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

Diaper + Skirt = Win!


Recommended Posts

I am always in a Diaper and skirt I would never want and am certanly not ever allowed to wear jeans or trowsers but when I'm at home I often wear a tutu that shows off my diaper nicely 8)

Link to comment

If your skirt always lets your diaper show, then how will you learn chastity which is keeping your skirts down so nobody sees your panties. That is part of what is taught at RUFFLES & RIBBONS GIRLS' HOME so that you will not be trollopy and you are chastized if you let your underthings show. If iy did not cover the panties, it would not make sense as a skirt and if it is the right length. about halfway to the knee, with some fullness, it encourages the urge to lift or feel under it and you know how people like ti feel rubber panties over thick diapers, which is what put the "baby doll" in "babydoll"

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I'm wearing purple satin rhumba panties over my diaper & pink plastic panties. So cool looking!

That sounds lovely and cute 8)

Link to comment
  • 9 years later...

I agree diaper plus skirt = win. I tried that one time when I lived at home. I took one of my sisters skirts and would wear it and just a diaper underneath it and I liked it cause it allowed easy access to my diaper and I could rub myself to an amazing orgasm and I would imagine I was a girl while doing it 

Link to comment
  • 4 months later...

A skirt, or more correctly known as a baby-doll is a morphed design to allow a parent to dress their baby where the diaper is partially exposed. This is to allow the parent to be able to monitor the state of a babies diaper. This was in the time when a baby was wearing cloth diapers and rubber / plastic pants where not in common usage and the baby was out at a public event. At home, the baby would be only wearing the diaper and maybe a short top. Also, a baby never soiled the diaper - it was 'potted' after meals and before being put down for a nap. The addition of ruffles on woolen knitted diaper covers was a way to over dress the baby and semi hide the diapers.

@Little BabyDoll Christine tends to use longer dresses as a way to teach little girls to hide their panties / diapers, but this approach was never employed with younger babies. At some formal occasions, the baby would be dressed in gowns that are long enough to cover their feet, but this is with very young babies etc. as for babies that crawl would easily get tangled in clothes that are that long. 

Babies that are old enough to crawl would be in onesies, as the onesies purpose is to hold up the thicker and heavier diaper, and prob changed to baby-dolls as they are learning to walk.

Baby-dolls have the second advantage as they usually don't get wet when a baby wets their cloth diaper due to not being 'in the line of fire' so to speak. This was all at the time when a baby didn't wear plastic / rubber pants and the baby was`changed very shortly after every time they wet.

- so yes, baby-dolls / dresses are very functional for one that wears diapers - even disposable diapers.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, babykeiff said:

A skirt, or more correctly known as a baby-doll is a morphed design to allow a parent to dress their baby where the diaper is partially exposed. This is to allow the parent to be able to monitor the state of a babies diaper. This was in the time when a baby was wearing cloth diapers and rubber / plastic pants where not in common usage and the baby was out at a public event. At home, the baby would be only wearing the diaper and maybe a short top. Also, a baby never soiled the diaper - it was 'potted' after meals and before being put down for a nap. The addition of ruffles on woolen knitted diaper covers was a way to over dress the baby and semi hide the diapers.

@Little BabyDoll Christine tends to use longer dresses as a way to teach little girls to hide their panties / diapers, but this approach was never employed with younger babies. At some formal occasions, the baby would be dressed in gowns that are long enough to cover their feet, but this is with very young babies etc. as for babies that crawl would easily get tangled in clothes that are that long. 

Babies that are old enough to crawl would be in onesies, as the onesies purpose is to hold up the thicker and heavier diaper, and prob changed to baby-dolls as they are learning to walk.

Baby-dolls have the second advantage as they usually don't get wet when a baby wets their cloth diaper due to not being 'in the line of fire' so to speak. This was all at the time when a baby didn't wear plastic / rubber pants and the baby was`changed very shortly after every time they wet.

- so yes, baby-dolls / dresses are very functional for one that wears diapers - even disposable diapers.

No A skirt is not a babydoll. A babydoll is more like a dress with a very high waist; from just under the arms to just under the nipples

Also before the late 1960's/'70's, babydolls fully concealed any underthings, albeit with very little to spare and they were often considered a kind of nightgown or night dress. In fact, babydolls were used on very little girls (older than toddlers) to teach "chastity" meaning to carry oneself so that the panties were conceals, and this included diapers and rubber panties which were used to create shame if they were let to show, or were used as punishment or chastizement

Exposed diapers on a toddler was considered a sign of slovenliness on the part of the parents

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Little BabyDoll Christine said:

No A skirt is not a babydoll. A babydoll is more like a dress with a very high waist; from just under the arms to just under the nipples

Also before the late 1960's/'70's, babydolls fully concealed any underthings, albeit with very little to spare and they were often considered a kind of nightgown or night dress. In fact, babydolls were used on very little girls (older than toddlers) to teach "chastity" meaning to carry oneself so that the panties were conceals, and this included diapers and rubber panties which were used to create shame if they were let to show, or were used as punishment or chastizement

Exposed diapers on a toddler was considered a sign of slovenliness on the part of the parents

The baby-doll came from the original design of a clothes - one used to be a piece of rectangular animal skin where a hole was cut for the head in the centre of the rectangle, and for adult, either a form of rope, or sewn edges used to close the parts under the arms. For adults, the genital areas were covered with a piece of cloth and a form of belt around the waste. In warm climates, the top was normally not worn.

This was copied for a baby with a piece of table cloth, known as 'nappe' or the anglised form of the word Nappy to cover the childs privates. In America, this type of cloth was of a certain weave, referred to the 'diaper' weave.

The top was sewn and the term 'baby-doll' was coined by Matel in the clothing designed for actual dolls they produced.

A baby was dressed only in a single or double layered cloth where when they wet, they would also wet whatever they were sitting on, and thus were changed. The addition of a top on the child was depending on the age of the child plus the changing attitudes of people over time. The baby-doll is a TYPE of dress, where you describe the more modern version, but it became popular following media exposure like 'Shirley Temple' etc. Some baby-doll dresses are refered to as a 'Shirley Temple', but the dress was never long enough to cover a diaper until rubber / plastic panties became common use. The simple reason is that a baby-doll of that lenght would get wet, and need to be changed every time the diapers got wet - and in the time of no / expensive washing machines etc., adding more clothes on a baby that would increase the amount of laundry in a house, despite what the neighbours wouid say, or as you state, would shame these parents, common sence is that most parents would ignore them, or tell them where to go.

The actual standard that parents etc lived up to was to have pristine white diapers - which meant that they were attentive parents and never let their baby mess in these diapers - i.e. potted them.

The pride/shame attidude you are referring to was when plastic / rubber panties were used, washing machines existed, and toilet training was delayed. As a result, methods were employed (using overlength clothes etc) to hide the fact that their greater than 1 1/2 year old child was still in diapers. This was the original toilet training age, as soon as the child could stand / walk, the child was toilet trained. After all, they were already partially toilet trained (for messing) since they never messed in a diaper AND had already got the feedback, almost from birth, that when they wet, they were changed. Any delay in changing a baby at that time resulted in diaper rash, another shameful experience that attentive parents avoided. As a result, a child could usually be toilet trained very shortly after they managed to stand / walk.

