Exposing others to diapers

[Rachel Emily]

Thats about as tame a display as you could get. But if you were in the presence of a parent trying to get their toddler to stop using a pacifier, do you think you are helping? And perhaps you should ask yourself WHY you would use your pacifier in public? Other than "I want to" what genuine reasons exist?

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Well, the only reason I'd even considered it in the first place is that I tend to be anxious around crowds of people and in noisy places, and the pacifier calms me more than anything else would. It's a moot point, anyway, since I'd probably be too self-conscious to ever do it.

This is s simple phobia and almost comes right out of my Behavior Modification Clas

Unless the paci has some pharmaceutical or magical quality, This is just a simple Classical Conditional Response pattern. This could be fixed with something called "Systematic Desensitization, which was one of the first kinds of Behavior Midifications discovered.

This is going to be a kind of "quick and dirty" In Vivo fix, since I do not have you here to run a Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale procedure to see how strong it is. You will have to do something else to start. In this case a stimulus-response link breaking technique known as Thoughtstopping

Here are some things to do. Unless they come from a medical condition, which, since your solution is behavioral, I doubt, but do check to be sure. Also, since I can not do a full treatment, I am concentrating on changing the response from sucking a pacifier to something less overt and more LG as well. If it does eliminate the anxiety, well, so much the better. I gather that you do not wish to use the paci in public by the fact that you said it makes you "self-conscious"

Before we start: I am going to give you three trade secrets that make it work

1. "Manipulation of Expectations". By telling you how to do it in the context that this works, the Placebo Effect kicks in and since this is psychological, that is very powerful

2. Small Steps: "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time". You are NOT going to do this in a day, it may take two or three months and you may also relapse but that is all right, that is part of it

3. "Successive Approximations". With each try, you get closer to your goal. Soon, "Close, but no tiara" becomes "Give that little girl a tiara"

These last two are part of any learning curve

Another trade secret is "nature abhors a vacuum [which, given that most of the Universe is the vacuum of space, I really wonder about]". If you take out a response to a stimulus, you must replace it, preferably with one that has more power. Since we are both LG then I think I can find one of those

Here is the list of things to do in order

1. Thoughtstopping. When you are by yourself, imagine that you are in a noisy, crowded area. Then say to yourself at a level that would get your attention, "STOP!". It must be mildly unpleasant and done sharply enough so that it registers well enough to stop the process. Keep doing this until you hear the "STOP1" in your head. This breaks the situation-anxiety link that is the heart of a phobia. Now, whatever you do, do NOT watch HOGAN'S HEROES while doing this. It is no fun hearing Major Hochstetter shouting "STOP!". Schutlz is tolerable but my choice would be Fraulein Helga but not Frau Linkmeyer. I would not care to hear Marya saying "Rhachel Dahlink, my cute little vun"

2. Rapid deep breaths: When you have reached the stage where you hear the "STOP!" your head, deep-breathe about 10 in 25 seconds (that figure is about average and works for me and is how I control my tendency to laugh when I am telling a joke. ADjust the number/time so that you do not hyperventallate and pass outT). There are sensors in the blood system that measure and compute the ratio of oxygen to CO2 in the blood. If the ratio gets out of line and there is too much oxygen it forece relaxation. The deep, rapid breathing causes the ratio to "get out of line"

3. Unless you want to go through a full course of B-Mod, You can set up an alternative response. You can keep the pacifier, or a pocket-size doll (Fairy) in a pocket, it might help to give her a name (if she is to be a grownup Fairy, she will need 3 "first" names as that is our custom and the second ends in "ise" or "ilise" If I were grown up my full first name would be "Kirstra Darylise Tiarelle"). When the phobic reaction starts you should hear in your head the "STOP!" and do some of the deep breathing while fingering the paci or the doll. I think the doll, or, Dolly would be better in your case since she would have some LG cache. That should calm you down At the point that it does. think of being "Rachel". Then, you may start LIKING crowded or noisy places

If you know a practicing, preferably lady, psychologist that you trust, run this by her if you can. She may be able to start with it and do something better

[rosalie.bent]

I am going to have to disagree with you about this being a conditioned behaviour. IN fact, it is instinctual. Newborn babies have a strong sucking drive and it is not called a pacifier for no good reason as it PACIFIES the infant. A big part of regression is getting re-connected with the past and for those that regress back to the infant level - that is, most - the drive to use a pacifier is strong and it also has similar effects to that of a baby. It calms, it pacifies, it relaxes. Not because it is a conditioned behaviour, but because it is the instinctual behaviour of a young baby or toddler and the person has reconnected to that instinct.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

"Intinct" was long ago taken out of human psychology, going back to at least 1965 and the sucking "instinct" was specifically discussed in my Psych 11 class in 1972.

