Talk:Infantilism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

1 Archived talk
2 Link removal
3 List of justification (Point by point)
- 3.1 Habituation
- 3.2 Pedophilia sections
4 New stub
5 Sources
6 Recent massive expansion
- 6.1 Re: Recent massive expansion
7 Behavior or paraphilia?
8 rolled back
9 Too short?
10 Does it really need to be 100% accurate?
11 Not true.
12 This has become -IDIOTIC-!!
13 GFDL copyright
14 Examples of citations
15 Mediation
- 15.1 Proposed structure
16 Scope of references
17 Workshop!
18 article location
19 Pedophilia sections
20 Binge Purge section
21 Habituation
22 Finding a mommy or daddy
23 Source
24 What Infantilism is Not
25 Unprotected
26 APA Style References
27 EDITS
28 Edit War
29 Wikipedia's Disclaimer
30 Editor - Author Profile Update
31 A Viable Solution
32 Edits -2
33 No Original Research
34 Valid Statements
35 Axioms
36 Child or baby?
37 Peer reveiw!
- 37.1 General cheerleading
38 The slow deletion???
39 ?

Archived talk

Link removal

I've removed the link to one of the websites as requested by the owner.

List of justification (Point by point)

What has been justified so far.

Add any other comments at the bottom, this is for ease of reference.

Habituation

Section: (A) As in everything else, the newness and novelty of specific AB/DL practices eventually wears off. (B)Some AB/DLs are stable and continue doing what they have been doing, at about the same frequency. Others will try new things to maintain the novelty. These new practices are usually more elaborate and extreme. (C) This pursuit continues until stability is reached, or some other factor limits the escalation.

Justification. (A) For readability. It can be cut if needed for length. (B) A paraphrase of the DSM text quoted above, and already cited, with infantilism substituited for masochism. According to DSM, infantilism is a masochism. (C) The logical result. A falling object will continue to fall until it stops. This could also be cut if we need to be more brief.BitterGrey 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia sections

Article section (with points lettered for discussion) (A) "Confusing infantilism with pedophilia is a common misunderstanding. (B) Pedophilia is a sexual preference for children. (C) In contrast, infantilists have a desire to be infants, and those with a diaper fetish have a sexual interest in diapers. (D) Generally, they have ordinary heterosexual or homosexual sexual experiences otherwise. (E) Inside the AD/DL communities, a sharp distinction is observed. DPF, one of the older AB/DL organizations, will expell child molestors. "

Justification: (A) Arndt, William B., Jr. (1991). Gender Disorders and the Paraphilias, pg 394, International Universities Press, ISBN 0823621502. (Promoted from Further Reading) (B) "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." ICD-10 sect. F65.4 (quote from Pedophilia. (C) DSM previously cited. (D) Tom Speaker, previously cited, pg 80. (E) "The Diapers They Are a-Changin'" by Peter Gilstrap, The New Times Los Angeles, March 7-11, 1999. While the newspaper doesn't seem to be around anymore, the article is available from DPF (http://www.dpf.com/gilstrap.html) and other sources. BitterGrey 16:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Tabulated: http://understanding.infantilism.org/justification.php BitterGrey 04:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

New stub

I've trimmed this back to a little stub. We can add things in that conform to WP:NPOV via WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources as we go. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

There appears to exist at least one reputable source for material regarding this, per Google Scholar. I don't present this as definative, but merely as an example of the fact that sources do exist and that we should not accept protestations otherwise. I found this one in under ten minutes. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent massive expansion

This article has once again blown out into a a long and unsourced one. If we can't provide citations from reliable sources, we can't include the information. This is a foundational concept in wikipedia. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Recent massive expansion

I (and whoever else would like to) can look though and see if it can be trimmed without comprimising clarity or content. As for sources, the infantilism article sites more references than the wikipedia articles on masochism, transvestism, and fetishism combined. Would a "further reading" secton, without specific references from the text, be of interest? Bittergrey 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that when someone puts something in they have a duty to add sources. It's not the job of other editors to come along and clean up, although it's often done. I also don't have those pages on my watchlist, but they should all cite sources. A further reading section would be good, as long as it was a reliable source per the guideline, but wouldn't solve the problems with this article. Have a look at a stub (that I wrote) to see sources cited: Archie McPhee. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Behavior or paraphilia?

This version presently states that infantalism is a paraphilic desire. Much of the unsourced editorialism I just chopped treated it as a behavior, and indeed even asserted that roleplay is inherent. Which is true? Is someone who desires to do this kind of stuff, but doesn't actually engage in play not an infantilist? Just curious. 24.224.153.40 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For most paraphilia (and lots of other things as well) the desire is the defining factor. A common example is alcoholism. Alternately, I think that someone who dressed in an outfit for the pleasure of their partner would not self-identify as being part of the group. But I'm not a psychologist, despite my diploma from Elbonia. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the desire, not merely the action, is a factor. As was stated in the article, those who engage in infantilistic practices for reasons other than an infantilistic desire are not inherently infantilistic. Astronauts, divers, and sadomasochists were given as examples, but this point applies equally for those who dress up to make someone else happy. The desire, however, is generally defined by the desired behavior. An alcoholic is distinguished from a drug addict by the substance (or more broadly, behavior) that they desire. The first of DSM's two criteria for the diagnosis of infantilism is action. Thus, when discussing infantilism, it is appropriate to discuss what infantilists desire to do.

BitterGrey 05:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

rolled back

I've rolled back to last fully cited version, and removed two links per Wikipedia:External links. Please, can we add material slowly, with references? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 10:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman, when you first replaced the standing article, your new article had only one reference. That powerpoint file didn't show any indication of having been published or presented, and didn't site any checkable references on infantilism. (Had the powerpoint file actually been presented, someone in the audience might have pointed out that the policeman didn't spell "infantalism" consistently.) The mere presence of a link in an infantilism article to a presentation on pedophilia makes the most dangerous assertion that you could have made. This sole reference was uncheckable, off-topic, biased, and inflammatory - everything that wikipedia should not be. However, you not only posted the link, but reposted when it was taken down. Your speed to undo the work of others while not accepting changes to your own work draws your objectivity into question, especially when it comes to evaluating which articles are "fully cited." Please desist from undoing the work of others. BitterGrey 05:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at my notes, and what I've written bears no resemblance to the link that you've described. I'll check again, but I've probably copied the wrong address when I was looking for sources. I'd prefer if we didn't make this personal at all, so I won't respond to anything else above except to say that I've only ever removed from any article material that was properly cited once, and that was a simple oversight. (It was the word "woofter" from List of sexual slurs.)
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If that wasn't the presentation that you meant to reference, shouldn't you have noticed when you reviewed the validity of its removal before putting it back up? BitterGrey 06:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Too short?

What does "Unlike pedophilia, infantilism does not involve children." mean? Isn't infantilism the desire to be (or be treated as) a very young child? 24.224.153.40 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The answer to this question was removed from the article on Feb 7th. If you would like, I would be happy to restore it. BitterGrey 03:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Bittergrey's edits were fine enough as they were, though possibly too extensive and biased. They seemed to reflect the views and terminology of the infantilist community rather than the views of what it actually represents. But the current version of the article is way too short to be useful, and damned if this would be useful to anyone who's curious about the issue. Does it really need to be 100% accurate if that means nothing important is said? I'm at least changing a few phrases around. DLGrif 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it really need to be 100% accurate?

In a word, yes. Given the choice between a very short and accurate article and a quasi-personal essay that may or may not reflect reality... there's not choice. The issue of unbiased representaion is simply not negotiable, and that means citing reliable sources. I've read one or two articles in mainstream magazines about this particular paraphilia, so references do exist. Find them, use them, there's no problem. This is an interesting topic that would make an excellent feature article if it had good sources.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If you must, you must. I suppose until it becomes a work of art, I'll just show people the old page. I won't be making anymore edits. DLGrif 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We can only quantify absolute accuracy in specific results, such as the exact length of a particular ten-inch rod. In general, accuracy is more subjective. We can shed a layer of semantics by grading on a curve, based on verifiability. The article with more references cited is expected to be more accurate than one with few references. A sample of 42 wikipedia articles found that 31 had zero references cited, 5 had 1 reference, 2 had 2 references, 3 had 3 references, and 1 had 5 references (although it was marked for deletion). This puts the pre-Feb 7th infantilism article at around the 94th percentile. (The sample was based on the last 50 articles edited by a particular Wikipedia admin, as of this morning. Since a number were redirects, there were only 42 unique articles.) Why was the infantilism article (3 references) axed while gay (zero references) was not? This is the second example of this admin's lack of objectivity.

I must agree with DLGrif's conclusion, but for better-defined reasons. If Wikipedia administrators practice double-standards and won't acknowledge their mistakes, they make their personal issues a liability to Wikipedia. The result is no longer worthy of the time of decent authors and readers. BitterGrey 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only presume that you're refering to me. Please don't make sideways accusations or personal assumptions. To say "a particular Wikipedia admin" is to try and introduce facts not in evidence, and makes refutation difficult. See the guideline about this sort of speech.
If you believe that I have a personal problem with this material rather than one based upon verifiability, I urge you to find sources and put in good material citing those sources to see my reaction.

brenneman ^{T}^{L} 06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, unless you answer for the two above examples of your double standard, I'm not wasting any more of my time. You dismiss complaints that mention your name as "personal." You dismiss complaints that don't mention your name as "sideways." I don't need to see what you will do, I've seen what you have done.

