Talk:Infantilism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Current - Talk:Infantilism
Article-Talk-Messages follow, with oldest first, newest last:

Contents

My Clarification of Infantilism and Pedophilia

I edited the part of the article discussing infantilism as compared to infantophilia and pedophilia. Unless I am mistaken, infantilism is not a commonly used synonym for the term infantophilia. I have found nothing on other parts of the web to support this connection, and so I thought it best to revise the article to read "Infantilism should not be confused with infantophilia, the sexual attraction to small children, or paedophilia, a sexual attraction to children in general."

AspiringActivist 13:12, 26 July 2004 (UTC)

About my recent expansion of this article

First, regarding Aspiring Activist's comment, thanks for the clarification on this. I have heard of others confusing these two types of behaviors before, and I agree that this is essentially unheard of in the infantilist community, and your clarification here is helpful.

Regarding my own recent enlargement of the page, I have done this while keeping almost 100% of the original ideas and content, and while primarily expanding and enriching the information that was already there. The information I added to the page is the result of my own interest in the subject, from a psychological perspective, over a period of many years.

I hope that others may find my additions to be helpful.

Scott P. 15:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is infantilism sexual?

Many people on various TB/AB (Infantilist) groups seme to belive there is little or no connection between infantilism and sex. Some of us are offended by people making that connection. Infantilism may be assoiated with some fetishes but in itself s not sexual fou us (infantilists) infantilism is a way of reliving stress or getting in touch with our ch.ildhood. Thankyou for reading my comment as well as presenting this informative article.

Anonymous Apr 7, 2005

Dear Anonymous,

That kind of depends. I've met AB/TB/DLs who had no interest in sexualizing their ABDL play at all. Then, there are ABDLs who do sexualize it. Dave 16:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality and Infantilism

Dear Anonymous,


Even though infantilism does not include masturbation for a minority of adult infantilists, it nearly always affects their sex lives. Often the sexual connection becomes more clear only after years of living independently as an adult. That is not to say that there are not some who might never believe that there is any connection in their particular cases, even after years of living in their own house or apartment. It is only to say that after years of living on their own, the majority seem to believe that there is some connection between infantilism and sexuality.


Thanks for the suggestion here. I have gone ahead and reworded section 5 about Some Forms of Infantilism to clarify this.


Scott P. 15:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Orbit, and Ms. X,

I think I will probably step aside from this point on, for the forseeable future, in as far as editing this article. I'll let let you folks have at it. Thanks for your great contributions. Orbit, I hope you don't put too much graphic stuff in. You might scare away some of the readers! Even though Wikipedia is open to all to edit, the reason it works is because most people are generally considerate of one another. I would like to hope that this article could be something that an average person could read through without beginning to feel nauseous. ;)

As you know, I have done a fair amount of rewording, but meanwhile I have attempted to retain the intention and the central point of the information that you and others have added, in order to try to keep a more or less unified theme for the article. I am sure that you folks will do well, keeping the article focused, organized and informative in positive ways.

Scott P. 20:40, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

AB information continues and extra subjects?

This article is growing rapidly because of us and is able to provide a wealth of information about the psychology. I think we have that part down for now. I think writing about a few of the practical information like health risks, a bit of information about how most couples (as far as we know) meet, AB contacts and groups plus information about what products are available would be fruitfull to this article.

AB Contacts

I believe the most common contact for an AB is via the internet over personals from AB sites. Although this is not how most couple meet, it does allow for a wide range of meetings and a bit of security. Daily Diapers has a listing system for such contacts. Then there are groups like Socalab (is the spelling correct?) for the Southern Californian AB groups. There are also a few in europe.

Health Risks

Well, we covered loosing control over number 1 and 2 plus rashes, but there are other risks involved. Bacteria found in fecal matter can cause infections. There are also diseases which are life threatening from fecal matter. Should we start talking about those and how to avoid them?

Furniture

More practical information so ABs and DLs can experiment a little bit.

Relationships

Here, I think we can pretty much stick to personal experience because that is all we have until someone does a study about this or unless we get an advice writer to add to this. At Daily Diapers, there is a Mommy who reads letters from other ABs and gives advice; there are plenty of articles there to possibly write a bit more about.


We have come a long ways now, lets keep going.

Orbit, Thanks Again!

Dear Orbit,

Thanks for working together with me so patiently on this project. I agree that with both of us working together here, this article has really grown in some very positive ways. Of course I can't help but be biased in this.

Scott P. 16:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

To Mr. Anonymous Deleter

Dear Mr. Anonymous Deleter,

You recently deleted much of this article, without explaining any reasoning, and without even logging in when you did it. If you were able to support your decisions to delete all of this with some kind of reasons or logic, perhaps then these deletions would be understood and therefore accepted. Instead you left the "reason" fields blank with each delete. Without any reasoning and doing it anonymously, it becomes somewhat difficult to understand or accept.

Sincerely,

Scott P. 16:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


I bet he just doesn't like the concept of ABDL and was protesting by doing something he felt was right.

Imaged

ARG! That was annoying, couldnt figure out how to align it correctly.

Good picture, thanks

Dear Orbit, Thanks for the picture. I like the fact that it is informative, yet simple and to the point. I also like the fact that you sized it so as not to be distracting from the main article.

Thanks,

Scott P. 14:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

PS: By the way, if you wanted to add your signature to your comments, just put a blank line with four tilde's in a row after your comment.

About the picture. I wanted to add a few more to give examples of AB wear that wasn't too sexual. I know one picture would likely be the best if the person isn't researching ABDL further, but if they are, the article is so long, it is research by its self. I was thinking of added a table with different examples of clothing from dresses to onesizes. The second girl was what I could find of rhumba panties that wasnt too sexual. Maybe you can help find a few pictures? BTW, all the pictures I uploaded were public domain according to the site I found them on. --OrbitOne 22:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Scott

I just want to tell you that some have actually had this kind of regression that you said is impractical as a lifestyle. It is very extrem but has been done.

--OrbitOne 14:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding 'Permanent' Regressions....

Dear Orbit,

Do you know of anyone who has succeeded in living like this full-time for over three years? I've never heard of it.

