Told The Fiance

[tauschung]

I'm sorry. I hate to repeat everyone but quitting cold turkey is not something I would do.

I've been where you are, and am glad I got out. If they are not accepting of who you are, then they are not someone you should consider spending the rest of your life with.

[lynniehyde]

It is a cliche, but it's true (And that's probably why it's a cliche) : that "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Wherever you decide to go with your current relationship will ultimately be, your decision. And, you will have to live with it.

Like any other human being on this earth in a similar situation, you will probably follow your heart. And, it is my sincere hope that you would take the words of wisdom and experience you have seen in replies to this thread, to your heart, and make your best decision possible.

Again, good luck to you and your relationship.

Cuddles,

--heidilynn

[Morv]

I disagree that you cannot change yourself. I think it may be a challenge, and I think it may take long, hard work, but to say that you cannot change yourself, I believe, is an underestimation of the power of the human mind. I work in the mental health field, and I see people that have changed themselves from far more extreme conditions than liking diapers. Was it easy for them? No. Did they do it in a normal, everyday environment? No.

Some changes may be so extreme that they require constant professional guidance and an environment that is controlled and condusive to your change. Is this something that most people have at their disposal or are willing to endure to change something as relatively minor as enjoying diapers? No. Is it possible? Yes.

Do not confuse impossible and improbable. Just because you do not have the resources at your beck and call does not mean they do not exist. Just because the work and resources required to surmount a challenge happen to be so extreme they could be termed inordinate does not mean that the challenge itself is insurmountable; it simply means it is not worth the effort.

[Pipsqueak]

Very true, Morv. However, I think there's also a distinction between changing yourself (not your diapers, you silly babies! ) because YOU desire to change an aspect of yourself and attempting to change yourself to meet the expectations of someone else. The former is far more likely to succeed than the latter.

[gweg]

I'll also say that I'm surprised, given that you are a mormon of one sort or another, that the lady is allowed any say in the matter, but maybe I have been reading too much about your most famous heretic and apostate, David Jeffs.

How is choosing the diapers and the transvestism choosing life? It's a part of you, and, like being gay, it is not something you chose in the first place and not something anyone has been observed to be successful at changing. On this basis, all of the main body of psychologists have decided that these oddities in and of themselves are not evil or things to be changed. Not that they won't try to change your behavior if the results are interfering with the rest of your life, such as getting you arrested, or shunned, or, in extreme cases, killing you -- but what they will be doing is trying to channel the fulfillment of the desires into more constructive directions. (The extreme example is autoerotic asphyxiation -- which kills about 100 people per year in the US)

If she can't give you enough space in the relationship to do these things that you need to do for your well-being, on your own, then know that the relationship wasn't a good one in the first place, but was based on something other than adult love, such as her preconcieved ideals received from her narrow upbringing. It is better to tell her that you cannot change yourself and that she can either accept the reality along with the wedding band or refuse the wedding band. If she cannot accept this reality, and you get married, it bodes ill for both of your futures.

Given your church, you may wish to prepare a more acceptable, but plausible, reason for calling off the nuptials -- this is an example of minimizing the social consequences of your state of mind-body. It also might be wise of you to see a non-church psychologist with your potential bride to discuss the issues -- I doubt that writings from the internet will ever carry sufficient authority with her. Another example to discuss with her is the episcopalian decision to allow openly gay bishops. The anglican communion is clearly doing this for what are seen as moral reasons, although it offends the more conservative members.

OK, nuff said...good luck, sorry the news doesn't sound good at all....

I usually don't talk much on the board but I think I need to respond to this post.

First off, your lady and you need to sit down at home and discuss what your relationship is. You need to talk about the difference between your lifestyle and just a fetish that can be forgotten. it has been stated time and time again that once you crave your diapers that the feeling may be suppressed but it will never go away and you will return. Talk to her about this.

Then maybe pray together for guidance. This should help both of you decipher how your future will unfold. And it can help you see if you have a bright future within BOTH of your lifes.

Next to Dill Pickle.....

Jeffs is a fundamentalist excommunicated from the Mormon church and is a part of another church.

Next

Now before you call off your nuptuals Please don't be afraid to discuss your feelings for her and what you feel is acceptable behavior in your home and lifestyle. You need to convey that you both would have to change to form the partnership the church expects you to bring forth.

Pray with her and have a "family home eveniing" to get the feel of being together and if your lifestyle is acceptable to each other and the joining of your souls.

If each of you can't except each other now than the future doesn't bode well.