The true shame is having a child wearing thicker diapers and allowing the child to stew in their own wet and mess for hours at a time while hiding these diapers with longer clothes etc. For a child to get to that situation, the parent has to leave the child for long enough in a wet / messy diaper so that the child becomes immune / considers it a normal situation. That is TRUE parental neglect, and most mothers taught their daughter not to do this to their own children.

It has taken years of this behaviour for this to become acceptable and normal - and the invention of rubber pants, plastic pants, and then disposable diapers are all causes. The second is peoples believe in the lies of advertisement - which has increased the worlds dependency on diapers etc, and in my humble opinon, is partially responsible for some of the reason for the continual growing ABDL interest.

Link to comment
  1.  
On 9/10/2023 at 8:13 PM, babykeiff said:

 

@Little BabyDoll Christine tends to use longer dresses as a way to teach little girls to hide their panties / diapers, but this approach was never employed with younger babies. At some formal occasions, the baby would be dressed in gowns that are long enough to cover their feet, but this is with very young babies etc. as for babies that crawl would easily get tangled in clothes that are that long.

 

That "longer dress" was specifically called a Babydoll" in 1966. It was halfway to the knee. Are you trying to tell me that I did not see and hear what I saw and heard and experienced? Where were you in '52?

A babydoll, at least for a little girl, was the shortest thing you could wear that was still decent. Also, as I have explained elsewhere girls were kept in diapers longer, were diapered for long trips and other reasons to age 8 or so and when diapered for those reasons were in dresses that were 2/3 to 3/4 to the knee that were full-skirted. I am of French-Candian ancestry. We had a reputation of which we were very aware. No parents wanted their daughters to be called "putain". Consequently strong "chastity training" was high on a girl's to-do list beginning at age 4 when she started becoming aware of what it means to be a girl. Up to about age 10 gender is appearance and behavior." If you look like me and act like me, you are a girl". That carried trhough in the early internet OG TG and LG sites. Look at my ABLG CV in my About Me

Now, I am talking about little girls. Babies are a different matter. By "babies" I mean infants and toddlers NB-3 years. they have no sense of themselves as boy or girl nor can they be taught why it is important to keep one'spanties hidden

There is another issue here. This is the "sissy room". Now, for quite a while, it is where LG's came to discuss girlish things. For a sissy, as near as I can tell, skirts and diapers mean something other than what we are.. Seeing mostly "Boy"'s here gives me pause and is a bit confused

Link to comment
6 hours ago, babykeiff said:

The baby-doll came from the original design of a clothes - one used to be a piece of rectangular animal skin where a hole was cut for the head in the centre of the rectangle, and for adult, either a form of rope, or sewn edges used to close the parts under the arms. For adults, the genital areas were covered with a piece of cloth and a form of belt around the waste. In warm climates, the top was normally not worn.

This was copied for a baby with a piece of table cloth, known as 'nappe' or the anglised form of the word Nappy to cover the childs privates. In America, this type of cloth was of a certain weave, referred to the 'diaper' weave.

The top was sewn and the term 'baby-doll' was coined by Matel in the clothing designed for actual dolls they produced.

A baby was dressed only in a single or double layered cloth where when they wet, they would also wet whatever they were sitting on, and thus were changed. The addition of a top on the child was depending on the age of the child plus the changing attitudes of people over time. The baby-doll is a TYPE of dress, where you describe the more modern version, but it became popular following media exposure like 'Shirley Temple' etc. Some baby-doll dresses are refered to as a 'Shirley Temple', but the dress was never long enough to cover a diaper until rubber / plastic panties became common use. The simple reason is that a baby-doll of that lenght would get wet, and need to be changed every time the diapers got wet - and in the time of no / expensive washing machines etc., adding more clothes on a baby that would increase the amount of laundry in a house, despite what the neighbours wouid say, or as you state, would shame these parents, common sence is that most parents would ignore them, or tell them where to go.

The actual standard that parents etc lived up to was to have pristine white diapers - which meant that they were attentive parents and never let their baby mess in these diapers - i.e. potted them.

The pride/shame attidude you are referring to was when plastic / rubber panties were used, washing machines existed, and toilet training was delayed. As a result, methods were employed (using overlength clothes etc) to hide the fact that their greater than 1 1/2 year old child was still in diapers. This was the original toilet training age, as soon as the child could stand / walk, the child was toilet trained. After all, they were already partially toilet trained (for messing) since they never messed in a diaper AND had already got the feedback, almost from birth, that when they wet, they were changed. Any delay in changing a baby at that time resulted in diaper rash, another shameful experience that attentive parents avoided. As a result, a child could usually be toilet trained very shortly after they managed to stand / walk.

The true shame is having a child wearing thicker diapers and allowing the child to stew in their own wet and mess for hours at a time while hiding these diapers with longer clothes etc. For a child to get to that situation, the parent has to leave the child for long enough in a wet / messy diaper so that the child becomes immune / considers it a normal situation. That is TRUE parental neglect, and most mothers taught their daughter not to do this to their own children.

It has taken years of this behaviour for this to become acceptable and normal - and the invention of rubber pants, plastic pants, and then disposable diapers are all causes. The second is peoples believe in the lies of advertisement - which has increased the worlds dependency on diapers etc, and in my humble opinon, is partially responsible for some of the reason for the continual growing ABDL interest.

The babydoll originated in the 1940's as a sort of minimalist nightgown for a lady. She did not like it being called "babydoll" but the name stuck and was used as a little girl's dress in some areas. Until the very late 1060's/early '70's they were meant to look cute in a  little girl way and "innicent" then they became sexualized and are now, for the most part, neither "baby"ish nor "doll"ish; simply trollopy. They got the name because they had an ultra-high waist and were short, loose skirted and looked like they were designed for easiy diaper changes which, according to Wikipedia, was the impetus for the movie BABYDOLL

Link to comment

As to Diaper+skirt. As a little girl, I have no choice. Living in a girls' home that is all there are

If I am Not going anywhere and dot expecting anyone. I am pretty much always in one of my babydolls. Even though it is made of waterproof material and it is sommer,  it is loose-fitting and the elastic at the high waist has  a good deal of baby powder where it or any of the material will com into contact with my body so it does not get clammy and sticky when it is warm. The same with the rubber diaper liner. That is even better than cotton undies since they can get sticky and, being woven, will not hold the powder against the body. Most of the time, the only way I know that I am wet is that I feel it coming out of me, My diaper can be moderately wet but my chastity area is 95% dry. Now a diaper that wet would feel sticky and icky

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Little BabyDoll Christine said:

