Why is bedwetting or daytime accidents considered such a shameful social problem?

[Dirty Boy]

I wanted to open this type of discussion: in your opinion, why are wetting problems, especially in children or adolescents (but also in adults) seen so negatively compared to other pathologies, or even other much more serious behaviors. People who have a problem of this type, often have to hide, for fear of teasing, bullying, etc. Often some parents even punish their children who wet the bed or have an accident during the day, making their son/daughter feel guilty. I have not had wetting problems (the last one happened to me when i was seven, and my mother didn't make a problem out of it, she made a joke out of it to make me feel better, i remember). It probably also depends on where you live and the relative culture. Personally, if i were a parent and i had a son or daughter, even a teenager, with wetting problems, i wouldn't get angry, i would try not to make him or her feel guilty and help him or her overcome it together as a team, i think that's what a good parent should do in these cases. Of course i would talk to him if he needs to wear protection, trying to make him understand that there is no shame in having to wear it and that he should consider pullups or diapers like the glasses that a short-sighted person must wear. Have you had experiences of youthful wetting or have you been parents of children who wet? How did you behave and how did others behave with you?

[babykeiff]

28 minutes ago, Dirty Boy said:

I wanted to open this type of discussion: in your opinion, why are wetting problems, especially in children or adolescents (but also in adults) seen so negatively compared to other pathologies, or even other much more serious behaviors. People who have a problem of this type, often have to hide, for fear of teasing, bullying, etc. Often some parents even punish their children who wet the bed or have an accident during the day, making their son/daughter feel guilty. I have not had wetting problems (the last one happened to me when i was seven, and my mother didn't make a problem out of it, she made a joke out of it to make me feel better, i remember). It probably also depends on where you live and the relative culture. Personally, if i were a parent and i had a son or daughter, even a teenager, with wetting problems, i wouldn't get angry, i would try not to make him or her feel guilty and help him or her overcome it together as a team, i think that's what a good parent should do in these cases. Of course i would talk to him if he needs to wear protection, trying to make him understand that there is no shame in having to wear it and that he should consider pullups or diapers like the glasses that a short-sighted person must wear. Have you had experiences of youthful wetting or have you been parents of children who wet? How did you behave and how did others behave with you?

@Dirty Boy, it really depends on the age of the person and the attitude of those around tht person to the level of negativity.

A person under 5 years of age wearing a diaper, and the parent / career is the one being scrutinised / examined, not the person. When that person between 3 and 5 has a wetting accident, it is usually the parent / career is the one not accepting that from their child.

When the person is over 5 years of age, not wearing a diaper and has a wetting accident, unless that person has another visual issue that would signify that the person does not have the mental awareness of their need to control their bladder, unfortunately their peers are the most critical and tend to tease that person. When that person advances towards early / mid adulthood and have a wetting accident, the question is why, if that person has the mental facilities, is that person not wearing some form of protection OR is there alcohol involved? Where there is neither, then the mental capability of that individual is questioned.

If that person is wearing diapers / protection, it is then questioned whether that person has matured from infanthood, and their mental capability is questioned, or is it some other reason that they can't use a bathroom.

This response from the world is simply due to both lack of knowledge, and the methodology that most people in the world were toilet trained with. Most of us forgot how one was toilet trained - which is both sadistic and cruel (in my opinion). As a result, people believe that wearing and using diapers by anyone except the mentally challanged is something no sane person would ever do if they have the choice.

Those in the ABDL world, some only wear diapers for the feeling of the thickness rather than use them, as IMHO, they still hold the stigma that a wet/messy diaper is 'dirty' or somewhat 'unclean'. This stigma is also with those who wear and only wet in a diaper as those also see a messy diaper as 'dirty' or 'unclean'. Both behaviour and belief is a fallback from toilet training, but it is also a feedback from prior training as a toddler's bowel control does exist, however a pre-toilet trained toddler, due to knowing no difference, poops in its diaper without any question. It is only a matter of convincing the toddler to use a potty / toilet to poop in that changes the toddler's behaviour and belief. It really takes no real change in muscle control, but just a change in attitude and behaviour - but because that change in attidude and behaviour is driven by the parents / careers using a language that the toddler can understand, the terms 'dirty' and/or the methodology of chastising the child for pooping anywhere else except a potty / toilet, this tends to stick.