I have been through what your going into and there is a solution...

Being a Jack mormon and then marrying a real mormon lady like I did takes some patience and a lot of talking before the big day can arrive if it does...

just my thoughts...

[AutieAB]

There's a phrase I was taught once: "Don't ignore the sleeping dinosaur in the living room."

Dinosaurs are big, and if ignored, very dangerous. Everybody knows it's there but no one wants to talk about it for fear of what might happen if you wake it. But if you don't talk about it, Mr. Stegosaurus wakes up anyway and consumes you.

Being an AB or a DL is too big a deal to be ignored - it just won't work because your fiancée knows about it but doesn't understand and you feel the need for it but can't act on it. Both are dangerous conditions for a relationship to be in and you need to either talk lots and come to an agreement that you can both really live with without feeling resentment for the other or if that doesn't work, investigate the possibility that maybe you're not as right for each other as you thought. Two people in love should be able to work though anything without ignoring it or wanting to change the other person, regardless of their faith, lack thereof, or otherwise.

I feel like that's a harsh thing to say but it's probably true.

[loopy]

As for psychology, may I respectfully suggest you might find voodoo or perhaps horoscopes slightly more useful.

Psychology is utter bunk and every practising clinical psychologist, without exception, is a psychopathic charlatan.

Unlike christianity?

[Chibiusa255]

Psychology is utter bunk and every practising clinical psychologist, without exception, is a psychopathic charlatan.

So you choose to believe in something that truly is utter bunk and disbelieve something based on science and logic. *facepalm*

LOL, you're not a scientologist or something are you?

[Incomplete Dude]

It is very sad and slightly hypocritical, even rather blasphemous when someone tries to invoke Christian teaching to justify their own intolerance.

....

As for psychology, may I respectfully suggest you might find voodoo or perhaps horoscopes slightly more useful.

Psychology is utter bunk and every practising clinical psychologist, without exception, is a psychopathic charlatan.

So I guess it's ok to be intolerant if you don't invoke Christian teaching? Right...

Btw, there are many more forms of psychology than Freudian psychoanalysis, which I agree is a bit odd. You would do well to educate yourself.

[Chibiusa255]

I can only repeat the point I made to loopy, Since you are apparently already aware of the negative nature of Christianity, would putting any trust in psychology be anything less than jumping from the frying pan into the fire?

I will add that clinical psychology is not based upon science.

Psychology is an attempt to apply scientific principals to understanding individual behaviour within a group.

Clinical psychology is little more than smart rhetoric and confidence trickery for the gullible neurotic.

Can you really justify diagnosing a disobedient 10, 11, 12 or 13 year old as ODD? (Obedience Deficit Disorder)

Or a 2 year old as bipolar?

Or lables such as SAD, MAD, FAG?

That is child abuse. Clinical psychologists peddle expensive flashy sounding supposed illnesses to parents who need an excuse for spending their cash and time on booze instead of being parents.

I'm really not sure what world you're living in but it's obviously not the same one that the rest of us inhabit.

[b0xer21]

negative nature of christianity?

i always thought i was a happy dude

[Dill_Pickle]

As a non-believer in organized religion, I don't feel all that authoritative on the matter but I've always got an opinion that I'm dying to have everyone hear.

I'm not aware of an 11th commandment that says Thou Shalt Not Wet Thy Self or a 12th that says Thou Shalt Not Wear Absorbent Underwear so there doesn't appear to be an biblical sanctions against it.

Heck, most Muslims wear diapers... on their heads.

BoTox, there *IS* a commandment about loving thy neighbor...and even the non-religious philosophers preach tolerance.

Dill Pickle

P.S. the 11th commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Divide Out Addends"....

[Necare]

