We Are Being Watched

[square_duck]

I find that being 'normal' is over rated

Normal to me means that one takes care of themselves in an 'acceptable' manner, and doesn't bother anyone else.

Me being a D/L but also an 'adult' *cough* I provide for myself, have a job, take care of myself and don't do anything harmful to either myself or others. I mind my own business and don't bother anyone, and live my life how I see fit, with out being a burden to either my family or to society, or being a danger to the above as well.

So I wear diapers for underwear and use them.....BFD! I change myself as well and clean up what ever mess I 'might' have created

We really aren't "THAT" interesting to be worthy of being 'watched'...or at least I don't consider it so...

what ever, hope who ever trips through this thread makes it worth while and gets a good grade....I guess.

[rosalie.bent]

abnormal is only offensive if you feel you are the one being labeled as abnormal and also feel this is insulting .... i am abnormal and atypical neirologically i am not insulted .... people say they want paychology to be more concrete like a science bu then complain when it uses scientific terms .... cant habe it both ways .... personally i dont find 'abnormal' an insult at all .... it is simply the opposite of 'normal' and since the 'cool' thing nowadays is to be different (just like everybody else) than for many being called abnormal would be a compliment

'Abnormal' is offensive because in the vast majority of times it is used offensively ie to define a person or group as 'not like everyone else' and the implication is that it is SUBnormal. I've actually met people who would be definitionally normal with no quirks at all and they are BORING, stultifyingly so.

I despise the term 'abnormal' because if it were to be used accurately almost all of us would have abnormal behaviours, thus rendering the word meaningless. it is far better to rate a behaviour on how good or bad it is for a person. diaper attraction and infantile regression will never be 'normal' by virtue of its statistical insignificance. but does that mean it is abnormal? no. That distinction is irrelevant. But we all know people who are consumed by the diaper attraction and who virtually never leave their baby worlds. That is bad, but for most people here, it forms part of who they are and is not a deleterious problem.

'Abnormal' is a pointless definition.

[BitterGrey]

They still teach AbPsych?

They probably will for some time. Just as Mars' problematic orbit showed more about physics than the less interesting orbits of other planets, psych will dwell on the different and hard-to-explain cases. Hopefully the art will become advanced enough to drop the term "abnormal." Since the other orbits were coplanar, Mars was the only one with a normal component.

Is there a difference between paraphilic infantalism and straight-up infantalism?

Paraphilic infantilism isn't the only infantilism. The archaic "psychosexual infantilism" can be roughly defined as 'anything but heterosexual.' Then there is "Brissaud's infantilism" (Hypophyseal dwarfism) and a list of other biological conditions that would be hard to confuse with paraphilic infantilism.

I question the assumption that "fetish"=sexual.

Technically, infantilism is a type of masochism, not a fetish; both are paraphilias. (A good number of AB/DLs don't agree with this, since dressing up as a baby might have nothing to do with getting restrained and beaten. There is some rationale behind it, though. Like any short economic statement, any short psychological statement is false.)

[Diapered Jason]

There is no such thing as "Abnormal"- there is only different or unusual. To paraphrase Dickens, the teacher is a ass

Bettypooh- an unusually different normal person

Normal is, as they say, what everyone else is and you are not. Beyond that, there is not really much to say.

Anyways, I was just at UC Davis a few days ago, lol.

Well Hyro, nevermind the people who take issue with your use of the word "abnormal". If any UC Davis psychology students are curious, there are quite a few threads here that you can read that go much deeper than wikipedia, though you may have to do some digging or start new threads. There are many reasons out there why people have an interest in diapers and it does not necessarily pertain to sex. There are also quite a few preferences on what people like. Some like the whole baby thing, some just like diapers. Lastly, pretty much everyone I have talked to here seems to have a different cause for their interest in diapers. You will find research on this subject quite arduous, but the pieces are all here.

