Jump to content
LL Medico Diapers and More Bambino Diapers - ABDL Diaper Store

Definitions


Recommended Posts

As I'm sure many have noticed, as our community gets larger so do the amount of definitions that people have to describe themselves and ascribe to others. 
It used to be pretty much AB, DL or ABDL. Now we have 'littles' and 'bigs' and what really confuses me are 'middles'!
I appreciate there may be a lot of different answers, but I'm intrigued as to:

a) what defines 'you'?
b) what ages do you feel apply to the concepts of 'littles', 'middles' and 'bigs'?

Link to comment

Personally I think littles are any age from zero, up to and including toddlers (preschool).  Middles would be any age between first grade (6ish) through 12 yo. Bigs would be any age in the teens but not past 18 yo.

 

These are my interpretations but not necessarily accurate, just my impression...

Link to comment

I'm personally a Daddy/Caregiver, but I've met many people that classify themselves into different categories.

Babies identify as Infants.

Littles identify as Toddlers.

Middles identify as Tweens.

Bigs are confusing, because some people consider a Big a teen while others consider it anyone in the adult/caregiver role.

Even then, these are just general ages I've noticed. Some identify different but use the same identifier. It's definitely hard to keep track.

Link to comment

This was standard fare in the Adult Little Girl Community. It was based on what your attributes were like

"Baby" 0 -3 with "Toddler" being a subset. My 36" doll, Lisa Michelle Denise Christine was marketed in c1964 simplay as "Toddler Doll" and wears size 3T/4T. Before age 3-1/2, there is no internal awareness of gender. So, intrinsically "boy" and "girl" have no meaning to a toddler and are externally generated by adult-level thinking relating more to how the child is cared for and talked to. When I was 3, you could have said I was a girl and it would have made no difference to me. By the time I was 4, that difference was becoming internally recognized

Very Little 4-7: "Very Little" meant a girl who may still be in diapers all the time or on occasion like long afternoon visits or long trips if she could not hold it COMFORTABLY for at least two hours or have other "baby" attributes. This was my contribution to the LG community based on what was part of real life where I lived

Little 8-11. Some claimed it at age 7 Most of the members of GirlTAlk. To, at that time, placed themselves in the 7 to 10 category in terms of interests and feelings

DPF used Baby, Toddler, Pre-School, Grade School, Jr. High/Middle School High School, Adult

Link to comment
On 2/24/2020 at 9:10 AM, Bbuttons said:

As I'm sure many have noticed, as our community gets larger so do the amount of definitions that people have to describe themselves and ascribe to others. 
It used to be pretty much AB, DL or ABDL. Now we have 'littles' and 'bigs' and what really confuses me are 'middles'!
I appreciate there may be a lot of different answers, but I'm intrigued as to:

a) what defines 'you'?
b) what ages do you feel apply to the concepts of 'littles', 'middles' and 'bigs'?

At least from my perspective, we've gotten so big into labels and in truth none of them really fit me.  I remember when I first got realized that I was not alone in all of this (way back in the ice ages) and the question was "Are you a AB or DL?   There were distinct characteristics of both labels, and I didn't fit either one very well.  the first time I heard the label of 'little'  was from Rosalie and her first book.  She used to describe her husband and it came closest to describing me- but he is a little princess and the little me is way more in toy trucks.   I clearly identify as a male, and even stronger in my little persona.  However, that term has been adopted by the DDLG community, and that's not something I identify with.   So that term can't work for me, because I'm not a submissive female, and no offense but some of the DDLG dynamic is abhorrent to me.  But to be honest, the dominatrix classic FLR trope is also slightly abhorrent as well (again- no offense- just not thing).     What is a huge turn on is the protective mommy, who is take care me and allow me to be me.