Yes, a big, big clichee, I know, but the fact is that everything is relative. And it is a fact that as the human beings that we are, intolerance have and always will be part of our very nature. That is not going to change. Even if you like to live in the illusion that "finally, I have become a sentient, tolerant being through and through",there will always remain shreds of intolerance, no matter how you choose to view it,if you interpret certain thoughts as tolerant, there will always be at the very least one, that will view the matter differently, and take your opinions as intolerant. It is simple, what one chooses to call evil, another calls good. I really do not believe that there exists a universal intolerance or tolerance.That is a matter of perspective. One criticizes Christianity and its dogmatic "truths", another the scientific fundament of psychology. I believe in scepticism, and that everything around us, shall be open for questioning. There are so many factors lying behind why we think and act like we do, and the layers that is revealed while getting to know oneself is manifold, as soon as one has uncovered one, another one appears. Many live in the illusion that they know why they do the things they do, but as we all know, that is not the case. And I believe this is due to fear and dishonesty towards "what lies beneath", so to speak, the absolute nakedness of the core individual. The meaninglessness of existence. I remember this nachspiel, where I met this girl I went to school with. I asked the usual, polite question, "so what do you do now, then? Do you work, or....?" The answer she gave me was that she was attending a school of Bible studies. Then I asked her why she attending this school, and her very answer was that, with an almost embarrassed look on her face, that "she really did not know." I found her answer to both be unbelievably ignorant, and sadly yet another symptom to the disease, that comes from the sheer laziness of not continually questioning the dogmas and traditions being peddled to you. A great sign of ignorance is when someone says "well, this is how it has always been, and I, like an obedient sheep( The first step towards self- enlightenment is realising ones cattle-nature, and not be content with that.), will follow their path." Well, I give this girl this much; at the very least she was being honest with herself to a degree, and despite obvious embarrasment regarding her own lack critical thought, chose not to give me some illusory, formulaic answer, and believing that to be the "truth." No display of theatric behaviour there, which was refreshing for a change. Now the most important question is whether she has managed to begin to root out the cause for the ignorance that in a split second of awakening was revealed to both her and me, or, what is more likely methinks, that she sadly will be content with a path that others have layed out for her. The point I`m trying to make is that for one person virtue consists in bowing, unquestioningly down before an holy image, for another person, the epitome of virtue is critical deconstruction. The only absolute truth in this sea of relativity, is, yessirree here it comes, yet another clichee, that we are born alone, and we shall die alone. Whatever meaning we choose to drench our at bottom naked existence with, one shall be aware that one probably fosters, one nourishes an illusion. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is the question whether one is willing to invite the mounting anxiety that comes with the realisation that everything can in fact be questioned, or if one on the contrary cannot help oneself but to rest on the comfortable cushion that is illusion. From my humble, relativistic perspective, the former is surely a sign of decent intelligence, the latter is not. But what do you know, at this very time, I would not be too surprised, if there are scattered around a few good old household fundamentalists, scheeming an elaborate plan on how to bring in to the fold, the "poor, lost one, which, in a momentary lapse of reason, decided to be too individualistic and cranky for his own good."Evil and good depends entirely on perspective. So what if a universal consensus cannot be reached? The ability to continually question is surely the important thing, in my opinion. Not taking for granted that an answer will be forthcoming, or if it is, that it always will be the one you wanted. Sorry for the blatant lack of paragraphs, in my inebriated stupor, I forgot which key to use.

[DollyDiaper]

This is my first post on this board.

I too have a very strong Christian faith, though I am not Mormon.

It is very sad and slightly hypocritical, even rather blasphemous when someone tries to invoke Christian teaching to justify their own intolerance.

There is absolutely nothing in Jesus' teaching against innocent sensual pleasure. (Though He did make a serious injunction against fantasying about adultery.)

As for psychology, may I respectfully suggest you might find voodoo or perhaps horoscopes slightly more useful.

Psychology is utter bunk and every practising clinical psychologist, without exception, is a psychopathic charlatan.

At least the alternatives won't cost you quite so much cash and any of these will cost you your soul.

I apologise if I'm off the mark here. I too find posts without proper punctuation difficult to read.

I can only repeat the point I made to loopy, Since you are apparently already aware of the negative nature of Christianity, would putting any trust in psychology be anything less than jumping from the frying pan into the fire?

I will add that clinical psychology is not based upon science.

Psychology is an attempt to apply scientific principals to understanding individual behaviour within a group.

Clinical psychology is little more than smart rhetoric and confidence trickery for the gullible neurotic.

Can you really justify diagnosing a disobedient 10, 11, 12 or 13 year old as ODD? (Obedience Deficit Disorder)

Or a 2 year old as bipolar?

Or lables such as SAD, MAD, FAG?

That is child abuse. Clinical psychologists peddle expensive flashy sounding supposed illnesses to parents who need an excuse for spending their cash and time on booze instead of being parents.

I'm really not sure what world you're living in but it's obviously not the same one that the rest of us inhabit.

It is indeed sad that you feel the need to resort to this sort of language for lack of anything constructive.

I would be happy to discuss the point I made with anyone who has in interest in constructive debate.

But there is little point in discussing anything with those whose minds are so closed they can only try to be offensive.

You can be so open minded in relation to your fettish yet closed to anything else.

