Talk:Diaper fetishism

lol

Should the link Diaper Fetishism be deleted as it redirects back to Diaper Lover?

I do not believe so, no. Diaper Fetish is a very common term describing Diaper Lovers. It appears the only time that a diaper is viewed as a fetish item is shunned upon, is for infantalism, in a way to avoid conflicts with pedophilia.

I believe we need a new image for this page, and the current image should be moved to the latex fetish page. Most DL's enjoy images of women in normal white disposable or cloth diapers, and the image of the "pvc diaper" probably appeals more to the latex crowd.

I agree

<original research> Please note that the two are different. If we define a diaper fetish as prefering to be with a diaper sexually than with a person, then according to survey results, a similar percentage of ABs have diaper fetishes. Thus, we can't equate diaper fetishes with DLs. Other differences are that the APA has a controlled definition for a paraphilic fetish, and DLs are people, while a diaper fetish is an interest.</original research>

By the way, if we are going to have a picture of a woman on this page, we might want be more explicit about the gender distribution. Even though many AB/DL pictures use female models, the AB/DLs themselves are predominantly male. (DSM 4TR, pg 568)BitterGrey 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links

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

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

What should not be linked to

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

Thus I've removed a few links. If you want to add them back in, please refer to the above (or note other applicable guideline pages) in discussions here first. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved here:

• Diaper Pail Friends-The very first publicly available "forum" for people with this fetish to communicate with one another. Began as a Newsletter sent via USMail and evolved into a website with the advent of the internet.
• Daily Diapers-An online community for ABDLs

brenneman^(t)(c) 00:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Currently, duplicate external links to both Aby.com and dpf.com appear in two places in this article [1][2]. Do people agree that exactly duplicated external links should be avoided? The debate about having one link each to these pages is ongoing at the infantilism article [3]. Note that the links were added to three articles from similar IP numbers: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bittergrey (talk • contribs) 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC). Opps. Sorry. BitterGrey 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The current section "WEB Sites" looks really spammy. If those are good sites to link to, shouldn't they go in the external links? I found it upsetting to see such a good treatment of Diaper fetishism cheapened by three spammy URLs. Ceramufary (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. However, I avoid cleaning out external links or "WEB Sites" sections on this and the paraphilic infantilism article myself, because it would have the effect of promoting my own website. BitterGrey (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Adult Sites

I wanted to address a point of contention. Firstly, when I changed Brenneman's comments, they weren't intended to vandalize the page. Sorry about that. The first deletion was a mistake. I wasn't trying to remove it. The second was what I intended to do: Change it to make it more accurate. Again, sorry for the confusion. DPF first of all is an adult site. "people" is an all encompassing term meaing adults, teens, children, etc. I realize it's nit-picky but taking the infantilism page and this page here at Wikipedia into account, both basically state that the paraphilia can be discovered in adolescence and even childhood coupled with the fact that more and more kids are getting online, it's probably a good idea to make the distinction particulary clear. Those sites are fine and dandy for adults but not for youngsters. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.81.106.187 (talk • contribs)

No harm, no foul. If I'd thought you had vandalism in your black heart, I would have put something other than {{anon}} on your talk page! There are two reasons I reverted your (second, purposeful) change. One is that it was inside a signed comment on a talk page, those are mostly considered sancrosect. The accpeted practice if to do as you've done here and present a different viewpoint while leaving the original intact. Which is, confusingly, exatcly the opposite to what the practice is on a main page, to just make the change and let the chips fall where they may. The second reason is that I was actaully reproducing the text as it had been on the main page, a quote if you will. And welcome again to Wikipedia!
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

I've copied here the material that was unsourced/unreferenced.

• It is believed that a majority of diaper lovers are male, however recent studies show a growing number of females participating in diaper wearing activites.
• A desire to wear diapers may be first created whilst a person is still very young, during periods of emotional turbulence in their family, such as diaper punishment for accidents, or a reluctance to be potty trained, or the person has been potty trained too early or too late. In many cases, though, there is no apparent cause. Before puberty these desires are largely dormant in most of those affected, but during the period of approx 8-15 years of age the person becomes aware of an attraction to diapers, and sometimes will act upon this attraction in various ways, such as using diapers from younger siblings or buying some for themselves and using them. Many young diaper lovers also employ make-shift diapers such as folded towels with plastic pants fashioned from trash bags.
• The Diaper Lover also usually feels extreme comfort wearing diapers and for elder Diaper Lovers it can become a substite for underwear.