The babydoll originated in the 1940's as a sort of minimalist nightgown for a lady. She did not like it being called "babydoll" but the name stuck and was used as a little girl's dress in some areas. Until the very late 1060's/early '70's they were meant to look cute in a  little girl way and "innicent" then they became sexualized and are now, for the most part, neither "baby"ish nor "doll"ish; simply trollopy. They got the name because they had an ultra-high waist and were short, loose skirted and looked like they were designed for easiy diaper changes which, according to Wikipedia, was the impetus for the movie BABYDOLL

Your source information is referring to an American designer Sylvia Pedlar, with the marketing excuse of material shortage in 1942. I do agree that she may have done same, but the Shirley Temple dress - part of the root of the baby-doll is from a selection of dolls created by the Seafeild Publishing Company between 1934 -1942 from an original design by William Lambert of Hal Roach Studios 1933. Seafield Publishing Company didn't make these dolls, a small toy maker , Matel, did. These were a variation of a type of slip babies wore of 1850s. Remember, it wasn't until *1910 that any form of waterproof pants was used on a baby, and prior to that, either single or double layer cloth diapers were used. Also, clothes washing of the time was all by hand, so a baby was only dressed in a diaper and a short slip - the original baby-doll - with the diaper fully exposed. It was only in a formal occasion that a baby would have the very long dress that covered the childs feet.

The babydoll item existed before Sylvia Pedlar, Seafeild Publishing Company, (Matel) William Lambert etc. used the name in one form or another. The name stuck because of the film of the same name.

The item of clothing is functional - short on a diapered child, or longer on an adult - but as I said, is a morphing / variation of the original bear skin of early American settlers etc.

*Prior to 1910 and the usage of rubber pants / knitted wollen pants etc on a baby, diaper rash didn't exist. Simple reason, the baby was never allowed to mess the diaper, and changed as soon as they wet the diaper. With waterproof pants, a number of items changed - dresses for babies got longer, babies were left in wet/messy diapers for longer, toilet training age increased and diaper rash became a common baby/infant problem. Marion Donovan in 1940 invented the boater disposable diaper as an alternative to rubber pants that used to cause rashes around the leg holes of babies. She was adapting to the problem of rubber pants. The prior generations did not use rubber pants on their babies - just change them more often, a concept that is almost foreign to modern baby and child care.

Today, it is normal and acceptable, although not though about, to leave a baby in a wet and/or messy diaper overnight as long as the baby stays asleep and then to change them in the morning. This has increased due to the superabsorbancy of disposable diapers. From a skin care perspective, when a baby is in a wet diaper, the wetness seeps back into the skin and creates the breathing ground for numerous bacterial skin problems - something that has to be treated with medication of some form or another. i.e., by design, a baby is being forced into needing medical treatement due to laziness of parents - from the lies of advertising - and this has been done for generations since 1900s. This means that the complete world population is now, in a form, dependent on skin care products due to convenience and laziness.

What most people do not see is that actions always have consequences, and the act of convenience is almost lethal to us.

Link to comment

Well, Experience makes me a primary source. What I saw and occasionally wore in 1952-55 called a babydoll was the very high waisted loose skirted, halfway to the knee item. What went on elsewhere, we had no knowledge of, nor did we care. Often  those who assemble data put things together because they have similar sounding terms or names but are totally unrelated, like pyramids in Egypt and South America (and other places). And the Internet is notorious for that with its amateur  archeologist wannabes. As I said, Silvia did not like it being called a babydoll. So the name may have transferred to that from another item. But the classic babydol setl before the late 1960's was that short dress with a full-cut panty. In the mid-'60's there was something called a "babydoll diress" for little girls. It was shaped as a babydoll, very high waisted and loose A-line skirted, but this went to the knee or just above. This was for a girl from about 6 and up to about 10 or so. In 1962, some of my cousins came to live with us for a while and one night, shortly after suppor the 15 yearo old girl was lounging around the hoise beginning about 7:30 in what I was familiar with and she called it a babydoll. She also was into something called "sissy pants" which was a panty either of regular shap or with a long leg that had ruffles all the way around and from top to bottom

If Pedlar did not llike her creation being called a "babydoll", that name came from somewhere because that is what the item I described was called by 1952 and it was not flimsy like lingerie or a nightgown, but it was made of the same material, and worn like, a dress and used as I described. I am intimately familiar with it as I have described. Beyond that, the Padlar story is what I got when I fed Goggle "babydoll origin". Wikipedia gave me the item from the 1956 movie, but that may have cemented the already used name into the popular mind. Recently I have seen long T-shorts for girls called "babydoll" and there are sets of things where the top does not go pased the hips called "babydoll", in fact, I do not see what I was familiar with as a child, the halfway to the knee tabydoll with the full panty being sold at all. I do see an item being sold that lets the panty show a bit but no self-respecting parets would put that on their little girl. That I have named "sissydoll" since it seems to be part of the Sissy wardrobe and some little girls whose real age comes from the mid to late  1960's and up and use throw-away diapers. When I was little and the babydoll was used for training or punishment, which was just about all the time, the included panty was ommitted and a thick diaper and rubber panties was used as this would more strongly motivate the girl to keep them hidden, which is why I was a bit shocked in '62 when my 15 year old cousin was wearing one which she identified as a babydoll. Now I can only speak for my time and place; what went on elsewhere hasd no bearing on me. People live when and where they live and in the early '50's the media were not as pervasive as they became later. TV was very new and microwave towers were not heavily used for networking so life was lived locally. One thing that we had was the downtown department store in cities.large 4 or 5 story affaires. Fal River had McWhirr's, Providence had The Outlet and Shepherd's and Pawtucket had New York Lace. These carried both locally made and national brand items. Fall River was a textile and clothing manufacturing center so fabric stores were all over the place and most working women worked in "dress shops"

Link to comment

@Little BabyDoll Christine

I don't doubt that you are the expert not only on Baby-Dolls, but on cloth diapers and tiara's, but your expertise with Babydolls is limited to your own exposure to same - not trying to knock you, but a lot of country towns worldwide have experience coloured by what is normally refered to as 'small town mentality'.

To all...

Baby clothes have been adapted over centuries from just being a piece of cloth to wrap the child in to morphing to allow the usage of nappies / diapers, waterproof pants and now, the ultra thin disposable diapers. They also changed base on parental actions and behaviour - first for the parent to be aware of babies actions, and then, over time, to disquise parental action of teaching babies to wet and mess said diapers and therefore, protect the child from public exposure of a full diaper.

This is why baby clothes started as a wrap, then a short top (similar to a modern vest) where the diaper was exposed, and then longer and longer clothes with the usage of waterproof pants. During the era of diaper exposure, the diaper was basically a towel / absorbant cloth tied on to the baby to minimize the puddle size on the floor. The diaper was not designed to catch all, but more of a way to protect the babies modesty. Adults of that era would wear a wrap around their genitals similar to a toga etc and/or a long type of tunic. In warmer areas of the world, the chest would be bare and the genitals would be covered with small rectangular cloth held to the body with some form of rope / belt. Babies, of that era would usually be naked below the waist as the concept and usage of nappies/ diapers was not common. Most media depicts babies / children of that era to be wearing some form of diaper, yet widespread diaper usage did not start until 16th century when the French royality started using small pieces of table cloth - referred to as napkins or 'nappe' tied at the waist to cover the genital areas of their offspring. This was copied by the English and Germans in a way to seem educated and/or aristrocratic. With the large immigration to the US of European citizens, also came the usage of nappies, but due to language barriers (French, German, Italian etc.,) ordering product from a supplier used to be by maker name rather than item description. As a result, the absorbant cloth that was popular was the toweling weave, or more commonly known as the diaper weave. In US, this term became common usage.