Thanks,

Scott P. 00:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't, but if anyone wants to try permanently regressing someone, could you have them send me a message? Dave 16:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Further Thought Regarding Permanent Regression

My guess is that if somehow someone were able to force themselves into that unnatural and somewhat unhealthy environment, the likelihood would be that they would probably suffer the same fate as a typical severely retarded person in a state mental institution. I believe I read somewhere that the average lifespan of such people under such circumstances is only 30 or 40 years. Still, I am curious what the maximum length of time you know for sure that someone has been able to do it.

Scott P. 00:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think I have heard of a few cases where it is husband and wife, but I do not know details of how they live. If the husband works to support the family and is a sissy at home, is it permanent regression?
I do know of atleast one case where the AB play has lasted several years, even into marriage. Remember the website sissybecky.com? The two recently had a kid. Becky (the sissy) is a DJ and does work, but as far as the AB public knows, they are a real deal fulltime AB relationship. But they recently have dropped out of sight and the site is shut down.

Regarding Multiple Pictures for the Article

How about if we started an 'Infantilism- Typical Examples Album' article? We could then place the single photo for the main article up near the top of that article, with a link to the Album below the main picture? That way, if there is ever a ruckus about the Album article, it probably wouldn't cause any serious problems, such as deletion or blocking, for the main article. Thoughts???

Scott P. 00:29, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I sent you an email with the same idea before I read this. Have you noticed yet, when you click on edit, over the edit feild there is text telling us how large the article is? I think wiki is trying to tell us to do the same thing.
--OrbitOne 07:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Article is split

I put a few sections into ABDL and there are a few shared sections between the two. This is to try to reduce the article size a little bit. I propose the new article deal with the most practical issues in ABDL and this article deal with the psycholigcal issues of ABDL. --OrbitOne 09:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page?

It seems to me that this page is a FAQ for people interested in taking part in infantilism play - not an encyclopedia entry about the same. (Note particularly the wording in the 'Infantilism and Christianity' (13) and 'list of known abusers on the net' (6.3.1.2.1). This entire article needs to be re-examined with NPOV in mind - Wikipedia is an information site, not an advocacy site. Elde 09:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It is a 1)psychological entry about Infantilism, 2)items involved, 3)the effects ABDL has on a persons outside/public life, 4)gives an idea as to what causes Infantilism. The Christian part of this article actually is based off of real events which are actually violent but we wish to spare the bloody details. All in all, it is neutral, otherwise I would say this or that group advocates violence against us and has made public claims that we are a danger to children and say we are disgraces to god.
The article in whole is neutral, not putting a positive spin or a negative spin on Infantilism. We are just explaining the fetish as it is.
--OrbitOne 11:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
In addition, before you decide to cut down on this article, to please give solid examples of this being an advocacy page.

The Purpose of this Article

Dear Elde,

Is not the purpose of any encyclopedia to be an FAQ that provides accurate, informative and factual answers to as many questions for as many people as possible? True, there is much material in this article that might be regarded as offensive to some, however Wikipedia states in it's general policy section that Wikipedia makes no effort to censor out any material for the benefit of use by minors. Based on your suggestion, I have slightly reworded the Christianity section so that there is now nothing there but stated fact.

As per your advice, I have reworded the last sentence that gave advice, and instead replaced it with an informational section about known results of infantilists who have sought answers for their infantilism in Christianity. Thanks for pointing out the need for a more factually based presentation here. If you might find any facts that are incorrect in this article, please let us know, or revise as needed.

Sincerely,

Scott P. 16:02, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I actually dislike the bit about christianity. I know most of what's posted here will come from the English speaking part of the world, and since most of that part of the world is christian, I can understand why a christian felt it neccessary to share. But there are so many other religions, and also there are atheists, and a non-christian reading this page may wonder why it is that special consideration is being gioven to a religion they do not share, when tyheir own views on religion are ignored. Wouldn't it be more neutral to discuss this matter in the context of religion in general, citing examples from multiple faiths? Dave 16:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

19 down to 11

I think that is an okay job in cleaning up.

Had my Go at it....

Dear Orbit, .....Thanks for the amazing amount of work you just put into the article! I just did a bit myself, but you did the lion's share. A much cleaner meaner article now.  :)

Cheers,

Scott P. 18:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


No no, it is you that deserves the thanks. You have done the most important work and have reworded and added more to this than I have. Almost all of a whole section is your creation, and what I added of clay, your fingers molded it in well. --OrbitOne 21:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Nappy Wearing In Public Is No Sin

I would like to say as one who has engaged in reduced-privacy that it was never my intention to upset anyone in any way. When I went out in public in nappies on no account did I wish to offend or be seen.

However, on several occasions I have been noticed and the response was not hostile or negative most were amused. The act of wearing a nappy in public is not illegal if it were then police would be arresting physically incontinent people. Perhaps the need to wear and use nappies (diapers) is in itself a form of incontinence and maybe just as valid as that caused by physical dissability?

While I agree that to jump up and down and deliberately attract public attention would be wrong and potentially dangerous for the person concerned no-one, including the physically disabled, should have to be fearful of being noticed or ashamed of their condition.

The suggestion that people like me have gone out in public for the reasons you suggest is insulting and innacurate as far as my own personal experience would dictate. The suggestion that the public need protection from people wearing nappies must be way down on police priorities with muggers, rapists and the like about in far greater numbers than the occasional nappy wearer. There may well be a small percentage of people who are sadistic and masochistic but, I would suggest that they are in more danger from members of the public than the public are from them.

When I have let friends into my secret and they are certain that our condition has nothing to do with real children they have been incredibly understanding. This would suggest to me -at least- that we need public exposure to become accepted in society. That way people are more likely to be tollerant if one of us is found out by family or friends. The general public who you are concerned about may suffer no stress at all knowing the person in nappies is NOT a threat to them. There was a time when homosexuals were regarded with fear and disgust by the general population: education has reduced this problem to a fraction of what it was. That is who they are and this is who we are and no law abiding minority should be censored or have to censor itself. Honesty and openess, without being in your face, must be better than hiding in your bedroom..

A Public Nappy Wearer 14:25, May 15, 2005

Thanks for pointing out the need for clarity here.

Dear Public Nappy Wearer,

        Thanks for pointing out the need for clarity in the section about the practice of reduced-privacy. I have rewritten it to a point where I think I have clarified what was unclear there. Any further comments would be appreciated.