If you want this material is to be re-inserted, please discuss it here.
brenneman^(t)(c) 04:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Simple answer. Wiki is open sourced and information is added by people who know about a subject. Thus, community trust is needed and people who know something about this subject edit it in constructive ways and makes sure it is not incorrect. Citing all the sources would make wiki a place for elite experts and not every day users. Also, all the rules are guidelines, not rules for exsistance. The article just wont be a featured article, but it still has worth. I am reverting the article and asking Inter to step in again. --OrbitOne 11:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry bud, but Wikipedia does not allow original research. And I do not see the logic behind the statement that citing sources makes wikipedia a place for elite experts. It doesn't take a genius to site a source. Where did you get your knowledge from? Where did you read this information? It's not hard; you pick up a book, read it, get the information, put it on here in your own words, and then tell us where that information came from. If that takes an elite expert then I guess I'm way out of my depth already. Sometimes you don't need to cite a source, sometimes the information is common knowledge - sometimes it needs to be cited regardless of how well known it is. The "original research" exception is if you have witnessed the existance of, for instance lets say an abandoned building, and you noted some of it's features, then made an article on it here, that would not be considered original research and would not require you to cite your source, because you would merely be reporting the existance of something that can be verified easily by a photograph or a visit to the site. However claiming that you have noticed x y and z about the building and publishing a theory about it on wikipedia WOULD be considered original research, and that is not allowed. Also, if you were to make a claim, for instance that the queen mother's brother lived in the building for 2 years, you would have to site your sources because that's something that cannot simply be taken on face value, which is when you cite your source. --Badharlick 11:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have sourced this article up the wazoo, so I'm going to take the tag down now. Fsecret 02:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In my effort to fill out this article and get a lot of good citations in here, I have a misplaced fact that needs sourcing. I'm referring to the information in the psychology section about the latency period. It might have been in the "Understanding Infantilism" article or something similar, but I've done so much searching and added so much info here that now I can't find the page. Anyone who wants to help whip this article into shape could start reading through the various psychology pages that pop up on google to source the statement and expand the section. Thanks. Fsecret 03:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick word search of Bob G's articles, Paraphilic Infantilism and the later Understanding Infantilism doesn't find reference to a latency period. I also don't recall references to a latency period on the website Understanding.Infantilism.org. Some survey results that I've been trying to make sense of might suggest a pause in the formation of infantilism and diaper fetishes that could be called a latency period. However, abandoning the paraphilia at this age seems atypical, although not unheard of. One surveyee quoted in the report on the Changing ABDL Community wrote "I totally repressed all memory of liking diapers some time around age 10. The memory returned when I was 25, and saw an advertisement for DPF."

