Talk:Infantilism/Archive 04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Archived talk

Discussion on 'infantilism in teens'

It is great to see others contributing to the article. Overall, it is ok, but could be better. Specifically, it touches on aspects that affect AB/DLs both under and over 18, and this limits how much focus it can give to the youths of infantilists. Additional points pertinent to TBs might include how AB/DLs under 18 are excluded from many AB/DL events, or the age on onset. ( Other points such as the cause of infantilism and how to tell if a child will be paraphilic should probably be left of wikipedia until there is more research done, or at least a broader concensus among AB/DLs. )

Also, are the other subgroups that we would like to see covered in more detail? BitterGrey 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Two changes were reverted. A) "...adult baby (AB), or teen baby (TB)..." was simplified to "...adult baby (AB)", to avoid using a term 14 paragraphs before it is defined. B) "About one in three adult/teen babies" was reverted to "About one in three adult babies", to remain true to the references. Dr. Speaker's thesis doesn't differentiate based on physical age. Dave's survey included teen babies as a separate statistic, and it is uncertain whether those who self-identified as teen babies would consider themselves ABs, DLs, or both. Dave also included categories for Diaper Wearer (DW), just [diaper-]curious (DC), and diaper slave (DS).
Also, please note that teen babies and ABs are not mutually exclusive in the common use, where 'adult' means 'not a baby.' Additionally, some use TB to mean "Total Baby."BitterGrey 05:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Discussion on Wetting/Bedwetting

Some of the points in this secton would be appropriate in a much larger article, but give an undue emphasis in a short article. The other points repeat or contradict points in made elsewhere in the article.

"Some AB/DLs also enjoy the idea of losing bladder control or deliberately wetting.." is covered in the section on diaper usage. (Which, as can be seen in the history, used to be much longer but was trimmed for length.)

"This can make them feel embarrassed...generate a feeling of naughtiness." A wet diaper can also be thrilling, arousing, sedating, frustrating, etc. To present a neutral point of view, these need to be represented in a balanced fashion. Presenting only one aspect gives a biased impression. "...can lead to potty training role play" Again, AB scenes can involve many roleplay themes. Potty training is one of the rarer ones, possibly because potty training often doesn't involve diapers.

"...can mean that nappies become a necessity." The point may have been that in a scene, a failed training attempt can be used as a justification for placing the AB back in diapers. However, as written, it suggests a physical incontinence. There are some ways in which AB/DLs might become incontinent. For example, AB/DLs might abuse catheters, which might cause bladder infections, which might damage nerve or muscle, which might cause incontinence. However, this point should be made directly, after researching how often this chain of events actually happens. There are simply too many things that "might" happen.

"This kind of play is more common in diaper lovers than in adult babies..." Roleplay is characteristic of ABs, although DLs may involve incidental roleplay. http://understanding.infantilism.org/what.php http://www.liljennie.com/whatisinf.php http://www.tbdl.org/index.pl?cat=Articles&sub=What_Is_Infantilism BitterGrey 06:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference #3 File Location Error.

Reference #3 is not working / not working with all 3 hyperlinks and should be removed or corrected.

[#1]Failed Section 10 - Into the Future
[#2]Failed Retrieved 2002 from http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Island/5861/ds3_s10.txt, now mirrored at
[#3]Failed http://web.archive.org/web/20010424192400/www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Island/5861/DS3_S10.txt

KAS 07:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The WayBack machine seems to have taken down all of their mirrors of geocities sites. I've emailed Dave, the author, to ask if it is OK to mirror his article. If it is OK with him, I'll replace the first and third URLs with the new URL. The second URL is historic, which is probably why APA_style includes a retreival date. It, and the remainder of the citation itself, should remain unchanged. BitterGrey 19:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Costumes and Props Derogatory

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Discussion vs Solo

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the there is no discussion here but just solo comments? I'm disappointed that it appears that the bulk of this essay is written by one person. This is awful because it appears that mostly only one POV is represented here rather then NPOV. I hope that other comments are allowed and not being reverted as in the past. KAS 11:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Much of what I have put up has been removed. Much of what remains is so because it is not the opinion of one person, but based on research and sited, verifiable references. Additions, supported by verifiable references, are of course encouraged. BitterGrey
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

Request ADMIN Help

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 00:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