That means I don't have any true label that really fits.   I'm the little boy who wants so bad to show his mommy want he can do- and his mom watches with pride- knowing damn well she is needed to help him through the rough parts  

  • Like 1
Link to comment

To understand the function of labels and definitions, let us do a "thought experiments". Would you eat the contents of a can that was labelled PEAS & CARROTS? What about the can lebelled 10W 40 MOTOR OIL?. Now, it is 11:00 PM, you live 9 miles from the nearest grocery store but you are hungry and have not been shopping for a long time. You root around for something to eat. You find a can that once had a label on it. You rmember that it once did, but the lebel fell off some 3-1/2 weeks ago and you forgot what was written on it. It is either a large can of sliced peaches or motor oil, that much you remember. Do you open up the can and eat the contents, risking winning the Darwin Award?

In like fashion, would you go barrelling down the nearest two-lane highway at it's top rated speed of 45 mile/hour with your headlights off on a moonless night?

In both cases the answer is "No, I do not know what I would be getting myself into" Advanced notice is the function of headlights and, presuming  honesty and competence, labels. I know right away that I want nothing to do with PUL or PEVA panties. If they are called "rubber panties" then my only question would be "is the material smooth or grainy?". Presuming that they are properly lavbelled (and size-charted), I know without having to buy or try. This process goes back 8,000 years to the origins of fortune telling. Consider the following two phrases "This does not auger well", "I know how to read the tea leaves"

Now, if you know me at all from here, what am I labelled: "Very Little Girl form 1948 to 1954 of French-Canadian Southeastern New England". From "Very Little Girl" you know that I am between 4 and 7. "From 1948 to 1954" you know when I was that age. You may not be able to grasp the cultural implications of "French-Canadian Southeastern New England", but you can figure that I am a traditional 4 to 7 year old girl. My screen name will tell you what kind of traditional very little girl I am, what my likes are and what my concerns are, and that I am very feminine. Now, all you would need to do is be able to interpret those label components. That is where definitions come in. What characteristics make a little girl who is 5 in 1951 what she is and what behaviors best demonstrate them?

This is why I find an "Adult Baby" with a play age of over 3 confusing, or a DL with a play age in single digits, or for that matter, At all confusing. In line with accuracy, I think that "I am a..." should add "Man" or "Woman" since "Boy" or "Girl" can be confused if you have a DL of 36 listing as "Boy" suggesting that he is younger than he is. More so since we have LB and LG. A "Boy" or "Girl" would imply from age 12 to about 20, but not 36. A Mommy or Daddy would certainly want an adult label

There are also two other processes that modify the lebelling-defining action. One is "Accommodation" where one fits into a category or several categories fundamentally or broadly speaking, and the other is "Assimilation" one fits, but in an individual way. One may be basically a Very Little Girl, but not as much so or in the same way I am. You may be a bit of a tomboy. You may live in a family or a girls' foundling home. A "sissy" is nothing like the real-world 7 year old boy from which that term is derived, and no way girlish at all. Not to mention the adult sexual behaviors like SHP, French Maid or overt sexuality and S&M that go with it. What is little girlish about being a cuckold, which in Sissy is actually a menage a Troi with consent and not even real cheating?

So, labels and definitions, while necessary to gain insight, must be taken with the question, to what degree and how much bandwidth?. You know that I am having nothing to do with trucks, guns or race cars and everything to do with Dolls, Tea Sets and Fairy. Now, another thing that confuses me is the "Boy" who is talking about wearing dresses and dolls. And generally, what I find confusing I approach gingerly or have only casual dealings. The best thing one can do is explicitly define and label oneself and learn general definitions, which makes me wonder why I keep getting repeat visits to my profile from Boy's/LB's with no real similarity to me; I have nothing for them. The same is true of  those born before 1963 who are AB/AK and are comfortable with pampers or the like; in terms of authenticity, it does not compute and I cannot understand how someone born in 195X can even relate as AB/AK to these things that were not part of their very early childhood or the same, as a Little Girl could be enamored of MLP, which was not even around for 20 some years, by which time they were at least 24