Does that make you any better than those who call AB/DLs perverts?

I realise this has drifted way off-topic, and not wishing to play piggy-in-the-middle here, but l feel your posts I've quoted above shouldn't be allowed to pass without comment. I note the last one was only your 4th post on the board but in my opinion it is WAY OFF THE MARK!

I won't attempt to speak for Chibi as she's rational and articulate enough to speak for herself, but I will take issue with your last post, in the light of the previous two I've quoted.

In my opinion, I think it ill behoves you to unjustly accuse an established and respected member of being unconstructive, closed-minded, offensive, etc, when your posts above demonstrate all of these!

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones springs to mind here.

D <_ lly>

[Chibiusa255]

It is indeed sad that you feel the need to resort to this sort of language for lack of anything constructive.

I would be happy to discuss the point I made with anyone who has in interest in constructive debate.

But there is little point in discussing anything with those whose minds are so closed they can only try to be offensive.

You can be so open minded in relation to your fettish yet closed to anything else.

Does that make you any better than those who call AB/DLs perverts?

I sorry, but I felt that your posts were so ridiculous that they hardly justified any sort of reasonable response. My intention was not merely to be offensive, I was simply stating that you seem to be a bit out of touch with reality. You can hardly make statements like every clinical psychologist is a psychopathic charlatan or that parents only take their children to psychologists so they have an excuse for spending their cash and time on "booze" and expect to be taken very seriously.

You'll find I'm a very open minded person and if you can prove any of your viewpoints to me then I'll gladly eat my words. I encourage any form of reasonable discussion or debate. You've made some pretty outrageous claims so far and have said little to back up your point of view.

[huggiesman]

Hello everyone. I'm kind of new to these boards, but I've been visiting DD for quite a while now. I wanted to share my experience with you all and see if you had any suggestions for my situation.

Short background since this is my first post. I've been into diapers since I was very little. As a teenager I discovered cross-dressing and both have become a large part of my life. It's a love hate relationship really. Sometimes I love it. Sometimes I despise that I need it. Yet, the desires are always there and they don't show signs of leaving any time soon. I was also raised as a devout Christian.

I met a girl several months ago and we hit it off really well. We dated for a few months and then we decided that we wanted to get married. So that's all in process. She is also a devout Christian. I love her very much and I don't want to be alone anymore. I wanted her to know all about me before we married, so I wrote her a lengthy letter that described my desires and their history, as well as some essays from psychologists about those topics. She took it fairly well (she didn't run away screaming). She was confused and questioned why I'd hide something like that and why I wanted to tell her. She was able to figure that out on her own, and in the end, was happy that I'd told her about what she called "my bizarre behaviors". I am pleased that she knows and that she still loves me. However, she doesn't want that to be a part of our lives. She asked me to quit cold turkey and that is something I'm having a really hard time with. I agreed and she said that she would help me. Some of the reason I do this, the diapers especially, is because of childhood trauma. I don't know if diapers ever really helped me deal with that. She really wants to help me get past all of this and I'm willing to give it a try. I really hoped that she would, in some way, accept those as part of who I am. Perhaps it was wishful thinking on my part.

Does anyone have any experience with this kind of situation? Should I just wait and see if she becomes curious about those activities? Am I doomed to a life of self repression and psychological torture?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance everyone,

Jaine

This one's tough...is it that she sees your "bizarre behavior" as an affront to God, or as an affront to her?

This may seem blasphemous, but I tend to think that 1) God, whatever that may mean to you, doesn't care that much, if at all, about what you wear, and 2) what happens between two people in a marriage is their business, and no one else's, not even the church's. If you and your spouse are kinkier than what the church would like, then that's their problem, and they shouldn't know anyway.

If she sees this as disrespectful to her and thinks she can just click her heels and have it go away, you're both going to be disappointed. Is is fair to ask you to manage these aspects of your personality? I think probably so. Is it practical just to say "after we're married, you're just not going to like CD'ing and being diapered anymore, right honey?" I tend to think not. It's a part of you, and has been for a long time, and it won't simply go away. You both need to accept that idealizing each other, and anticipating that you're going to be living with an idealized version of each other, won't work. She'll be living with you warts and all, she should get used to at least some of the warts, if she loves you.

[Guest]

I have just a tiny bit of experience in relationships, but all the same I'll throw in my two cents: If she thinks it's something you have to be rid of, and you are permanently attached to your diapers, then I think you're just stuck in this case. However, if you think you can move beyond diapers, then I think you should do it since you obviously love her from what you've typed.