Scott P. 19:36, May 15, 2005 (UTC)



Dear Public Nappy Wearer.

I appologize for the article section. I will edit it. I never meant disabled and truely medical incontinent people should be ashamed, nor should they. I was writing about a very select group who choose to be incontinent souly for their own sexual amusement. Although with proper timing and foresight, such cases of public health detrement is avoided most of the time, such timing can be used the other way around.

I am just saying, those with the choice should remember to consider others and have good timing and foresight. If I went without a bath for several days, I would not smell that rosey either and would bother others, that is why we take showers. It is a consideration to other people.

Those who do not have such consideration when it is optional impose on others unduely and do cause the public harm. --OrbitOne 19:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

To who ever is adding DD to the links page

I am sorry, but Daily Diapers was added at the bottom for a reason. The attempts to move it to the top is an attempt at free commcercialization and not permitted, to show that this is not a joke, it was removed. It would make this article bias. I do not wish to request this page be locked down, but it can be.

Dear Person with concerns about Daily D: Your concerns re: commercialisation would be valid if the site were one that sold a product or in some way generated revenue. This does not however appear to be the case. In fact, one could argue that other sites which are more commonly accessed (such as DPF) are far more commercial, as most of what they offer is a purely commercial venture. True, DD does link to paying sites, some of which appear to be run by friends of the site owner, but DD's content is free of charge. Dave 16:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


The website has revenue via advertising, every hit is a product sold to advertisers for money, the pictures are sold to visitors in exchange for hits. iDiapers sells products to people directly.

Photographs

I have a question. Most infantilists (indeed, most fetishists in general) tend to be male. Shouldn't there be a picture of a male infantilist somewhere on the page? Dave 16:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Finding a nuetral sexuality picture was fairly hard and most pictures of men in diapers could be seen as offensive to most people outside of ABDL. I wanted to find one which would not disgust visitors but showed how simple ABDL is. There was an idea of making a new wiki page with visual examples of ABDL men and women in diffrent states of play so we could keep this page uncluttered and straight forward.

--OrbitOne 13:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why would a man in a diaper be any more offensive than a woman? Is this because you'rte heterosexual, and you have a hard time seeing men as attractive? I don't mean that to sound cutting , by the way. It's just that oftentimes it is difficult to see things from the perspective of a different subculture if you aren't a member of that subculture. In that, I don't mean ABDL, I mean the perspective of a gay or bisexual man who would find a man to be attractive and not disgusting. In the context of ABDL, it is true that there are more heterosexuals than homo or bi sexuals. But that's true across the board, and I would argue that to exclude this portion of the ABDL community by only representing a female infantilist isn't very NPOV. Please don't take offense at anything I've written here. I'm not intending it to be flame, but rather a different perspective. Dave 16:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It is because all of the male shots I have seen so far have been either 1) Poor photo quality and hard to make out, 2) overly elaborate, the picture at first was to show how simple ABDL clothing can be, 3) sexual or erotic so it is not proper for this website or 4) offensive with certain types of matter showing. It is not because I am hetro, it is because I have not found any vanilla pictures of guys in diapers of good photo quality. --OrbitOne 07:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have tried posting links to sites that would show the sorts of pics you're looking for, but some a***hole keeps deleting the links, claiming they are either spam or irrelevant. Dave 16:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That asshole would be me. The site, Daily Diapers, is not an information site. Please understand the picture was ment to give an initial impression about ABDL and not be a links page to other sites. DD is posted often, demanding the top spot for commercial reasons. They have not in any way added to this article and have no right to go on this page. The site should not be listed and should keep their noses out of this article or it will be locked down to prevent future abuse. --OrbitOne 3 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
External links do not necessarily have to have "added" to the page to be placed in the Wikipedia External Links section. I would be wary of threats such as "locking down pages" - as page protection is an administrator tool used as a last resort and a last resort only. --FCYTravis 3 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
Travis is correct, locking a page is a last resort, but this link is getting on my nerves now. The reason I resist this link is because they are a commercial for profit site and shouldn't be allowed to grab free advertising. Other sites can feel envy and we all of a sudden have a war for a link.
Actually, I'm not associated with DD in any way. The reason why I keep posting their link is because I do feel they make a contribution. They offer people who are interested in infantilism to interact with the online community.

You see, a while ago, people used to refer to gay people only by the clinical term 'homosexual'. Some still do, as they prefer to see the state of being gay as something different from 'normal'. Few speak of themselves as being 'heterosexual'. Why? Because heterosexuality is not seen as being a 'condition'. If the Wikipedia entry for 'gay' only referred to gay people as 'homosexual', or if it only linked to pages which treated being gay in a medical, 'clinical' sense, we would correctly call this discrimination. It instead links to sites where a user may meet actual gay people, human beings instead of mere abstract creatures with a 'condition'. Likewise, I am attempting to inject a little bit of the human aspect to the section covering AB's and DL's. The actual, live human beings, not the weird, abstract, 'condition' that is so easily seen as the 'other'. In other words, I am attempting to offer people the opportunity to learn about AB's and DL's--- by actually talking to people who are AB's and DL's. That's non-discriminatory. That's respectful. That's what OrbitOne's constantly deleting the links that allow people to find the online ABDL community is not. Go ahead and lock the page. But don't think I don't see what you're doing as being anything other than what it is - exclusionary, and very non NPOV. Delete this posting if you dare. Dave 16:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I dont have anything against DD, but the link is out of place here. This page has come under attack before for not being on topic and a site like DD on top is too risky, nor are they at all important to ABDL. But I will take your veiw point into a short consideration and reply back that DD was on the page before, but someone kept moving it to the top where it should not be and other sites which could be seen as compitition were removed. For these reasons, DD is removed as a rule of thumb to keep this entry from being twisted. Your entry into this talk page, btw, will not be deleted, it is not part of the entry so has no direct effect on the main page. You are allowed to post the link here if you want to though. I will point out lastly though, the adition of a link is not at all a meaningfull contribution and your argument for keeping this link is a poorly disguised attempt at gathering guilt. I wrote much of this article myself, all you have done is add one link over and over again to a website which offers only porn, porn stories, letters and a message board. That site has no truely meaningful information not already included on the main entry. I honestly do not believe for a second you are not associated with DD. --OrbitOne 5 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I really don't care what you do or do not believe. You may have written most of the material yourself-The parts on religion ( and one particular religion at that, as opposed to a general survey of varying religious opinions), the clinical tone, etc, it's all consistent. Consistently sterile and removed from any community of actual human beings. Further, you have chosen to remove links not only to DD, but also to Dl-Boy and aby.com. Do you think maybe I own controlling stock in all of these pages? Or perhaps I have cornered the diaper industry and am attempting to profit from this by luring people into something pornographic? Perhaps you think it's a conspiracy of some kind? Whatever. The fact is that you have a real issue with anyone portraying this community as a community and not a 'condition'. By the by, what was pornographic about any of the above sites? Is it because some people find ABDL sexual? Some people also find shoes sexual. Should we eliminate any references to shoes, outside of a clinical survey of foot fetishists? Or what about the leather community... should we pull all photographs of anyone wearing a leather jacket? Where does it end? At what point does your personal fear of sex stop inhibiting a person's ability to understand? Lock the page. I dare you. because if you do, it's going to catch the attention of people who can lock you out of it, and every place else where your own prudish predjudices might get in the way of someone else's capacity to understand.