Overall, there have been a large number of points added to the article. Could I ask that the rest of the citations be inserted? Sources need to be cited for traceability and checkability. They also prevent arguments, in theory. For example, one ratio that was the source of much debate last year was "About one in three adult babies is also a diaper lover." Originally, it was supported by two references. (Dave's survey was the second, and off-article, I'd also mention original research.) The phrase in the diaper Lovers article "adult babies invariably consider themselves to be diaper lovers" might draw similar debate. BitterGrey 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In Dave's survey, 33% were DLs and 23% were ABDLs, so 41% of DLs also considered themseleves ABs. The sample size was 589. In Speaker's thesis, the analogous numbers were 6 and 8 (57%). <original research> More recent surveys include 'mostly DL' and 'mostly AB' categories, with 13% only DL, 32% mostly DL, and 27% equally AB and DL. Assumptions would be needed to calculate which option surveyees would have chosen if there were only the options of AB, DL, and ABDL. </original research>BitterGrey 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of the ridiculous arguments it may fuel, it might be better to find a new way to phrase that. Even so, I say we keep it for now. Even the paraphilc infantilism page definitely defines the term in the first sentence of the article by saying that diapers are the main focus of the ageplay going on there. However, now that I look at it, that page is a complete mess. It goes on later to state that only one in three infantilists claims a diaper fetish ... not even a majority by a longshot! This is not reflected by any Adult Baby community I have ever seen or heard of. Diapers are indisputably the central focus of the sexual gratification happening there. It also seems like they are having some sort of debate over whether or not infantilism is even a sexual fetish, even though it is clearly categorized as one on Wikipedia. I am going to stay out of that one. What we need to focus on is cleaning up this page where we can actually get something done. Fsecret 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The statistic regarding the amount of DLs who are also ABs has been removed for the time being. Apparently the original form in which it appeared (which at first seemed to have been be mistyped) was actually not mistyped. Apparently, 66.6% of adult babies do not want to be identified as having a sexual fetish of any kind, for ageplay or their diapers. As I have said above, this is an argument that needs to stay off of this page, since this page is about diaper fetishism. If anyone can find a real statistic regarding how many admitted diaper fetishists will also admit a fetish for infantile ageplay, I think that it can keep this page from becoming a big mess again. Fsecret 01:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't been paying attention this page, but I just now did a side-by-side comparison of the version before your edits beginning Feb. 27 and the current version, and IMO "a big mess" is a much better description of what you've made of the article, than of what it used to be. Besides the "adult babies invariably considering themselves to be diaper lovers" nonsense already mentioned, just a few of the problems include:

A diaper fetish doesn't have to be sexual in nature. "Fetish" refers to an obsessive preoccupation, and the word does not necessarily imply any sexual component. There are people who consider themselves DL's, and for whom the label is clearly appropriate, who do not get sexually aroused by diapers, don't masturbate in conjunction with wearing them, and don't associate them with sexual feelings in any way. Whether or not sexuality is involved for "most" DL's is far from clear, and such an unequivocal statement should not be made without a source.

Calling diaper fetishism a form of anaclitism is a highly presumptuous generalization. It probably is for some people, but there are many other ways that a diaper fetish might develop besides simple imprinting during infancy, and whether anaclitism is the source of a diaper fetish in even one person, much less everyone with a diaper fetish, is completely unproveable.

The terms "hardcore" and "softcore" are inherhently subjective, judgemental, and unencyclopedic, and anyway are used out of context. The terms only apply to pornography, not paraphilias.

The assertion that incontinent people "pursue" diaper fetishism in order to find sexual partners is highly dubious, and again should not be made unless it can be sourced.

Fetishism doesn't have "participants". Activities have participants. Fetishism isn't an activity, it's an inclination. You don't have to *do* anything to fit the definition if a fetishist.

Referring to the interests of infantilists that are not shared by DL's as "ageplay" is problematic and controversial. There's an overlap between infantilism and ageplay, but one is not a subset of the other. The focuses are different, and the boundaries are blurry.

The repeated references to omarashi seem gratuitous and forced, as if you were just trying to find some excuse for mentioning it, rather than because it served any purpose in the article.

The psychology section focuses exclusively on Freudianism, and seems to treat his outdated, highly speculative arm-chair theories on the subject with an excessive degree of credulity. Anonymous55 08:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, nuts to this. I'm reverting the whole thing back to Feb. 26, for the reasons given above and more. Anonymous55 09:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Diaper fetishism