Also, I see a widening divergence between AB and DL over the last decade. Now, we have almost nothing in common. For me, diapers are for littles and babies. I used to be able to have conversations with LG's in earlier times and you can see it in old posts about tea sets, tiaras and magic picture frames. Now, I find almost nobody with common LG tastes

This is not a question of bad or loopy persons, unless it goes down a deep rabbit hole; aka Mondo Bizarro where I cannot even get my bearings to navigate, or involves things like exhibitionism, drinking to excess or drugs, but just of a bad fit. We have noting in common about which to converse

Labels and definitions give insight without having to be a full discription, THAT is why God invented "About Me"

Link to comment

Definitions can drive you crazy, but let me add some extra confusion.

I have noticed something important among quite a number of whom I have asked about this question. Typically, someone 'identifies' with a certain age, but in the vast majority of cases, have little opportunity to express it freely or for extended periods. But when a person does have the freedom to extensively express the inner baby, that 'age' becomes consistently LOWER than it was before, often significantly so. When you have only rare opportunity to wear diapers, dress up or be a baby, you only get to scratch the surface, but when you have many hours or even days and it is available to you freely and often, you explore the inner identity and most times, become a great deal younger. You dont change per se; you simply discover the real you inside.

The '3yo' becomes a 1yo.  The 2yo becomes a 6mo.  and the 5yo... becomes a toddler.

What I am saying is that perhaps some of the wide range of 'ages' is perhaps environmental and given the opportunity, they would mostly all regress back to the infant/toddler range. After all, a 9yo in diapers is in basic conflict with real life in the vast majority. It suggests that the person may in fact be a great deal 'younger' if given the opportunity. 

I've not researched this in any real way other than anecdotal, but it is a constant experience that repeated, lengthy and easy access to regressed time, leads to a significantly lower age of the identity.

 

 

12 hours ago, Little Christine said:

To understand the function of labels and definitions, let us do a "thought experiments". Would you eat the contents of a can that was labelled PEAS & CARROTS? What about the can lebelled 10W 40 MOTOR OIL?. Now, it is 11:00 PM, you live 9 miles from the nearest grocery store but you are hungry and have not been shopping for a long time. You root around for something to eat. You find a can that once had a label on it. You rmember that it once did, but the lebel fell off some 3-1/2 weeks ago and you forgot what was written on it. It is either a large can of sliced peaches or motor oil, that much you remember. Do you open up the can and eat the contents, risking winning the Darwin Award?

In like fashion, would you go barrelling down the nearest two-lane highway at it's top rated speed of 45 mile/hour with your headlights off on a moonless night?

In both cases the answer is "No, I do not know what I would be getting myself into" Advanced notice is the function of headlights and, presuming  honesty and competence, labels. I know right away that I want nothing to do with PUL or PEVA panties. If they are called "rubber panties" then my only question would be "is the material smooth or grainy?". Presuming that they are properly lavbelled (and size-charted), I know without having to buy or try. This process goes back 8,000 years to the origins of fortune telling. Consider the following two phrases "This does not auger well", "I know how to read the tea leaves"

Now, if you know me at all from here, what am I labelled: "Very Little Girl form 1948 to 1954 of French-Canadian Southeastern New England". From "Very Little Girl" you know that I am between 4 and 7. "From 1948 to 1954" you know when I was that age. You may not be able to grasp the cultural implications of "French-Canadian Southeastern New England", but you can figure that I am a traditional 4 to 7 year old girl. My screen name will tell you what kind of traditional very little girl I am, what my likes are and what my concerns are, and that I am very feminine. Now, all you would need to do is be able to interpret those label components. That is where definitions come in. What characteristics make a little girl who is 5 in 1951 what she is and what behaviors best demonstrate them?

