the myth and the facts

[Constantlywet]

So, I was sent to the urologist because of my prostate last year. I made the decision over a couple years ago to let my gp know I'm incontinent. I do have a history of back problems and he sent me for investigation. I.e. ultra sound scans, and MRI to check that my back wasn't any worse. That was ok so he referred me to the continence clinic. They gave me all the help they could and suggested I wear a sheath with a bag. I told them no, I am too active and I don't want a bag with something glued to the end of my penis and I deffo want nothing to do with catheters. The nurse actually agreed and said they offer that stuff cos generally people don't want to wear pads. . They then gave me pads and stuff but they were rubbish. . Lol. .  So my history was already on my notes, and when the doc sent me to the urologist, they investigated everything, prostate and incontinence. I was offered to speak to someone about a prosthetic sphincter, to which I declined. All my docs and medical people know that I'm not going for any surgery that isn't life dependant and I'm not having anything stuffed inside my body. I.e. catheters so it's down on my notes that I wear pads. Now when you start going for appointments in hospital and stuff, it's a given that the staff are going to see, hear and know your in nappies. I've had to open my nappy for people to investigate. Its on big deal and the medical staff are always very professional. Even when I went for the camera up the urethra, the nurse there asked what type of pads I wear and went and got some clean ones for me to change into after the exam. She even put them in the changing stall with my stuff for me. Its really not a big deal for anyone involved. It's always treated with the up most of respect and sympathy. 

[incondl]

6 hours ago, oznl said:

If that question was to me, the answer is if I *did* actually fall into incontinence, I'd probably have to get it checked out to make sure it was nothing more sinister.  Assuming my prostate wasn't the size of an apple, i'd probably get referred off to a urologist.  I'd want to waste minimal time and resource but I'd want that IC "on the record" to avoid awkward surprises.

It was easier for me given that I’m already urinary incontinent due to a accident. When I decided to become bowel incontinent as well it was sort of written off as a natural progression. In the beginning I went through many tests and surgery was suggested for the urinary end of which I said no to all of it as I was tired of being invaded. Today I’m fully dual incontinent and unlike some people it doesn’t bother me at all. When it’s time it just happens. If I need for it not to happen I’ll do a enema but that really throws everything out of whack for a while and many times I’ll get plugged up because of it. That then becomes a hassle. Normally I can count on BM’s within a hour or so of my regular changes. It’s been this way so long now that I give it little to no thought and live a very happy life. I never worry about being near a bathroom. My body just does what it needs to do when it needs to do it. I find that it’s not hard to manage it at all. 

[oznl]

15 hours ago, Constantlywet said:

 I made the decision over a couple years ago to let my gp know I'm incontinent. I do have a history of back problems and he sent me for investigation. I.e. ultra sound scans, and MRI to check that my back wasn't any worse. That was ok so he referred me to the continence clinic. They gave me all the help they could and suggested I wear a sheath with a bag. I told them no, I am too active and I don't want a bag with something glued to the end of my penis and I deffo want nothing to do with catheters. The nurse actually agreed and said they offer that stuff cos generally people don't want to wear pads. . They then gave me pads and stuff but they were rubbish. . Lol. .  So my history was already on my notes, and when the doc sent me to the urologist, they investigated everything, prostate and incontinence. I was offered to speak to someone about a prosthetic sphincter, to which I declined. All my docs and medical people know that I'm not going for any surgery that isn't life dependant and I'm not having anything stuffed inside my body. I.e. catheters so it's down on my notes that I wear pads.

I guess if I stay on my current trajectory, a similar sequence of events is on the cards.  Question though:  was there much questioning about how this situation arose and how did you handle that?

[Constantlywet]

Yes there were questions but more like how long have you had incontinence and how do you leak and stuff. Why was I wearing such large pads. I.e. nappies.. Not really how it happened. I was truthful and told them I flood allot so need heavy protection and told them that I tried all the other pads and they just leaked. The nappies give me freedom to carry on with life without wetting everything. They were fine with that. They were more worried that there was something more sinister going on. Once I was cleared of any other illness, then it was down to control measures. Hence why I was sent to the continence clinic. They were really nice. Very understanding and just wanted me to be comfortable. They did try to push pills and sheath, but I dug my heals in and told them no. The nurse did understand and agreed the side effects of the pills were not good and the fact I'm still sexually active so why on earth would I want something glued to the end of my penis. After we sorted that out, and she realised I wasn't worried about wearing such heavy protection, she then turned her attention to my skin condition. Once she realised I was ok and not full of rashes and stuff, she was happy to prescribe pads. Although she wanted to try out the pad and pant system. I explained that didn't work as I've tried them already, she then prescribed nappies, but they were rubbish so just kept buying my own. Now the docs are cool with my nappies. Lol

[oznl]

Good to know.  Thank you!