This behaviour of teaching a baby to wet, and then mess in cloth diapers was a pratice of public extravagance, but didn't really last long with the average public due to the associated growth of diaper rash when the baby messed a diaper. Most parents, following the behaviour of the day, had pride in displaying a line of pristine white diapers drying in the wind. It suggested that their baby didn't mess their diapers and, for that to occur, the parent had to be very attentive to the needs of their baby. This followed suit when the baby was brought out in public where the diaper was on display also pristine white, because in that era, subjecting a baby to possible diaper rash was classed as child abuse.

Clothing for the baby was a decorated top, and with the concept of home made clothes, this was usually trimmed in hand made lace frills. Dressing a baby would need loose clothes as any string / rope that would act as a fastner could cause strangulation etc. As a result, the clothes would be similar to a short vest / t-shirt, the original 'baby doll'.

Before nappies / diapers, babies toileting habits were managed / controlled with what is now referred to as 'elimination communication' where phrases such as 'pssss' and 'phffff' were used to induce the baby to void, where the baby learns and repeats these phrases when it needs to void. This type of behaviour existed in the US as it avoided needing to wash wet and/or messy diapers when one is travelling for days/weeks at a time. It was also employed by indiginous people.

It was the introduction of rubber pants, which were not transparent, that created the longer baby clothes, but due to rubber pants being tight around legs and waist of a baby and its associated action of blocking that area of skin from breathing, the skin used to break down and rashes etc were reintroduced. Secondly, due to the use of these waterproof pants, parents stopped focusing on their babies eliminations so diapers were not changed as soon as they got wet. This practice continued with the addition of wars which also created industrial diaper landry processes. As such, the concept and pride that used to exist with parents of a line of pristine white diapers drying died out - as it was now a symbol of poverty rather than a symbol of excellent child care.

Clothes lines that were introduced was the child sized version of the overall / dungree that included straps over the sholder. This, in the US was called 'oshkosh b'gosh' introduced in 1911. Also introduced was the onesie (to hold up thick multi-layer cloth diapers) and longer tops (to hide the babies diaper). as a longer version of a vest due to the creation of buttons and later, snaps. Diapers were hidden as a way to disquise the weak parental care of their babies. 

With the invention of plastic / nylon the clothes (dress/top) became shorter to expose the edge of a diaper as a form of pride that the parent could afford these new plastic pants for their baby. These plastic pants got more and more extravagant with the addition of ruffles and other decorations, and baby clothes became shorter and shorter and the use of a onesie was used less and less as it would hide the decorations of the waterproof pants. The image of a young baby porting frilly diaper cover partially exposed by a short top became cute.

Remember, the cloth diaper industry was in full swing that included a diaper service - so the task of hand washing and displaying a line of pristine diapers was a symbol of poverty rather that good child care - which due to the fact that babies got used to being in wet and messy diapers for long periods. This effected toilet training age which became a point of competition between parents - i.e. my baby was potty trained before yours. This concept also created the wish to hide a 1 year old or older who was still wearing diapers. As a result, clothes for babies / children started to get longer to hide the diaper and the cuteness implied by a partially exposed diaper of a baby learning to walk lost its appeal as the child gets older which inforced the competition of comparing toilet training age as a form of achievement / failure. This had the secondary effect of adding stress to babies / children and also created the proliferation of child analysis books and conflicting theories, and to increase sales of these theories, none directly attach blame to parental actions of diapering their baby.

It was not until the introduction of disposable diapers that included a waterproof backing that the onesie became popular again as the disposable diapers outer layer did not contain the same decoration as  a waterproof pant. Other changes included longer dresses / clothes that hid the diaper as disposable diapers marketing is to keep a baby drier as both to support the parental action of diapering babies and the errors indirectly placed in child theory books. This increased a babies dependance on diapers which further increased the toilet training age and the relevant stress a child suffers during toilet training. Baby analysts / theorists on the pretense of child protection teach today that a baby / child will 'train themselves' and that it is a form of child abuse to force a baby to be toilet trained. This propagates across the world where now toilet training age is increasing in leaps and bounds to such an extent that diaper usage is becomming common not only past the age of original training age of 1, but up to adulthood.

Baby clothing today usually never expose the diaper in any form except in a very young baby, and photographs of same show a naked baby as being cute. It is diaper commercials that show a baby in only a diaper. Personal / professional photographs usually show a baby either totally naked, or in a diaper with a plushie or something similar blocking the front of the diaper / babies genitalia.

There is a common belief today that the functional (of the day) clothes for a baby such as footed sleepers, onesies, cute colour block and charachter print tops, dungarees and t-shirt/top, etc. were a sense of comfort for a baby, so they are being made for adults as a form of stress relief. They were originally released as sleepwear for adults, and are now being morphed into lounge wear and may become a source of formal wear. The onesie has become a 'body suit' or all in one - and is in different forms such as a leotard where it is marketed as a way to enforce curves and hide fat while giving the freedom to use during excercise. This is almost comical where those who now mostly wear originally designed excercise wear, wear same when relaxing (as the couch potatoe while adding to their body fat content) instead of excercising to reduce their fat content. These people also include, in their wardrobe, trainers (original runners) instead of for running, as a way to relax. If one arrived here today from another planet, one might percieve that the world is full of fitness freaks by their attire instead of couch potatoes.

It was said historically that 'clothes make the man', but today, fat is busting out all over and obesity plus diaper dependence is in everyones future. The now, common attire is either the tracksuit plus runners and/or a variation of the baby doll almost going floor lenght either as a shirt/top that is not tucked in and extends down to the thighs or as a full length form of dress similar to the original toga both as a way to hide the oversized breasts and stomach (of both male and female). This type of obesity is severely affecting birth rate - as it is difficult to impossible to copulate when there is a mound of fat between partners. Add to the increased stress on the heart that this type of excertion would cause, and copulation would be fatal. This, in my opinion, will lead to more and more chemically induced (test tube) babies, which also leads to other complications with birth and the associated inforced protection and rights of the child. i.e. it is common to over induge an only child, which in the long term, creates a weaker and more dependant race.

There is a film, Idiocracy, which examines the dual concept of conception as compared to two demographic groups of people - #1 those who have a low average capability of financial independance and are usually within the group of being unemployed and dependant on a social welfare system to cover their living expenses as opposed to #2 the group of people who are average to high achievers and usually attend, and succeed in academia and related academic endeavours. What is added to this is the usage of these groups free time, where group #1 have ample free time and use it to copulate where group #2 delay starting families in favour of creating a stable income and family home. This means that group #1 will create numerous offspring starting at age 17, where group #2 create single or two member offspring starting at age 22. Due to simple maths, more of #1 will be born as opposed to #2. 