The sample was Raskol gangs, Loudspeaker, Dweeb, Loudspeaker, Ball hog, Major Bloodnok, Low Fell, BitTorrent, Jerry Jewell, Jeff, Credit score (United States), St. Edward High School, Debt consolidation, Death, Bid price, Haggling, Fecula, Sexual abstinence, Edward Davy Wedge, Nuclear utilization target selection, Debt, Gay, Jeremy Hammond, Colony 5, Wedding invitation, Online dating service, London Welsh F.C., Groucho glasses, Debt consolidation, Warrior, Water empire, House training, Okko Salminen, Ejszyszki, Rowarth, Conjoint, Brain Licker, Pontiac, Matchmaking, Pontiac, Interpersonal relationship, Sam A, and Robert Pickton, from Aaron's edit history. The majority of these articles cite no references whatsover, and yet they are stil up. The infantilism article has be cut down to a stub four times now. BitterGrey 15:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Gay is encyclopedic and in all appearance verifiable. The apologia formerly here is not possible to reference reliably. 24.224.153.40 16:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic" and "apparent verifiability" don't seem to be Wikipedia standards, they are words arbitrarily applied, based on one's personal bias. The Wikipedia standard is verifiability by references sited. Gay, like most of the articles above, has no references at all. BitterGrey 05:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe I can pick up all books refenced by the article and scan in a few pages to varify this is not original researched. I believe you can also go to the library and request the book and read it instead of saying it isn't to be verifide.

The point about number of references is an acceptable argument; references prove this is not original research and acurate.

--OrbitOne 14:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not true.

Pedophilia is not an action and hence obviously does not intrinsically involve nonconsensual acts with children; this is an invalid comparison.

We should not say "infantilism is practiced" unless talking about people fantasizing about being an infant. The words here would be "infantilistic play is practiced..."

Infantilism involves children, just not real children (kind of like lolicon). Pedophilia doesn't involve real children, either. 24.224.153.40 04:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, this level of semantics would only be appropriate in a much longer article, one that had a chance to distinguish between desire and action. BitterGrey 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So the nonsense goes until that article is here! Problem solved. 24.224.153.40 16:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. However, the sentence in question serves to summarize the reference, differentiating infantilism and pedophilia. Since your contribution does not fill this need by showing the contrast, the sentence needs to remain.BitterGrey 05:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's false; it has absolutely no basis in fact. It does not belong in Wikipedia. I'm sorry.

If you can write a verifiable, factual, neutral summary about why pedophilia and infantilism are different, please do -- though it seems really obvious to me. 24.224.153.40 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Time for me to interject here. The difference between infantilism and pedofillia is the one must involve sexual overtones (pedofillia). Infantilism does not demand sexual overtones. I am removing any comparison to pedofillia now and asking for an admin to moderate this dispute. --OrbitOne 13:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about paraphilic infantilism. Paraphilic infantilism if by definition sexual. If you want to start an article elsewhere about people who just find it comforting to dress as a young child, go ahead -- but this article is about the specifically sexual form of infantilism.

btw, the only comparison to pedophilia here is to show the contrast. 24.224.153.40 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is about Infantilism, as the name of the article implies. If you want to have an article about paraphilic infantilism, make an article with that title. --OrbitOne 21:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism is the sexual desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant -- as present. 24.224.153.40 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This has become -IDIOTIC-!!

There is seemingly a zeal shown by some users to cut this down and a zeal to show this fetish as the same as pedofillia. This is devolving into a war of words which can not be solved by either side here. I will request mediation from an admin and hope this version will be locked.

I request all edits stop here for one month, in which time users can post to the discussion references for both sides. Collect your references and post them here and how they are relevent to the article for later addition.

--OrbitOne 14:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The version you reverted to is unverifiable, unencyclopedic, probably WP:OR, and POV. For example, it asserts that pedophiles view children as sexual objects, and implies pedophilia inherently involves nonconsenting partners.

Lets rewrite it from the ground up, but cite our sources this time! Besides, much of the old article is apparently from BitterGrey's site, which isn't GFDL. 24.224.153.40 19:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL)?? Yeah, when you want to claim plagierism, you must give reference as to where it was stolen from. If you mean from bittergreys own website, he cant claim ownership when he has made the information public domain by posting it here himself.

By definition of law of many countries, children can not consent, so it is true enough.

As far as sources go, things were coming along well enough. References were made to several books, which validate this article. As mentioned before, articles on average have less than one refence, yet are accepted as good enough for wiki. I will hold this article to the standard which other articles are held by in regards to references, and call this good enough.

--OrbitOne 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of it appears to be from here. I wouldn't call this plagiarism, but BitterGrey hasn't included any copyright notice and he has recently asserted that his site is not available under the GFDL. If this is true, we can't use it here.

He also hasn't made the information public domain by posting it here. 24.224.153.40 23:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As for pedophilia, I don't think you get it. Children can't consent because they're not cognitively capable of giving informed consent. However, if I were fantasizing about children, and I decided the child in my fantasy can -- well, they can. It's a fantasy; it's not restricted by real-life rigmarole.

Pedophilia is viewing children as sexual objects as much as male heterosexuality is viewing females as sexual objects. Just, no. There's no such thing as "true enough" on Wikipedia, there's either true, not true, or neutral.

I don't have access to all the books, but they're listed as "further reading" and I doubt they provide the same information as this article. 24.224.153.40 23:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We should get into the pedophillia subject a bit later, the GFDL is more pressing. There is a notice on the edit option. It reads "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." He agreed to license his site uder the GFDL by posting the information here. He did post the information here himself, correct? --OrbitOne 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Some history might be helpful. In August 2005, I started gathering notes for a handout titled "An AB/DL Primer." (Because of professional obligations, progress was slow.) Unlike most of my work, this was intended to be a broad stand-alone article, as opposed to one focused page in a website, to be read alongside many other focused pages. A draft of this handout was distributed to several reviewers in January 2006. One of the reviewers had a question, and while looking into this question, I noticed that the wikipedia article on infantilism had been reduced to a stub and a link. The link was particularly dangerous since it implied that infantilists abused children sexually. Since misinformation like this can do irreparable damage, immediate action was needed. First, steps were taken to get the misleading link taken off and kept off. Next, the handout was modified for use as a new starting point for a wikipedia article. (Reposting the previous Wikipedia article would probably have just gotten it re-removed, wasting time and effort.)

It was hoped that the primer-turned-starting point would...

Reduce semantic debates by differentiating terms. For example, contributers probably wouldn't address the differences between paraphilic infantilism and psychosexual infantilism. However, they and the readers would be affected by these differences. The definitions wouldn't be final, but at least they would be part of the discussion.
Provide an initial structure for the article, to be adjusted or replaced as needed.
Offer a context in which specific points can be made. This need was illustrated by 24.224.153.40's attempts to differentiate between desires and practices. As we've seen, an article of only a few sentences doesn't permit such delicate points to be explained. Without the context, there was a shouting match over what those few sentences should be.
Eliminate the chance that someone will post something before taking the time to understand it, just to fill the blank space.

This contribution was then removed three times by two individuals. Why they did so is discussed elsewhere. (This contribution was under the GFDL. The additional material taken from my website, by one of these individuals, is not under the GFDL. The copied material was from my research back in 1995.) After doing what I could for Wikipedia, I moved on to start updating Understanding Infantilism with the material from the research that went into the AB/DL Primer.

While I could have done without the month of stress, it is great to see that an article is finally being adjusted specifically (well, at least for the momment), instead of broadly blanked. If it can stabilize, stay reasonably correct, and steer clear of unsupported criminal allegations, I'll be happy. BitterGrey 07:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. BitterGrey, if you don't understand the GFDL, please don't lecture others about non-existent violations of it.

Also, you're violating copyright law on Understanding Infantilism at present. You need to include a notice that some portions are under the GFDL.

And I'd be interested to see which version ever implied infantilists sexually abused children.. Ineloquent 22:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The sole reference of one January 17th version was a powerpoint file on pedophilia. One bullet reads "Not all infantalists are paedophiles but there is a definite link." The powerpoint file doesn't give references to support this accusation, or discuss what kind of "link" he was refering to. It might be nothing more that a presumption made by another policeman. BitterGrey 01:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

GFDL copyright

Hi BitterGrey. I used "Understanding Infantilism" to find some of the extra information in the "Further reading" section, and the rest I found on Google. I didn't copy-and-paste anything so as to violate copyright law; you'll see they're formatted quite differently. Besides, it's kind of silly to try to claim copyright over a citation. 24.224.153.40 19:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

One book, yes, but all six?. It was blatantly clear that you only knew the books from the further reading from my website, and that you did not credit the source. Where I posted page numbers, you copied the page numbers to here. Where I didn't post page numbers, you didn't have page numbers - because you haven't seen the books. I would have prefered it if you had acknowledged that my contributions were rooted in sound research before trying to give the appearance that you had done that research. BitterGrey 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So if we give you credit, everything is cool? --OrbitOne 10:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. BitterGrey 15:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

BitterGrey, you added the books in the first place, I googled to try to fix your formatting, found your site, and put the rest of the information there without an edit summary. This is not a copyright violation, and if you don't like it, too bad. I don't really give a damn whether you want credit for reading a book. Don't get so worked up over other people using your website, k?