[spark]

rosalie.bent, I can tell from your writings (and author background), that you have a lot of background in psychology. I have a lot of respect for you opinions, and I think the whole concept of what you correctly call 'little ones' is a very interesting psychological study. The fact is, there is a statistically significant amount of people who are 'afflicted' with a younger persona, and desire to be a younger person in life. While there is no doubt a significant sexual context to the desire, to describe strictly as a fetish is doing a great disservice to most AB's (just as to deny that there is a sexual component to this is a disservice).

Now as the the whole pedophilia connection, it is something that is a battle worth fighting. There is an obvious connection between being an Adult Baby and childhood, but that doesn't necessarily mean we would abuse kids. In my case, such an act in unimaginable, because I know what the abuse does to children.

It goes back to the Hippocratic Oath, and Primum non nocere. A person who choses to wear diapers in the privacy of his/her own home, and only indulges partners, or themselves in the act is not harming anybody by the acts, and if the act allows them to function in normal society than there really is nothing wrong with it. Obviously, if the acts include minors, or non-consenting adults than you start violating the Primum non nocere.

[sarah_ab]

the fact is ... hearing voices that tell you to harm yourself or someone else is abnormal ..... having such bad anxiety you literally cannot leave your house is abnormal .... having such compulsions that it takes you an hour to brush your teeth is abnormal ..... abnormal psych typically gives a quick and borad overview is the dsm iv tr disorders .... of course some are debatable and there are limits to when somethin becomes abnormal ... we all sometimes worry 'did i shut the stove off?' but we dont all worry so much that unless we turn right around and check we will literally have a panic attack ....

[rosalie.bent]

the fact is ... hearing voices that tell you to harm yourself or someone else is abnormal ..... having such bad anxiety you literally cannot leave your house is abnormal .... having such compulsions that it takes you an hour to brush your teeth is abnormal ..... abnormal psych typically gives a quick and borad overview is the dsm iv tr disorders .... of course some are debatable and there are limits to when somethin becomes abnormal ... we all sometimes worry 'did i shut the stove off?' but we dont all worry so much that unless we turn right around and check we will literally have a panic attack ....

Ive never been very impressed with the DSM regarding 'abnormal' conditions. it is woefully and horribly behind the times. DSM IV basically includes infantilists in with pedophiles by calling it a 'paraphilia' and then defining paraphilias as basically sex offenders, rapists and pedophiles. The definition of 'addiction' includes ONLY substance addiction which involves brain chemistry changes. It ignores behavioural addictions altogther. the DSM V due next year will bring official understanding to about 20 years out of date instead of 40. But you can guarantee if infantilism gets a specific mention it will be described in unflattering and hopelessly out of date fashion.

[sarah_ab]

well i hope two years ago when they were eliciting reader feedback you submitted this ....

[rosalie.bent]

when the worlds foremost expert on addiction had his own submission out-voted, I somehow doubt they take notice of too many other people besides the entrenched and select group right from 1980's thinking.

[turtlepins]

Hey! Study me all you want. I'm a psycho! Diapers aren't about sex to me, never were, and paraphilic infantilism isn't a "fetish." But who am I to say one way or the other? Just dress me like a baby girl and I'm totally happy.

[sarah_ab]

when the worlds foremost expert on addiction had his own submission out-voted, I somehow doubt they take notice of too many other people besides the entrenched and select group right from 1980's thinking.

dr drew? or pat oday? i dont know who the worlds foremost sxpert is? hmmm betty ford?

[rosalie.bent]

dr drew? or pat oday? i dont know who the worlds foremost sxpert is? hmmm betty ford?

Your never-ending sniping at pretty much every post I make is getting old. Why dont you develop your own opinion instead of doing nothing but opposing mine.

[Guest Baby Rina]

Your never-ending sniping at pretty much every post I make is getting old. Why dont you develop your own opinion instead of doing nothing but opposing mine.