Also, might it not be better to move this page to "diaper fetishism?" It seems like a more encyclopedic title, and none of the other pages in the fetish category are listed by what the participants are commonly called. For instance, paraphilic infantilism is not called "Adult Baby" and the wet and messy page is not called "Sploosh." Any arguments for or against the move can go here. I say we give the matter two weeks to be discussed and come to a decision about the move. Fsecret 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- As per my argument above. Fsecret 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral -- However, we do need to keep the terms for the people (adult babies/diaper lovers), separate from the terms for the conditions (diaper fetishes, paraphilic infantilism). BitterGrey 05:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, BitterGrey. Perhaps you could be in charge of writing something to that effect to be included on the page after the move? Fsecret 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The above phrasing could be used with little modification. However, the difficult part would be staying consistent through the article in text and pretext. For example, an article about diaper fetishes may include a lot of information on diaper lovers, and visa vera. Probably so much so that only one of the two articles need be on wikipedia. They would, as Anonymous55 points out, be different articles. BitterGrey 05:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral -- I just want to point out here that diaper fetishism is a subject with a wider scope than diaper lover. Diaper fetishists include people who are aroused by other people (such as their sexual partners) wearing diapers, but who would never wear them themselves, whereas, to the best of my knowledge, diaper lover by definition means someone who enjoys actually wearing them. (At least that's my understanding of the term, and also how the article defines it.) That's not necessarily an argument for not making the move, but if it is moved then the article would require some modification. Anonymous55 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sexual fetishism generally means arousal from the object, and is not specific to the "who" and the "where" of it. The rest is really just a matter of personal taste. And as far as I know, the "diaper lover" term arose in common use over the internet in order to describe someone who took part in diaper play. Slang generally does not recieve an offical definition unless it has been adopted by a dictionary. However, I agree that a moved article would have to include information regarding those who like to wear diapers for comfort rather than fetishism. Fsecret 03:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "fetish" may not imply any particular "who and where", but for people who have a fetish, the who and where can be of critical importantance. It's a matter of taste only in the same sense that the entire subject of the article is a matter of taste (or in the sense that, for example, the difference between gay and straight is a matter of taste).

Whether or not a slang term can have an "official" definition, the point is that the article, as it's currently written, only covers people whose fixation (erotic or otherwise) with diapers involves wearing them themselves. It doesn't say anything about people who are only turned on by seeing other people in diapers. And it would have to if the article is moved. (Again, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.)

I wasn't saying anything about people who wear diapers only for comfort. That wasn't the distinction I was making at all. Anonymous55 10:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the final tally comes to one vote of support and two votes of neutral. As such, the article will be moved. Fsecret 23:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Panalphilia?

A [Google search] for "panalphilia" only gives two references to Wikipedia. Where else is this term used? BitterGrey 04:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Our visions for the Diaper Lover article

Might it be worthwhile for us to discuss what we would like the Diaper Lover article to become, as well as how it relates to the sister article on paraphilic infantilism? BitterGrey 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

Despite my reverts, I actually think some bits and pieces of the material Fsecret added could be re-worked into something useable. I'll work on some ideas, but for now I'll start with something simple, and hopefully un-controversial:

I propose adding the following to the "See also" section:

• diaper
• sexual fetishism
• coprophilia
• urolagnia
• anaclitism

I'm on the fence about omorashi, as the only common factor appears to be urination, which is already covered by urolagnia. For similar reasons I didn't include ageplay, since the connection is only through infantilism.

Any objections/comments? Anonymous55 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Those five seem fine for "see also" entries. (It would be better if the anaclitism article could support its etiological implications, but it is still a reasonale "see also" entry.)BitterGrey 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add them then. I figure you know the history, and would have mentioned it if any of the terms were taboo or a focus of contention, which was my main concern. Anonymous55 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Omorashi

BTW, does anyone know if omorashi is even for real? I never heard of it before yesterday, and the article seems to have been written single-handedly by Fsecret. Anonymous55 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a real Japanese word, but other pages don't seem to use it to describe a specific paraphilia. One ABDL page that discusses the word[11], defines it as "a colloquial term for the act of urination" or "peeing uncontrollably." A non-ABDL online dictionary [12] translates it simply as "peeing." There might be fine nuances involved that are best left in the hands of editors who know Japanese, in the Japanese language wiki.BitterGrey 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the omorashi article I was referring to is an English-language one that Fsecret recently created. The article claims that it's a fetish with some kind of special association with Japanese culture, which seems dubious to me. Fetishes generally don't depend on nationality, and if it's for real, I would expect there would be an English word for it, and that word should be the title of the article. I'll leave it for people who know something about the subject to deal with, but I'm definitely not going to add a link to it. This whole thing is setting off a bunch of red flags for me. Anonymous55 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As in the case of panalphilia[13], the test was to find sources outside of wikipedia. If Google can't find a substantial number of English uses of the word, then perhaps it doesn't belong in the English wikipedia. I've read Fsecret's article, which seems to apply the same word to game show contestants as to those with a paraphilia. If the word simply means "urination," "urinary urge," or "urinary accident," this isn't incorrect. This would, however, not be grounds for an English article. BitterGrey 14:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the outside links. Omorashi is a type of erotica in which women experiance bathroom desperation and wet themselves, usually in their panties, sometimes in a diaper. The game shows and the erotic (though admitedly, only erotic to someone turned on by girls wetting themselves) videos are produced by the same handful of companies for the same fanbase: people who enjoy seeing girls try to hold it and fail. A quick visit to Giga or Sanwa should statisfy anyone who is sceptical about the existance of omorashi. There are also some fetish glossaries here that define it.