And there's no need to give BitterGrey credit in the article for the Further reading section, since it's not under any copyright other than GFDL, which is in the history. Ineloquent 22:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples of citations

I'll save any further defence of my character, refutations of personal attacks, or astonishment that verification and citation are apparently though optional. Instead I'll simply provide some examples of the level of citation that we should strive for. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

This article has had it's fair amount of interesting history, including a previous mediation done by myself, which, I think at least in part, culled the differences somewhat. I see that it's flared back up, so I'll provide some pointers. The ground rules:

No personal attacks, period. If this happens, you will most likely be blocked for it by me or whoever else notices, so there's little point in attacking somebody. The tempers may be running high when the editing gets hot and this is where you take a step back, reflect on what your problem is with the other editor and the article and go to this page and ask what you can do to resolve the situation.
Remember 3RR guys. It will also get you blocked, fast.
Cite your sources. Normally this isn't done (although it always should), but in a dispute this becomes very important. There's no use in editing the article without sources to back up your claims as the other editors involved in the dispute will revert your changes, and the dispute will just escalate. There's little point in this, so this is a very important point.

I'll monitor the article for a bit and then decide if I should protect the article or not. I can't always be around, but I will try to check in on it at least a few times a day.

Now for the mediation. I think a good course of action here is to step back and not edit the article for a bit. Let's get a conversation going here. What's everyone's vision of what the article should be? Are there any common views emerging from this? Let's find out. Inter\^Echo 11:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer a request for comment, to draw a wider range of editors to this. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcomed to make the request sir. But you will need to make the request to others yourself if you want that. --OrbitOne 13:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In terms of stability, it seems better to wait for those who have thoughts, insights, and research to share than to invite many, who might not have an interest in the topic, to come and make changes. BitterGrey 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually find that comment a bit worrying. I cannot think of a circumstance where we should not welcome greater attention being placed on an article. We have a policy that dictates that all articles are public property. Is there some reason that this article in particular would not benefit from broader input? - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 04:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please interpret it in context. I welcome and encourage thoughtfull adjustments, or even insightfull rewites. However yesterday, the article was again been blanked by someone who seems not to have read the further reading. We need the right people, not just more people. BitterGrey 05:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And again, that comment doesn't seem hopeful to me. Some who makes an editorial decision to remove a section is not the "right" kind of person? Additionally, I notice that the page was quickly reverted to the "preferred" version. Part of compromise is allowing m:The wrong version to stand. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The page was reverted to the version that was up when the request not to edit the article for a bit was made. It was also not a section that was edited, but nearly the entire article that was blanked. And yes, someone who repeatedly blanks an article without checking the reading or references, after being asked not to, is the wrong kind of person.BitterGrey 06:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed structure

  * 1 Psychology 
        o 1.1 DSM-IV (or is it V now?) 
        o 1.2 Manifestations
              + 1.2.1 Binge-purge cycle 
              + 1.2.2 Permanent regression fantasy
        o 1.3 Gender identity
              + 1.3.1 Gender swap roleplay
              + 1.3.2 Sissy babies
              + 1.3.3 Castration/SRS
  * 2 Lifestyle
        o 2.1 Practices
              + 2.1.1 Partners
              + 2.1.2 Diaper lovers
              + 2.1.3 Adult babies
              + 2.1.4 Sissy babies
  * 3 See also
  * 4 External links

I proposed this structure before and recieved very little comment. If we could work towards some accepted common goal that would help. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 04:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(2nd try at posting this) This proposal wasn't overlooked, but I chose not to get involved with Wikipedia back then. We might not want to dedicate much space to sissy babies, since there is another article on that. (There might not have been back then.) Some mention of diaper lovers might be useful, since it is extremely difficult to discuss infantilism as anything other than a fetish, without contrasting it with diaper fetishes. This mention wouldn't be extensive, since there is already an article on diaper lovers too.

If you have some references on the frequency of paraphilic infantilism and Castration/SRS, could you share them? While this topic has a high shock value, it doesn't seem disproportionately common among the infantilists that I know.

As you know, I'd move the binge-purge section back to practices, and permanent regression over to fantasies.

Finally, everyone that I have spoken with about infantilism has had a question about the contrast between infantilism and pedophilia. I think this would be one of the more important points that the article could make. An encyclopedia article that did not adress it would be lacking.

For a side-by-side, here is an outline of the second article posted in January, with similarities emphasized where possible.

  * 1 Psychology 
        o 1.1 DSM-infantilism
        o 1.2 ...contrasted with diaper fetishes (different categories in DSM) 
  * 2 Other contrasts
        o 2.1 pedophilia
        o 2.2 related but unequal terms; psychosexual infantilism, regression, etc.
        o 2.3 similar actions/different urges
  * 3 Fantasy
        o 3.1 permanent regression fantasy
        o 3.2 with other things included; sissies, etc.
        o ....
  * 4 Practices
        o 4.1 binge-purge cycle
        o .....
  * 5 See also
  * 6 References
  * 7 External links

BitterGrey 14:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bittergrey has made an outside source based on books which we do not care to read, so it is best if we discuss what parts are verifiable by those books and what isn't.

javascript:insertTags('--OrbitOne 06:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)',,);--OrbitOne 06:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bittergrey, do you care to give more rsources to your article?

The example below has been blanked four times in the last eight days, even though it is clearly covered by a reference that is respected and available in many libraries. A lack of references is not the problem. As for resources, if we were able to get people to edit after reading the references, as opposed to blanking out of prejudice, I would have more time to give towards improving the article. BitterGrey 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I will talk with an admin about locking this page since they keep getting deleted. I think this falls under vandalism to some degree since there is no reason to delete references. I will see what I can do to get it locked with references until you have some more sources which we can see. --OrbitOne 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has been protected for the time being. I am watching your discussion with interest. So far it seems to be a nice and friendly tone here. Inter\^Echo 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Scope of references

Sections of the article are getting blanked, even though they are supported by references. For example, DSM lists infantilism under masochism. As would be clear to anyone who has read the reference, it directly supports "Paraphilic infantilists are generally masochistic." Since this isn't the first reference to DSM in the article, that sentence doesn't have a citation number next to it. As it happens, it has just been cut back again as not verifiable. Should references be repeated wherever applicable, or could we ask that people actually read references before assuming that the reference applies to only one sentence? BitterGrey 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd assume that anyone doing this to themselves is engaging in some kind of self-degradation anyway, so I think the masochistic qualities of this phenomena would be near-obvious. I agree that this aspect certainly needs to be addressed and see no reason why anyone should delete it. --DanielCD 15:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If a statement or assertion comes from a specific source, it needs to be clear what that source is. Many, if not most, infantilists I've met do not consider themselves to be masochistic. This whole topic generates a lot of disagreement over semantics. In this particular example especially, it is important to be clear who is defining the terms. --Herold 07:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It took a number of informal surveys around the community for me to accept DSM's classification, under masochism, as well. There are clearly infantilists that aren't into conventional bondage or other typical expressions of BDSM, just the loss of the status and control of adulthood. There is also a large set that is both into diapers and bondage, but not at the same time. Finally, there are some that mix the two. After this clarification, the academically respected source agrees well with first and second-hand observations. BitterGrey 15:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Should references be repeated wherever applicable, or could we ask that people actually read references before assuming that the reference applies to only one sentence?BitterGrey 13:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

John Money's 1984 article in American J. of Psycotherapy, for example, includes multiply cited references (and two words on "autonepiophilia"). Perhaps it would be reasonable in this article as well. BitterGrey 16:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Workshop!

Talk:Infantilism/workshop Ineloquent 02:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, if you can keep in mind that this is just like the live article with one exception, nobody will see it except the editors who are currently debating it. I'll allow this as long as it doesn't generate into a flame war or an edit war. What about taking each section, one by one, of the article and work on it until everyone can agree on it? Inter\^Echo 22:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Might I suggest that we start with the pedophilia section? Pedophilia was the topic of the new article's first conflict, and has been affected by a third of the changes since. (As of 5 AM Feb 16th, there were 66 changes since the first stubbing. 11 were marked as minor. The pedophilia section was involved in 19 of the non-minor changes, 34%. ) I have a hunch that if we can settle on a compromise for this section, most of the article's volatility will disappear. BitterGrey 03:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That section mustn't imply pedophilia involves nonconsenting partners or actual children, nor should it claim that pedophilia is a "compulsion to treat children as sexual objects." That's all. Ineloquent 04:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Since we've already been through a number of cycles of sequential revision without coming to a stable compromise, perhaps we should try a different tactic. Let's each write our own isolated version of the pedophilia section here on the talk page. Include references and background information if available. Then, after we've defined our positions, we can try to find a common ground. BitterGrey 04:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Another good idea. Inter\^Echo 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add it here after I'm done sleeping. Ineloquent 04:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Following the discussion with interest. I don't feel it neccessary to interrupt the discussion as long as the discussion is healthy. It now seems you have a course of action and work has already begun. I'm monitoring this, but so far you guys seem willing to work together. I'll still leave the article protected until we've reached a compromise. Inter\^Echo 21:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

article location

I would like to propose a rather different structure to this article. I think part of the problem here is I see two main meanings for "infantilism". First, there is the mostly clinical meaning that infantilism refers to regressing to or exhibiting traits of an earlier developmental stage. The second, and clearly disputed meaning refers to Adult Babies, Diaper Lovers, and Age Play in general.

As this is an article on "infantilism", lets keep it focused on that. Have separate articles for paraphilic infantism, Adult Babies, Diaper Lovers, etc. If we try to go into every possible aspect of all the different forms of infantilism in detail in a single article, it will get long, confusing, and in my opinion, counter productive.