Also the fact that Rachel does not do it in public demonstrates that it is controlled which is not a characteristic of instinct. There have been many theories about oral behavior

Since the use of the pacifier is not an option in public, the drive/instincnt debate is moot here. I have suggested an alternative that, beause of its covert nature and LG cache is and would be quite strong

The phobic reation to noise and crowd is Classical Conditioning

[Demon-hunter]

it just depend on the ab/dl person, the person they talk to, and how much trust is there.

[rosalie.bent]

A lot has happened in Psychology since 1972. Psychology has an unnerving habit of accepting then denouncing and then accepting again some definitions and understanding. A lot of supposedly well understood concepts gets upturned by some big noice only to come back into favour later on. And at no time does human behaviour change - only our flawed understanding. And instinctual vs conditioned is one of them. Babies are not conditioned but instinctively suckle. Highly regressive ABs will suckled often from instinct rather than a conditioned behaviour. IN fact, Regressive ABs may have both operating and on anecdotal evidence to date can determine which driver is operating - instinct or conditioned behaviour. an AB in a lightly regressive state may use a pacifier largely from habit (ie conditioning) but in the deeply regressed state, uses one from instinct as they respond to the infantile primal instinct to suckle.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Basic Psychology is basic psychology. The "instinct theory" goes back before the 20th century. What was used specifically to refute instinct theory in my class was that some otherwise healthy babies did not exhibit sucking behavior. If a theory does not account for a behavior, or lack of behavior, in 1972, then the same theory still does not account for the same behavior, or the same lack of behavior, in 2015

The most that can be said is that sucking is a reflex "arc", like the toe-curling reflex left over from our arboreal predecessors. However that goes away as the individual develops. Since the human face changes as the individual develops to one less at home on the breast, it would not surprise me that the reflex would go away as a reflex

That it is a large part of some AB's proves nothing. No AB over 55 or 6 should even be comfortable with pamper-style diapers as part of their AB world, yet this is not the case. Some who are even older than I are pleased with the; one such was Tommy of DPF, I was 37 when I joined in March 1983. This causes me to think that AB is an overlay of adult feelings onto the baby, not authentic baby. As for the feelings associated with babies. I can remember my 3rd birthday and that timeframe. The only thing I recall even close to a "feeling" was a kind of vague curiosity that was a want to get a closer look at and touch what I saw. I also remember when I went to have my tonsils taken out. I was mostly angry and scared. I certainly did not have the set of feelings nor the depth and focus of feelings that go with AB before I was 4

If you are going to use the etymology of "pacifier" as evidence, remember in the UK it is a "dummy" and "soother". It is also called a "binky"

Poor Rachel. It seems she has been forgotten in all this back and forth

[Baby Brian]

I have to disagree too. 1972 psychology would have and did condemn anything AB/DL, yet today the more psychologists learn about it the more they realize it's actually a good thing.

I'd be fairly safe to say this would also include pacifiers, because psychology it's self may not have changed, but our psychologists understanding of it most certainly has.

And for the record, I can think of a few things that would be instinctive yet I've been conditioned not to do them for the sake of modernized society. Suckling would be one of them, but that doesn't mean it isn't still instinctive just because we (usually) no longer do it.

[Baby Brian]

Fyi, just because you can't recall an event doesn't mean that event, and feeling associated with it, didn't have an impact on you. Nor does it mean the memory of it isn't still a part of your subconscious memory.