When one links education as a factor of upbringing, there is a trend that #1 will be less educated as a whole as compared to #2. This creates a problem which by generation, gets worse, and the issue is that the level of education in the world lowers year by year which also creates more global belief in commercials, as there gets less and less people around to be able to understand that type of discussion.

Exploring this concept to its conclusion, and adding it to the world as it is today, when we look at the toilet training age of babies as it has increased from birth to approx 5/6 today, plus the world belief that their actions are protecting children in not rushing toilet training added to the desire of diaper makers to increase sales at the cost of the users, it is only a matter of time that toilet training will become another skill that is lost to time where diaper usage is accepted as a biological need for all from birth to death. The change of clothing will also morph to suit this, where long dress like clothes will become more popular without the addition of buttons, velcro and zips. Even today, the disposable clothes provided for paitents in hospital is just a type of shirt that exposes the back and rear of a paitent where if the paitent is diapered, the clothes is not in the way for diaper changes etc.

Diapers are becomming more and more absorbant and capable of containing waste matter for longer and longer periods with decreased to zero feedback to the diaper wearer. Adding skin protection creams etc and medication as a form of internal deodrant which are increasing in functionality and effectiveness, the associated smells of a messy cloth diaper and/or of a public bathroom becomes mute since the diaper wearer does not emit these smells. I would expect some agency somewhere to identify a public bathroom as being more toxic to humans that wearing and using diapers.

As a result, a diaper PLUS skin cream PLUS skirt or some other form of clothing that allows a diaper to perform looks like to be a future WIN or LOSS depending on your perceptions / beliefs.

 

Link to comment

My knowledge includes a major city in Mass. Fall River had a opulation of 125,000 and Tiverton RI was in the Greater Metropolitan Area We were also 15 miles from Newport  RI, living on Route 139; a major RI and MA artery about a mile from Fall River, a major textile and clothing hub at the time with many "dress shops" that probably made many babydolls. Though southern and eastern Tiverton could bet pretty stick-y, we were not there and most of the persons I knew lived in Fall River or came from there and the custom I describe was quite well used among the French Canadians there. Also, the Origin I gave was , I think CA and I could find no other. So you may be talking about a paralle or earlier, unrelatedl phenomenon that used the same name

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Little BabyDoll Christine said:

My knowledge includes a major city in Mass. Fall River had a opulation of 125,000 and Tiverton RI was in the Greater Metropolitan Area We were also 15 miles from Newport  RI, living on Route 139; a major RI and MA artery about a mile from Fall River, a major textile and clothing hub at the time with many "dress shops" Though southern and eastern Tiverton could bet pretty stick-y, we were not there and most of the persons I knew lived in Fall River or came from there and the custom I describe was quite well used among the French Canadians there. Also, the Origin I gave was , I think CA and I could find no other. So you may be talking about a parallel phenomenon that used the same name

I was trying to be nice. You are talking about a limited era of diaper usage where it was common for a diaper wearer to wear multiple layers of cloth and be in the same diaper for longer periods AND that said diaper was hidden by clothing.

Over the centuries,

  • babies started not wearing diapers
  • then wearing a cloth to hide genitalia
  • then wearing a partially absorbant material that was changed as soon as it was wet
  • then wearing waterproof garments over said material
  • wearing thicker diapers with the growth of the plastic industry
  • then thinner diapers with the growth of the disposable industry

Each change in action and the clothing also was changed to suit the era and behaviour of careers / parents etc.

In your home, from what I deduce, it is common to thickly diaper residents and hide said diaper with longer clothes. That behaviour started with late potty trainers in the 1950s - 1970s, and was commonly used within state run orphanages where the children would be partial to being day and night wetters due to reacting to early life trauma such as the loss of parents and/or suffering child abuse.

In most average home worldwide of that era, a cloth diapered child would be raised by a family (parent and her mother) and would be fully toilet trained by the time the child could walk. The diapers would be 'hand me downs' and not a new purchase. As a result, the need to have a item of clothing like a baby doll either as day or night wear that hid a diaper was not required as the child would not need diapers day or night. It also was not functional as a sleeping child that wore diapers would be in a zip on sleeper, as one wearing a night dress / babydoll would likely get tangled in bed clothes. It was not until the change to disposable diapers that the concept of farming out to another the care of the child became popular, which also increased the number of females in the workplace.

The baby-doll is of 1942, and at that era, it was common to show off a babies (under 12 months old) pristine white diaper, not hide a 1+ year olds thick cloth diaper and rubber pants unless the 1+ year old needed diapers due to aformentioned issues. The same baby-doll dress was advertised as adult nightwear at that time, but original design came from the short type of vest / t-shirt babies wore as a way to cover the top of a baby yet expose the diaper for parental monitoring. The addition of matching panties in the adult baby-doll is a mimic copy of the frilly plastic pants of babies. This is why this type of clothing was supposed to be allouring - the dressing an adult in infantile looking garment while exposing their panties and in a way, their sexuality. It is a combination portrayal of innocence and availability - and was supposed to be reserved for a female in privacy to arouse their husband. The female attire has changed to include lace underwear and black half lenght socks etc. It is almost as if a woman is half dunked in a bottle of ink is supposed to arouse a male!  

Link to comment

I am talking about the modern era, what happened before that is totally irrelevent. I never claimed to be talking about things prior to the 1940's. Did I claim to be talking about anything else? So why belabor it/ Frankly I am turning blue in the face. What I was talking about, I left links to. I will let them speak for themselves. The two things about which we are talking are totally unrelated

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Little BabyDoll Christine said:

I am talking about the modern era, what happened before that is totally irrelevent. I never claimed to be talking about things prior to the 1940's. Did I claim to be talking about anything else? So why belabor it/ Frankly I am turning blue in the face. What I was talking about, I left links to. I will let them speak for themselves. The two things about which we are talking are totally unrelated

Ok, you are 100% correct and perfect, and everything I have said it wrong... and I grovel an apology for breathing and daring to exist and post on this page on the forum... as after all, I am a dumb male that knows nothing about what a dainty little baby doll would! SARCASM

I tried to bow down to your knowledge,

6 hours ago, babykeiff said:

I don't doubt that you are the expert not only on Baby-Dolls, but on cloth diapers and tiara's, but your expertise with Babydolls is limited to your own exposure to same

and even that is not enough for you. What do you want me to do to soothe your ego?

You are the one that wishes to isolate yourself and other sissies from the world. You are the one that is complaining that I shouldn't be here supporting ALL. You are building a wall of discrimination against yourself - why - so that the specific era that suits your fantasy is the only thing that exists, and the rest of the world and its history doesn't.