[babykeiff]

`

This is not the first time that the exact definition of the terms Continence / Incontinence has been addressed on this forum.

Due to the concept of impact driving – the action of commercials / advertisement companies / politicians / most public speakers attempting to place weight on a minor concept, errors and misunderstanding in the general understanding of language is generated. This is seen in the prevalence of these groups to use T.L.A.’s (two or three letter abbreviations / acronyms) and/or netspeak/text speak (the removal of vowels / letters in words to reduce character count, and therefore the cost of transmitting documents in the 1800’s – i.e. telegrams, original computer communication etc.)

This behaviour reduces ones audience (only a percentage of the audience know / can decode the T.L.A. / netspeak / textspeak) and it is a prime example of the failure of the usage of language. Language was created to enable communication = communicate to many, ones ideas. It morphed over years to different dialects and accents. This morphing was supposed to improve the communication process in social animals. It is not a far fetched idea to perceive that other non speaking pack based animals on this planet would eventually gain the ability to speak. A lot of the insect world communicate via smell / movement - see bee behaviour / ants etc.

The medical industry is also guilty of this action in using terminology designed to confuse, which is probably the source of most medical myths.

pcbaby2011 in his post specifies that 1, he is incontinent and 2 that one cannot be made incontinent. Using the exact definition of incontinence, he is both correct and incorrect. Either 1 is true and 2 is false OR 1 is false and 2 is true depending on one’s understanding on the terms Continent and Incontinent. Even if we look at the religious side / pure biological side, Religious : one was made by a creator. Biological: One was made by one’s parents.

Simple Definition: Incontinence is an error in one or more of the processes of bladder/bowel control after being continent.  

He is incontinent FALSE. He states that he NEVER was bladder continent which equates he cannot be not incontinent. (Incontinent is the reverse of continent = had control and now has not due to failure in process)

He also states that one cannot be made incontinent. TRUE - One can be made / trained to loose bladder / bowel control via accident / disease. This is NOT an error (genetic change) in one /more of the processes. Genetic changes do not occur in one species in its lifetime. It takes error in the duplication of DNA to create a new morphed copy of the original, and where it concerns a complex biological process, this error needs hundreds to thousands of copies to affect this. What pcbaby2011 is suggesting is similar to state that the complex process of sight was created in the same instance of a species.

Perceived Definition: Incontinence it the uncontrollable loss of bladder / bowel control.

This is not completely achievable, but can be perceived to be achieved. The detail is in the word 'uncontrollable'. Since the human mind is aware of the actions of each and every nerve / muscle, 'uncontrollable' is not achievable. The more correct term would be, ignored ahead and/or during to disable conformity with general perception i.e. not being able to reach a bathroom to void.

The aim of most seeking 'incontinence' is what is known as reflex voiding - i.e. the body when it needs to void, voids wherever and in whatever without signalling the internal alarm system - i.e. trigger to 'get up and go to bathroom etc.'. This is sometimes referred to, incorrectly as, functional incontinence. It is functional diaper dependence.

I am aware that a number of members were either born with / ended up with diaper dependence (the correct term) who would describe themselves as incontinent. Technically this is incorrect.

Our goal is to mimic, to the best of our ability, a baby’s diaper usage. In reality, this is impossible. A baby was trained to use a diaper. At that stage of its life, it was unaware of the existence of a bathroom / social norms in relation to bathroom usage, and due to this, conformed to what it was taught. This became a reflex action, similar to how we move etc. We can be taught to use a diaper via many methodologies (hypnosis etc.) but the most successful of us all mimic our pre-toilet knowledge era to convince our mind to use the diaper. This will eventually become reflex action as does everything we learn but it is still controlled by our mind.