Sara has her own opinions and for the most part i enjoy reading them. But much like the idea of normal/abnormal the idea of who people consider to by the largest expert is somewhat biased. Even if someone really is a leading expert in a field rather than just a TV personality... how do you get to be THE foremost and not just one of the best? And i would have to think that Ozzy or Keith would have to be a better expert on addiction than Dr Drew for the record...

[Bettypooh]

the fact is ... hearing voices that tell you to harm yourself or someone else is abnormal .....

Sarah, does that mean that mean I'm not supposed to be paying attention to the voices in my head that are telling me to knock on your door and run away snickering?

... we all sometimes worry 'did i shut the stove off?' ....

Not me, and if you had ever eaten my cooking you'd understand why my stove never gets turned on in the first place:lol: Does that make me abnormal or what?

Seriously though, there's little point in debating the DSM and the current trends in Psychology. The growing dissatisfaction with the course of both are allowing them to get what they are asking for. The DSM is more widely being seen as the biased book of slanted opinions that it really is, and the general public is giving less credence to the field of Psychology as it becomes clear that it cannot differentiate between what is normal and what is not. By leaving them both alone they will destroy themselves, leaving all us normal people better off in the end

If indeed we are being watched, let's show them our good side and maybe one or two of those students minds will open up to the possibility that what they're being taught might be so wrong as to be essentially worthless- except for the purpose of their making money based on continuing the ruse they and us have been subjected to so far Since that is what has usually happened and it continues to happen, then perhaps that insanity is the most normal of all

Bettypooh

[sarah_ab]

rosalie i simply was pointing out you never named the expert anyone can claim some person said something ..... i was wondering who the expert is .... but everytime someone makes a post that does not shout your praises or agree with your 'expert opinion' you get very ben out of shape .... i stated my opinion earlier as to why i felt abnormal was not an insulting term i just so happens my opinion is in direct contrast to yours .... this does not mean i am snipping but rather i disagree with you opinion .... pretty sure that is still allowed here..... so im sorry if you get personally upset everytime i either disagree with you or make a post highlighting crucial information hou forgot to include ....

the leading expert in internet communication states people take things more personally online than in real life because online you can imagine any tone of voice you want

[rosalie.bent]

Sara has her own opinions and for the most part i enjoy reading them. But much like the idea of normal/abnormal the idea of who people consider to by the largest expert is somewhat biased. Even if someone really is a leading expert in a field rather than just a TV personality... how do you get to be THE foremost and not just one of the best? And i would have to think that Ozzy or Keith would have to be a better expert on addiction than Dr Drew for the record...

It is quite bizarre at times on internet forums the way that messages get jumbled. Possibly it is because the comprehension level of written comunication has dived so badly in recent decades. The focus of the post was not on the 'worlds foremost expert' but on the DSM committee process. The reason he was not named is A) I would have to look it up again and it was not relevant to the point of the post because the point wasnt about HIM but rather the DSM process.

it is very helpful if people read the entire post, understand it and then formulate a response based on what was said, not imagined.

[rosalie.bent]

Sarah, does that mean that mean I'm not supposed to be paying attention to the voices in my head that are telling me to knock on your door and run away snickering?

Not me, and if you had ever eaten my cooking you'd understand why my stove never gets turned on in the first place:lol: Does that make me abnormal or what?

Seriously though, there's little point in debating the DSM and the current trends in Psychology. The growing dissatisfaction with the course of both are allowing them to get what they are asking for. The DSM is more widely being seen as the biased book of slanted opinions that it really is, and the general public is giving less credence to the field of Psychology as it becomes clear that it cannot differentiate between what is normal and what is not. By leaving them both alone they will destroy themselves, leaving all us normal people better off in the end

If indeed we are being watched, let's show them our good side and maybe one or two of those students minds will open up to the possibility that what they're being taught might be so wrong as to be essentially worthless- except for the purpose of their making money based on continuing the ruse they and us have been subjected to so far Since that is what has usually happened and it continues to happen, then perhaps that insanity is the most normal of all

Bettypooh

Thats very well said betty. Society has moved past the 1950s way of thinking and assuming that everyone fits into neat little boxes. But in doing so, we have lost sight of the variability of human behaviour. Very few behaviours are intrinsically dangerous and truly bad. And at the same time most behaviours become problematic and dysfunctional if they become compulsive and overwhelming. Most of the middle ground of 'abnormal behaviours' are nothing more than management and control issues ie right time, right place, not compulsive. But DSM and a lot of shrinks want to pigeonhole behaviours into normal and abnormal.