History has proven that childhood misunderstanding leads to distrust, wars and death - so attempting to convince another that X person, of sound mind, needs diapers is usually futile. Even today, most of us look twice at the people who park in a 'wheelchair' marked parking spot... as if we are expecting the driver to need to throw themselves out of the car, drag their limp body to the rear of said car and drag their limp body onto a wheelchair or some electric aparatus. Some of us need to validate, to ourselves, that another 'deserves' what we see as 'special treatment. It is not fair, not respectful to our fellow members of the species, but this attitude comes from, the act of toilet training after we taught our offspring to wet and soil themselves. It is also one to the core reasons that the pre-toilet trained child's mind is so receptive to teaching, and what causes it to slow down - as toilet training teaches the child to then question 'why'..... 'why does it need to learn X' , and 'will X be changed when I get older to suit something new that the child has yet to learn'.

IMHO, toilet training should not be taught. From a health perspective of a diaper wearer, they get better and deeper sleep, have a much heathier digestive tract and bowels, plus, due to the waste products being placed in a diaper - will tend to avoid the foodstuffs that are more caustic exiting the bowels than entering same - consider alcohol / some very spicy foods etc. In human civilization, it was only when we started living in dens / indoors, that we changed our toileting behaviour.

Toilet Training (from a mental and physical perspective)

A baby/toddler is changed out of a wet and/or messy diaper, and instead of a new clean diaper being put on the child, it is placed in training pants, which are usually double / tripple layer underwear that, when wet and/or messy, will be cold, uncomfortable and leak. The child is told to use the potty / bathroom for its eliminations, but the parent / career knows that this child will wet / mess the training pants within the next 15-30 minutes (as a baby / toddler wets every 15-30 minutes). In about 15-30 minutes, the parent  / career will be dealing with a crying wet / messy child who has no idea what happened to put it in that situation. Remember, the child has been taught to ignore its voiding and to use diapers since birth, and today, for no apparent reason, the diapers have been taken away. On top of this, the child is chastised for now wetting / messing in its pants, yet for the past 2 years or more, it was praised for filling its diapers. The tools used to chastise the child is that wetting / messing is dirty and wrong. These are very powerful images given to the child, and it is reinforced by the practice of everytime the child uses a potty / is changed out of wet / messy training pants, the child's hands are washed in soap and water.

[Dirty Boy]

Let's say that not everyone is able to be a parent in the best way. Those who punish a child/adolescent because they wet the bed are not good parents in my opinion. As i said, i would be very supportive, maybe it depends on stress and anxiety, i would try to make them open up. Instead, some parents would perhaps stupidly start yelling or giving ridiculous punishments, maybe not like in some stories here, where everything is taken to extremes, but still there are some parents who are not good parents. A child/adolescent who finds the bed wet or has had an accident during the day for some reason is already mortified and the parent must not add a burden, you must try to make him understand that everything is ok, and to ensure that his psyche is not affected by the experience. 

 

[babykeiff]

On 1/2/2025 at 11:55 AM, Dirty Boy said:

Let's say that not everyone is able to be a parent in the best way. Those who punish a child/adolescent because they wet the bed are not good parents in my opinion. As i said, i would be very supportive, maybe it depends on stress and anxiety, i would try to make them open up. Instead, some parents would perhaps stupidly start yelling or giving ridiculous punishments, maybe not like in some stories here, where everything is taken to extremes, but still there are some parents who are not good parents. A child/adolescent who finds the bed wet or has had an accident during the day for some reason is already mortified and the parent must not add a burden, you must try to make him understand that everything is ok, and to ensure that his psyche is not affected by the experience. 

 

Bed wetting, or more correctly called, secondary nocturnal enuresis (as it occurs after a child has attained night and day dryness for a period of time), is not a failure of either the child or the adult who toilet trained the child. It is a change caused by biological processes which is normally called puberty - where there is growth and change around the genitalia of the child. This causes a change in specific nervous impulses criticial in bladder control, and can effect both daytime and nighttime urinary control and response.