 Incidentally, I haven't deleted any links on Wikipedia. None. Zip. Nada.

Dave 16:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

1) I deleted all ad and commercial sites as to be fair to DD; if they cant, why should others? 2) The sterile tone is to maintain a NPOV, something that has been a problematic point of this articles history. Moderators insisted on the NPOV and we rewrote it to keep the article alive. 3) I looked at the history to see which users were adding and deleting links to start with, same two IP numbers keep popping up.

Great. Now look at my IP address. Does it match the person who has been deleting things? No? Oh, ok. So you just shoot off at the keyboard without checking your facts first. Great. Just what this page needs. Now, here below this posting you've decided to allow DD to post a link to their site, just as long as it's not front and center. Thus, your comments posted as point 1) are now invalid. 2) The clinical tone is not NPOV. The focus on Christianity reflects one, and only one view of infantilism. That's not NPOV. That's biased. The clinical tone itself, the 'medicalization' of it is also one, and only one point of view. Again, biased. NPOV= many points of view. It does not mean a dehumanized point of view. So I dispute point 2). Point 3) I already went over. Now, if you want to be NPOV and represent abdls of both genders, would you please post a male pic along with a female pic? By the way, your definition of pornographic as anything that shows exposed flesh is a little 19th century, don't you think? The Washington Post ran a picture of Martha Stewart wearing shorts this morning. Was that porn? Are people of all ages endangered by the Washington Post? Dave 16:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


1) Me and DD have an understanding and it is clear there wont be a link war coming from their side, 2) The clinical tone is so a 40kb article can exist without moderators coming by to clean it up, I split the article for a reason, go to the ABDL article. The Christianity focus was to point out a possible resource for those who want to quit and is the ONLY such resource I know of. Point three still stands, I never said it had to be you, but it is someone or a couple of people who insist on all other links being deleted. As for the porn, I do remember seeing a few tits at the site and I do know the stories there revolve around sex for the most part. It is an adult content site if you wish to be more exact in what term we use. I wish to keep in mind though, this article can be seen by kids and should be taken into consideration. Also, please take into consideration that I am not stopping you from uploading a male pict as well, as long as it is clear and doesnt show him grabbing his crotch or his genitals or in any kind of sex act. --OrbitOne 7 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)
Well, the pics are posted. Thanks to OrbitONE for showing me what to do, and for the suggestion that I do it, and to Todaler for providing the pics and permission to post them. Thanks also to Orbit for restoring the links. Todaler did mention something that I think is pretty relevant. There should be some clarification in the article that Diaper Lovers (DLs) are not technically infantilists. ABs certainly are, and generally don't mind being described as infantilists. But a DL might object. Dave 16:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Permission isnt granted, it is your right to, but we watch out for each other, that is how wiki is built.

Please keep porn links off this entry

A simple request so people of all ages can veiw this entry.


Please keep your own biases out of this entry

A simple request so people of all points of view can learn something from this entry. Dave 16:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Response from DD

Excuse my lack of contribution to this page, but Wikipedia is fairly new to me. DailyDiapers is NOT a pornographic site, in fact we have gone to great lengths to prevent that so that there is a safe place for diaper lovers to gather. I do take offense to the suggestion that DD has nothing meaningful to offer. What could be more meaningful than a regularly updated free community that not only allows but welcomes the contributions of others. Many Infantalists can benefit from our advice columns, personal ads and message boards.. and even those who care not about photos come to use those areas. As for our being a commercial site, DD is 100% free, we offer links to commercial sites (a few of ours, and many owned by others) but there is no cost to use any of the DD-label services.

I have put my link at the top a few times - quite frankly - when I thought one of the other sites was deleting my link for commercial reasons. However, it's been deleted when it was at the bottom too. I do think it a relevant link.

I will make it a point to contribute more to this article.


I do need to point out many of the stories at DD are pornographic revolving around sex and diapers. Some of the pictures at DD also show partial nudity. If you add to the actual article with usefull information not already posted, then please add a link to DD in the middle of the others, but please do so with a warning about being mildly graphic. Problem was, the first person who added DD to the links list also deleted all the other links. I have nothing against DD and under different conditions would have welcomed the DD link. I look forward to your additions to the main article. --OrbitOne 6 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

discussion transferred from Cleanup page

  • Infantilism - Horrible article with way too many sections, some of which are useless, and section 'A list of known abusers on the net' is definitely not encyclopedia material. Wikipedia is not a campaign ground regardless of issue. - Mithent 15:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • So the list is a bit out of line, but the complexity of ABDL and Infantilism is extensive. We have cleaned it up before and deleted certain sections. But if you have not read the whole article, you can not say it is a horrible article. And which sections would be useless may I ask? Read the whole article and then we can debate what needs to be cleaned up, but I doubt you know very much about ABDL yourself. --OrbitOne 16:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
We have removed the suggested section regarding known abusers as per your suggestion, as well as many of the sections that we believed might not be necessary. Your input is appreciated. If there are any other specific suggestions you might have, they would be appreciated. Meanwhile we have removed the Cleanup notice. Thanks for your interest and advice on this article.
Scott P. 16:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well, generally I was referring to the organisation in the article - it's informative, certainly, but it has a huge number of sections, some of which are extremely short. Most are only one paragraph long, and I feel that merging such things as 'Loss of Power' elsewhere would be a good idea. There's some description of splitting the article on the Talk page, and I think that might also be a good idea. I don't really know about ABDL, no. I'll be quiet about this now and leave it to your own editing. -- Mithent 16:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Thankyou for your understanding. We will try to clean up sections, but I have plans about expanding loss of power. I might make it into an article of its own in relation to sexual slavery fantasy. --OrbitOne 16:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The external links

The following can be found at Wikipedia:External links: What should be linked to

  1. Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site.
  2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.
  3. If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.
  4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.
  5. High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference.