• A Japanese fetish glossary
• Another Japanese fetish glossary

I added the reference on the diaper lover page because omutsu omorashi is the Japanese equivalent of diaper fetishish. What is interesting about it is that unlike in english speaking countries, their diaper lover community is not associated with their adult baby community. (Which, FYI, is called Aka-chan.) Certainly notable on the diaper lover page, in my opinion.

As for the info I added, I am glad that Anonymous55 has gone on record to say that there were ideas there that might be fitted into the article. I will tread a little lighter next time, and perhaps these contributions can be worked in without so much fuss. Sorry for rushing in like that. I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. Fsecret 23:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, if checking for relevence to omorashi, Sanwa primarily focuses on diaper content, where Giga has more of the little "I-have-to-pee-but-can't-make-it" dramas. Fsecret 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have copied and pasted the omorashi discussion to the appropriate talk page. Fsecret 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your links. In the first one, the word "omorashi" does not appear anywhere. In the second one, it's hard to tell because the English is so fractured (in fact it looks like a machine translation from Japanese), but it looks like it's describing a type of service offered by prostitutes. It says that "omorashi" means to pee ones pants, but in what context? Only in an erotic context as your article suggests, or in any context? You can't tell from the link. And the way the service is described makes it sound like the prostitute is playing a "mommy" role, as in infantilism, which sounds completely different from what your article says.

Your link to "Giga" brings up what looks like a page of pornographic video covers. I'm sorry, but I'm not about to wade through a bunch of material like that in order to find out what a word means. The one to "Sanwa" just brings up what I assume to be an explicit content warning in Japanese (which I can't read), so I'm going to assume it's more of the same.

You just said that omorashi is a type of erotica, by which I assume you mean pornography. But your article says its a fetish. Which is it? Those are two different things. (This ties into another problem I had with your edits to diaper lover, which I left out because I couldn't figure out how to express it before - that you seem to talk about fetishes and genres of pornography as if they're the same thing. And I hope I don't have to explain why that's a huge problem as far as the infantilism and diaper lover articles are concerned.)

I'm finding this all very confusing, and I'm afraid I'm still no closer to understanding what "omorashi" encompases, and what relation it has, if any, to diaper lovers.

And I just want to clarify that the reason I reverted your edits was the specific problems that they introduced (including the ones I listed previously), and not just because you weren't discussing first. I appreciate your discussing first, and by discussing we can hopefully avoid the problems that make reverts necessary. But the reverts were based on the content, not on behavior. Anonymous55 10:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all I suppose I should address my use of the term erotica vs. pornography. Pornography generally implies nudity or sex. Omorashi activity never involves sex and rarely involves any nudity at all. Someone totally unacquainted with the idea might watch an omorashi video and not see anything sexual about it. However, for an omorashi fetishist, seeing a girl have a bathroom accident is very erotic. Without actual sex to worry about, the omorashi fetish videos provided by companies like Giga and Sanwa range from documentary (video of a fetish convention where girls are wetting their pants or having diapers changed) to dramatic (a staged scenario with actors and a script which ends in a girl wetting herself) to game shows (like Giga's Desperation Tournament.) It is hard to call a gameshow pornography when we generally associate the term with people who get off from watching actual sex. However, Giga and companies like it market all of these side by side as "omorashi." Even if one cannot read Japanese, it is easy to verify this by looking at the page that you described as looking like "a page of pornographic video covers." Most of these videos have the word OMORASHI printed in roman letters on the front. As for the translation, what can I say? Google has yet to perfect the automatic translator. You could ask it to show you the original page, but then it would be in all Japanese. By the way, anyone wanting to view the main sight can scroll to the bottom of the page and click "TOP PAGE," clearly printed in English. This will take you away from the omorashi page to the main page, where you can see Giga's other "erotic-but-not-necessarily-pornographic" movies.