Fact - the baby doll dress, as popularised by the American designer Sylvia Pedlar in 1942 and the associated film included the fancy panties and said panties were partially exposed. As a result, your fantasy that the baby-doll dress went to half the knee to cover a diaper is FANTASY.

Yes, some were diapered past the normal toilet training age due to parental failure to correctly toilet train their child AND also due to the belief that it was not child abuse - IT WAS AND IT IS to place a child who is capable of getting to a bathroom to relieve his/herself to sit in a wet and/or messy diaper. The other concept that is also classed as child abuse is to deny a schoolchild the time to use a bathroom when they ask, and then enforce that same child to sit in their own excretment as a form of punishment! Other children partially regressed due to early childhood trauma - and most of that type of trauma is being avoided today.

@Little BabyDoll Christine you were born in 1946, and in that era in US/Canada a lot of people were returning from war to a collapsed economy where both housing and jobs were in very short supply, as was money. As a result, as a baby / child, you would have been trained before you reached 12-14 months old, but also dressed in clothes longer than normal that would have appeared short on you - i.e. hand me downs as your parents / careers could not afford to buy you new clothes every time you grew.  The concept that you would be in a car is rare (as most couldn't afford a car then), and that you would be diapered on a long journey - as that would be added cost to your parents / careers in laundry of diapers to suit a fantasy! Also, in that era was what was classed as the 'baby boomer' years, which would mean that you at 2-5 would be exposed to a lot of commercials selling actual baby items - ie diapers, dreft, plastic / rubber pants etc, which is probably where your fantasy comes from - but it has no link to reality.

You are old enough to have aquired the knowledge and difference between fantasy and reality. I am not here to pander to you fantasies.

Link to comment

To avoid confusion....

This is a Shirley Temple dress.

shirleytemple.jpg

Points to note about it is:-

  • a waist line (see bow etc) which is placed under the arms
  • a dress lenght that reaches the knee
  • a full skirt,
  • and usually, under the skirt a form of petticoat. Some just used frills sewn to the edge of the skirt.
  • This is a one piece item with the top and skirt of the same material, colour and design. Additions to this could be more poofy sleeves. Also, note that the panties are/or diapers do not show, and this type of dress was used on semi to formal occasions rather than general usage.
  • These usually fastened at the back via a set of buttons / zip.

These are BabyDoll dresses. Points to note that make this dress is :-

babydoll 1.jpg

babydoll 2.jpg

  • There are no waist line and/or elastic
  • The length of the dress is just below the waist-line of the wearer. See attached YouTube video for motion and exposure I am referring to. 
  • The sleeves and the gathering is the way it is put on - over the head, and it rests on/is supported by the shoulders
  • Panties are usually part of the attire and are in the same material as the dress.
  • If someone is wearing diapers and this type of dress, the diaper is partially to fully exposed reguardless of how the wearer stands. It is possible to cover the diaper when the wearer of this dress is sitting on the floor cross legged and the dress is slightly spread to cover same as the skirt is almost full circle, but little else.
  • There is no fastening as the dress is ample enough to be put over the head.

If you wish to see other baby-dolls, have a look at the this Sandra Dee Youtube video from Grease (fillmed 1978) with the styles of 1958, the year(s) the movie is based on. On this version, two of of the four actors are wearing the baby-doll ensemble both white/cream, one with matching 'bloomer' style panties, the other wearing a red Kimono style dressing gown over the baby-doll, both with a string tying the baby-doll down to comply with film requirements on nudity etc in 1978. In normal use, when the girls would move, the panties are partially exposed since the length of the baby-doll only goes down to slightly past the waist-line.

 

Now, back on topic -

Wearing any form of dress with diapers allows room around the diaper which allows the diaper to work and the wearer to feel 'fresh' and airy. Same occurs when one is wearing a Abaya, the muslim style of dress that also does not have a waist band, and is also supported only by the shoulders. This type of clothing is gender neutral and worn by both male and female. The Scottish wear a kilt for the same reason, to allow air etc around genitalia etc. It was the French aristocrats, plus English copying the French style as a way to impress the French Queen and English King that started to wear gender specific clothes. This mimicry crossed the Atlantic to the US with imigrants. Prior to that, males and females wore roughly the same clothes. Even night cloths were roughly the same, a dress of a sort long enough to almost touch the floor (both genders) and a cap of some form as a way to keep the head warm - see film adaptions of Charles Dickens novels i.e. A Christmas Carol as an example of these night clothes.

So, sorry sissies, it is not the dress and frills that makes you a sissy (have a look at 15th century French attire where both genders wore frilly tops and tights), it is internal within you.

Link to comment

The Shirley Temple dress is not a babydoll as it is to the knee and the skirt is artificially flared Also, the term "babydoll" did not exist and when it came into being it was first applied to the item Sylvia made in the 1940's

The other two, if they are babydolls are from the 1970's. I have seen things on Ebay that are called babydolls that have no skirt at all, also to a long t-shirt. What is in the picture may have come out in the late 1960's as standards were deteriorating. A babydoll was meant to look cute, not trollopy in its early incarnation. Unfortunately, those things are called "babydolls" although they violate a central part of the identity of  what it is to be a babydoll: Cuter, slutty. The babydoll goes halfway to the knee and would cover a thick diaper entirely

The OG babydoll dress of 1966 had the gatherer just under the arms and reached the knee or just above. What that has morphed into now, I cannot be responsible for

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Little BabyDoll Christine said:

The Shirley Temple dress is not a babydoll as it is to the knee and the skirt is artificially flared Also, the term "babydoll" did not exist and when it came into being it was first applied to the item Sylvia made in the 1940's

The other two, if they are babydolls are from the 1970's. I have seen things on Ebay that are called babydolls that have no skirt at all, also to a long t-shirt. What is in the picture may have come out in the late 1960's as standards were deteriorating. A babydoll was meant to look cute, not trollopy in its early incarnation. Unfortunately, those things are called "babydolls" although they violate a central part of the identity of  what it is to be a babydoll: Cuter, slutty. The babydoll goes halfway to the knee and would cover a thick diaper entirely

The OG babydoll dress of 1966 had the gatherer just under the arms and reached the knee or just above. What that has morphed into now, I cannot be responsible for

If, as I stated, you look at the film Grease that was set in 1958+, the garments that are worn in the bedroom scene as the song 'I'm Sandra Dee' is being sung by the four girls are a blouse and a pants (by the singer), a pyjama set, by Sandra Dee, and the other two girls are wearing BABY DOLLs each of which don't go further than the hips, and expose the panties of each of the girls. Now, the creator you identified and referred to by Sylvia Pedlar (1942) is a short, at the hips, night dress with matching panties that are exposed.

A baby doll is, like ALL clothes, primarily functional -  and the function is directed at a baby originally, and then as a sexual object in the 1940s. 

The concept in France, and imported to England and transposed to US was that it is improper to see any bare skin in public - a variation of muslim teaching. As a result, an English Lady, morphed to any Lady should not expose skin so clothes were designed to cover all areas of a woman from her toes to her chin. Even in the case of swimming / a womans bathing suit was just a different colour / material of a full lenght dress. 

