Stop Defining Others

[AwakenEvil]

My honest opinion is this thread is on target and proves to the cliche crowd of the fetlife folks that we are not some backwards freaks that are portrayed in the YABDL groups if you bring up DailyDiapers. We are having a good discussion without name calling. This is better than anything I've ever witnessed on fetlife that doesn't turn into a spotting thread.

[Baby Brian]

1 hour ago, Christine Daryleanne said:

I must differ. From what I see here. Most persons acquired their diaper interest as very young children; as young as 4

Freude recognized what he called the "Phallic stage" in young children, well before puberty and very different from the "genital [sexual] stage"

Cranial developmental studies show that the part of the brain that is involved in sexuality is not developed at that age

On the other hand, the sex organs are simply very receptor-rich parts of the body with no ideational content in their function. Any boy, in a warm classroom, even in an all-boys school, and called upon to do a stand-up reading has experienced this

Now, the pairing of events with physical sensation at any age falls into the "operant conditioning" model and there is nothing special about it

The evidence from Freudian Psychology, physiological psychology and behavioral psychology support a wider scope to the development of fetishes

Exactly! And this is why our diaper love/compulsion is not a fetish. Fetishes ARE

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I can buy that under these conditions quite readily

This challenges conventional theory and asks the question "what, then, is it?". It is certainly a strongly reinforced behavior and it can acquire some ideational content derived from the circumstances under which it is reinforced and learned

[Baby Brian]

12 minutes ago, Christine Daryleanne said:

I can buy that under these conditions quite readily

This challenges conventional theory and asks the question "what, then, is it?". It is certainly a strongly reinforced behavior and it can acquire some ideational content derived from the circumstances under which it is reinforced and learned

Yeah it sure does, and it absolutely is. The closest I can associate it with is what we already, and technically, call it- diaper love (and just fyi, the definition of love absolutely does include inanimate objects). I get for some though it really is a diaper fetish, and while that is not a bad thing to us here

[dyperbole]

46 minutes ago, Baby Brian said:

Exactly! And this is why our diaper love/compulsion is not a fetish. Fetishes ARE

[Baby Brian]

8 minutes ago, tbbuc said:

Who is "our"?

[dyperbole]

4 hours ago, Baby Brian said:

The diapered community belongs to all of us, it is our community, and that most certainly includes you. This is why I also said there are diaper fetish people here, where diapers really are purely sexual to them- just as you have stated. There's nothing wrong with it either, heck if anything it's healthy.

As for the labels, it's like rosali.bent mentioned. Labels do happen and they do matter all of the time. This is an unfortunate truth of our society. My recommendation to you would to just not use one at all. Either that, or just pick what ever label describes you best and embrace it, though like you said its not "diaper lover". And really if one doesn't describe you at all

Edited November 21, 2015 by tbbuc
Removed due to a better answer

[DirtyDaddy]

2 hours ago, Baby Brian said:

Fetishes ARE

[AwakenEvil]

9 minutes ago, DirtyDaddy said:

I've stayed out of this thread (and the other related ones) because its really all useless drama and I've got better things to do, so this will be my only post on the topic...

The statement above IS FACTUALLY WRONG. (wow, I can use all-caps for emphasis too.) The word fetish can have a sexual implication but does not have to. Just because the non-sexual definition is second in the list in your link to the Oxford dictionary doesn't mean you get to ignore it, it is still a valid meaning of the word. I'm not even going to bother opening the links to the urban dictionary or wikipedia, I don't care what they say as neither is an authoritative source. But to have multiple good sources I also looked it up over at Merriam-Webster and guess what - the "strong desire" definition is first there, with the sexual one second: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetish

If you want to keep arguing about the meaning of a word with your dictionary, have fun with that.

[DailyDi]

2 hours ago, DirtyDaddy said:

I've stayed out of this thread (and the other related ones) because its really all useless drama and I've got better things to do, so this will be my only post on the topic...