The "prostitution" you refer to is probably the omorashi service at an "image club" or "pink salon." Prostitution is illegal in Japan, though the only thing the Japanese government defines as such is genital-to-genital contact. Pink Salons are establishments that have in the past specialized in oral sex, but these days have gradually added a number of other "not-quite-sex" services. They are a place where one can go to receive a massage plus oral sex or a range of other fetish oriented services that are not sex, but are as good as sex to a fetishist. Image clubs offer an extensive range of fantasy services that include costumes and settings. An omorashi service can involve either the client, the masseuse, or both, wetting themselves, with or without a diaper. This can sometimes involved a "teiku auto" or "take out" where you get to take home your masseuse's wet panties or diaper, or just their urine in a bottle.

Omorashi is more than a "genre of pornography." It is a highly developed Japanese fetish subculture that, though it does not involve sex or even in most cases nudity, is catered to by the purveyors of adult entertainment in that country.

By the way, the Sanwa link that you said looks like an adult content warning is. Click on the button in the middle of the page and you will go into the site and onto a page that says "omorashi web club." That much is in English. Not much else on the site is, but there will be one of a few randomly assorted welcome pictures of a girl in wet panties or a diaper that anyone can understand.

Omorashi is a fetish thing. Anyone who would describe themselves as an omorashi fan will tell you that seeing a girl wet herself in a diaper gets them off. This is not always true of those who identify as "AB/DL." I think it would benefit both this page and the paraphilc infantilism page to find a statistic regarding exactly how many "AB/DLs" do not regard what they do as sexual.

Anyhow, those who identify as diaper fetishists and would agree that seeing a girl wet herself in a diaper is erotic for them. They would probably regard diaper-wearing omorashi fans as fellow diaper lovers. Fsecret 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

<original research> The presence or absence of sexual practices, such as masturbation, etc., is plotted in Figure #8 of the first results report on the AB, DL, Etc survey. The level of sexual interest (but possibly not activity) is plotted in Figure #7.</original research.>

Back on the subject of omorashi, I think more material needs to be available on the subject. The second fetish glossary doesn't distinguish it from common AB practices (wetting and being changed), and the first doesn't seem to list the word. BitterGrey 05:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that clears up some things. If "omorashi" is the name of a subculture, then it actually does make some sense to have an article by that name in the English language wikipedia, describing the subculture. However, I think you definitely need to change the opening paragraph of your article so it says that it's a subculture, rather than saying it's a fetish. That would do a lot to reduce the confusion.

A fetish is not a subculture, and vice versa. A fetish is a psychological state, and is independent of culture. A subculture can revolve around a fetish, but that doesn't make the two equivilent. A person can be a fetishist without being a member of/participant in any subculture.

When I was using the word "pornography", I meant it in a way that includes things that don't depict nudity or intercourse, including what you're calling "erotica" rather than pornography. The distiction between material that's only erotic to someone with a paraphilia and that which isn't is the least of the distinctions I'm concerned about. And on that note, I obviously do need to explain why it's a problem to couch infantilism and diaper fetishes in the kind of terms that you were.

These things you're talking about, the "omorashi fetish videos", the "pink salons", even the game shows - they're all about sexual gratification turned into a product, to be bought and sold. What the infantilism and diaper lover articles are about, when they're about behaviors at all rather than mere psychological states, is for the most part things that people do in private, either by themselves, or with partners who are consenting adults, and who are taking part because they want to, and not because they're being paid. Nobody's being exploited. But in this "omorashi" stuff, you've got real women, doing things that demean themselves, (whether or not a straight person would recognise it as being sexual), for someone else's gratification, for money. And you've got companies whose business is exploiting these women sexually/financially, selling videos of them on sites like the ones you pointed me to, or whatever. (And I'm not going to go look at those sites again, no matter how many times you say it. That shit offends me, okay?)

