian Surley come immediately to mind).

[Leilin]

Rigorous? Let's address the complete lack of logic in that estimate and remember that wishful thinking should not play into science:

First five paragraphs, paraphrased: I HEARD one site had 8,000 people on it, but I didn't think that site was an accurate metric, so I doubled the estimate and threw in several other arbitrary multipliers, while ignoring the fact that the site was potentially international and had many duplicate users at that time.

That is not remotely rigorous. That is the opposite of rigorous. That is throwing several arbitrary multipliers on a made up number in an effort to come to a conclusion that was obviously made before the "rigor" began.

Again, an accurate count is impossible. Literally impossible. The best one can do is observe. 1 in a thousand, though, is a ridiculously high estimate. You are right that my estimate is equally arbitrary. Not at best or worst. My arbitrary methods are EXACTLY as arbitrary as those others.

But these things I do know:

1. The number of active ABDLs in Las Vegas, a metropolitan/surrounding area of just shy of two million people, is approximately 12 people. Counting the inactive ones is pointless, as there is no reliable metric by which they can be counted and therefore no realistic one. How do you estimate something which is literally an unknowable quantity? You don't because it pollutes your results.

1a. In my experience, Vegas has an uncharacteristically LOW AB population for a metropolitan area. There are AT LEAST Seventy-five in the San Jose/San Francisco area, by my last count, and double that it you include Oakland and Santa Cruz (which has an AB population which roughly doubles Vegas's, in an area 1/20 the size, putting it at AROUND 1/2,000, and the highest AB population density I've seen ANYWHERE).

1b. Because the inactive metric is pointless, it's more useful to achieve a count of those who are active in some community in some place while trying to account for duplicates.

2. Most of Ohio, Los Angeles, New York, and similar large metro sprawls have higher AB population densities than cut off metropolitan areas, such as Vegas. LA has around as many as The Bay Area (which, due to the open fetish welcoming nature of many activities and establishments in the area may encourage AB culture).

3. Site population is a meaningless metric of AB population because MANY sites have hundreds, thousands, or more duplicate members. I had three DPF accounts in those years, to give you an idea. Three. Me. I used only one, but all three counted towards the population.

4. Site statistics cannot be meaningfully combined because many ABs are the members of many sites.

Summary: There is no logical, realistic, or remotely scientific or rigorous standard by which an estimate of 1/1,000 could be given that I've ever seen. Literally every single rationale on your own link is completely arbitrary, based in hearsay and rumor, or tainted by huge amounts of wishful thinking.

So have I posted a rigorous summary like this before? Why yes, I have, when I shredded those very ridiculous numbers as they were first being thrown around without a shred of sensible thinking or evidence and basically using almost every single logical fallacy in the book to try to paint ABDL culture as being significantly more popular than it is.

I also would raise the point that more and more young incons are gravitating towards AB'ism as a way to cope with their incontinence, which is swelling the ranks. Some of our most high-profile members here fit that description (Angela Bauer and Adrian Surley come immediately to mind).

I would raise the point that I'm among that population too and that there's no real reason to believe that the three of us are in any way representative of the overall population of young adult bedwetters/incontinent people. Furthermore, any number of those that could be drawn from a site like this is tainted by the overwhelming number of people who feign it or attempt to achieve it and pretend in the process (not saying that either Angela or Adrian are, but very many do).

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

If KCWW slaps cute graphics on a Depend, they'll put Kyle (ABU) out of business, but loyal Bambino fans will keep buying Bambino.

Assuming that the product was part of the Depend brand, it wouldn't surprise me if this was part of what KCWW was attempting to accomplish with the release of such a product. If I had to guess, I'd say that a decent number of ABU's customers are people who switched from the Depend brand, and that KCWW probably wants those customers back.

I also would raise the point that more and more young incons are gravitating towards AB'ism as a way to cope with their incontinence, which is swelling the ranks.

This really hits on one of the reasons that such a product could be appealing to KCWW--if it appeals to young incons, it potentially allows them to lock up more customers for life at an earlier age.

I believe that this product--should it be released--might not be released under the Depend brand name, in part because KCWW has done an excellent job of associating that brand with being elderly, which is an image they're now desperately trying to change. I could see them potentially expanding one of their other product lines to include this new product--particularly if they're aiming at a younger crowd then Depend is aimed at. Now the line that would be expanded is certainly up for debate--KCWW could expand the Huggies line to included sizes 7+ and aim the brand at families rather then just parents. Then again, they could also expand the GoodNites brand, which already fits smaller adults.

Let me end this by saying that one thing to keep in mind is that KCWW has been pushing out a lot of limited edition products with designs on them lately. I'm not sure if this is all of them, but below is a list of the ones that I can remember off of the top of my head.

• Huggies "Little Movers" Limited Edition Jeans (Released in 2010 and rereleased in 2011)

• Huggies "Little Movers" Limited Edition Camo (Wal-Mart Exclusive--currently available)

• Huggies "Little Movers" Limited Edition Santa (Released in 2011)

• U by Kotex Limited Edition Designer Tampons

• U by Kotex Limited Edition "Cleanwear" Designer Ultrathin Pads (Three styles)

[Leilin]

Assuming that the product was part of the Depend brand, it wouldn't surprise me if this was part of what KCWW was attempting to accomplish with the release of such a product. If I had to guess, I'd say that a decent number of ABU's customers are people who switched from the Depend brand, and that KCWW probably wants those customers back.