Personally, I'm a lonely enough guy that if (when?) I ever fall in love and get engaged, and I were put in this position, a part of me would want to ditch the diapers. But in the end, they'd never be ditched. It's part of my sexuality and part of my psyche. You may as well ask me to start dating men. It just wouldn't work.

[babyjennie]

Religion aside, you are obviously young and inexperienced if you think you can simply stop dressing in diapers and drag. I'm sorry, but having a fetish is not a choice. You may 'burn and purge,' but a fetish is a deep psychological attachment that is not easily cast aside. It's there for life, either repressed (which leads to crazy risk-taking behaviour) or out there where you can deal with your desires on a regular basis. I'm a very happily divorced man who often dresses like a two-year-old girl in nappies, and this behaviour caused the breakdown of two marriages. I failed to be completely honest with my partner - and myself. Now I have an extremely satisfying life with a large group of friends and acquaintances who only know me as Baby Jennie, and tell me I look 'weird' in my male clothes when we accidentally run into each other on the streets during a normal business day. Good luck, and keep wearing your diapers. Hugs from Baby Jennie in Australia.

[drynot]

I posted a view of 2 aspects of the opening post. I made a remark about Clinical psychology which I have offered to discuss constructively.

In response to that remark no constructive criticism nor any counter arguments have been made. Instead, I have been personally attacked by Chibiusa255 with suggestions that I am unbalanced.

Chibiusa255 may well be intelligent and have contributed constructively to debates here, but these are personal attacks upon me personally.

In my last post, as in the other responses, I have invited constructive criticism but none has been forthcoming.

I fail to see how criticising Clinical psychology is closed minded. or offencive.

But responding to an assertion that you may disagree with, by launching a series of personal attacks is.

The problem here is that you did not offer constructive criticisim initially. You began with a blanket statement about Psycology and Psycologists that left the impression that you were neither willing or able to enter a proactive debate on the subject. You demonstrated your own 'closed mindedness' with your initial observation.

Your subsequent post on the subject attempts to clarify your position, however, your initial post seemed to leave no room for debate.

[Chibiusa255]

I am very sorry, but since I made a blanket criticism of clinical psychology, (not psychology nor psychologists) in relation to a possible solution to what this man should do, a statement seemed appropriate.

If anyone wanted, or wants to criticise the statement that is surely open.

But it was the personal attacks on me which I feel are inappropriate.

It seems strangely ironic that open criticism of Religion is taken, generally, as being acceptable to the point that it barely raises a mention. (And rightly so).

But criticism of Clinical psychologists is met with cries of derision.

I am especially disturbed by the numbers of people, in society generally, that assume that since Clinical psychology has been subjected to testing using science methods that somehow 'proves' its accuracy.

It does suggest that many are impressed and intimidated by the claims of scientific testing while not having a sufficient understanding of the science method is or its rather huge flaws. (Largely introduced by so called Human Scientists).

All of the so called Human Sciences have been subjected to scientific testing. Yet there is dramatic disagreement among those of us who use these disciplines as to what is accurate and what is not.

Scientific testing should define a definitive truth.

For example, those that sell Transcendental Meditation will make some quite amazing claims, including creating world peace, improving the weather, even flying and back all with evidence of scientific testing.

http://www.tm.org/

Perhaps we should try looking beyond the claims of scientific testing and look more closely at the realities of what Clinical Psychologists are offering.

The reason that you posts were met with "cries of derision" was not so much for what you said but rather for the way you said it. This post shows that you can express yourself in a thoughtful and articulate manner on the subject and i applaud you for it. You make some good points and I can't wholly disagree with what you have to say. I didn't respond to your posts because you were criticizing clinical psychology. Honestly, it's not a subject I have very strong feeling on either way. The reason I responded was that instead of saying what you just did in this post you chose to point your finger and call a group of people "psychopathic charlatans"... you should hardly have been surprised when you found that finger pointed back at you.

[Incomplete Dude]

Yes, but if you want to be picky, you can decompose every action to self-interest, since the choice to act is caused by the self, so there must be some self-interest behind it always. On this basis, you and everyone else must be psychopathic charlatans also. Therefore, there is no reason to disrespect a psychologist, as they are no better than you.

The fact is that any good relationship, be it a social or business one, is win-win. Both sides can act in self-interest, and both can benefit. If someone is genuinely losing out, then there's a very real problem. Maybe you don't believe this. Maybe you prescribe to the idea of ultimate sacrifice and martyrdom. I don't know. However, I think most people would agree with this point.