There are whole industries devoted to this, and a psychology major yourself I'm a bit surprised you would try to explain our instinctive tendencies off like that. It's actually a little offensive, but I'm willing to let it pass as your having been taught so long ago and just being out of touch with modern psychology. Sorry if this itself is offensive to you, but I felt it needed to be said.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

It is part of Behavior Modification theory that one may not and often does not, recall the event that generated the original phobic reaction. The specific event is unimportant, the phobic raction now exists independently of it and THAT is the target of modification. So, it is understood that unrecalled events often do play a part in behavior

You ignord the fact that instinct theory has long been rejected in favor of "drive" theory for the reason I stated so there are no "instincts" to explain

"Recovered memories" is also a cottage induxtry that preys on the ignorant and uses manipulation. That has been demonstrated experimentally

If you wish to resort to "instinct theory" then do not complain when those who would take your liberty from you resort to some other variant of Determinism. What goes around comes around. We are told that the one of the bigger problems are those who will not take "no" for an answer. That is incorrect, it is those who will not take "yes"

[rosalie.bent]

The idea that a few babies who do not instinctively suckle as refutation of the entire notion of instinct is quite silly and defies logic as well as experience. Babies instinctively suckle and no mother, nurse or doctor would even consider disagreeing. I also studied psychology in the late 1970s and would say that I was repelled by many of my lecturers and professors who were frankly, stupid and hangovers from the long-gone hippy era. There opinion on virtually everything was quite disturbing. My very first lecture had the lecturer complaining that his mother had issues about his at-home nudity. ANd it was all downhill from there. Todays psychologists are far more professional and far more educated.

[rosalie.bent]

oh please...

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

The reason that the fact that a number of otherwise healtlhy babies not sockling was used as the specific example to refute instinct theory, in my intro psych class, was because instinct theory held that all healthy babies would suckle automatically and that was not happening. I had already been appraised of the rejection of instinct theory and its replacement with drives in humans in a Sociology class at Uinv. or RI in 1965. I have not been made aware of the specifics of any re-introduction of this theory in Psychology

In regard to you comment on memory. You said she was abused as a child. That covers a number of years. Something can start in the under 4 years of age and continue past that so I would need to know from when to when she was abused. Even under age 4 it could be well remembered as a sensory experience if it was sharp enough and repeated. I remember being changed only twice, but I am sure it was many more times than that. It has been known for 30 years that the brain changes in weight in accordance with the stages outlined by Piaget and one of those is at about 4 years of age, which fits my own experience. At that age my memories are way more of things rather than feelings. the external item seems to be the active force, drawing on me, rather tnan me being attracted to it: "pull" more than "push" is the best way to put it

Also, I note that many AB's and Littles gravitate to things that were not part of, or even in existence, at the age they are supposed to be, which makes me think that they are superimposing some external agenda on their AB/Little-ness. This is very different from using a later item as a stand-in for something which did exist at the time which it resembles. Thus a 1953 LG could use a 1960 Playpal 36" doll as a stand-in for an 18" doll since it would fit the relative girl to doll size difference. My 29" inch dolly Andrea is the same size relative to me as the first doll I ever saw. Now, as much as I love Yogi Bear, that just would not fit me as an LG

[rosalie.bent]

You are really trying to complicate this far more than you need to as well as projecting your own needs and experiences. You might be trying to 100% replicate a previous age but that is true of a very small minority. The rest regress to a state of infancy and the objects associated with it can vary in type and style and yet be thoroughly authentic to the regressor. That is why a 50yo can wear disposable diapers and yet feel completely authentic - because the diapers are an attachment object not a compulsive or fetishistic object. You are using direct attachments to specific objects and in a rather compulsive manner.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

My experience backs up what I have studied which means that what I know first-hand links to what I have learened formally. What I learne formally puts my experience into a larger context and picture. They match

As far as what I am replicating or not, that issue that I brought up, related to memories, is one of authenticity. Can you imagine a perfomrance of Julius Ceasar where Brutus sticks a .38 snub-nose in Ceasars belly and pulls the trigger?? That's what I mean by "authenticity". While small things out of place are tolerable. large things out of place do not fit the gestalt and are a distraction because they require constant psychological effort to fit them in

[ssdiapers]

I guess the thought never entered my head.

[rosalie.bent]

Authenticity and replication are not the same thing.

[Lee B]

I've never had a need to deliberately expose myself to those who don't need to know. I'd definitely never leave nappies/powder lying around just so that people can see them. To me, that's the equivalent of leaving a dildo/handcuffs/collar/etc etc on the table without the other person knowing previously; it's be embarrassing and unnecessary.