The two proposed structures I've seen here seem to me to be more appropriate for an article on Adult Babies, rather than on infantilism. I think splitting the article up like this would also make the struggle with the balance of simplicity vs completeness. --Herold 07:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We could consider moving this article to 'paraphilic infantilism' and redirecting to it from 'infantilism' and 'adult baby.' Eventually, the infantilism page might become a disambiguation page, connecting to paraphilic infantilism and the other infantilisms, such as tourette syndrome ( aka Brissaud's disease aka Brissaud's infantilism aka Brissaud's syndrome aka Brissaud-Meige syndrome ). Paraphilic infantilism is the dominant specific meaning of infantilism, at least according to Google. BitterGrey 15:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia sections

(Please remember that these are sections representing the positions of individuals, posted here in hopes of finding a common ground. Feel free to insert your patch in whatever order you like)BitterGrey 16:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks really good to me. Just two qualms:

"They have ordinary heterosexual or homosexual sexual experiences otherwise."

The word "generally" is probably needed here. As with any group of people, sex diversity is bound to be present in at least a minority.

"DPF, one of the older AB/DL organizations, will expell child molestors."

The source says they will expell pedophiles. Does he mean pedophiles or child molestors? Ineloquent 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The first observation seems reasonable. Changed. Regarding the second, the New Times Los Angeles article doesn't seem to make the distinction between the urge (pedophilia) and the act (child molestation). DPF doesn't employ 'thought police,' and so expulsions would be based on actions. Since the urge vs. action differentiation has repeatedly been an issue here, I thought it best to be specific. BitterGrey 17:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we give others more time to post their sections, or move on? BitterGrey 14:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Others are clearly eager to move on. Can we get a buy-in from Ineloquent and Aaron Brenneman at least? BitterGrey 14:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can move on now. Ineloquent 20:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Binge Purge section

I would like to see if there are any references in published books. --OrbitOne 12:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. The practices, such as binge-purge, are largely experiential. My guess would be that many of the publications on paraphilias would tend to focus on the paraphilia, not their behavioral side-effects. Technically, these aren't part of the paraphilia, but may be part of life as a young paraphilic. (As in the case with the related eating disorder, stability is generally developed over time. However, adressing the issue can reduce the damage done.) There were two webpages that dealt with the binge-purge cycle in infantilism. One was at SIDNY (http://www.sidny.org/home.php) but was taken down with their educational section, due to political issues. SIDNY's newsletter also had a 'Dear Abby' style advice column that responded to a letter from someone experienceing it. The other was written by me in 2002, so I didn't put it in as a reference ( http://understanding.infantilism.org/purge.php ).BitterGrey 15:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you submit your paper to any publication in psychology. This will make it possible for you to reference yourself without credibility being put on your shoulders; credibility would come from the publication. --OrbitOne 17:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Habituation

Sorry that I wasn't present for the previous discussion on habituation. DSM reads "Some individuals with Sexual Masochism may engage in masochistic acts for many years without increasing the potential injuriousness of their acts. Others, however, increase the severity of the masochistic acts over time..." (As is generally the case, the effects of paraphilias reported by the police or coroner are well documented. In the case of masochism, the progression toward the more extreme and risky was investigated due to the accidental deaths that resulted. ) These two groups have been called "naturals" and "balances" in a study on femdom in San Francisco. ( Gini Graham Scott, "Dominant Women, Submissive Men. NY: Praeger Press, 1983. I havn't tracked down a copy of this article, but it was touched on by Speaker.) Infantilism-specific sources have referred to this tendancy as "the black hole" ( http://www.dpf.com/theory.html ). Tommy, the founder of DPF, claims "I have never met an Infantilist who has not felt the 'pull' of THE BLACK HOLE at some time or other time in his or her life." It reasonable to assert that this tendency occurs in infantilists. However, we could debate whether the driving mechanism is habituation or desensitization, since DSM doesn't mention why. My preference would be not to perpetuate the use of undefined terms such as natural/balancer or black hole. BitterGrey 04:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us a few links and can you rewrite the section based off of what is in those references? --OrbitOne 20:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Finding a mommy or daddy

How much of this section can be refered to another source? --OrbitOne 13:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A table for this section has been added to justification.php . BitterGrey 04:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Source

Can "Understanding Infantilism" be used as a reliable reference? Ineloquent 20:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In hopes of reading responces from others, I delayed in answering. My own bias isn't hard to guess, but I'd like to think that I've demonstrated objectivity in the references made and not made. The pages listed above (under Examples of Citations) as having exemplary citations are clearly the ideal that we should work for, however, some great articles do not meet this standard. (Would this be the right place to point out that the third reference in the third example, Mainstreams_of_Modern_Art, appears to be a link to Google?) BitterGrey 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! The talk page there would have been better... but now that I've looked again, it was from a google cache which is perhaps borderline, and it's been fixed up now to point to a web.archive.org location. The point that our references should be as good as we can possible make them is well taken, though. Now back to our regularly schedualed programming.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What Infantilism is Not

For many, what Infantilism is NOT

Infantilism is NOT Practiced;

Infantilism is NOT Pedophilia;

Infantilism is NOT ABDL (alaphabet soup);

Infantilism is NOT sexual or psychosexual;

Infantilism is NOT Paraphilic;

Infantilism is NOT a Fetish

How a group of authors identify Infantilism does not define Infantilism for many of us.

KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Many find it refreshing, *for them* that Infantilism is defined here:

http://www.toddlertime.com/dx/regression/infantilism.htm

and Feedback here:

http://www.toddlertime.com/dx/regression/infantilism-feedback.htm

In depth components here:

http://www.toddlertime.com/mh/general/disturbances.htm

KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

I still stand by my work as research and the comments of what Infantilism is NOT.

As for the APA – at one time homosexuals were defined as a disorder and social pressure changed that. So much for the APA. Not only that, but Axis II Borderline Personality Disorder criteria has changed from one revision to the next. In fact, one of the APA’s greatest authors (GABBARD) admitted he wasn’t the best qualified to write on some disorders, but the APA publishers wanted a fluid theme from one disorder to another, and secured this author to write an ENTIRE book on ALL the disorders. Were you aware of this?

I consider the weight of the FEEDBACK http://www.toddlertime.com/dx/regression/infantilism-feedback.htm, (by treaters and persons in the biz) on my research and work, more then the APA in this case. Wikipedia is free to write and publish anything they want on the subject of Infantilism, however, I continue to stand by my work what infantilism is NOT. I’m not a stranger to quality in Mental Health, diagnosis or terminology. I have written a quality manual on mental health that is used as a training manual, teaching aid and published on a state contractor site: http://www.pai-ca.org/PUBS/545801.pdf This work is also used in many California Counties and adapted in other states. Anyway, my thoughts… KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

EVIDENCE

Where is the evidence in any of the references that the term AB/DL is associated with infantilism? If not appropriately referenced, I would like to see the term AB/DL deleted. KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

As I indicated, since AB/DL is NOT "appropriately" referenced, it should be removed. Anyone can publish something in a newspaper. This same sort of thing has happened in the transgender community. The acronym TV/TG/TS as OFFENDED many in this commuity. The TS community sees this as NOT a fetish but born into the wrong sex. Whereas the TV community sees this as a fetish. Since the APA does not refernce the slag AB/DL as INFANTILISM it should be removed. The TS community was highly offened to be lumped into a FETISH group of TV.

I don’t belive the term INFANTILISM should be highjacked into an acronym of AB/DL without appropriate evidence, which there is none. KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

I don't see DPF as an appropriate reference. And, years ago it was only AB and NOT AB/DL. I was hoping this reference to AB/DL could be separated before having to rewrite and blanking the main definition page. DPF is not even sited as a reference (and should not be). KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

You can’t have it both ways. First you indicated that we use APA to defined INFANTILISM, and then when AB/DL is NOT in the APA, it appears you are rationalizing that we look to newspapers to connect INFANTILISM with AB/DL. It seems you are mixing two references that do not confirm each other. Like I stated, at one time there was no AB/DL, only AB (and you didn’t address this point – I wonder why). To put it to you correctly, many people are HORRIFIED to have infantilism to be mixed into DL due to the FETISH aspect, and *especially* associated with DPF. IT IS THERE WORST NIGHTMARE FOR A LOVED A ONE TO ASSOCIATE DPF with their behaviors and are not a fetish. It is not by chance the essay “True Infantilism” does not reference any fetish pages. Many would NEVER recommend it to their treaters and loved ones if it did. You have no right to force your Point of View on so many that do not agree to be lumped into AB/DL. As I stated, unless there is a correction of lumping AB and DL together, (It’s also NOT supported by any appropriate references) then there must be a rewrite. I believe this is a credible argument and a reasonable amount of the Infantilism community will agree with these views. It must be stated it in the main definition that the views of many others are not shared in the current definition. - KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

I did read it, and I read it several times. It still lumps in AB/DL, and again you didn't address the AB change to AB/DL. I still refer to the other points raised in my last message(s). I guess at this point in time, it's not a matter if the page gets rewritten, but when. I will rewrite most of it, same as you did, AND by the same authority you did. Where I hesitate to use DPF as a global reference, you gladly put it out there as if it applies to everyone, and it doesn't, not by a long shot - for reasons already stated (there is a lot of S&M with DPF and clouds the issue of infantilism). At this point nothing meaningful is being done, so it's time to get to work I suppose, and unpack 25-some boxes of hard-core psych books, and journals. This may be interesting - KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Point -

I noticed that you are using WATSON to support AB/DL in the newspapers on the BABY MAN / William Windsor article. Yet, this same individual that was interviewed felt differently about AB/DL after reading this essay on True Infantilism. His message to me AFTER the article in print is the following:

http://www.toddlertime.com/dx/regression/infantilism-feedback.htm

“I don't know whether to kiss or kill you. (lol) After years of wondering why I was unable to validate my own creative style as an actor and recording artist( always mimicking other artists or actors--never able to create and develop my own unique "style") I now have an idea as to why this was. Unfortunately for me, this knowledge comes to me too late in life to be able to be of any benefit to me in a professional/career sense. Hollywood and Nashville are youth oriented, marketing wise. But at last, some long time unanswered questions have been, if not answered, at least shed a little light on. Probably wasn't much I could do about it anyway. The best thing for me to do when I had a choice was choose a different career. But I certainly had the talent and looks for a successful career in showbiz. Just the wrong psyche.