Derogatory Statements

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]


Transitional Objects

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
Actaully, I had added the point "Infantilism should be discussed with one's spouse before mariage," with one supporting reference. It was removed by an editor. [Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

Problems

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
I'm trying to understand why you are using your own research as referenced on the link below. Can you please help me with an answer as to why your research qualifies for this essay? Reference below:
What Would it be Like to Wear Diapers 24/7? Retrieved March 15th, 2006 from http://understanding.infantilism.org/twentyfour_seven.php
KAS 14:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If you will visit that page, you will see that it has nine authors, each giving a firsthand account of their experiences. I just wrote the short segment at the end labled "BitterGrey" and gave it webspace. This is why I referenced it, but not the pages which I researched or wrote.BitterGrey 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

Problems with Blanket Statements

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

A compromise

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

AB vs DL

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

Dispute Costume and Props

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[perceived personal attacks removed by -Will Beback 09:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

Personal Attacks

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

Having not yet read the upper parts of this talk, rest assured that you now have my attention. - brenneman {L} 10:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
AFAIK, it would be illegal for her to fulfill her insufferable intimidation. If she did, I'm sure her host would be glad to terminate service. JayW 16:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but I suggest that everyone take a step back. Personal attacks are not permitted. Threats are not permitted. Threats to "out" someone in the real world are not permitted. Providing personal information about people that they would prefer to be kept private is not permitted. If people can't edit cooperatively, if people can't get along, and if people are resorting to these types of behaviour, then I suggest they move on to editing some other article.

If there are specific, blockable offenses, then I suggest that the involved parties cease them immediately. If any user persists in such activities, they can expect to be blocked. Exploding Boy 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto from another admin. Threats, personal attacks (including outings), and similar behavior are not tolerated. -Will Beback 06:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
I'll reiterate what Exploding Boy and Will have said, and remind everyone that this is the talk page for discussing changes to the infantilism article, and nothing else. Disruptive arguments are not welcome, but constructive discussion about the article is. So please, keep the discussion on topic. We don't want to have to block anyone. --bainer (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

2nd Request for Deletion of Personal Information

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]


[example of attack removed]. -Will Beback 08:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
Both of you please stop fighting. This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing ring. -Will Beback 08:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
Let's stick to discussing the article on this page, and avoid discussing each other. -Will Beback 09:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

The way you two are acting, I have half a mind to act as daddy and ground both of you until you two learn to behave! This whole fight is over preference of either clothe or disposible? I thought it was stupid when I heard flame wars raged over popped or unpopped balloons in balloon fetishes. Atleast, this is how it seems to have started. Will either of you two please stop being such babies and just help in writing this article? KAS, just pretend to be an adult. BG, just stop pushing any of KAS's buttons, one way or another. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 05:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello OrbitOne. It's not at all what the proplem is. But I have to thank you for the first smile I had all day :-) THANK YOU! KAS 06:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Article protected

The article is protected, for now. Both users are directed away from this talk page and onto their respective talk pages for my notices. Thanks. El_C 08:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Distribution of paraphilias among AB/DLs.

My original research (not yet complete, and not to be added to the article by me) suggests that about 40-60% of AB/DLs meet Criterion B. That is, only about half of all AB/DLs are paraphilic as defined by the APA.

Two verfiable references to DSM (already in the article) clearly state that AB/DLs must meet specific criteria to be diagnosed as paraphilic. That is, an adult baby might have paraphilic infantilism, but also might not. In addition, a diaper lover might have a paraphilic diaper fetish, but also might not. This is what the article stated before it was altered. As it is now, it implies that all adult babies have "infantilism" (the reference is specific to paraphilic infantilism; not physical, mental, hormal, or other infantilisms), and that all diaper lovers have a diaper fetish. Per the references left in place (even though the text was changed to contradicts them), this is unacceptable. The text does not match the reference.

If you beleive that, as the article currently states, that all diaper lovers have a paraphilic diaper fetish, please present verifiable references for that assertion. If you do not have verifiable references, please respect the verifiable references already in place. BitterGrey 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

Will Beback has raised two valid points: "Let's stick to discussing the article on this page" and "This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing ring." Verifiable references must one again become and must remain the foundation for this and all wikipedia articles. BitterGrey 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)