Considering this, punishing a child for bed wetting is not only wrong, it is cruel, barbaric and inhumane,  and considering the people that do this, this is to their own offspring / child, someone that they are supposed to teach, support and love.

The simple way to handle a bedwetting child is to calmly and rationally talk to the child, support the child fully, and in the interest of letting the child have a full nights undisturbed sleep, convince the child to wear diapers / pull ups and/or absorbant pads on the bed. If cruelty is your drive, you should be cruel to those that tease or upset the bed wetting child.

Secondary nocturnal enuresis is puberty driven, but the way the body deals with it is primarly from a mental perspective. The mind sees bed wetting as its own failure. As a result, it is up to the parent / career to remove that layer of stress from the child, and once it is gone, the mind will adapt very quickly.

This is one of the few cases where seeing a professional - i.e. a doctor etc., is usually not a good idea as that convinces the child that 'something is wrong', when there is nothing wrong. The practice of a lot of doctors to prescribe a tablet instead of addressing the core problem - i.e. treaat a symptom rather than the problem. This tends to reinforce, in the childs mind that that 'something is wrong' where there is nothing medically wrong..... and it is a mistake driven by idiotic inconsiderate fools who claim to have the paitents interest first when instead al they want is money for a sticking plaster to hide the issue.

[Dirty Boy]

11 minutes ago, babykeiff said:

Bed wetting, or more correctly called, secondary nocturnal enuresis (as it occurs after a child has attained night and day dryness for a period of time), is not a failure of either the child or the adult who toilet trained the child. It is a change caused by biological processes which is normally called puberty - where there is growth and change around the genitalia of the child. This causes a change in specific nervous impulses criticial in bladder control, and can effect both daytime and nighttime urinary control and response.

Considering this, punishing a child for bed wetting is not only wrong, it is cruel, barbaric and inhumane,  and considering the people that do this, this is to their own offspring / child, someone that they are supposed to teach, support and love.

The simple way to handle a bedwetting child is to calmly and rationally talk to the child, support the child fully, and in the interest of letting the child have a full nights undisturbed sleep, convince the child to wear diapers / pull ups and/or absorbant pads on the bed. If cruelty is your drive, you should be cruel to those that tease or upset the bed wetting child.

Secondary nocturnal enuresis is puberty driven, but the way the body deals with it is primarly from a mental perspective. The mind sees bed wetting as its own failure. As a result, it is up to the parent / career to remove that layer of stress from the child, and once it is gone, the mind will adapt very quickly.

This is one of the few cases where seeing a professional - i.e. a doctor etc., is usually not a good idea as that convinces the child that 'something is wrong', when there is nothing wrong. The practice of a lot of doctors to prescribe a tablet instead of addressing the core problem - i.e. treaat a symptom rather than the problem. This tends to reinforce, in the childs mind that that 'something is wrong' where there is nothing medically wrong..... and it is a mistake driven by idiotic inconsiderate fools who claim to have the paitents interest first when instead al they want is money for a sticking plaster to hide the issue.

Totally agree

[babykeiff]

When one looks at human history, early humans were not toilet trained, and used to void as and when they needed, similar to primates. They also never used to wear clothing.

What changed that behaviour is a series of choices that were made by, what I class as idiots - people creating rules for their own personal belief, who are unable to see the full impact of their decisions, and/or wish to enforce their own bias. In fact, it is these people discriminating against the free choice of another, but are using a current media scare tactic to enforce their discriminations. When one really digs into these actions, in this world, the root is always money - either for themselves or others.

History

Neolithic humans were naked and not toilet-trained, as neither was required for survival.

If you understand Darwin theory, the humans that chose to wear clothes would be slower runners than those who didn’t. Those that hunkered to void, were sitting target. As a result, they were eaten by predators, but came wrapped in clothes - similar to a sandwich where a filling is surrounded by bread.

For security and self-preservation, humans moved into groups surrounded by some form of barrier, i.e. water etc. A stationary human tends to build shelters as a form of protection from the weather. This tends to create an induced weakness – i.e. we tend to put on more clothes when we leave these shelters as outside is usually colder than inside – which our Neolithic ancestors did also – so the gain in defence by living within a shelter turned these groups into soft targets.