I am a 'True Infantilist.' At least in the sense your and Dr. Vaknin's essays describe. A lot of other unanswered questions were also addressed in those treatises. Thank you. Sincerely, William Windsor”

William Windsor's reference to essay here: http://www.toddlertime.com/dx/regression/infantilism.htm

As you can see, the reference to AB/DL on the main page is not an appropriate one. It was only a mention in the newspaper. In this case it appears that Windsor's idea of AB/DL was shifted to True Infantilism once it was articulated. (Back to unpacking books - aggggggg) KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

BitterGrey let me please redirect your attention. Your point #1 is a distortion and was incorrectly referenced by you. There was a prefix to my statement. I stated,

FOR MANY, what Infantilism is NOT === "Infantilism is NOT Paraphilic" Did you notice the prefex "For Many?"

Next,

I almost missed this BitterGrey - Your point #2. The essay TRUE INFANTILISM is published/or linked on other sites BY other people (not me) and also linked.

http://www.raysoflightnews.blogspot.com/ (author incorrectly mention – authored by K. Stringer)

http://www.jessicasplaypen.com/Information%20on%20infantilism.html

http://www.fetishfish.com/articles/fetishdictionary/diaper-fetish/

http://www.geocities.com/heartland/meadows/5838/contacts.html

http://www.carebearsplace.com/help.htm

http://delphiki.blogspot.com/2005/06/are-adult-baby-diaper-lovers-real.html

http://www.darknursery.com/misclinks.htm

http://www.littlefoxy.org/html/body_my_links.html

http://www.ab-outfitter.com/links.html

http://www.thehelparchive.com/new-339513-43.html

http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/group/alt.parents-teens/messages/60632.html

Be careful of what you suggest or imply as to my character. It's noted. Also, http://www.toddlertime.com is listed on many, many reliable mental health sites. The rest I will address in the re-write.

KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, you keep missing the point. You are the one insisting using the APA, but not correctly when it suits you. It will all be explained and correctly referenced in the rewrite, and referenced from books published by the APA and other notable publishers. Just in case you are not aware, there are other mentions of INFANTILISM in the APA published books that it appears you missed. However, there is no mention of AB/DL which will be dropped in the rewrite. I'm lucky because at one time I was investing close to $800 a month on books and journals from the APA and other notable Publishers (Aronson is another great Publisher). Those will be included in the rewrite. One more point: NOWHERE in the APA does it use a term such as AB/DL as a COLLECTIVE GROUP. It's poor writing to do so. For instance in the DSM you won't find "NPD/BPD/APD are very disturbed individuals." It's just not done and you should also reframe from doing it. Meaning a person is NOT their diagnosis BUT a person WITH a diagnosis. Again, it appears that you missed that in the DSM (by the APA) and you will never find a statement referencing to a person as BPD but "A person WITH BPD." In same matter (according to the APA which you love to reference) following this same process, there is NO AB/DL but a person that has AB or has DL. BUT NEVER “AB/DL does this or that.” BTW: Your writing below does NOT explaine how it went from AB to AB/DL:

"Paraphilic infantilism is the desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant. [1] One who engages in infantilistic play is known as an adult baby (AB). Adult babies and diaper fetishists (diaper lovers or DLs) are collectively known by the acronym AB/DL[2]. The majority of known infantilists are heterosexual males[3]."

And this bears repeating again as it keeps getting missed:

"You can’t have it both ways. First you indicated that we use APA to defined INFANTILISM, and then when AB/DL is NOT in the APA, it appears you are rationalizing that we look to newspapers to connect INFANTISM with AB/DL. It seems you are mixing two references that do not confirm each other. Like I stated, at one time there was no AB/DL, only AB (and you didn’t address this point – I wonder why)."

KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

There doesn't seem to be any substantial ongoing discussion here. Time to unprotect after weeks and weeks. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

APA Style References

SUBJECT: References - - APA-style reference format for newspapers.

BitterGrey - It's nice to see you attempting to use APA style references. (APA is an acronym - I have no way to know which APA you are speaking of.) However, I've noticed that you are referencing your site as a source of information and it is out of compliance with the APA referencing standards in the way it is done (as other references). There are also rules for those types of referencing if you are going to use APA style. I have the book, "Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association - Fifth Addition (forth printing 2002). You might want to consider looking at Chapter Four, page 215, titled "Reference List," that is if you want to use the APA model. If you want to make the investment, you can get the 5th addition on Amazon for about $27.00. KAS 20:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Actually, this wonderful book was given to me as a gift from an RN that used my research material, books and journals to pass her final examines and projects. She graduated as a certified psychiatric Nurse. I’m the type that loves books and I believe there is no substitution for the original. But that's just me. I see that you corrected your reference to your webpage. KAS 04:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

EDITS

“as costume and props.”

Removed, goes to opinion and is a arguable KAS 04:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed, "etc." Should be stated, not "etc." KAS 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"The urges and fantasies caused by diaper fetishes focus on the diapers themselves, while infantilism focuses on becoming a baby."

Problem - use of weasel words on second definition below. See above statement.

Removed "Maybe"

'Maybe' Paraphilic infantilism" 'Maybe' Diaper Fetish KAS 05:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem with this statement: The easiest way to describe paraphilic infantilism is to contrast it with a diaper fetish, and this contrast is most clear in fantasies. Although there is no typical AB/DL fantasy, they often fall within two extremes.

Removed 'The easiest way' goes to opinion. Replaced with 'A way.' KAS 05:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A way to describe paraphilic infantilism is to contrast it with a diaper fetish, and this contrast is most clear in fantasies. Although there is no typical AB/DL fantasy,

'AB/DL' removed for clarity:

they often fall within two extremes. The 'Adult Baby' extreme involves the fantasy of being an infant or small child; adorable, sexually innocent, and powerless. The infant fantasy might involve diapers, baby clothes, and toys to help define the infant's role. In the end, the infant might drift off to sleep in a soft crib. The 'Diaper Lover' on the other extreme is the erotic lover. The lover fantasy would focus on diapers as fetish items, sexually charged objects. The lover fantasy would end in orgasm and ejaculation.

'Adult Baby' and 'Diaper Lover' inserted for clarity. KAS 05:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Edited: 'Most' who have these fantasies do not seek psychotherapy [1][2].

Most what? Inserted individuals for clarity. KAS 05:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Difference of opinion. Please refer to above notes on edits. Additional note: What you refer to as costumes and props, another could refer to Transitional Objects. This will be inserted/replace later. KAS 06:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

One 'etc Abbreviations. Don't use them. Always write out everything fully, even common abbreviations. Mon., mtn., St. (for street), lbs., Feb., FBI, USA, FDA, Ave., eve., and so on are all inappropriate. Furthermore, common Latin abbreviations such as i.e., e.g., or etc. are also inappropriate. Reference: Paper Presentation http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/1150/writing.html KAS 07:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

'Weasel Word'

Use of "Maybe Paraphilic infantilism" and "Maybe Diaper fetish " the word MAYBE is 'Weasel Word'

Above it is stated:

The urges and fantasies caused by diaper fetishes focus on the diapers themselves, while infantilism focuses on becoming a baby.

Then goes to Weasel Word 'Maybe' Inconsistent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words KAS 07:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No ref on Costume and Props on main page. Revert. KAS 07:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

weasel words - see Weasel_words#Not_all_generalization_is_wrong. These words summarize conditions defined elsewhere in the article.
"The urges and fantasies caused by diaper fetishes..." As stated above and in DSM, DLs are diagnosed as diaper fetishes if they meet the criteria given. Thus diaper fetishists are at least partially DL, while DLs may or may not have diaper fetishes. BitterGrey 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

'Costume and Props,' I already read and had bookmarked pg 569-570 of DSM-IV-TR years ago, and no mention of Costume and Props - Removed from main page. Now on the other hand, I can certainly understand if an author was biased due to play with Furries and dressing up. (SIC) and thinking of that enviroment as Costume and Props (SIC). KAS 07:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of 'Maybe' for Paraphilic infantilism" and Diaper Fetishes in conflict of this statment: The urges and fantasies caused by diaper fetishes focus on the diapers themselves, while infantilism focuses on becoming a baby. For example, this statment is not: *Maybe* the urges and fantasies caused by diaper fetishes focus on the diapers themselves, while *maybe* infantilism focuses on becoming a baby. KAS 07:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

The comment about furries was an observation, nothing more. I write through observation and research. And, the use of words 'Costume and Props are not direclty referenced and there is no evidence in the DSM-IV-TR, which you did reference for Costume and Props. I have a habit of sticking to the evidence when coming to references. KAS 08:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on your statement "since you understand how the diapers, etc., are costume and props to define the role?"' You are assuming that I share your views that diapers are costume and props. I do not. In many cases they can be viewed as transitional objects, and yes, adults can have transitional objects. I can ref that if you like. KAS 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert from AB/DL to Adult baby and Diaper Lover due to clarity of roles previously described. See below. KAS 08:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A way to describe paraphilic infantilism is to contrast it with a diaper fetish, and this contrast is most clear in fantasies. Although there is no typical fantasy, they often fall within two extremes. The Adult Baby extreme involves the fantasy of being an infant or small child; adorable, sexually innocent, and powerless. The infant fantasy might involve diapers, baby clothes, and toys to help define the infant's role. In the end, the infant might drift off to sleep in a soft crib. The Diaper Lover on the other extreme is the erotic lover. The lover fantasy would focus on diapers as fetish items, sexually charged objects. The lover fantasy would end in orgasm and ejaculation.