The statement above IS FACTUALLY WRONG. (wow, I can use all-caps for emphasis too.) The word fetish can have a sexual implication but does not have to. Just because the non-sexual definition is second in the list in your link to the Oxford dictionary doesn't mean you get to ignore it, it is still a valid meaning of the word. I'm not even going to bother opening the links to the urban dictionary or wikipedia, I don't care what they say as neither is an authoritative source. But to have multiple good sources I also looked it up over at Merriam-Webster and guess what - the "strong desire" definition is first there, with the sexual one second: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetish

If you want to keep arguing about the meaning of a word with your dictionary, have fun with that.

[BriGuy]

4 hours ago, BabyWendyMarie said:

That's because you refuse to.

I don't understand, huh? What do I refuse?

[Elfy]

2 hours ago, DirtyDaddy said:

I've stayed out of this thread (and the other related ones) because its really all useless drama and I've got better things to do, so this will be my only post on the topic...

The statement above IS FACTUALLY WRONG. (wow, I can use all-caps for emphasis too.) The word fetish can have a sexual implication but does not have to. Just because the non-sexual definition is second in the list in your link to the Oxford dictionary doesn't mean you get to ignore it, it is still a valid meaning of the word. I'm not even going to bother opening the links to the urban dictionary or wikipedia, I don't care what they say as neither is an authoritative source. But to have multiple good sources I also looked it up over at Merriam-Webster and guess what - the "strong desire" definition is first there, with the sexual one second: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetish

If you want to keep arguing about the meaning of a word with your dictionary, have fun with that.

[BriGuy]

19 hours ago, DirtyDaddy said:

I've stayed out of this thread (and the other related ones) because its really all useless drama and I've got better things to do, so this will be my only post on the topic...

The statement above IS FACTUALLY WRONG. (wow, I can use all-caps for emphasis too.) The word fetish can have a sexual implication but does not have to. Just because the non-sexual definition is second in the list in your link to the Oxford dictionary doesn't mean you get to ignore it, it is still a valid meaning of the word. I'm not even going to bother opening the links to the urban dictionary or wikipedia, I don't care what they say as neither is an authoritative source. But to have multiple good sources I also looked it up over at Merriam-Webster and guess what - the "strong desire" definition is first there, with the sexual one second: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetish

If you want to keep arguing about the meaning of a word with your dictionary, have fun with that.

[rosalie.bent]

This is a great thread because it is discussing without rancour the differences of opinion re labels. If you tried this in FetLife it would be a no-holds-barred tantrum fight without 2 posts. Again, This is great.

I appreciate Brian's point of view where his contention is that diapers are non-sexual for him - entirely. That is not particularly common, but that does not in any way alter the truth of his position.

The problem is that while 'fetish' is technically both sexual and non-sexual, common usage has rendered it a largely sexual term. In our model of diaper attraction we have used the term 'fetish' as one of the three components. Because of Brians well-reasoned argument we are going to change that to Fetish/Compulsion. Technically, they are the same word, but in practical day-to-day use, they are very different.

I would

[rosalie.bent]

On 11/20/2015, 11:08:14, Elfking said:

We are still talking about labels for people?

Can we just stop? I think we all know that the human brain puts people in categories as soon as we see them because it is trained to immediately assess if someone is a potential ally or foe. But that is a subconscious process and we don't need to make it a conscious one, especially not when referring to other people when it is clear that everyone as slightly different parameters for who is what. Whether you have argued that it is a fetish (something people including me have done) or it isn't a fetish (something others have done) is all down to personal point of view and if someone says it is a fetish then it is, if they say it isn't then it isn't. They are all just words that mean different things to different people. I have been just as guilty as anyone else in arguing about it before but it is pointless because everyone has a different definition of things in their minds and most aren't particularly inclined to change just because someone on the internet disagree, in fact, for some people having people who disagree just make you more set in your own way of thinking. So the argument always becomes one of semantics and of small things that mean different things to different people. Similar to things like religion and politics, the only way someone will change their mind on it is if they decide to rather than anything anyone else says.

We should all stop being so self-centred and thinking that what we think has any effect on other people, or that any of us are going to change the way things are seen by others.