Living indoors will cause the body to adapt to the situation where the human lost its need for the waterproof fur and the tough skin. The growing collection of waste - human waste plus bones etc. of past meals tend to attract pests which also attacked the skin of our Neolithic ancestors, so at that time, despite having to deal with these infestations, our Neolithic ancestors still perceived it to be a better situation to live in this self-enforced prison. It took a few centuries for humans to instead of imprison themselves from their predators, to build prisons large enough to imprison their predators from them. Even today, in African savanna, where humans install housing, they build walls around the houses rather than imprison the animals.

It took millions of years, past 1300's and the black plague, for humans to understand that their own waste is toxic to themselves. If prehistoric humans knew of this cost, I doubt that they would have moved into ground based shelters.

The clothing of the time only covered the trunk of the body, not below the waist or the genitalia, as to do so would need the removal of the clothes to void, which in a predator-prey environment, would not have been a good idea as it would need both toilet training plus one to change focus to remove clothes and thus, leave one vunerable to predator attack.

Now we come to the concept of ‘shame’ and the idea or need to cover genitalia. This comes from both one person’s idea in Rome, a Censor (or leader / ruler / governor) chose to initiate what we call now, ‘censorship’, where the concept of another person’s genitalia being on view was considered obscene. Organised religion church decided to enforce this to such an extent that most art works of the day, where genitalia was exposed (statues / paintings etc.), a fig leaf was placed over said genitalia.

Consider if noses were considered obscene, today everyone in the world would be wearing ‘nose bra’s’ and pornography would advertise as ‘naked noses on display’.

This is how stupid the concept that exposed genitalia is somewhat obscene, arousing and/or sexual!

Arousal / sexual drive are in the mind of the person/people getting aroused. As a result, even in this group, despite what we chose to think / believe, some of us get aroused at the sight of another in a diaper. It is not that we wish to engage with the other in copulation, it is more to do with the images we set in our own mind in relation to the diaper which, in the parlance of psychology, the diaper is a ‘fetish object’ being the item that most of us relate to being stereotypical babyish, yet all a diaper is an item to contain eliminations as a way to avoid same getting on floors / furniture of the den dwelling animals.

In a hetrosexual environment we are told that most females get aroused when seeing a muscle bound man wearing skin tight underwear where there is an obvious lump in the front. When there is an obvious lump in the rear, it tends to have the opposite effect. M

ost men get aroused when seeing a female dressed in black tights that stop partialliy before their hips, and where the female is wearing frilly knickers and a bra plus high heeled shoes, painted face (makeup) plus bits of metal and stone hanging from their body (jewelery). This is based on what a 'normal' person is supposed to do - yet since we are all individual, we react differently based on what is in our mind, not what is in front of us.

Some in this ABDL world get aroused either wearing a diaper and/or seeing another wearing a diaper, and it is one of the many ways we find to address either our need or desire to wear a diaper. It is not the wearing of a diaper itself, it is the feeling of the bulk of same, and the link to a younger age where, at that time and age, there were clear results for actions – i.e. if we misbehaved, there would be a clear response for that action, and once it occurred, forgiveness and love were given. We were encouraged to, and praised after using the diaper. It was expected that we make a mess in feeding ourselves etc. Everything we did was accepted with love and care.

Clothing grew from ‘items to cover the trunk’  to designer following human stupidity. i.e. it was, and still is a status symbol to be better covered – more plush fur / designer clothes  - than your neighbour. This was flaunted by so called religious groups where garments were coloured in crimson and red, both colours that were the most expensive to produce at that time -  the same people who professed ‘Pride is a sin’ and it is ‘shameful to do x / y’. When one looks at the whole concept, one can see how these organised  groups – religion etc., - did not practice what they preached, and did what they did only as a methodology of enforcing control and dominance.