This is why I find an "Adult Baby" with a play age of over 3 confusing, or a DL with a play age in single digits, or for that matter, At all confusing. In line with accuracy, I think that "I am a..." should add "Man" or "Woman" since "Boy" or "Girl" can be confused if you have a DL of 36 listing as "Boy" suggesting that he is younger than he is. More so since we have LB and LG. A "Boy" or "Girl" would imply from age 12 to about 20, but not 36. A Mommy or Daddy would certainly want an adult label

There are also two other processes that modify the lebelling-defining action. One is "Accommodation" where one fits into a category or several categories fundamentally or broadly speaking, and the other is "Assimilation" one fits, but in an individual way. One may be basically a Very Little Girl, but not as much so or in the same way I am. You may be a bit of a tomboy. You may live in a family or a girls' foundling home. A "sissy" is nothing like the real-world 7 year old boy from which that term is derived, and no way girlish at all. Not to mention the adult sexual behaviors like SHP, French Maid or overt sexuality and S&M that go with it. What is little girlish about being a cuckold, which in Sissy is actually a menage a Troi with consent and not even real cheating?

So, labels and definitions, while necessary to gain insight, must be taken with the question, to what degree and how much bandwidth?. You know that I am having nothing to do with trucks, guns or race cars and everything to do with Dolls, Tea Sets and Fairy. Now, another thing that confuses me is the "Boy" who is talking about wearing dresses and dolls. And generally, what I find confusing I approach gingerly or have only casual dealings. The best thing one can do is explicitly define and label oneself and learn general definitions, which makes me wonder why I keep getting repeat visits to my profile from Boy's/LB's with no real similarity to me; I have nothing for them. The same is true of  those born before 1963 who are AB/AK and are comfortable with pampers or the like; in terms of authenticity, it does not compute and I cannot understand how someone born in 195X can even relate as AB/AK to these things that were not part of their very early childhood or the same, as a Little Girl could be enamored of MLP, which was not even around for 20 some years, by which time they were at least 24

Also, I see a widening divergence between AB and DL over the last decade. Now, we have almost nothing in common. For me, diapers are for littles and babies. I used to be able to have conversations with LG's in earlier times and you can see it in old posts about tea sets, tiaras and magic picture frames. Now, I find almost nobody with common LG tastes

This is not a question of bad or loopy persons, unless it goes down a deep rabbit hole; aka Mondo Bizarro where I cannot even get my bearings to navigate, or involves things like exhibitionism, drinking to excess or drugs, but just of a bad fit. We have noting in common about which to converse

Labels and definitions give insight without having to be a full discription, THAT is why God invented "About Me"

Maybe the reason you dont relate to anyone anymore is that your own personal expression is extremely rigid. You seem to want items literally from a specific year and objects precisely as you originally experienced them. Regressive ABs are typically not like that. Those that grew up in cloth diapers may have a preference for them but can still wear disposables. They dont need diapers and toys exactly from their toddler years. In many ways, ABs are the perpetual infants of society and grow in style as time progresses while still remaining infants. You however, seem to be stuck in a literal time period not a developmental period. 

You dont understand how ABs can relate to baby items from different eras. That is because ABDLs are stuck in a developmental age while you are stuck in 1948.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, rosalie.bent said:

 You dont understand how ABs can relate to baby items from different eras. That is because ABDLs are stuck in a developmental age while you are stuck in 1948.

Well said.

Link to comment

"You dont understand how ABs can relate to baby items from different eras. That is because ABDLs are stuck in a developmental age while you are stuck in 1948."

Actually it was a timeframe, the beginning ogf which, culturally would be marked in 1948, during which I was 2 and could be markded as ending in 1954,k in the latter part of which I turned 9. It would center in '51 when I was 5. One could say that it really begain in 45 or 6 and fully ended in 56. but I am thinking in terms of "turning the corner" of becoming established

That set the context for how I think of those things. That is true of ANYONE. You live the life you live, with the context and things that are there when you live it. I could not react as a 5 y/o in 1951 to things like MLP which was 1984 because the context was different and I am different, That means I would have to be trying to do so and therefore driven be some agenda. Elsewise I may or may not think that, for its time, taken in its time, MLP would be perfectly fine and can say "If I were 5 years old NOW, I (would or would not) like it". The 1980's culture was not that of '48-54. Nor was my brain structurally the same in 1984 that it was in 1951. In 1984 I was grooving to computers and synthesizers. Robotech and He-Man were great and Voltron was, storywise, hideous. So, being true to myself, my ALG would be of the culture that I lived in during that timeframe and age range 5 to 9-1/2