'Intro'

Bettergrey's original intro of Infantilism was acceptable at this time. However, Bittergrey changed the intro to lump adult babies into a fetish category of diaper lovers and clouded the issue. Rather then revert back to Bittergrey's original description, I added information for clarity. See below: KAS 19:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism is the desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant. ^[1] One who engages in infantilistic play is known as an adult baby (AB). Few Adult babies are diaper lovers (DLs),^[2]^[3] and Speaker and Watson uses the acronym of AB/DL to join adult babies in the same pool as diaper lovers. ^[4]. However, the DSM-IV-TR, a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a handbooks used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders does not support or use the acronym AB/DL. The majority of known infantilists are heterosexual males^[5].

Problem: Header 'Contrasted with Diaper Fetishes' What is contrasted with Diaper Fetishes? 'Infantilism' inserted into header for clarification.

Now: 'Infantilism Contrasted with Diaper Fetishes' KAS 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed for clarification and deleting unnecessary Weasel Word - Was, "A common fantasy among adult babies involves a permanent return to a 'more baby like position.'" Now, A common fantasy among adult babies involves a permanent return to an 'infantile' position. KAS 00:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Revert intro for previously stated reasons and DSM was removed and not included as to not supporting this view. KAS 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

'Dispute on reference that was added:'

Section 10 - Into the Future Retrieved 2002 from http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Island/5861/ds3_s10.txt

There is no way to verify if the sample used was characteristic of the population. Perhaps some do not have computers, perhaps some do not go to fetish sites. There are a lot of reasons to dispute this as an accurate reference. If this reference is used, these concerns should be stated. KAS 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

The reason for removal of the link is valid. The sample cannot be confirmed as a representation of the total population and this reason is not stated on the main page. KAS 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

The reason for deletion is stated. I have experience sitting on Quality Improvement Committees that looked at mental health issues and have often had to consider the source and validity of samples. KAS 03:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Word Removed: 'themselves' See below:

Confusing infantilism with pedophilia is a common misunderstanding^[6]. Pedophilia is a sexual preference for children^[7]^[8]. In contrast, infantilists have a desire to be infants 'themselves,' and those with a diaper fetish have a sexual interest in diapers. Generally, they have ordinary heterosexual or homosexual sexual experiences otherwise. Inside the AB/DL communities, a sharp distinction is observed. DPF, one of the older AB/DL organizations, will expell child molestors. ^[9]

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Goes to biased opinion. You assume and allude to facts not in evidence as to re-editing the article. Edits are valid. KAS 03:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of anything that I need to address in the above message. As for references, I addressed those of concern. The edits are valid with notes on the discussion page. KAS 04:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

'Reference to this site DPF deleted.' The following comment has nothing to do with the definition of infantism. If this was allowed, we could reference many sites and their polices on who is allowed in and who is not. Deleted: DPF, one of the older AB/DL organizations, will expell child molestors. ^[10] KAS 18:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

Edit War

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Wikipedia's Disclaimer

In part response to 'Edit War'

And no matter what, I'm going to stick to tthe following VALID statment: There is no way to verify if the sample used was characteristic of the population. Perhaps some do not have computers, perhaps some do not go to fetish sites. There are a lot of reasons to dispute this as an accurate reference. If this reference is used, 'these concerns should be stated.' KAS 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Another notation - Once the lock was removed, bittergrey made massive edits without 'any' discussion.

If you are having a problem with these (valid) edits, please refer to Wikipedia's Disclaimer that is posted on their "Save Page/Show preview/ Show Changes" page: 'If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. ' KAS 19:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

I see nothing other then the reference in your message to 257 individuals. Again, my response:

As for the workshops, it looks like it's mostly you. The last 15 edits were made by BitterGrey, not counting the bulk of the content was written by you. And that excluded a larger audience that this discussion board is able to handle. And, not everyone feels comfortable to argue in a workshop.

The other items in question have been addressed one-by-one in my previous statements on this discussion board. I not see how making generalizations about this or that will solve anything. My edits are valid and within the Wikipedia guidelines. KAS 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: This page is about infanilism.

You stated, "Otherwise, any reasonable person would be forced to conclude that it is you who do not represent the AB/DL population"

If you want to write about 'AB/DL,' why don't you start a page titled AB/DL?

There already is an AB/DL page. It correctly redirects to infantilism.

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

The problem is at least (2) two reasons.

1. You are deleting this valid statement:

However, the DSM-IV-TR, a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a handbooks used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders does not support or use the acronym AB/DL.

2. And, you are using references that can be disputed because, for one, you indicated the population sampled was EMAILED. There are many reasons this is not a valid sample. Again, There is no way to verify if the sample used was characteristic of the population. Perhaps some do not have computers, perhaps some do not go to fetish sites. There are a lot of reasons to dispute this as an accurate reference. If this reference is used, 'these concerns should be stated.

If I were to use your criteria for referencing, I could state a position on a webpage and reference myself (as you have).

Additionally, since there is a page on AB/DL, the term AB/DL is represented there. This page is NOT about AB/DL but about INFANTILISM. All views on INFANTILISM should be fairly represented with creditable references, and/or disputed when applicable. KAS 06:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

1. Since the DSM-IV-TR is being included as an authority on INFANTILISM, it is not unreasonable to include a disclaimer. Neither the DSM-IV-TR OR It’s companion, “Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice – The DSM-IV Edition, pg 327-337 (Published by the APA - ISBN 0880486589) - does not make any reference to AB/DL. GABBARD, an accomplished writer for the APA (one of my favorites) was commissioned to write Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice – The DSM-IV Edition to explain more IN-DEPTH the terms used in the DSM, and no mention of AB/DL there. Based on two books that are viewed as an authority on infantilism, and neither use the term AB/DL, it is not outside a reasonable argument to include this statement on the main page,

However, the DSM-IV-TR, a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a handbook used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders does not make any reference OR use the acronym AB/DL, Nor does It’s companion, Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, THE DSM-IV EDITION.’’

2. Your statement did reference to (a) EMAIL. Next to address Speaker reference (b)

(a) The references sited include a survey which started via email around 1999, and continued to roughly 2004. In the available archive, 589 people responded to the survey. Of these, 148 identified themselves as ABs, and 91 as both AB and DL.’’

(b) Speaker – In 1986, there was no reference to DIAPER LOVER (DL) in existence that I know of. If Speaker used the term, “DIAPER LOVER” please include evidence of that to support the following, The other reference was Dr. Speaker's thesis, dated 1986. His survey gave the result of 8/(10+8) = .44, or 44% – were diaper lovers," and we can go from there.

3. You stated that, If you would care to look at that page [BitterGrey’s - brackets inserted by KAS], you will note that it consists of comments from an online group, Again, this goes to the following: There are many reasons this is not a valid sample. Again, There is no way to verify if the sample used was characteristic of the population. Perhaps some do not have computers, perhaps some do not go to fetish sites. There are a lot of reasons to dispute this as an accurate reference. If this reference is used, these concerns should be stated.

Also, certain personality profiles may be more inclined to behave favorably to responding to samples then others. It would take a ‘special study’ just to tease out this one single property to consider a sample valid. These concerns and many others make a good argument why this reference needs have this concern addressed on the main page if you are going to use it.

4. Again, this bears repeating AND adding another note, "since there is a page on AB/DL, the term AB/DL is represented there. This page is NOT about AB/DL but about INFANTILISM. All views on INFANTILISM should be fairly represented with creditable references, and/or disputed when applicable. So far, the page real-estate is more about INFANTILISM being 'extrapolated' into AB/DL."

Thank you for a change in writing style as to the person (me). I sincerely do appericte that. KAS 09:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

I prefixed my statment with SINCE - '"Since the DSM-IV-TR is being included as an authority on INFANTILISM, it is not unreasonable to include a disclaimer....." Since you quoted this reference, then it was opened up for further reference. KAS 21:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional Reference Removed:

What Would it be Like to Wear Diapers 24/7? Retrieved March 15th, 2006 from http://understanding.infantilism.org/twentyfour_seven.php

Again, this goes to the following: There are many reasons this is not a valid sample. Again, There is no way to verify if the sample used was characteristic of the population. Perhaps some do not have computers, perhaps some do not go to fetish sites. There are a lot of reasons to dispute this as an accurate reference. If this reference is used, these concerns should be stated.