It has taken millennia to understand the human body, and its adaptions to the human faults. Humans are supposed to learn, not only from our own mistakes, but those of our ancestors. As a result, it is advantageous not only to study our history, but also to understand it. Most of us presume that we live in a democracy, but if we critically analyse it, the democracy is tainted by the biased, usually uneducated opinions of the few.

Currently, via another media form, certain ‘influencers’ attempt to dictate the world view. Others, via the same media form, are using legal action to attempt to colour the world views of their own product. 

We are either individuals, or sheeple. Individuals have their own opinions and comments. Sheeple tend to ‘follow the crowd’ similar to the group of hounds that are involved in a fox hunt. If we look at that in detail, each hound except the leader, has their nose up the butt of the dog in front, and are only following the smell of shit, and have no chance of getting anywhere near the fox. Followers of fashion are similar, following what another is wearing rather than making and owning their own choice.

The film ‘The Devil wears Prada ’ – Miranda Priestly (based on real life Anna Wintour ) editor in chief of Runway (based on real life ‘Vogue’), a fashion magazine & Andrea ‘Andy’ Sachs joins as a journalist. where there are two contradicting morals or concepts :–

1. Miranda Priestly character (actor Meryl Streep based on the real life Anna Wintour) believes that she controls the world’s clothes and fashion industry, and without her, the industry would collapse.
2. Andrea Sachs character (actor Anne Hathaway) firstly dismisses the fashion industry as fallacy, then falls for the industry but eventually realizes the truth, maybe not the truth of the fashion industry, but the truth of herself and where she wishes her career to go – as a journalist and chooses not to become, as she thinks, one of the shallow egotistical followers of fashion.

If you watch that film, you will see how inhumane the Miranda Priestly character needs to be to keep her job. She drops Emily Charlton - Senior Assistant in favour of Andrea, plus sacrificed Nigel Kipling promotion by giving that job to her competition, Jacqueline.

Regardless on which side of the fence you sit, the root of the concept of clothes is self-pride, self-induced weakness, and nothing else, and in the view of some, egotistical and shallow. We, humans, are the only animal that think that we need to adorn our body with clothes, paint and bits of metal and rocks (jewellery), and this has its roots in a human choice to reside in a dwelling, a non-elected roman nobody and the portrayed lies of religious doctrine!

Even if you believe those teachings, Adam & Eve were naked and a snake told them so after Adam & Eve ate the apple.

Does that mean that an apple is a magical fruit that grants us the ability to communicate with snakes?

After that, they were cast out of the Garden of Eden where they used a fig leaf to cover their perceived nakedness. The concept of an all knowing God contradicts this as s/he knew that Adam and Eve would talk to the snake, eat the apple and therefore be cast out.

The first people that did not read/want/accept apple terms & conditions

We, as humans see this as God knew this would occur – so therefore, could have, if s/he wished, prevented having to cast out Adam & Eve and all human kind from the Garden of Eden. This resolves into there is limits to love, even God’s love, but then it contradicts that God is all loving and all forgiving.

Looking at this from the information provided by the snake to Adam & Eve, it was the snake that told Adam & Eve that they were naked, where God accepted, without question, the nakedness of Adam & Eve. Since that is the case, why do we, and those who profess a religious believe, consider nakedness shameful and/or obscene?

Yes, religious belief and humankind history tend to contradict itself, where the answer would have been within the Library of Alexandria, which was destroyed multiple times from 48BCE to 389CE by churchmen and crusaders and christians – the same people that professed religious belief!

Today, there are over a thousand different religious beliefs, and each are ‘sold’ as being the one true religion. The worldwide growth of knowledge has removed thousands of others.

Each of the religions claim some form of payment will grant redemption / eternal life, but if one evaluates that, how can a metal / paper token purchase something that is not of this world? A quote from the bible states in reply to a question from the then church leaders regarding money, where the reply was...

Matt 22:12-22 “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”

...as the token (coin) was belonging to Caesar as it had an image of Caesar on same. In the same way, every metal / paper token is belong to the country and is of no actual spiritual value, so how can giving this metal / paper token to an organised religious group purchase something that, according to Matt 22, is not wanted or required?

There is a joke that brings a person to heaven where the guardian is showing the person around…

...here are the Jewish people, here are the Hindu people, and here are Sikh people...