So yes, incontinence is not physically achievable in ones lifetime. It could be induced by genetic changes. Diaper dependence is completely and easily achievable given ones full commitment. As with everything we learn, it takes time, dedication and hard work and most of all, self belief in ones own ability to achieve that goal.

[Zero_Escape]

2 hours ago, babykeiff said:

`

This is not the first time that the exact definition of the terms Continence / Incontinence has been addressed on this forum.

Due to the concept of impact driving – the action of commercials / advertisement companies / politicians / most public speakers attempting to place weight on a minor concept, errors and misunderstanding in the general understanding of language is generated. This is seen in the prevalence of these groups to use T.L.A.’s (two or three letter abbreviations / acronyms) and/or netspeak/text speak (the removal of vowels / letters in words to reduce character count, and therefore the cost of transmitting documents in the 1800’s – i.e. telegrams, original computer communication etc.)

This behaviour reduces ones audience (only a percentage of the audience know / can decode the T.L.A. / netspeak / textspeak) and it is a prime example of the failure of the usage of language. Language was created to enable communication = communicate to many, ones ideas. It morphed over years to different dialects and accents. This morphing was supposed to improve the communication process in social animals. It is not a far fetched idea to perceive that other non speaking pack based animals on this planet would eventually gain the ability to speak. A lot of the insect world communicate via smell / movement - see bee behaviour / ants etc.

The medical industry is also guilty of this action in using terminology designed to confuse, which is probably the source of most medical myths.

pcbaby2011 in his post specifies that 1, he is incontinent and 2 that one cannot be made incontinent. Using the exact definition of incontinence, he is both correct and incorrect. Either 1 is true and 2 is false OR 1 is false and 2 is true depending on one’s understanding on the terms Continent and Incontinent. Even if we look at the religious side / pure biological side, Religious : one was made by a creator. Biological: One was made by one’s parents.

Simple Definition: Incontinence is an error in one or more of the processes of bladder/bowel control after being continent.  

He is incontinent FALSE. He states that he NEVER was bladder continent which equates he cannot be not incontinent. (Incontinent is the reverse of continent = had control and now has not due to failure in process)

He also states that one cannot be made incontinent. TRUE - One can be made / trained to loose bladder / bowel control via accident / disease. This is NOT an error (genetic change) in one /more of the processes. Genetic changes do not occur in one species in its lifetime. It takes error in the duplication of DNA to create a new morphed copy of the original, and where it concerns a complex biological process, this error needs hundreds to thousands of copies to affect this. What pcbaby2011 is suggesting is similar to state that the complex process of sight was created in the same instance of a species.

Perceived Definition: Incontinence it the uncontrollable loss of bladder / bowel control.

This is not completely achievable, but can be perceived to be achieved. The detail is in the word 'uncontrollable'. Since the human mind is aware of the actions of each and every nerve / muscle, 'uncontrollable' is not achievable. The more correct term would be, ignored ahead and/or during to disable conformity with general perception i.e. not being able to reach a bathroom to void.

The aim of most seeking 'incontinence' is what is known as reflex voiding - i.e. the body when it needs to void, voids wherever and in whatever without signalling the internal alarm system - i.e. trigger to 'get up and go to bathroom etc.'. This is sometimes referred to, incorrectly as, functional incontinence. It is functional diaper dependence.

I am aware that a number of members were either born with / ended up with diaper dependence (the correct term) who would describe themselves as incontinent. Technically this is incorrect.

Our goal is to mimic, to the best of our ability, a baby’s diaper usage. In reality, this is impossible. A baby was trained to use a diaper. At that stage of its life, it was unaware of the existence of a bathroom / social norms in relation to bathroom usage, and due to this, conformed to what it was taught. This became a reflex action, similar to how we move etc. We can be taught to use a diaper via many methodologies (hypnosis etc.) but the most successful of us all mimic our pre-toilet knowledge era to convince our mind to use the diaper. This will eventually become reflex action as does everything we learn but it is still controlled by our mind.

So yes, incontinence is not physically achievable in ones lifetime. It could be induced by genetic changes. Diaper dependence is completely and easily achievable given ones full commitment. As with everything we learn, it takes time, dedication and hard work and most of all, self belief in ones own ability to achieve that goal.