The best I can do and still be true to myself is say "If I were 4 to 7, then this would..." and appreciate it conditionally. But it would be too far afield to relate to or identify with directly. I lived when I lived,, not when I did not and I lived what I lived with and not what I did not. That is true of each of us and all of us and that is how we are shaped and molded. That is the basis of authenticity. Now we can use things from other times to stand in for things that no longer exist, but the differences have to be negligable and the similarities strong and the role to which they are being put very doable and not too much of a reach (otherwise it would require, at some level, conscious intervention, which would generate some level of self-consciousness, which is the enemy of immersion). We even have a well-used thread in Our Lifestyle called "What Decade is it for Your Little"

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Little Christine said:

"You dont understand how ABs can relate to baby items from different eras. That is because ABDLs are stuck in a developmental age while you are stuck in 1948."

Actually it was a timeframe, the beginning ogf which, culturally would be marked in 1948, during which I was 2 and could be markded as ending in 1954,k in the latter part of which I turned 9. It would center in '51 when I was 5. One could say that it really begain in 45 or 6 and fully ended in 56. but I am thinking in terms of "turning the corner" of becoming established

That set the context for how I think of those things. That is true of ANYONE. You live the life you live, with the context and things that are there when you live it. I could not react as a 5 y/o in 1951 to things like MLP which was 1984 because the context was different and I am different, That means I would have to be trying to do so and therefore driven be some agenda. Elsewise I may or may not think that, for its time, taken in its time, MLP would be perfectly fine and can say "If I were 5 years old NOW, I (would or would not) like it". The 1980's culture was not that of '48-54. Nor was my brain structurally the same in 1984 that it was in 1951. In 1984 I was grooving to computers and synthesizers. Robotech and He-Man were great and Voltron was, storywise, hideous. So, being true to myself, my ALG would be of the culture that I lived in during that timeframe and age range 5 to 9-1/2

The best I can do and still be true to myself is say "If I were 4 to 7, then this would..." and appreciate it conditionally. But it would be too far afield to relate to or identify with directly. I lived when I lived,, not when I did not and I lived what I lived with and not what I did not. That is true of each of us and all of us and that is how we are shaped and molded. That is the basis of authenticity. Now we can use things from other times to stand in for things that no longer exist, but the differences have to be negligable and the similarities strong and the role to which they are being put very doable and not too much of a reach (otherwise it would require, at some level, conscious intervention, which would generate some level of self-consciousness, which is the enemy of immersion). We even have a well-used thread in Our Lifestyle called "What Decade is it for Your Little"

No offence intended, but much of that was word salad and somewhat obtuse. You seem to connect to specific temporal objects while everyone else connects to temporal CONCEPTS. Your understanding of ABDL authenticity is also faulty. Authenticity is NOT replication as that is generally not possible and you are experiencing the frustration of that impossibility. Authentic ABDL experience is a combination of conceptual recreation, not attempting time travel. None of us can return to actual infancy nor time travel. ABDLs seek to recreate the emotional and internal connection to that infancy.

I'm not trying to be overly critical here, but you are quite different to everyone else and that is apparent in your posts which I have read for quite a number of years. WHen an older AB wants cloth diapers, they are happy for them to be the modern equivalents because the concept is important. I would suggest that there is something else going on more than ABDL that forces you to recreate an actual time, rather than the ABDL desire to return to conceptual infancy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

The world exists as objects. and when was the 4-7 year old world EVER built on concepts? It is for the most part pre-coneptual. That is precisely what I refer to when I discuss adult ideas superimposed on the baby/little persona, which I find to be un-authentic and frankly, a bit dishonest, as if it is being guided by an extraneous power rather than its own ways. This leads to some level of self-conciouness of the adult presence at some level, if only to do the scripting or impose the agenda, and attenuates the immersion. For the pre-school mind that is or should be, in operation, "concepts" are meaningless since it is pre-conceptual and the world is a world of things. As such the objects induce the feelings

Link to comment
1 hour ago, DL-Boy said:

@rosalie.bent, would you permit me to PM you?  I wanted to get your advice.

sure think or email me on rosalie.bent@gmail.com which might be easier.