The DSM is still well regarded but professional ins the field do not consider it a bible. They treat it as seriously flawed and inflexible.

Does anyone know anyone who has sought therapy for diaper addiction or being an adult baby that has actually received significant help? Most I have spoken to have said it was an expensive waste of time and besides the release of actually talking about it to someone, it yielded few positive outcomes. I'd certainly liek to hear from anyone who claims to have been 'cured' except of course, they would no longer be here...

oh well!

[Crinklebritches]

Society has moved past the 1950s way of thinking and assuming that everyone fits into neat little boxes.

Sorry to break the intellectual conversation here, All I could think of was the opening theme song to HBO's first couple of seasons of "Weeds".. Little Boxes on the Hill side.... ... ... And they all look just the same.

Really enjoyed reading this thread.

[lilJester]

just goes to show. don't post anything ANYTHING online that you don't want to risk surfacing elsewhere.

[spark]

Thats very well said betty. Society has moved past the 1950s way of thinking and assuming that everyone fits into neat little boxes. But in doing so, we have lost sight of the variability of human behaviour. Very few behaviours are intrinsically dangerous and truly bad. And at the same time most behaviours become problematic and dysfunctional if they become compulsive and overwhelming. Most of the middle ground of 'abnormal behaviours' are nothing more than management and control issues ie right time, right place, not compulsive. But DSM and a lot of shrinks want to pigeonhole behaviours into normal and abnormal.

The DSM is still well regarded but professional ins the field do not consider it a bible. They treat it as seriously flawed and inflexible.

Does anyone know anyone who has sought therapy for diaper addiction or being an adult baby that has actually received significant help? Most I have spoken to have said it was an expensive waste of time and besides the release of actually talking about it to someone, it yielded few positive outcomes. I'd certainly liek to hear from anyone who claims to have been 'cured' except of course, they would no longer be here...

oh well!

What is the evidence is there for 'curing' this? It is something that goes much deeper than just the desire (very similar to homosexuality, and we know how well 'curing' that works). I'm sure from your experience with your husband, you've tried to figure out ways to get him to be 'normal' only to realize it wasn't going to be happen. The best was was to accept him for what he is, and try to deal with on the level that he is at.

Understandably, the biggest issue with being AB is the whole child/paedophiliaa connection, which is way more complicated than I have to the ability to explore. However, it is perfectly obvious to me that while there might be a bit of intersection, not all paedophiliacs are AB's, and certainly not all Ab's are paedophiliacs.

At this point in my life, now that I've come to grips with all of the aspects of being what I am, if someone were to offer me a cure, I'm not sure if I would choose to accept it.

[rosalie.bent]

What is the evidence is there for 'curing' this? It is something that goes much deeper than just the desire (very similar to homosexuality, and we know how well 'curing' that works). I'm sure from your experience with your husband, you've tried to figure out ways to get him to be 'normal' only to realize it wasn't going to be happen. The best was was to accept him for what he is, and try to deal with on the level that he is at.

Understandably, the biggest issue with being AB is the whole child/paedophiliaa connection, which is way more complicated than I have to the ability to explore. However, it is perfectly obvious to me that while there might be a bit of intersection, not all paedophiliacs are AB's, and certainly not all Ab's are paedophiliacs.

At this point in my life, now that I've come to grips with all of the aspects of being what I am, if someone were to offer me a cure, I'm not sure if I would choose to accept it.