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Your comments are in dispute. I have referenced all edits with valid statements. KAS

IMPORTANT NOTICE - Additionally, I spent over an hour last night to CAREFULLY respond to your message of the 4 items in question. And rather then for you to respond to each item and continue to discuss the matter, it appears you flew into a rage and reverted the entire page to YOUR original writing without discussion. KAS 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Addressing BetterGrey's comment - 'You are free to put in however many more hours you like. I will be waiting for you to provide some substance.' Your continued unprovoked snide comments is not appreciated. You are welcome to address the validity of a statement but please discontinue these attacks on me. For the 4th time, Please stop. This type of behavior only chases away members that can contribute, and if that is your goal, you are going in the right direction.

It is NOT my original article. Much of it was written by you and I edited some of it. However, it appears this is not of satifisation to you. You have reverted this article to the your complete original version many times. As for reverting the article, how can I revert to my edits unless you deleted them? You are alluding to my reverting but how can I do this unless you reverted my edits first?

My position is that I have made the edits and clarified those edits with discussion. KAS 02:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Editor - Author Profile Update

Out of courtesy, this is a note that I've updated my personal profile. KAS 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

For KAS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KAS#KAS_for_Kathi_A._Stringer

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

BitterGrey, your responses to me lately appear snide and personal. Please don't KAS 05:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Again, for the second time, please stop with the snide and personal remarks. It is my understanding that snide remarks by posting members is contrary to how Wikipedia wishes to represent itself in the Global Internet forum. Please stick to the issues. I understand that you can be disagreeable to the statement but not to the author. Please discontinue the snide remarks. KAS 06:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

A "You" statement tends to make things personal. You stated an inflammatory and unprovoked comment: "You could better impress me by providing evidence for your conclusions..." I'm telling for the 3rd time to discontinue this type of communication. Again, I understand that you can be disagreeable to the statement but not to the author.KAS 07:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Yes, it should have. I place it into two places. However, it doesn't take away from the point any less.

A Viable Solution

This may be a viable solution. Since this is a page on INFANTILISM, and there are DIFFERENT types of INFANTILISM, writers can make a short blurb on all the different types of INFANTILISM and then refer the reader to the appropriate page. Example - refer the reader to the AB/DL page, and so on. KAS 22:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

After reading your response, I'm still not sure as to what you are offering as a solution. It looks to me like you want to keep things the way they are without compromise.

If you would like to refer to GABBARD's work in the exact reference to Adult Babies, without extrapolating into DL, I'm open to that. Otherwise, a short blurb and reference to DL seems like a solution and you can refer out to a DL page. KAS 01:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be open to having a disambiguation page, connected to an infantilism/AB page, a diaper fetishism/DL page, Tourette syndrome, and the other infantilisms. The ABDL redirect should point to either the infantilism/AB page or the fetishism/DL page. My vote would be for the infantilism/AB page, since it includes a contrast between infantilism and fetishism, and has more references. It also discusses fantasy and practice, where the separate paraphilias often mix into AB/DL.

To quote Dr. Gabbard's 'Adult Baby' article "The diaper fetish obviously led us to consider paraphilia as Mr. A’s central diagnosis." One is entitled to an opinion that there is an absolute division between AB and DL. However, Dr. Gabbard's article does not support it. He describes ABs engaging in diaper-related sexual acts, as would be expected of DLs. Please don't misunderstand: I believe that there are many ABs who are not DLs, but there is also a substantial ratio who are both AB and DL. The surveys from Dave and Dr. Speaker quantify this ratio. Since this ratio is substantial, we cannot treat AB and DL as fully isolated. There also may be a tendancy to develop an interest in one after having an interest in the other. AB/DLs will need to be adressed, and they currently are adressed in the infantilism article.BitterGrey 02:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

AB/DL should be addressed on an AB/DL page and lets stick to the absolute, creditable and variable references on the INFANTILISM page WITHOUT extrapolation. If we agree with this, there needs to be some blanking out on the INFANTILISM, and new outline and rewrite on the INFANTILISM page due to redirecting them to the referenced pages already in Wiki. References that can be disputed for obvious reasons should not be used UNLESS the concerns for those references are stated in the material...i.e. invalided samples as previously stated and addressed in prior discussions. KAS 03:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Edits -2

Workable edit #1: Was "FEW" and changed for now to "Some adult babies are also..." KAS 06:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Workable edit #2: Changed out "SUPPORT" to "REFERENCE"

However, the DSM-IV-TR, a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a handbook used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders does not reference or use the acronym AB/DL. KAS

Clarity Adjustment on Reference.

Move Ref 2&3, Some adult babies are also diaper lovers (DLs),[2][3] and Speaker and Watson uses the acronym of AB/DL to join adult babies in the same pool as diaper lovers. KAS

It is great to see a willingness to negotiate. It is reasonable to offer some flexibility in the "About one in three adult babies is also a diaper lover" phrase, but only if the resulting phrase isn't negated by its context. Specifically, we shouldn't read too much into the work of Dr. Speaker, Joe Watson, or the APA. Regarding references 2, 3, and 4, neither the one author nor the two surveys are trying to stereotype infantilists by forcing a label on the community. We also shouldn't read anything into the absense of the AB/DL acronym from DSM. The entire section on paraphilias, only ten pages, seems to be free of any acronyms whatsoever. DSM does list infantilism under the header of "sexual masochism," but we shouldn't read too much into this either. Perhaps we could settle for a first paragraph that reads...

Paraphilic infantilism is the desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant.[1]
One who engages in infantilistic play is known as an adult baby (AB).
Some adult babies are also diaper lovers (DL)s [2][3] so they are collectively known as AB/DLs[4].
The majority of infantilists are heterosexual males[5].

This would result in one or more references for each contested point. The second sentense is without a reference, but it seems to have gone uncontested.BitterGrey 08:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

.#1 OKAY: Paraphilic infantilism is the desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant.[1]

.#2 PROBLEM: One who engages in infantilistic play is known as an adult baby (AB). This statement assumes anyone engaging in infantilistic play is an infantilist. Not true. Should be:

.#2 Adult babies engage in infantilistic play.

.#3 FIRST part is okay for now. Some adult babies are also diaper lovers (DL)s [2][3]

This part is a Problem: so they are collectively known as AB/DLs[4]. If you are determined to use AB/DL, I'm determined to have the DSM disclaimer (but not limited to) stated below:

However, the DSM-IV-TR, a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a handbook used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders does not reference or use the acronym AB/DL.

.#4 OKAY: The majority of infantilists are heterosexual males[5].

For now, the agreed description:

End result: Paraphilic infantilism is the desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant.[1] Adult babies are known to engage in infantilistic play. Some adult babies are also diaper lovers (DL)s [2][3]. The majority of infantilists are heterosexual males[5].

IMPORTANT NOTE: I state this in the kindest way...Please keep the AB/DL for the AB/DL page. I've listed my concerns here on this point. At this conjucture I see no reason why this page on INFANTILISM must be an AB/DL page. I do not like using DL when the APA or GABBARD has not even referenced the term. In fact, for the record, I flat out disagree, and I do not like to use the term DL on this page, but have let it go (for now). I've given the DL, however, If AB/DL is pushed, I may have to backup seriously oppose the use DL for arguments already stated. I will reserve my right to reconsider the use of DL based on the total picture as this pans out. KAS 11:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: It as been assumed that I do know the history of this essay. For the record, I do know the history of this essay. I saw the orginal essay before it was even printed in Wikipedia! My friend Scott was the original author before it was burnt to the ground. We've spoke many times on the phone on these types of issues and he has also helped do some edit work for my book '5150' that is soon to be published. So please do not assume I can't relate to the hard work here. I've seen first hand the hell this page has put my friend Scott though. For the record. KAS 11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Please only stick to the terms brought up in this discussion. I have already made many, many comments with VALID reasons for the edits I have made. Today you have deleted every single edit I have made, to keep YOUR ESSAY INTACK. This is NOT about YOUR essay. You are also making assumptions about motive. Please don't. I have reverted back to my edits. KAS 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit - Changed DPF to Mike A since Mike A was the person interviewd for the article The Diapers They Are a-Changin KAS 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"many, many comments" - There has been a lot said. Provide references that actively say something on the topic, and then there will be something to discuss. Until then, stop altering the article so that the text does not match the references.

For example, the DPF/Mike A. reference, #17 on the references list in your version, now appears at the sentence "Pedophilia is a sexual preference for children." Knowing Mike A. personally, I am confident that he would agree with this sentence. However, you were in error when you applied Gilstrap's article to this sentence, since it doesn't actually include a definition. This is yet another instance of flippant changes, damaging the integrity of the article.

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

I don't see any reason to keep repeating that which has been said over and over again. I have defended the my edits many times with many words. If you don't understand why I made the edits, then please review this complete page. This is NOT an AB/DL page. It is about Infantilism. KAS 01:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

I am disputing your comments - this page is about all types of infantilism and each needs to be represented fairly, and this is NOT an ab/dl page. Please refer to all the previous VALID points raised for the revert to edits.

See responce below. BitterGrey 04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research

Wikipedia values Verifiability, so that it's content will be fair. Authors and editors are asked to provide references; not dispute, points, opinions, prejudices, biases, agendas, or eagerness to make changes. These alternatives to evidence offer extensive wordiness, but no verifiable support. [Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]BitterGrey 04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Valid Statements

All previous edits are VALID as discussed. Again. this page is on INFANTILISM and NOT AB/DL. IF you want to write about AB/DL then you are free to make an AB/DL page rather then extrapolate INFANTILISM into AB/DL. I don't know of any other way to explain it to you.