1 hour ago, Little Christine said:

The world exists as objects. and when was the 4-7 year old world EVER built on concepts? It is for the most part pre-coneptual. That is precisely what I refer to when I discuss adult ideas superimposed on the baby/little persona, which I find to be un-authentic and frankly, a bit dishonest, as if it is being guided by an extraneous power rather than its own ways. This leads to some level of self-conciouness of the adult presence at some level, if only to do the scripting or impose the agenda, and attenuates the immersion. For the pre-school mind that is or should be, in operation, "concepts" are meaningless since it is pre-conceptual and the world is a world of things. As such the objects induce the feelings

Sorry Christine, but that was largely word salad and once again you missed the point.  You are NOT 4-7yo and never will be. AB experience for everyone else is about conceptual rediscovery and experience of the infant/toddler state, not actual infancy because just like you... THAT TIME IS OVER and will not return. I'm not sure you understand AB regression at all. The adult does not disappear nor would you ever want that. The infant persona is allowed temporary primacy of existence and expression but never overpowers or replaces the adult. You ability to understand, also remains adult, even if you allow it to fashion an infantile version of expression.

You seem to want nothing less than to be a literal 4-7yo child living in 1948 with the world as it was then in every degree. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, rosalie.bent said:

sure think or email me on rosalie.bent@gmail.com which might be easier.

Sorry Christine, but that was largely word salad and once again you missed the point.  You are NOT 4-7yo and never will be. AB experience for everyone else is about conceptual rediscovery and experience of the infant/toddler state, not actual infancy because just like you... THAT TIME IS OVER and will not return. I'm not sure you understand AB regression at all. The adult does not disappear nor would you ever want that. The infant persona is allowed temporary primacy of existence and expression but never overpowers or replaces the adult. You ability to understand, also remains adult, even if you allow it to fashion an infantile version of expression.

You seem to want nothing less than to be a literal 4-7yo child living in 1948 with the world as it was then in every degree. 

 

Crack open a book on Human Development and look up Piaget et al. Then go and introduce yourself to the branch of philosophy called "Epistemology". I have no more to say on the matter

Can we get back to definitions, rather than arguing about the subject metter?

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Little Christine said:

 

Crack open a book on Human Development and look up Piaget et al. Then go and introduce yourself to the branch of philosophy called "Epistemology". I have no more to say on the matter

Can we get back to definitions, rather than arguing about the subject metter?

In our books we quote Piaget but the problem is that Human Development is completely unrelated to Regression. I dont think you have a clue about what is actually going on regards AB regression. You want time travel. Havent you ever wonder why nobody seems to have any idea what you are talking about?

Link to comment

I am acknowledging your post. But as I have given my word on the matter, I am saying no more about it. 1. I have said all there is to say and presented what evidence I hae. 2. I have better things to do and 3. I gave my word on the matter: 'Nuff said

Link to comment

I'm a little or middle. I'm basically that spiky-haired boy in the speed dealer sunglasses who shows up in zoomer memes, but still in diapers.

This has a lot to do with the fact that when I looked like that, I was still in diapers, courtesy of a developmental defect.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Kaliborio said:

I'm a little or middle. I'm basically that spiky-haired boy in the speed dealer sunglasses who shows up in zoomer memes, but still in diapers.

This has a lot to do with the fact that when I looked like that, I was still in diapers, courtesy of a developmental defect.

I like the imagery that engenders!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...