You are from Canada of French descent, so it would be normal for you, and your family to follow this teachings with all clothing. As I stated earlier, you grew up in a sheltered area of the world controlled by the people around you. That is SMALL TOWN THINKING / MENTALITY, and you have been trying to tell me what a baby doll is!

I have found pictures, both stationary and moving from 1958 of what was common night wear in the US of people wearing a baby-doll. I have also found pictures of what the creator, in your opinion, designed in 1942, and although that creator did not like the title 'baby-doll', the name stuck. Also, I have found pictures, from the 1956 film of the same name ''baby-doll" where the primary charachter is wearing a 'baby-doll' dress, and the dress is exactly as I described, no waist to speak of, and partial exposure of panties.

The dress that you are referring to with a high waist line close to under arms, and similar to some in your signotory on this site, and knee lenght is actually called an Empire Waist Dress which was the common fashion item of 1960/1970 and made famous from the usage in the film 'Oklahoma' in 1955. Similar style of dresses where in the film 'High Society' of 1956 as worn by Grace Kelly. That started a trend when companies like Simplicity etc., in 1958 released the pattern for home makers, (common behaviour in a world focused on repair and make do where most except the very rich, couldn't afford to buy new clothes). These patterns also appeared in local magazines like Womans Weekly and similar.

Empire waist pattern of 1955

The common behaviour across the world was repair and make do. The money didn't exist to go out and buy these fancy clothes, so most clothes were made, by hand, at home. It was only special occasions* that the money would be saved to cover purchased clothes. *This would include religious events like passing from childhood to adulthood (specific religious event) and even then, only new outer clothes might be purchased. The rest of ones clothes would be passed down from elder siblings / relations.

@Little BabyDoll Christine, either you grew up as the Prince of Canada/France or your parents etc basically had to work very hard to house and feed you. I suspect that if your father had a car, it was only used to get him to and from work, and not on 'long journeys' as you stated. Most children used to be left at home with a neighbour if the parents had saved enough money for a week-end break or a weeks holidays. You are trying to convince me that you, in the middle of the great depression in USA and Canada, that your parents had so much money to be able to put you and your siblings in cloth diapers up to aged 8 - and therefore, had enough money to pay a laundry service, or staff, to wash these wet and maybe soiled diapers so that their 3-8 year olds could sit in their wet and mess while the chaufuer drove the family on a long journey - maybe for afternoon tea at the 3-5 star hotel!

The only other option where you would be in diapers past the normal age of 12-18 months in 1947-48 would be if you were, like a large number of children, in a state run OR a church run orphanage where those running same etc would follow the orders teaching and dress sense and diaper every child due to bedwetting etc., but these places were hell on earth, both because of the treatment and also because of how dirty and infested they used to be. I am not going into detail out of respect to a lot of members here that still today, 30-60 years later, are still traumatised by the events. These orphanages could afford clothes etc as they claimed for that expense and others from the state.

BTW, the Shirley Temple dress is not flared, it is a full circle dress.

My mother was a dress maker, like most women of the day. I learnt a lot about clothes making not only male specific clothes, but also female clothes - which has given me the keen eye in clothes design to such an extent that most of both my male and female friends ask me to join them when they go clothes shopping etc. That is where most of my knowledge comes from in relation to dresses, styles etc. Most clothing design of that era, was based on the weave and weft of the cloth. It was not a common practice to serge the edge of clothing, but more to cut with the nap and hem accordingly. After all, a sewing machine was a luxury, and an overlocker was usually out of the price range of most home and business makers.

Link to comment

GREASE was made as a movie in 1978. If you study Historica European Marshal Arts. You  will wonder how so many films get well-documented armor, weapons and costumes as wrong as they do. The school they attend is Bobby Rydell High. Bobby Rydell's first hit single was KISSIN' USA in the summer of 1959 (along with Jan & Dean's first major seller BABY TALK). What you describe would be quite common in 1978. Also, movie costumes even in-period take liberties and are often more revealing than actual clothing for effect, for which they have been criticized plenty over the past 90 years. Between 1952 and 1962, I have never seen such IRL. During that time, I knever saw an adult version of that kind of thing. Costumes are like haraldry, they are slightly distorted visually to a purpose. Do you think the English heraldic designers of the Medieval period could not draw a lion's or eagle's body in proper proportion?. What you describe might even have been available from Fredericks of Hollywood (mid-twentieth century catalog equivalent of Victoria's Secret)) and I have dim meomires of seeng such pictures but I did not know they were bvabydolls. Clothes also convey an idea and that is as important in most cases as function, rather, that is part of the function and what I have understood for 7 decades to be babydoll was supposed to be cute in a "little" way. That's it. Life is lived lically and the US Interstate changed a lot of things. The babydoll I understood was causual wear that could be used as nightwear. If my cousin, back in '62 had tried to wear something like that around the house shortly after supper, which was still visiting hours even on weeknights, my aunt would have had kittens. The babydoll was considered neither a top, since it did cover a rather full panty,nor a dress, since it had such an abnormally high waistline; higher than an empire waist. It was called "babydoll", "baby-doll" or "baby doll". They whole was called "babydoll set" and sometimes included other things

I am not from Canada. I have said many times I am from Southeastern New England. My Mothere's parents came from Ottowa, Canada  by 1898 and my father's parents, of whom I know next to nothing, came from Ireland. I lived most of my life, from 16m, with an aunt and uncle, his parents came from the Azores. I lived with the things I described so I have the context. I am also 27 years older, so you did not see them in their context or heyday and gather what you have from media sources. I remember a time before the Beatls, jet airliners and President Eisenhower. I was 7 when Queen Elizabeth was coronated and remember bits of it and news reports about the Korean war. The Hungarian uprising actually began in Poland. As a baby, Iwas in, and can remember, both the peach rubber and plastic panties, which were, two generations thereafter predominanlty called "rubber" panties

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Little BabyDoll Christine said:

GREASE was made as a movie in 1978. If you study Historica European Marshal Arts. You  will wonder how so many films get well-documented armor, weapons and costumes as wrong as they do. The school they attend is Bobby Rydell High. Bobby Rydell's first hit single was KISSIN' USA in the summer of 1959 (along with Jan & Dean's first major seller BABY TALK). What you describe would be quite common in 1978. Also, movie costumes even in-period take liberties and are often more revealing than actual clothing for effect, for which they have been criticized plenty over the past 90 years. Between 1952 and 1962, I have never seen such IRL. During that time, I knever saw an adult version of that kind of thing. Costumes are like haraldry, they are slightly distorted visually to a purpose. Do you think the English heraldic designers of the Medieval period could not draw a lion's or eagle's body in proper proportion?. What you describe might even have been available from Fredericks of Hollywood (mid-twentieth century catalog equivalent of Victoria's Secret)) and I have dim meomires of seeng such pictures but I did not know they were bvabydolls. Clothes also convey an idea and that is as important in most cases as function, rather, that is part of the function and what I have understood for 7 decades to be babydoll was supposed to be cute in a "little" way. That's it. Life is lived lically and the US Interstate changed a lot of things. The babydoll I understood was causual wear that could be used as nightwear. If my cousin, back in '62 had tried to wear something like that around the house shortly after supper, which was still visiting hours even on weeknights, my aunt would have had kittens. The babydoll was considered neither a top, since it did cover a rather full panty,nor a dress, since it had such an abnormally high waistline; higher than an empire waist. It was called "babydoll", "baby-doll" or "baby doll". They whole was called "babydoll set" and sometimes included other things