This is a GREAT example. There are transvestites (TV - fetish). There are transsexuals (TS - wrong sex). There are some that view themselves as part of each and are comfortable with TS/TV. However, a significant population of feels otherwise and brings forth issues that do not apply to a transsexual. So imagine a person is trying to explain they are a transsexual but all the references are putting them into a transvestite population. If you can't understand this very basic point, then, well, I'm sorry. Again, this is NOT a AB/DL page, but a page in INFANTILISM. KAS 06:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Point - Book Different Loving ISBN 0712677925 writes of Transgenderism and does NOT use terms as TV/TS pages 411 to 460. On your reference to BDSM they write ...about the B&D- S/M scene. page 452.

This author did not attempt to extrapolate TV and TS into TV/TS, as you are AB/DL. You make many references to the DSM but the DSM does NOT make any references to AB/DL and neither did GABBARD. KAS 06:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Wrong. This is an axiom between Infantilists, ABs and DLs. Axioms also count on Wiki and is not Original Research. BTW Kas, I am also an original author to this page, but have also given up like Scott. How is he doing btw?

Confused as there is no signature. Any advise as to how I can give up and walk away like you did? I'd sure appreciate the input on getting away from this nutcase essay that is controlled and extrapolated by a single person. My friend Sam Vaknin http://www.toddlertime.com/sam/index.htm indicated I should run like hell from this mess. His views here (links below) and from my experience with Bittergrey, I belive it! At this point I'm about gone myself. KAS 08:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

http://samvak.tripod.com/busiweb13.html

http://samvak.tripod.com/busiweb23.html

To Bittergrey. USING UPPERCASE is my writing style and NOT up for debate. However: To repeat: All previous edits are VALID as discussed. Again. this page is on INFANTILISM and NOT AB/DL. IF you want to write about AB/DL then you are free to make an AB/DL page rather then EXTRAPOLATE INFANTILISM into AB/DL. I don't know of any other way to explain it to you. KAS 07:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is also a Handbook for Mental Nurses that uses the term "Pure Infantilism," before Stekel used his term. And by Bittergrey's same standards we could write paragraph after paragraph on "Pure Infantilism," as he has with AB/DL, and that would be valid. I have a lot material on TEXTBOOK "Pure Infantilism" We could clutter this INFANTILISM page if we gave as much page real estate to other infantilisms as this AB/DL matter. For one of several reasons, please start an AB/DL page. KAS 07:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This author is OrbitOne. --OrbitOne 08:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Denmark guy. Last time I spoke with Scott he was working toward a degree in psych. He's a real intellect and we are able to converse well and spin off ideas. I'm on my way out, but I wanted to say that I've already read your profile the other day and was impressed with your studies. For a 23-year-old, ya doing great with some ambitious challenges. To translate words takes an acute eye. Hang in there - KAS 08:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Axioms

I should be clear on what I meant. I said the seperation of Infantilism from ABDL is an axiom, both sides must accept this first. After this is accepted, a discussion about how wide this seperation really is can start. Since the Axiom is widely accepted, but not defined, it is a general concept. This means we can have differing ideas as to how AB and Infantilism relate to each other. This however -IS- original research, or atleast the border of. The axiom means to me AB is a method to Infantilism, such as being a Sissy Baby is another method to Infantilism. Where Infantilism is the conflict and desire inside the head, or atleast reasoning for the behavior, AB is the expression of these desires.

After accepting the axiom, maybe we can go in another direction in this discussion without fighting. --OrbitOne 14:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Like I said, the pitfall of first hand research is we can not do it here on wiki. --OrbitOne 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Child or baby?

Is there a term for an adult who fantasizes of being a child or young teenager and not of being a baby?--Sonjaaa 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is 'I don't know.' I've exchanged emails with some women who would be considered adult babies, except that they didn't wear diapers. They liked to dress up as small children and play with stuffed animals. Stekel lists some male cases discusses in his book "Patterns of Psychoseual Infantilism." They enjoyed wearing playing in the park, making things with ribbons, wearing boyish clothing, etc. They were under the header "The Eternal Adolescent," but this wasn't used as a formal term. So there are others like what you describe, but I don't know if there is a formal term.BitterGrey 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

maybe the term is juvenilism or adolescantism, forms of ageplay.--Sonjaaa 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sonjaaa - the terms you are looking for are here: http://www.toddlertime.com/dx/regression/advanced-baby.htm KAS 23:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer reveiw!

I think it is time, since the edit war has died out, to get this article peer reveiwed. --OrbitOne 14:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. The article could use some cleaning up, and additional well-researched contributors, of course. BitterGrey 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The first reviewer, AndyZ, responded with three good points, but left us with a decision regarding the coercion subsection. Two of the section's three sentences were cut, along with the section's original point. ("The AB/DL deflects the guilt of wanting to be put back in diapers by fantasizing that someone else forced it upon him. Superficially, this makes it someone else’s fault.") Should we remove the coercion section, put these sentences back, integrate the coercion subsection with material on masochism among infantilists (also previously removed), or do something else? BitterGrey 22:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is some peer feedback I got today 3/25/06 "Kathi, I have been searching for information about infantilism and regression. What I have found on your website is the best explanation and contains the most professional information by far, of anyplace that I have found on the web. You know exactly what it is and what it is like. R.B." But people like me dare not edit bittergreys work on Wikepedia. A lot of it is copied direclty off BG's website. Infantilism has tuned into, and extrapolated into an AB/DL page, by BG. It is still nearly exaclty the way he wrote it before I made the first edit. It's things like this that will give rise to the end of Wikepedia. This of couse is feedback - and why good information from good sources will not make it's way to Wikipedia. I've totally given up explaing this to BG, he just doesn't get it. And, I've totally given up editing on this subject. Thank you for putting the concerns out there OrbitOne. KAS 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome KAS. But can you give us a source for that feed back? Thank you.

BG, we should let the peer review have a fair chance to add more comments, then we will have a to do list and decide that what needs to be done with the article.--OrbitOne 23:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

While I didn't want to rush ahead of a group effort, to keep things moving it seemed appropriate to write out a second paragraph for the lead and post it here for discussion. (The article is around 10K words, so per WP:LEAD, it should have 1-2 paragraphs.)

Infantilism and diaper fetishes differ in their focus of attention and self-image. However, they can coexist in individuals and have some similarities in practice. Neither include a sexual preference for children. There is no singular, archetypical infantilism, but a range. Some fantasize about being free of guilt, responsibility or control while others might not. Some act indistinguishably from a baby at times, while others practice in a way that would be unnoticed by passerbys on the street. The desires and tastes of infantilists vary around common themes of diapers and babyhood.

If we go with this one, we can add links. If necessary, references already in the body can be repeated in the summary.BitterGrey 14:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can put it in. The Perr Reveiw has been short and fizzeled out. Rather disappointed. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

General cheerleading

Yay! Much better, keep up the good fight, etc etc. - brenneman^{L} 05:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The slow deletion???

Is it just me or is this article being deleted slowly? --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 05:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The slow erosion of 'Common Fantasy Elements' and 'Practices' started about the time they stopped being blanked entirely. It seems to be stabilizing, however. As long as only the weaker, less important points are trimmed away, and the remainder not left fragmentary, this isn't necessarily a problem. BitterGrey 06:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

?

What was wrong with the "lifted and carried" sentence? Also, what say we make an Archive 3 and make this page short again? Lollip

There are countless specific fantasy elements that are or can be associated with infantilism. If space were given to discuss them all, this page would be far too long. Even some more common and important elements have been cut. For example, there used to be a section on the permanent regression fantasy. This fantasy element, although a central fantasy element and common to many infantilists, is no longer in the article.

I'd love to see this list of countless entries or find a place where we could post it and have people add their own items. I understand Wikipedia isn't the best place to put stuff like that, but is there someplace that is? Lollip 22:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cloudy's page used to have a forum for gathering tips. A side-forum might have been easy to add to develop a long list of fantasy elements. However, it seems to be offline now. My website doesn't have a page on fantasy elements currently. Are there other fantasy elements that you would like to write about? BitterGrey 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As for stubbing the article again, the Admin who stubbed the previous article, Aaron Brenneman, recently praised the improvement of this one. Might I ask why you would like to see it stubbed again? BitterGrey 01:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant to archive and restart the comments page, not the article itself. It's over 50K now. Lollip 22:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Infantilism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Archived talk

Link removal

List of justification (Point by point)

Habituation

Pedophilia sections

New stub

Sources

Recent massive expansion

Re: Recent massive expansion

Behavior or paraphilia?

rolled back

Too short?

Does it really need to be 100% accurate?

Not true.

This has become -IDIOTIC-!!

GFDL copyright

Examples of citations

Mediation

Proposed structure

Scope of references

Workshop!

article location

Pedophilia sections

Binge Purge section

Habituation

Finding a mommy or daddy

Source

What Infantilism is Not

Unprotected

APA Style References

EDITS

Edit War

Wikipedia's Disclaimer

Editor - Author Profile Update

A Viable Solution

Edits -2

No Original Research

Valid Statements

Axioms

Child or baby?

Peer reveiw!

General cheerleading

The slow deletion???

?

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search