What should not be linked to

  1. Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead. Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions. See also External link spamming.
  2. Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above.

Thus I've removed these links:

AB/DL/TB Communities (designed to encourage social interaction between Infantilists, may have sexual content)

If you want to add them back in, please refer to the above (or note other applicable guideline pages) in discussions here first.
brenneman(t)(c) 05:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


I hope this is acceptable to others, but in the same note, since the links which are left on the front page now can be considered informative, is there any merit in deleting them? -- OrbitOne

Overcoming Infantilism

Scott and others,

I've removed the last paragraph from the section entitled "Infantilism and Christianity." The paragraph referred exclusively to the support organization "Overcoming Infantilism," of which I am owner and administrator. The information contained within was inaccurate and seemed to reflect a lack of objectivity, with a shadow of negative bias. This is contrary to Wikipedia's stated policies and guidelines.

I would prefer that no reference to the OI group be made on Wikipedia without my permission. If you desire to include a reference to OI within the entry (or elsewhere on Wikipedia), I'd be glad to work with you to ensure the identity and positions of the group are accurately represented. Feel free to contact me at any time.

Dean W. dean@overcoming-infantilism.org (note: I removed some of my personal info since it was showing up on Google searches)


Sorry, but the information that was written is factual and had NPOV in mind. I reposted the section into a subsection so it is seperated. Your front page describes ABDL as contrary to gods plan on sexual development, much in the same way some groups veiw homosexuals. As for not adding information about your website there, that information is PublicDomain so you are somewhat powerless to stop people from writing about the group, but you are welcomed to write about it yourself.


No, the information is not factual. It’s pointless for you to argue about this. How can you possibly be so presumptuous as to think you understand the group better than its owner and members? Maybe next you want to tell me my pants size and favorite color.

First, the group is not "fundamentalist." I have corrected you on that repeatedly in the past, yet you insist on using the term because of it connotations. The word “fundamentalist” has an established definition which encompasses a historical movement and its particular political and theological beliefs. This definition is not applicable to the OI group.

Second, you have misrepresented the mission of the organization. No one here has ever contacted me in any attempt to gain a clear understanding of our beliefs, goals, and accomplishments. This alone illustrates your malicious intent. If your intent was to include unbiased information, you could easily have contacted me to gain a balanced perspective.

Even if the information in my original (no longer existent) header is public domain, you haven't posted that information---you have EDITORIALIZED on it. I'm not making any attempt to stop people from writing about the group; you or anybody else has the right to write about it in the private sector. But Wikipedia is different because it is a reference resource and the Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the resource from being used to "grind a personal axe." I'm holding you accountable to abide by the Wikipedia guidelines. Please, let's not turn this into a war. I would like to get along with you guys and peacefully co-exist.

Dean W.


Excuse me, but “fundamentalist” refers to the groups beliefe in some fundamental scripture from the bible. The beliefe of the group is that god as a plan for sexual development and ABDL is a stride away from that plan.
“Fundamentalist” is an article on Wiki and says "Fundamentalist describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion."
Even if it is Fundamentalist only in regards to sexual development, it still is Fundamentalist. As for it being a negitive or positive term, I dont really have a veiw on that because I do not think it is either.
But a quote from the groups own front page on yahoo. "Because we are a Christian group, we recognize biblical principles that show this behavior to be contrary to God's plan for sexual, relational and spiritual health." It says directly the group believes ABDL is contrary to biblical principles.
As for editoralizing it, I kept it plain a simple and explained what it is and what the group does. I made no negitive comments or possitive comments.
-- OrbitOne


OrbitOne,

I'm sure you sincerely believe your choice of words was not biased. Perhaps you simply don't recognize the bias. Still, the point remains that your choice of words reflects your personal POV and contains inaccuracies. You must concede that your information is based on virtually no investigation, as well as a willful disregard of input from the very organization that is the subject of your writing. In light of these facts, there is very little evidence of a desire to provide a balanced objective view of my organization. Perhaps you meant no harm. If so, let's give way to due process here.

I'd be glad to discuss this matter with you furthur. This Wikipedia page is not an good place to discuss the matter, since it would take up a lot of space. Email me at dean@overcoming-infantilism.org and we can make arrangements.

I kindly ask that you refrain from re-inserting information on OI until we resolve this matter to mutual satisfaction. Thank you.

Dean W.


This article would look a lot better without the requests to email OrbitOne if you have information about thus-and-so scattered throughout it. I think that sort of thing really belongs on the talk page. KathL 11:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


No, actually I took a look at the groups front page before I choose to support what the section said. I did not even write it
myself, Scott did, whom is a former OI member I should add so he should know far better than me if the group is fundamentalist or
not. The front page of the group say you believe in the principles of the bible, atleast in regards to sexual development, so
being fundamentalist is not that far from the truth. If you are afraid of being associated with muslim extremists though, please
dont, only the rabble of the english language link fundamentalist to muslim extremists exclusivly. -- OrbitOne


Yes, forgive me, I thought you were looking at our old page header which sometimes comes up in SE caches.

I'm sure you can find people in the group who would say about anything. This just means you relied on someone else's POV instead of your own. I knew Scott wrote the description because I recognized the wording. Scott never properly checked out his information either, and he had a chip on his shoulder when he wrote that. A guy named Jack came into his group and talked trash about me, mainly because he has a bit of tendency to be a hot-head (everyone knows this). But I'm on friendly terms with Jack lately and I think he would admit that he was talking irresposibly when he said those things. But what it comes down to is this: Scott can say anything he wants about me in his group, even if it's incorrect, because he has that right (and I could care less). But Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective reference, so it's problematic if you base your writing on information from a biased source that has a known pattern of hostility toward my group (no offense Scott, just stating the facts).