The reason 'curing' often fails is because there is no dysfunction to 'cure'. Infantile regression is not an illness, but rather a creative way the mind responds to events and pressures as children and then form a remaining component of our adult lives. Anger is not a disease although it can be a dysfunction if it overwhelms. Sadness is not an illness but if it expands and morphs into depression, it then becomes a dysfunction. Being AB is not an illness; it is just another less common ascpet of personality that can by dysfunctional if taken to extremes, just as virtually every other human behaviour.

Your second point about paedophilia is interesting, but it is worth noting that ABs are no more likely to be so than any other group, race or social standing. It is a condition that is complex and nto helped by the fact that it is misrepresented and wrongly defined by virtually everyone. Paedophilia is actually the sexual PREFERENCE for pre-pubescent children. This means that a paedophile is not someone who ACTS, but someone who thinks in a sexual way towards children in preference to adults. The irony is that the vast majority of people who sexually offend against children are not actual paedophiles but sex offenders. And they are usually not predatory but opportunistic. Actual paedophiles are less likely to offend than a lot of the rest of the community because they are aware of their leanings and most takes steps to avoid it while other sex offenders are unaware of the line before they cross it. You wont find this in the media because it isnt comfortable nor does it conform with the sterotypes they like to promote. And the tragedy is that while FBI and associated other law enforcement agencies spent billions cruising the internet looking for supposed paedophiles, they mostly calim the scalps of fools and opportunistic idiots. The real predatory and dangerous ones go unobserved because the sterotypes are all wrong.

I have noticed however that AB communities seem to be particulary 'anti-pedo' which is great. I wonder if that is because we either fear that we may be subject to these tendencies or because we fear the lable being applied to us. I belive the latter is true.

[curiositykilledthecat]

Well if some psych students want to join in on the chat that is perfectly fine. I will point out far more interesting and bizzarre fetishes you can check out, i.e. Voreism and Balloonism. Seeing as I know a little psychology, I'd like to point out that in the DSMIV that Fetish and pariphanalia are not a disorder unless they cause funtional impairment. Welcome to the site, pull up a chair and enjoy.

[curiositykilledthecat]

One thing i will chime in with is that there is a difference between "different" and psychotic. I've been friends with those who are a little special and I've had friends who were straight up psychotic and a danger to those around them. Hell I pressed charges against one(later dropped because he ccomitted a greater felony) and had to have a no contact order on the other. not every case of being different is okay and should be accepted. there are instances where people do need medical attention if they are to be allowed amongst the relatively sane. that beimng said, the eccentric and the different aren't amongst that group, there is a clear difference. When the voices in your head are louder than the voices outside your head then yes it's time to see a doctor.

[Guest Baby Rina]

It is quite bizarre at times on internet forums the way that messages get jumbled. Possibly it is because the comprehension level of written comunication has dived so badly in recent decades. The focus of the post was not on the 'worlds foremost expert' but on the DSM committee process. The reason he was not named is A) I would have to look it up again and it was not relevant to the point of the post because the point wasnt about HIM but rather the DSM process.

it is very helpful if people read the entire post, understand it and then formulate a response based on what was said, not imagined.

The funny part is mine was aimed to be a support of Sara and not an attack of its own and yet you push at mine more than at hers. The fact that i listed Ozzy as in Osborne and Keith as in Richards as my experts on addiction should have been a clue that i am not a person to be taken with utmost seriousness... But as you said, sometimes messages get jumbled and the real meaning gets lost.

[rosalie.bent]

The funny part is mine was aimed to be a support of Sara and not an attack of its own and yet you push at mine more than at hers. The fact that i listed Ozzy as in Osborne and Keith as in Richards as my experts on addiction should have been a clue that i am not a person to be taken with utmost seriousness... But as you said, sometimes messages get jumbled and the real meaning gets lost.

It wouldnt be the internet if messages got across 100% clearly and without misinterpretation!