I am not from Canada. I have said many times I am from Southeastern New England. My Mothere's parents came from Ottowa, Canada  by 1898 and my father's parents, of whom I know next to nothing, came from Ireland. I lived most of my life, from 16m, with an aunt and uncle, his parents came from the Azores. I lived with the things I described so I have the context. I am also 27 years older, so you did not see them in their context or heyday and gather what you have from media sources. I remember a time before the Beatls, jet airliners and President Eisenhower. I was 7 when Queen Elizabeth was coronated and remember bits of it and news reports about the Korean war. The Hungarian uprising actually began in Poland. As a baby, Iwas in, and can remember, both the peach rubber and plastic panties, which were, two generations thereafter predominanlty called "rubber" panties

I really don't care your age or where you came from as I am tired of your misrepresentations all based on your fantasy, and inablity to remember the details.

You are talking about 70 odd years ago, where not only the concepts that you are mentioning of you, a male, being exposed to anything female is false, nobody had money to splurge on something a frivilous as clothes and/or diapers for anyone aged 24 months or older etc. Your actual memories didn't develop for you to recall until you were at least 4 years of age, and even the youngest member here can't, recall to the detail you profess, what happened when they were 4. Nearly everybody made their own clothes to whatever style they wanted, or passed it down from elder to younger etc.

Pledge.webp14271556791_41b9685113_b.jpg

Here is a picture from New England in 1964 of four children, two girls and two boys where the two girls are wearing the normal dresses of the day in the area, NONE are baby dolls. All of them are ABOVE the knee, which was the common style of the day. The shorter, younger girl (approx 8-12 years of age) is wearing a normal dress, but something that is important, the style worldwide, which is NOT being copied in New England. In the picture to the right, in a brown skirt, is another picture from the World Fair, New England in 1964,

Across the world is shorter and shorter hemlines which proves my point that New England and its styles are 'SMALL TOWN MENTALITY'. This is in the middle of the swinging 60's where the two styles were prevalant - short skirts and long flowing dresses, none are in small towns with the prudish 'reserved' mentality.

Baby dolls of 1942, 1950s and 1960s

Direct Quote from the page, and some of its images....

Although synonymous with 1950’s and 1960’s style, the baby doll nightdress as we know it actually originated in 1942. Its creation is attributed to American lingerie designer Sylvia Pedlar, a charmingly positive response to fabric shortages during World War II when necessity resulted in striking style solutions across the fashion industry. Pedlar ran her own successful company Iris Lingerie from 1929 to 1970, and was known for high quality products as well as developing the Baby Doll and her famous toga-inspired negligee.  Despite these designs becoming known as ‘Baby Dolls’, no doubt because the shape and length resembled baby’s frocks of the time, it’s said that Sylvia herself actually disliked the term and refused to use it.     

The name found its way into more common use in the 1950s when it was popularised by the controversial 1956 film ‘Baby Doll.’ Based on a play by Tennessee Williams, and starring Carroll Baker in the title role as a 19 year old Lolita-styled character, the film has been credited by some as being responsible for the ensuing popularity of the baby doll nightgown, which Baker’s character wears. 

babydolls.jpgInIn

In the seven images of baby-doll in the pattern book of 1960, only two of the designs have any waistband, and every one has exposed panties since the hem / edge of the dress is at the waistline of the model.

A babydoll dress is one that :-

  • easy to make since it does not have the complication of a bodice
  • optimizes material
  • functional
  • for babies, and expose the diaper OR for adults and has similar short hemline
  • a copy of similar coats, for that age group.
  • was copied for the obese, and this one has an elastic at the top, no shoulder straps, and is made by using a large rectangular piece of material with a normal hem and the top is gathered in with the elastic which forces pleats in the whole skirt.

As I have said before, and continue to say, it is only in the fantasy mind of @Little BabyDoll Christine that baby-dolls went to the knee or others, as when made for a baby, the function was to cover their top while exposing their diapers. When made for someone older, it was a night dress, and designed as sexual, functional, and as a clothing solution while material was in short supply.

Most, if not all dresses for young girls were above the knee and usually slightly lower than the waist line which just covered the panty area. If these girls were wearing any form of cloth diaper, the diaper would ALWAYS be exposed. I really don't care how prudish @Little BabyDoll Christine wants to be, but in 1950-1970, it wasn't unusual to see young girls in such short skirts and dresses, and it was a trend to shorten this hem line, from 1910 it went from ankle length to knee lenght by 1927, and then further up to mid thigh 1940-45, and hip high by 1950-1960, and then hankerchief 1960+ (the era of the baby-doll and that of the mini-skirt and of the roaring 60s). This trend reversed later on in 1970 with styles like diagonal and/or short in front and long in rear. This also matches the growth in material availability.

It seems that @Little BabyDoll Christine percieves that the large skirt/dress that is the stereotypical wear of obese old female tourists that normally has flowers on it and has an elastic / tie of a kind that comes from above / middle of the breasts and extends to the knee or below the knee and has been worn by both genders, is a baby-doll. The truth is that it's history is from a trapeze, created by Yves St. Laurent in 1958 where its original creation had a bodice with an A-line shape, and this morphed over time to cover the growing number of obese people in the world. The original also is similar to the Empire Waistline of the 1950s and 1960s, but the Empire Waistline fits / suits very thin people where the trapeze with its A line shape reduced to just be the puff / lantren sleeves and a realitivly wide neck and long hemline without a waistband inbetween tends to hide the extensive fat on the oversized wearer.

homersimson.jpeg

This has been used in comedy - i.e. where Homer Simson wore one in the episode 'King Size' S07E07, but it is NOT a baby-doll, but a variation of the trapeze. A baby-doll would not waste that amount of material as it was not needed AND unavailable at the time something that @Little BabyDoll Christine seems to dismiss. With the amount of material used in the trapeze, one could make two baby-dolls of similar size - i.e. clothe two children with the same material to clothe one.

Now, can we get back on topic please!!!!

Wearing any form of dress, the shorter the better, and that is always a win for me. I even don't like wearing a onesie over my diaper, and today, modern babies are sometimes just dressed in a top / t-shirt and let run around with their diaper exposed, a concept caught onto by, and supported by Huggies when the created the 'Jeans Diaper'. This has been mimicked by other baby diaper makers when they fully colour the outer layer of the diaper - i.e. make it so it is not just white. This has been done so long that the plain white baby diaper is almost an antique.

Link to comment

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...