I don't object to the term "fundamentalist" because of it's association with Muslim extremists. I object to it because it's inaccurate. The term refers to a political movement within the American church that began in the 1920's. Yes, the term ORIGINALLY had the meaning you cite, but it has become more associated with the movement. As a student of church history, I understand that movement enough to write a novel on it, and I can tell you with great certainty that the term does not fit the OI group. One of the primary distinctives of the fundamentalist movement is "hyper-separation." We don't support that doctrine in OI. This is just one example. Let me tell you a story to illustrate my point: I once went into a fundamentalist church to ask for their support and they threw me out! Look, I do agree with a good amount of what fundamentalists believe, but certainly not all of it, and I disagree with them on some very key points (obviously). Do you want me to explain furthur, or are you willing to trust me on this?

And please remember, I have more objections to the description beyond the use of the term "fundamentalist."

If you truly want to have a category on OI, I have two solutions I can propose: First, you could spend some time talking to me, get to know me, and come to understand what OI is all about. But if no one is willing to talk with me on the phone then that will be hard to do. This is sad, because I'd truly like to have a better dialog with you guys. Well, if that won't happen, a second solution would be for me to compose a paragraph myself describing the group. Since I administrate the group, I should have a pretty good idea of how to explain it. I could get together with my board of directors and we could hammer out the wording as a team.

Like I told you in my email: My beliefs about infantilism do not change my love for the people who have the condition. I have true friends who are still active AB/DLs and they would assure you of this. We may never agree, but I'd at least like you to have a more balanced understanding of what OI is about.

Dean W.


Still can not offer my phone number up, privacy over the internet is important to me. We can talk over email and I would like to
know what it is you object to in that section?
--80.62.170.94 16:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


To DW: Hi dean this is hopetoquit. I just looked up this article since you motioned it on the phone the other night.
to wikipedia: you say you want balance on this site, so in that interest I have a personal site on over coming this particular
thing (I admit it is a blog, and I have added at the end as an external link. it is titled "The Log of a Recovering Diaper lover"
hopetoquit.


Considering he does not want to talk about this over email and refuses to write about his group in the talk pages,
I am going to revert that section.
--OrbitOne 12:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


DO NOT continue to revert POV comments about me or my privately owned organization. I consider this a PERSONAL ATTACK in clear violation of Wikipedia rules. The reason I ceased to communicate with you is because you're wasting my time talking in circles, you refuse to even identify yourself, and your last email to me contained a spurious accusation. I will no longer negotiate with you. If you're afraid to show your face, delegate someone else to talk with me. I've posted my own contact info because I have nothing to hide.

I'm in the process of incorporating Overcoming Infantilism as a non-profit organization and obtaining protection for the name. Like I told you before, you can write anything you want about OI in the private sector, but DO NOT hijack Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting your biased POV against me or my organization.

Notice that I've made NO EFFORT to contest anything else you've written in this article---even though much of it is probably in violation of Wikipedias "No Original Research" rule. You cannot cite authoritative sources for most of what you've written, since we both know NONE EXIST. (Kathy Stringer's articles are also excluded by this rule since she's obviously assisting you on this article and her writings do not meet the official Wikipedia criteria.) The only authoritative published materials on this subject are "Patterns of Psychosexual Infantilism" (1952) by Wilhelm Stekel, and the various references to P.I. found in the writings of Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins U.S.M.H. The vast majority of information you've included in this article is "colloquial" by nature and/or represents "Original Research" as described in the Wiki policies and guidelines. Nevertheless, I'm not pointing this out to you as a "threat." I currently have no intention of quibbling with you about any of the other information in this article. Why? Because I'm not looking for a fight as you seem to be! The ONLY request I made is a very reasonable one: Cease and desist from including references to ME or my PRIVATELY OWNED organization.

The position you've taken to defend your description is flawed. By your own admission here, the ONLY "investigation" you undertook to understand my organization was as follows:

(1) You read the "header" message of the Yahoo group. This message (due to Yahoo logistics) is constrained to 2000 characters or less, and the language I chose was primarily to work certain words into the paragraph in order to have it come up in search engines.

(2) You trusted the hearsay of a third person (Scott) who has a public record of hostility toward OI and its goals.

(3) Suspiciously, you've chosen to categorically reject any input from the organization ITSELF, via its owner.

I don't particularly feel that I "owe" you an explanation of OI, considering the intransigence you've exhibited toward me since I made my reasonable request. But I’d really like to de-escalate the conflict here, so I’ll try to explain a little about the situation...

The Yahoo group on which OI was started has always been EXPERIMENTAL. We never published a doctrinal or mission statement because the doctrine and mission has been an EVOLVING MATTER. At this point an official statement has been drafted, but it has NOT YET BEEN PUBLISHED (this opens the question of how you can possibly know so much about OI when even WE have only recently come to a private agreement on these matters). The (almost) three years on Yahoo were a learning experience for us which I consider valuable. Our main goal now is to spend the next several months building the organization into the structure which I have empirically determined is the most effective. A website will follow on our new domain which will serve to explain the organization. Please understand the implications of what I'm saying: In a certain respect, OI has not yet even COME INTO BEING. It is inappropriate for you to demand the right to promote a narrow and unfounded POV description of us before we've even really gotten the organization off the ground.

Again, because I'm a reasonable man, I'm leaving the decision to you: Either choose to have no mention of OI whatsoever here, or allow me to have a primary position in drafting a "pre-release" description for you. (In the case of the latter, I'll pretend that I did not receive your offensive accusation that I am INCAPABLE of drafting a NPOV description. For God's sake, are you actually capable of condemning something BEFORE I EVEN WRITE IT? My stance here from the beginning has been defensive and I've done nothing to provoke your insult.)