@babykeiff

Maybe I'm missing something here but what about actual muscle atrophy (which you've mentioned in several of your posts in the past from disuse of a muscle) that comes from wearing and using diapers exclusively for a LOOOONG time? There are even those that have done this (without prior incontinence issues) and say they physically can NOT use the muscle(s) anymore to stop the flow due to disuse/atrophy. Please tell me where muscle atrophy would come into play with the above statements and what you've posted in the past about any muscle unused becomes useless. Thank you so much for your expertise and medical knowledge!

[incondl]

On 1/24/2020 at 5:53 PM, oznl said:

I guess if I stay on my current trajectory, a similar sequence of events is on the cards.  Question though:  was there much questioning about how this situation arose and how did you handle that?

Yes there was questions. I only answered what I thought would be relevant. Over time it was written off as a natural progression of urinary incontinence. I don’t go to the Dr anymore. Only my GP. He will ask if I’m managing ok & I reply that yes I am. End of story.

I also keep reading here that incontinence is not possible. Regardless of what others say I am proof that it is. You have to be fully committed and you really need to want it. It’s that want that makes it happen. You do it and leave it there until your regular changing time. Over time it’ll just be a automatic reflex that you don’t give any thought to. 

[Little Sherri]

For me, the biggest leap and the greatest risk was telling my spouse that I was and would be wearing diapers. That could have gone catastrophically for me, had she said either "Get out, weirdo" (worst case scenario), or "No, I won't live with that." (which would put the ball back in my court, and I'm not sure where I would have gone from there, but it wouldn't be a happy road). Those who know my story know I've kind of half told her, in so far as I came fully clean (no pun intended) on wearing at night, but since then I've just been open about wearing whenever it's suitable to be open about it (IE not in public and not when the kids are around), and I've been wearing discretely when it's not suitable to be open about it. Right now it's mid-day and I'm wearing a big puffy diaper in my office and she's walking in and out and it's not something that comes up in conversation really. 

When it comes to medical personnel, the telling or not telling is strictly a matter of comfort versus discomfort. It would be uncomfortable to just launch into an apropos-of-nothing conversation with my doctor about how I'm wearing diapers now, when it isn't necessary for him to know about it, and at the same time, it would be uncomfortable for me to have to, for example, stay in hospital for a few days and not wear diapers. So, I think in the latter scenario, I would *probably* (as this is yet untested) just wear a diaper and manage it myself and not expect "help" with it, nor ask to be given supplies, which would probably be terrible, lowest-bidder products anyway.  

However, what it comes down is, my underwear will not be a topic of debate between me and my doctor. He or she works for me, and can give me advice, which I would be wise to take under most circumstances, but they can't command me to do anything, unless I become a danger to myself or others in some way - say, by refusing to treat cataracts but wishing to continue to fly airplanes. Since my plastic underwear endangers only my dignity, the topic ends there. It would be different if I were angling for them to make my insurance pay for things, but as I'm not requesting that (see my previous comments about lowest-bidder products), I can say thanks, your opinion is duly noted, now if we're done here, I'll put my diaper back on and be on my way. I lived with my doctor knowing that I wore diapers to bed when I was a kid - it was a topic of conversation during checkups from time to time, because my parents asked about it. So I guess I can live with it again, if it ever comes up, but it would only come up if I initiated the topic. 

As to the argument about real or functional incontinence, to me it seems akin to the debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The best case study I ever read about it examined what happens when people who don't suffer from incontinence are put in diapers due to immobility, as is the practice in most long-term care settings these days, where they simply don't have the staff to manage bedpans, and bedpans are considered in any case to be a potential source of infection. Cloth diapers have been ditched for the same reason, and the use of disposables is almost universal. Most people in this situation are considered to be in heaven's waiting room, essentially, so there isn't a lot of effort made to rehabilitate them, but I read an article by a clinician about some people being rendered immobile by an excess of medication, or inappropriate medication, mostly to manage behaviour. The institution where he worked moved to a more holistic and stimulating care model, with bright colours and engaging activities and less strict care schedules, which promoted friendly interaction between the staff and the patients, and the result was a reduction in aggressive behaviour, which allowed for a reduction in the use of stupefying medication.

So, some of these patients, who had been in diapers, were once again in a position where they could, with a bit of help, manage their sanitation needs themselves. The results of this attempt to give some independence back to these patients pretty much mimicked what a lot of people are reporting anecdotally here: nobody was able to leap immediately out of diapers, because they had largely lost their conditioning in those areas, however, by managing fluid intake and the timing of commode visits, some of the patients were able to gradually regain control, and transition out of diapers, or at least, move to lighter products that were for "backup" purposes. 