I'm sure Depend is lamenting the loss of all 12 ABU customers who have actually received the product that they paid for.

... and I'm not really sure what Kotex has to do with this, other than being colorful. It simply isn't relevant to this conversation.

To put this in perspective... Fetlife.com, arguably one of the largest if not the largest fetish community on the web at this time, has 1.09 million users and just shy of 9,000 of those users have "diapers" as an interest.

Now, if we assume that those users are all ABDLs, that puts ABDLs at just shy of 1/100 of all fetishists (meaning 1/10 of the internet associates with a fetish community!?), but wait...

Fetlife has more options for each fetish than "I'm into it," so let's check the first few pages.

Page 1-4:

64 total users.

47 into all things diaper related or wearing or receiving diaperings. (Let's round this up to 75 percent)

7 into watching, 9 curious: ( 25 percent combined), neither of which makes them, at least technically, ABDL in a way that is relevant to this conversation.

So. 75 percent of 9K: 6,750. Out of 1.09 million users, per the front page of Fetlife. Let's assume ABs are as prone to duplicate user accounts as the average fetishist.

So... 6,750/1,099,786. .6 of all fetishists, give or take, or around 6 out of 1,000.

Now, let's extrapolate backwards that 1/1,000 quote. That would mean that 1/6 of the world are fetishists and are open enough to associate within a community for that fetish. That's really not realistic, not even a little bit.

That's a sample size of over a million. I challenge you to find stronger statistics anywhere.

[WBDaddy]

Well, at least that's based on some statistics, rather than the "1/100,000 or 200,000" you threw out there earlier. That was the only point I was making regarding Mel's numbers versus yours in the first place.

[Leilin]

Well, at least that's based on some statistics, rather than the "1/100,000 or 200,000" you threw out there earlier. That was the only point I was making regarding Mel's numbers versus yours in the first place.

My /100K was based on inference from those statistics. I simply didn't want to dredge up the math in this thread.

[WBDaddy]

I'm always interested in seeing the numbers behind someone's (educated) guesswork. Your perspective, couched in the statistics you compiled, was much more compelling than it was when there was no numerical evidence supporting it.

I get that just the sheer unwillingness of ABDL's to "out" themselves (heck, most of us hide our identities here) causes a great deal of problems with accuracy when trying to determine how many of us exist. I'm just saying that the numbers seem to be trending up, or at least there are more of us willing to at least poke our heads into forums like this to communicate with one another.

[Leilin]

I'm glad I could help elucidate my viewpoint, for sure. I get a bit... testy with that 1/1000 number, obviously, because it's presented on that site as somehow being uncontested and it was more or less made fun of for the awful methodology when they tried to tout it in forums such as this one and they put it up there as uncontested despite that.

I guess this all comes down to a very good rationale for why peer review exists.

[WBDaddy]

I was thinking about this a bit more today.

If I went with your estimate (1 in somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 people being AB/DL of some form or another) then that would put the total population of people with some form of paraphilic (or otherwise) infantilism at between 5,000 and 11,000 in the US (out of a population of 350,000,000)

Do you really believe the number is that small?

[Eir]

WBDaddy, I believe the number is much higher, maybe 1 in 20 or so. People obviously closet it. I remember that when I was in High School, a ton of the girls, nearly a quarter would dress up as babies, or very little girls! Add to that how many adults will agree to wear a baby new year costume. I think this is much higher than we let on!

[Leilin]

I was thinking about this a bit more today.

If I went with your estimate (1 in somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 people being AB/DL of some form or another) then that would put the total population of people with some form of paraphilic (or otherwise) infantilism at between 5,000 and 11,000 in the US (out of a population of 350,000,000)

Do you really believe the number is that small?

You're probably correct that 1/100,000 is too small. Within that extrapolation, I'd say that we're more reasonably looking at a maximum of 1/10,000 (and that would be A LOT of ABs) to a minimum of 1/75,000, on the national average.

WBDaddy, I believe the number is much higher, maybe 1 in 20 or so. People obviously closet it. I remember that when I was in High School, a ton of the girls, nearly a quarter would dress up as babies, or very little girls! Add to that how many adults will agree to wear a baby new year costume. I think this is much higher than we let on!

... that was a joke, right?

[sarah_ab]

so you are telling me for every two units at my work there is at least one person who likes diapers in there? that in every smaller college classroom in the country, there is one person in there who likes wearing diapers? For every city bus with all the seats taken there are at least 2 people on that bus who secretly wear diapers and/or act like a baby? seriously??? seriously??? wow.......

[babybrett]

This is so funny to me, so many people are so critical and for what no reason at all. for all you know it could be that high who really knows, most of the community hides behind fake names and such. So who really knows, who really cares lol evidently u guys. Makes me chuckle how intense u guys are getting, popcorn anyone? Need some cause this is funny.