These are the ONLY options I'm willing to agree to, and this is the last I have to say about it. Again, this is not a matter of us having a disagreement about something external to both parties. This is MY PRIVATELY OWNED ORGANIZATION and MY PERSONAL NAME you are publicly addressing. I will not under any circumstances back down from my position. I will take this all the way to arbitration if necessary, and farther as a last resort. But can you please see that I do not want this fight? I'm not some cyber-punk who goes around fishing for flame wars---I hate that crap. I'm a 41 year old guy who has much more important things to do than argue in circles about this ridiculous issue. But as much as I don't want this fight, I need to draw the line somewhere. Your group (Scott's "Clubhouse Forum") has been hostile toward OI from day one, and you stepped over a line of decency when you tried to do this.

If you still have trouble understanding, let me ask you this question: Would YOU allow ME to contribute a description of Scott’s group? I already know the answer and so do you, so please don’t make yourself a hypocrite by doing to me what you would not allow to be done to yourself. Please, let's not waste any more time here. Don't take this personally or let pride get in the way. Simply put yourself in my shoes and understand that this is just common sense.

Respectfully, Dean W. (user ID #349586)


I feel I have done alot to meet you half way, but you have (over the emails we sent to each other) acted like a total jack ass. There is no way I will give out my information to you so stop demanding it. You just stopped emailing and didnt add anything about your group to this, so you left the table. If you wish to add the information yourself, then do it, but just because it is privately owned does not mean it will not be added to wiki. Oh, btw, my research comes from several danish authored books, not english. No idea who the hell Kathy Stringer is, googled the name and it came up with an advertising firm. I do take this personally because you are demanding my name and phone number, no one would disagree with me when I tell you no. You are allowed to post about Scotts own group, no idea what it is for one though. Last email he sent to me was that he needs to leave the whole scene inorder to leave ABDL. He said he cut off all family contacts and a bit more. Too bad, but so what? Go Request an admin to comment if you feel it isnt NPOV.

Does christianity play so significant a role in infantilism to warrant mentioning the viewpoints of a small group of christians on this page at all? No offense to the parties involved, but there are certain forms of christianity that have rules regarding the handling of poisonous snakes, and yet there is not mention of this church in the article on venomous snakes. Why? Because most christians don't really care much about snakes in the context of their religion, except as a metaphor. Now, since Dean has stated repeatedly that he doesn't want his group mentioned on this page, and his really is the only sect of christianity thats eems to care one way or the other about infantilism, why not give him what he wants? I don't see any mention of the Westboro Baptist Church on the page covering funerals. Besides, discussing infantilism in the context of just one faith is really POV anyway. If you must talk about religion here, why not discuss generic religion? Dave 21:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


Because Infantilism is so small, his small group does play a roll in the community. But, this is besides the point, I edited out what he objected to in the first place, the word fundamentalism, so it no longer is a 'personal attack', but it seems any mention of the group is a personal attack to him, I do not know why. But still, he has left the tabel in discussing this subject so I can no really dismiss what he says, he hasn't said anything yet. -- OrbitOne

A couple of points

  • I'd have to agree with Dave, I find the "Christianity" entire section odd. It's pretty limited coverage, aren't there any Muslim/ Buddhist/ Whatever infantilists? I'm not clear on what it adds to the article. Of course, if it exists just to justify the OI entry, it should go.
  • Given that, the current subsection is NPOV, except that the bold face is unnecessary. I also disagree with the assertion that "it seems any mention of the group is a personal attack to him". Quite the opposite, in fact. Where is the love?
  • Can everyone please start to sign their posts? It's very easy, either use four tildas like this:~~~~ or hit the "sig" button (second from the right when you're editing). It really does help everyone if you do this, as it not only puts your name but the time, and makes it easier to see where your comment ends.

Thanks,
brenneman(t)(c) 07:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Love went out the door when he could take a civil no to me denying him my phone number. The guy was very hostile to me over the emails. -- OrbitOne

  • It would be inappropiate of me to comment on material that is not in evidence. What I will comment on, chronologically:
    • Dean enters discussion, feels the the OI material is POV, offers to collaborate.
    • He gets a bit of a rebuff, is told flatly "no".
    • Dean gets his shirt up a bit. Makes two clear points, says "malicious", and again offers to collaborate.
    • This offer is tacitly refused, and he gets smeared as racist.
    • He opens with an apology, again offers to collaborate.
    • A small revert war happens.
      • First, we should remember this is Wiki. No one is compelled to use the talk pages before making edits. However,
      • Dean had used the talk pages. He got no love so he was bold.
      • Multiple reverts do require the use of the the talk page. This was not done.
      • Dean shoots himself in the foot, removing the less POV version. He gets reverted without comment. Again.
    • Dean comes back to the talk page. He's pretty pissed off. (No comment on his claims about what took place over email.) Again he offers to collaborate (although a "pre-release draft" is a strange way to say it.) He makes the reasonable request, "Please, let's not waste any more time here. Don't take this personally or let pride get in the way."
    • He's told "we tried to work with you", although there is no evidence of this presented. He's told "Go Request [sic] an admin".
    • And now it appears he's gone.
  • Let's be clear - This is not acceptable behavior.
    • A review of the talk pages of this and ancillary articles will reveal this pattern is not unique to the OI discussion.
    • Editors who wish to contribute must be assumed to operate in good faith until proven otherwise.
    • There is no gatekeeper role, no single editor can "lock down" or "approve" material.
    • At all time civility must be observed. This means no more talk of "crusades", "axes to grind", or people's "problem with AB/DL".
  • See my comments below regarding "crabby boots".

brenneman(t)(c) 00:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

my final attempt to explain the "personal attack" matter

This message is to anyone else who is reviewing this page. I can't talk to Orbit any more because it's pointless---he's obviously made up his mind what he wants to do and nothing I write seems to matter.