The person asks what is behind that wall, and the guardian answers…

...Shush, they are the Roman Catholics / Christians and they think that they are the only ones here....

Another joke is a conversation between two unborn twins claiming facts about outside, as it must be death as no one has ever came back see here for the full joke

There is a moral in these jokes and also within life. It is only arrogance to believe what is next is anything that we can comprehend. This also logically deduces that organised religion must be only for financial profit, and can offer nothing that is either requested / required or even known ...as nobody has ever came back from death.

Due to our own knowledge now, we can understand the difference between living in the womb and life, but as an unborn human, even if we had the mental facilities we enjoy now, without the knowledge that we have of life, there is no way we or any other unborn person in that state could explain to us the difference.

It can only presumed that information in the Bible / Quran etc could be valid, but considering the difference between life in the womb and life as we know it, we can presume that the difference between life and the after life is as different, which is, considering or ability within the womb vs our ability today, it signifies that there is no way we could ever comprehend what the after life is. What therefore, gives a self-professed religious leader the ability other than self-arrogance to state what is next? We really do not know. As a result, why do these self-arrogant people make up rules for us to follow / endure all based on what is essentially ignorance and lies?

We hope that there is a form of life after death, yet have really no way other than our own absolute need for something else / better to drive us.

It has been proven that all animal species need interaction with similar, ‘No man is an island’, yet our own actions tend to distance ourselves from each other, either in the rules we set and/or the privacy we demand. Is this about acceptance and love of self and others, or more likely, self-preservation. It is almost that we have forgotten that we, as a human, are only one of a species, where self-sacrifice is needed to create a stronger more resilient human, survival of the species, and instead tend to protect the weaker of ourselves thus making a weaker more dependant human.

Has capitalism replaced Darwinism and are we all members of the church of the almighty dollar / yen / euro etc.?

ABDLism / infantilism are one of the multiple forms of psychotherapy and as a way to attempt to reduce / remove stress from one’s life, but it is only a pill / sticking plaster on a much larger wound. The wound is self-induced since it is ourselves that push ourselves that hard to place ourselves under a stress that needs to be addressed.

Most, if not everyone in the world is involved in some form of ABDLism / infantilism if we wish to see it. Smoking is a faux way of addressing the suckling urge of early babyhood. When one sleeps, one normally cuddles up in something close to the foetal position. Modern science has found that most people in the world unconsciously behave infantile either before, during or after a stressful episode, and this stressful episode may be as simple as answering a simple question.

During that first period in our life, infant hood / baby hood, we were placed in, and convinced to use diapers, we had no responsibility, and therefore, no stress. We didn’t know what stress was and/or what worry was. Today, we put ourselves under stress for, in my humble opinion, no gain at all and make all types of excuses for it. Medically, all it does is reduce our life. Life is a gift, is real, and not a practice. We only get one life no matter how we chose to live it.

Therefore, those who ‘kill themselves’ working 24/7/365 to have a huge pension when they retire may never live long enough to actually retire. Dementia is also caused by stress, so in a way, working 24/7/365 could put you into a care facility, back in diapers and being treated as a baby/infant as dementia progressively destroys memory back to the brain of an infant. That is if you have the money / insurance to cover that type of care. However, you will not have the mental ability to notice or enjoy it as you will have the same brain as an infant but instead of growing and learning, you will be regressing.

The lockdowns of recent years taught some of us the value and the need of a home/work/life balance, but it also allowed the growth of more self-arrogant ‘influencers’ and more dependence on the virtual world for human interaction than the real world. If one digs into most virtual world member, one will discover that they all are portraying an image to hide their true identity. Even here, my true identity is hidden behind an image of a bear and a pseudo name. I could list many reasons, but the true one is that I, similar to a toddler, still hide behind my plushie for some form of safety / security. That, I tend to do in real life too in a similar way, via an image or character I portray thus letting very few people in to see the real me, but because I do same, it tends to let me see similar actions of most public figures including those in the virtual world.