And finally, you're right if you mean that psychologists can do nothing to help you. It's you that needs to decide to help yourself. However, certainly they can facilitate this process, act as a catalyst of change, like so many of life's situations are. They can role play, and setup such a situation, for example, and thereby cause to to realize the changes you want. In the end, they are paid to be your servant and an assistant to you as you construct the mental framework you desire.

Of course, there are definitely individuals that do not follow this ethical code. People who instead try to manipulate others into their personal idea of the ideal, rather than allow the individual to chose their own path. Maybe you've been personally scarred and traumatized by such a person. You know, people that say things like all psychologists are evil, and that they have the one real objective truth. Again, I don't know. However, contrary to the saying, one bad apple does not spoil the bunch. That is just an emotional overreaction.

The reality is that there are some very good psychologists who respect their clients, act as their servants, and are rewarded as such. This may be money in the clinical case, but the payment can be in other forms. You give your friends your attention and care, your children love and affection, and your partner commitment and intimacy, for example. All of these people shape our lives is tremendous ways, and therefore, act as psychologists from time to time. Or perhaps, you think these people are evil too? I don't know.

As a final note, I don't expect you to believe me. That's your choice.

[Chibiusa255]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.

I called Clinical Psychologists psychopathic charlatans because that is exactly what they are.

Plausible, often charming but entirely motivated by their own self interest regardless of the personal or emotional expense to vulnerable people.

LOL, and here I had hope that you could express yourself as a reasonable and rational human being...perhaps I was closer to the mark with my first post.

You can believe anything you choose to but I am a bit curious what you think my motivation was. Do you think that I just attacked you randomly for no obvious reason (since anyone here can tell you I'm doing that all the time)? I don't think that I was the only one that was offended by your comments.

Anyway, I've done my part in bringing this thread way of topic and for that I apologize. I refuse to let this degenerate any further into flames and pointless bickering. This will be my last post in this thread.

[Manchesterlad]

I would say that i would do anything for the person I love includeing give up my diaper fetish. just keep at youll get there eventually. What i must say though isnt it a bit early in your relationship to get marrid. iam not a regilous person but still a few mounths if your mormans you cant get devoiced so you dont want to get stuck in a love less marriage. But if you realy do want to marry her and you love her that much do i would do anything to make her happy i would say do the same.

[DL Dave]

I would say that i would do anything for the person I love includeing give up my diaper fetish. just keep at youll get there eventually. What i must say though isnt it a bit early in your relationship to get marrid. iam not a regilous person but still a few mounths if your mormans you cant get devoiced so you dont want to get stuck in a love less marriage. But if you realy do want to marry her and you love her that much do i would do anything to make her happy i would say do the same.

Actualy, we can get divorced. I have and several other members of my congregation have as well. We don't like it, or recomend it, we belive very strongly in keeping the family together. But it dosn't always work out that way. Unless your talking about temple marraige (sorry I can't spell), but even then we can still get a civil divorce. As for the time period, there is no magic number, I was with my first wife for 5yrs before we got married, 3months after the ring, she found another guy with a nicer car and big screen TV. I've met couples married for many years who only dated 9months. I wish there was a magic safty number but dosn't seem to be.

I agree with your statment though, don't rush, and in the end your wife/husband is more important than your diapers. Like we keep saying, it's just underwear right?

[seppuku]

We're all neurotic, we all have incorrect opinions, and we can all at times be strongly opposed to those of others. It's human nature. Psychologists - they're trying to understand people. They're trying to help people be more sane. Doesn't matter if they're wrong here or there, the intention is good, and it helps some people regardless of whether it helps everyone or not. Religion... don't get me started on religion. It's not the bible that says anything against what we do, but often the hyper-religious people will tell us we're wrong. Do you like wearing dresses, wearing diapers? Do you like lipstick and pink, or blue jeans and t-shirts? Boxers, briefs, or Bambino? To some, anything outside the norm is an abomination to god. The fault is not with religion but with a fair amount of overly conservative and "morally superior" religious people. Believe it or not, despite my gender issues/diaper fetish, I am a fairly conservative person. I have values! What does this say? We all have different degrees of beliefs in many different topics. It's very sad if a lover is coming out negatively towards your diapers. Mormonism is a very morally conservative faith. It's very hard... to have fetishes or other unusual behaviors in the context of that. The problem is, that your fiancee really believes she's right.

As an aside to all the accusations of quackery towards both religion and science: what exactly isn't quackery?