For those of you who are trying to sort this out, the disputed text was originally COPIED WORD-FOR-WORD from an Internet site (run by a guy named Scott) that has an undisputed public record of EXTREME HOSTILITY to my organization. The wording is calculated to project a negative view of my organization rather than an objective one. It boldly makes statements which PHYSICALLY AND ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE CORROBERATED. Note the following:

(1) The disputed text says (quote) "The results of those who have applied this appear to be quite mixed, and uncertain according to most reports." Where do these "most reports" come from when NO REPORTS EXIST? The actual support function of the organization is a completely separate sub-group known as the "S/A GROUP." The S/A Group is a PRIVATE group and membership is available ONLY BY WRITTEN APPLICATION plus a PHONE INTERVIEW. The only part of my site that basic members have EVER had access to is the informational front board which discusses general matters. Members who are in the actual S/A support program are PROHIBITED from posting specific information about S/A on that board. This is because we have a very strict CONFIDENTIALITY POLICY in the S/A Group to protect members from harassment. I know the name and phone number of each and every person who has ever been a member of the S/A support program. I can tell you positively that Scott was NEVER ONE OF THEM. Additionally, each member of S/A is required to agree to the strict confidentiality policy upon joining. There has been a total of ONLY 13 PERSONS who have taken part in the S/A Group thus far. NONE OF THEM HAS RELEASED PERSONAL INFORMATION. Even if Scott had obtained such information, he would be prohibited from making it public under U.S. privacy laws. I WILL PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF MY MEMBERS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.

(2) Next, the disputed text says (quote) "No case of any one individual from this group becoming free of both the practice and the desires for any significant length of time has yet been reported." This is just blatant deception. Once again, there is no way this COULD happen, because members of S/A are prohibited from sharing information about the group. But more importantly, this statement is purposefully misleading. The obvious intent of this statement is to lead people to believe that recovery from this paraphilia IS NOT POSSIBLE. Note that this is exactly the official position of Scott's group, which they aggressively promote. This is a matter of public record---go there yourself and check it out! Therefore, this is an attempt to promote a biased POV that cannot be empirically supported.

(3) Note that the phrase "from this group" is significant. This must logically refer to the private support sub-group (S/A Group) since it's the only group that is officially attempting to overcome in a formal manner. The problem here is that several individuals who have been GUESTS of the main (larger) group have testified to periods of freedom as long as SEVEN YEARS---including a significant reduction in the desires as well. But these people were not "from this group"---they were guests. Why? Because "the group" is NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING WELL!!! Please, is this not common sense? Do sober people join AA? But the point is that the disputed text obviously paints a picture which is off-center with reality. As for the people who are actually "from this group," I am prohibited by law from commenting on their progress---as explained above.

(4) The disputed text contains the phrase (quote) "...becoming free of both the practice and the desires for any significant length of time..." In the original text the phrase "AND THE DESIRES" was in bold type. Think about what is being said here. A bold INFERRENCE is being made here about the IDENTITY of the PRIMARY GOAL of my organization. Why? Because out of the myriad of "factoids" that could have been chosen to represent the organization, why was this (essentially inaccurate) "factoid" chosen? Does Scott (or Orbit) have the authority to determine that the PRIMARY GOAL of the S/A Group is to "become free of the both the practice and desires" and that anything short of this goal is FAILURE? (The text clearly infers failure to reach a primary goal---would any sane person dispute this?) What if our primary goal is to achieve the saving of a marriage, the deepening of a relationship with God, or the elimination of destructive shame from a person's life---and anything extra is ICING ON THE CAKE??? This is a hypothetical question, but of course Scott would never know how we ourselves would define our primary goal because HE NEVER ASKED. He wrote the description to trash my organization---not to promote it!!!

(5) Think a little more about the absurdity of the inclusion of the phrase "and the desires." By this standard, Alcoholics Anonymous is the GREATEST FAILURE IN HISTORY. How many thousands of people have quit drinking by joining AA? How many thousands of people would testify of the life-saving benefit of the organization? Yet is there EVEN ONE person who has been saved by AA who would testify that they never had a DESIRE to drink again? Let's say a guy joins AA and keeps himself sober for 5 years. Then in the 6th year he experiences a "desire" to drink again---but resists it. By this standard AA has FAILED this guy and wasted 5 years of his life! A similar statement to the disputed text could be made about AA. But the point is, would such a statement be REPRESENTATIVE of the organization? Or would it be a narrowly-focused "factoid" calculated to mislead people?

Let me recap the history of this disputed text. It originated from an attack on my organization by a group that has a public record of continuous hostility toward us. The text originally appeared after a person named "Jack" got mad at me because I would not let him post certain materials to my main page (his demands were less than polite, but he has since apologized and I forgive him). Jack (impetuously in his anger) went to the hostile group and posted inaccurate criticisms of my organization out of vengeance, which were of course embraced by the hostile group. The hostile group subsequently enshrined the criticism as "fact" in a descriptive paragraph in their link section. A member of my group witnessed this whole ordeal and brought it to my attention; I told him "Who cares? Don't let those people bother you. Just leave them alone." The text "Orbit" used here was a WORD-FOR-WORD EXCERPT from the aforementioned creative composition of the hostile group (go and compare it yourself). My numerous attempts here to point out his mistake and delete the biased text have been ignored as he continuously reverts the edit and calls this "meeting me half-way."

Since I've been put on the defensive here, let me say that I feel very good about the work my organization is doing. It makes me mad that I even need to bring this up, because I don't like to talk about such things, but I’ve personally saved at least six people from committing suicide since founding my organization. If I never do another good thing in my life, this alone makes it all worth it. There is clearly a demand for my organization. I've received many "thank you" notes from members.

I know I represent a minority opinion---that is the point! There are hundreds (if not thousands) of Internet sites that PROMOTE Infantilism, and only one that provides acceptance for those who simply CANNOT embrace the lifestyle. Yet I am often attacked by people who are so INTOLLERANT that they cannot stand EVEN ONE point of view that does not agree with their own. I get hate mail, viruses, and even an occasional thinly-veiled DEATH THREAT sent to me almost weekly by outsiders who really don't even understand what we're about. They have a twisted understanding of Christianity, assuming that we "abuse" each other with bible-enforced guilt---even though I repeatedly admonish my members NOT to beat themselves up with guilt!!!

The two options I have offered Orbit are infinitely reasonable. I am quite capable of composing a CONCISE and NPOV description of my organization if he MUST have one here. But I can just imagine the conflict that would ensue considering the intransigence I've encountered so far. So please---I'm asking any reasonable person here to back me up---just leave reference to my organization off this article. It's the easiest way to resolve this conflict. And I'm trusting that there will not be some kind of slyly-worded “hint-hint” type of reference either. Let's have some integrity here. Have we not wasted enough space on this page?

Respectfully, Dean W.

User:Dean W 06:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Talk%7EInfantilism_Archive_1_708e.html"