This is what I am trying to show the people here – that very little of what we observe either in the virtual or the real world is truth, as most people lie and manipulate for self-gain, the most experienced tend to end up with what we own, yet we do not seem to protect or notice i.e. life, soul, and money. It seems that wisdom is wasted on the elderly.

ABDL Forums… and the future.

On the internet, there are many sites similar to this primarily based on infantilism (the fantasy of an adult to see themselves as a child of a perceived age with all the relevant trappings - which may or may not include the fetish object of a diaper etc.) and/or the support of those who chose diapers as underwear (which includes those who need it for support of the fantasy, and/or those who need it for reality due to either physical and/or mental needs (where the fantasy can also be the mental requirement)).  In this site / forum / group, we know that there is a difference between the fantasy and reality, but for some (usually the AB side of it), this line can be blurred.

We, in the group, never involve the under age as primarily we wish to be the underage ourselves. Therefore, using the rules strictly, we ourselves, when in fantasy mode, are not old enough to be members of these sites. The lines between fantasy and reality due to our own mistakes and the blurring of the virtual with reality, where we assign more trust to an online person than to a real person, we have created that premise, by self-isolating, by reducing the interaction with real people, by having more ‘online’ friends than real friends, by believing what media and advertisements are telling us, by filtering the information we get to who is currently trending, by our emergence into ‘soap operas’ and other media driven fiction, (and the list goes on) – the line between reality and fantasy is already blurred. It needs a strong willed focused individual to be able to ‘switch off’ the internet and social media to be able to make rational and educated decisions, and not ones based on what someone stated in media – i.e. to act as an individual and not as one that follows the crowd – and unless that happens, where this takes work, courage and self-belief, we will eventually loose ourselves, and the core reason for this site, which is using diapers and regression techniques in order to truly love and accept oneself, but the oneself that you need to love is under age, so strictly based on rules, love of a minor (although it is self-love and where we place ourselves as the minor) is never accepted and is classed as rape and child molestation since in most jurisdictions, the minor does not have the maturity to consent, so therefore, it is rape and molestation based on the same rules.

So, can this site and others like it still exist, or will it, in time, fall into obviation based on one or more peoples biased opinions even though, they are wrong?

Is this complete community destined to become a clinical version of itself, where what remains will be the groups of people (incontinent and other) who need, but won't admit their need for the 'infantile' side of the support, but without that group of the people (those who chose to regress to support their own mental health), that type of support will not exist in a  clinical side - the type of support one receives from the medical industry - the people who claim to have studied this as one of a thousand subjects within education.

Adam & Eve

Do you accept the Adam & Eve story and a talking snake which, if you wish to accept that this occurred, it was a manipulated and engineered process by a supposedly all-knowing and loving God – which I personally find hard to believe and accept. It is easier for me to accept that the Adam & Eve story is fiction created by a marketing department of a business.

History teaches us that we only wear clothes today that cover the genitalia based on either a fantasy Adam & Eve story and information from a snake – something that we are supposed not to trust and/or a nobody (censor in Rome) who decided that genitalia were obscene and that organised religion ltd., a primarily financial institution, decided that exposed genitalia was obscene. In Victorian England (1800s), it was decided that exposed female legs and arms were also obscene which altered the dress of the era, to such an extent that the only female bare skin on display was the face and hands. Are we to believe that Muslim faith has influence on Victorian England, as based on the Muslim faith, a female cannot expose any skin, and the burqa was employed.

If we followed the teachings blindly similar to Orthodox which has its teaching employed pre-roman times, we would follow the an eye for an eye concept, but the problem with that is we are all sinners in one form or another, and as a result, to quote people like Gandhi, and earlier, George Perry Graham, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and the whole world would be blind and toothless.

It tells us that it is up to ourselves to freely choose the teachings of history, and not to blindly follow another no matter who they claim to be, without firstly questioning their motives and is it in the best interest of ourselves.

How difficult is it to love oneself first, and similar to our animal breathern, love each other? True love is absolute, and it also involves self-sacrafice. We are engineered to love our offspring, as it is required for the species survival, but even that is foreign to some. Is this world and the human species selfish, and therefore, doomed to extinction... all based on the aquisition of bits of metal / paper, tokens that we can't take with us?