Just have your way of thinking, accept that others see things differently and will not change their minds unless they want to (and on the internet, chances are they don't want their minds changed), and just accept it. I'm tired of seeing it, and I'm tired of being a part of it.

Even this threads discussion now is veering back towards the definition of words which is one of the reasons this thread was made in the first place. So how about we all just read the first post, and just stop talking about it and move on with our lives.

Could not disagree more if I tried. The very source of the arguments that often occur is because we DONT define our words and our terms. In fact, it makes argument inevitable. If we define fetish and regression correctly then we can all be talking about the same thing instead of arguing because we all choose to define it 'our own way'. We actually DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to redefine terms according to our wishes.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I am uncomfortable with "compulsion". That brings in the mental health issue of "disorder"

[rosalie.bent]

1 minute ago, Christine Daryleanne said:

I am uncomfortable with "compulsion". That brings in the mental health issue of "disorder"

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

And your claim of "argument ad absurdam" is unsupported.

I have been part of that discussion in general terms. It was all over the field of psychology in the 1970's and "de-programmers" were big in the '80's and '90's after Jonestown and Hail-Bopp/Heaven's Gate

[rosalie.bent]

19 hours ago, Dill_Pickle said:

Elfking:

Some of us *enjoy* discussing ideas, even if they are only going to only go so far in the short term.

[Dill_Pickle]

By working on the definition of the word "fetish", I think we are ignoring its connotations. which involve others having fetishes but not ourselves.

[Elfy]

Maybe it is a location thing because although not often I have heard people say things such as, "what is your fetish with..." or "my fetish for..." and then naming some mundane thing like computing.

It is just another way of saying "what is your obsession with..."

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

It's definitely a location thing, and I'm guessing it's a US (North America?) vs. UK thing at that. If someone said "what's your fetish with computing" around here, the person the question was aimed at would almost invariably respond along the lines of "I'm not sexually attracted to computers!" I'm convinced most people don't even know the current dictionary definition of the word, and suspect it'll soon be listed as an archaic term rather than a current one, at least on this side of the pond. It really is just one more example of Sir Winston Churchill's great quote about America and the UK being two countries "separated by a common language." I'm guessing it's no different than people in this country being unfamiliar with the term queue as opposed to line, or people in the UK using "sweets" instead of "chocolate." Dialect is probably where the confusion stems from, as even though the term is technically correct, it's not indicative of the way that people actually speak or interpret the word in at least on region of the world. "Obsession" or even "hobby" or "fascination" would be more appropriate terms in areas where "fetish" is distinctly used in a sexual sense. The real issue here is ambiguity with the word though. For example, if I say "diaper" and you say "nappy," we both know what the other is talking about without any ambiguity. However, if I say "fetish" and someone else says "fetish," and we can't agree on what the word actually means, that's when messages get muddled and confusion occurs. Just my thoughts on the subject.

[Elfy]

We use "sweets" instead of "candy"... We share the word chocolate, otherwise yes there are lots of little differences. The word is context sensitive as I have always tried to say. If you say "I have a fetish for computing" most people here would assume you mean you really like computers as a hobby. If you said "I have a fetish for women's panties" then people would assume sexual. Then of course there are some that could go either way.

I think it is roughly the same in USA and UK where both definitions are legitimate but the second definition is just not a way a lot of people use the word. Doesn't make it any less correct but it is the less used definition.

(By the way, I know I suggested we don't talk about this but it seems everyone else thinks that is a bad idea so I will talk about it too)

[vvp39]

My own take on this subject is that there is a continuum between "totally vanilla normal" and "so far out there that I can't imagine any actual person being that weird", and that the argument here is about how far removed from "totally vanilla normal" one has to be before the term "fetish" applies to oneself. Therefore, to me, the question "is it or is it not a fetish" is quite unimportant.

[Nyte Kitsune]

On 11/8/2015, 2:47:54, DailyDi said:

So you agree with me... but still want to define the terms for others? Let it go dude. Let people be themselves and quit trying to fit people into boxes.

Yes, No boxes.. I already live in one (Micro Studio Apt)