The lessons from this seem to be that, yes, by falling completely out of practice with respect to controlling one's functions, one could in effect render themselves functionally incontinent, although it seems unlikely that they could not, with some effort, get at least some of that control back. 

My own personal experience wearing diapers 24/7 for the last 10 months has been that, at night, things sometimes seem to happen on their own, although not with any great frequency, at least not yet. During the day, I don't think anything happens that I don't initiate, although I have found that I can become unaware of the proceedings after I let the gates down, and realize that I'm still dribbling a while later when I notice some other stimulus, such as the swelling of the diaper or a trickle. If I "cinch up" at that point, I can stop it, but, it does seem to be happening with no feeling or effort. 

Do I want to become incontinent? During the day, that would be a no - I haven't found a diaper I can wear on a run or to martial arts classes, so I need to be able to manage a few hours a week not in a diaper. During the night, I would say yes, I would accept it. First, because I am entirely sure I was launched down the path of this strange fascination by pernicious and prolific bedwetting as a child, and second, because not having to get up to pee is damned convenient, and that convenience could only be surpassed by not having to even wake up to pee. On the rare occasion when it does happen involuntarily at night (often after drinking...), I wake up feeling a strange combination of disturbed, and elated. 

[Pete671]

I'd have no problem presenting myself to medical staff in a nappy, I keep Tena Pants (unisex) in stock for this purpose, usually I only wear female styles, girls pajama pants might make things a bit awkward for both parties,,,

[babykeiff]

On 2/4/2020 at 8:45 PM, Zero_Escape said:

@babykeiff

Maybe I'm missing something here but what about actual muscle atrophy (which you've mentioned in several of your posts in the past from disuse of a muscle) that comes from wearing and using diapers exclusively for a LOOOONG time? There are even those that have done this (without prior incontinence issues) and say they physically can NOT use the muscle(s) anymore to stop the flow due to disuse/atrophy. Please tell me where muscle atrophy would come into play with the above statements and what you've posted in the past about any muscle unused becomes useless. Thank you so much for your expertise and medical knowledge!

Yes, you are correct in that non use of a muscle can cause atrophy = the muscle(s) will die. HOWEVER, and I am being careful not to include those people who due to accident / injury / disease etc. have lost the use of the specific muscles that relate to bladder and bowel control, one can be trained to become diaper dependent. Since these muscles ARE being controlled by the brain, they have NOT died.

When one cannot control ones bladder / bowel muscles, the relevant sphincters are in one of three states, open, closed, or partially open. If they are closed, one needs to use a regime of catheter and/or anal irrigation procedures. This is due to the muscles being dead - unable to open / close ones sphincter(s). Less work to empty ones bladder / bowels are required when the relevant sphincters are open / partially open BUT at that stage, cleanliness is paramount in order to reduce chances of fatal infection.

A baby is trained to become diaper dependent, and at approx. 2 years of age, trained not to. Also, an adult can be trained to become diaper dependent. Neither are incontinent and never were. It is the brain, following training, that when the bladder / bowels fill up to a certain level, void. This is still under brain control, but you may not be aware of the actions. A simple example of this is when one is walking, one constantly, but unaware, changes the angle of your head to keep your head and eyes level. This is said to be done autonomously - without your conscious mind being aware of each and every muscle movement... but your mind has to know to be able to tell each muscle which way to move and by how much. To some extent, bladder / bowel control is partially autonomous.

Similar occurs with ones bladder / bowel sphincter. Each react to the contents of bladder / bowel and allow one to void. If one is diaper dependent, this information is not passed on to ones conscious mind. Most diaper dependent individuals void during sleep as well as daytime. Most toilet trained individuals do not void during sleep as the information of needing to void is being passed to the conscious mind which causes one to partially awake. Some 'toilet trained' during the night wake partially and sleep walk to their bathroom to void before returning to bed. Most of these do not wash hands etc before returning to bed.

Considering this, for hygiene reasons, it is better to be night-time diaper dependent  OR wear a diaper to bed and when you wake with a need to void, void in the diaper before returning to sleep.