I know this stuff exists, and that it isn't going away. And its existence might as well be documented. And Wikipedia isn't censored. But when you do things like compare the situation of diaper lovers to that of "omorashi enthusiasts", and use words like "hardcore" and "softcore", and "participate", and go on about how hard it is for diaper lovers to find their "materials" on the web, etc., the picture you're painting is of someone who is automatically going to be someone who's contributing to/providing a market for that kind of exploitation. And there's enough of a stigma attached to infantilism already without adding in that whole new dimension. Anonymous55 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous55 - I think you need to lighten up. By all means explore the definitions, and try to learn and understand more, but don't berate contributors and abusively refuse to look at information they provide because of some pre-existing personal moral crusade of yours.

Omorashi is for real, and the fact that you had not heard of it before, or that one person took it upon himself to write an article, is irrelevant. What the word actually means I can't say, but the "fetish" (for want of a better word) of wetting oneself, or liking to see others wet themselves, is very real, and is certainly not confined to Japan. I could point you at a number of US and UK websites that deal with the topic, but you'd probably refuse to look at them too.

As far as I know there is no English word for it, other than the simple descriptive "wetting" or "desperation", i.e. there is no equivalent of urolagnia or urophagia, but again that doesn't make it any less real. It's all part of the spectrum of "pee-play", but there are people who although they enjoy wetting would not want to be urinated on, or to drink urine.Wetmikep 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was quite pleased to see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan has adopted the omorashi article. Hopefully their perspective will help to emphasize where omorashi is more than just another word for urolagnia. This is something lacking in the current article. We non-Japanese speakers can only try to discern what it is from exported porn. This has risks. For example, if we only knew about AB/DLs from pornography, we would conclude that most AB/DLs were female. (e.g: [ http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&hl=en&q=ab/dl ])

Wetmikep, please be as specific as possible - and include supporting links - when discusing personal crusades. Otherwise, the comment may come across as a vauge, unsupoorted personal attack. BitterGrey 13:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

BG, take a look at the edit history, and which account that comment signed "Wetmikep" was posted from. Our friend Fsecret is now engaging in sock-puppetry to try to give the illusion that other people support his position.

I've given up on Wikipedia, and wasn't intending to ever use this account again. But I've had great personal respect for you ever since I first saw Bittergrey's Den back in 1995, and I couldn't let this go without giving you a heads-up about who/what you're dealing with here. Anonymous55 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have two regrets. The first is that I was misled by Fsecret's deceptive personal attack [14]. The second - and more important - is that he might be successful in driving off a good wikipedian, Anonymous55. BitterGrey 01:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to give the impression that Fsecret had anything to do with my decision to stop editing. It was months ago that I quit, and it was because of POV-pushers on other subjects entirely. Thanks for the kind words, but realistically, with my real-life pressures I just don't have the time or energy. Anonymous55 04:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, that guy posted on the portion of this discussion I posted on the omorashi article. I copied it here to keep the thread from devloping down two seperate paths of discussion. Despite the fact that Wetmikep took it upon himself to come to my defense, I do not want to be associated with any personal attacks made by him. As for the accuasation "sock-puppetry," that also borders on a personal attack. I do not appreciate people starting rumors like that when I am already trying to juggle those "real-life pressures" you mentioned and (pretty much) single handedly create the omorashi article. That kind of nonsense undermines wikipedia. Please consider that such remarks could dissuade many people from joining in on the article and providing a fair and unbiased view of the issue. Bittergrey, your insights about the misleading nature of exported porn are right on the money. I hope you wouldn't mind if I copied and pasted the comment into the omorashi talk? I really don't want to make waves or offend anyone. Fsecret 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to say to Anonymous55 that I completely understood and respected his point on the stigmas already attached to infantilism. As you saw, I didn't really have anything to say to that - I didnt reply. That thread sat there for a long time. What I mean to say is that if I had a problem with your approach I would have said something. I've never been shy about doing so before. I do not consider you a moral crusader. You make good points. Fsecret 18:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your question on the difference between omorashi and urolagnia, Bittergrey, the distinction is that omorashi refers to people who are into full bladder desperation and the accidental emptying of their bladders while clothed. Urolagnia refers to people who are into peeing in general, usually during sex, on eachother. Fsecret 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fsecret, feel free to repost my comment. However, please add a link to its original context and make it clear who is reposting it. Regarding omorashi and urolagnia, Merriam-Webster's Medical Desk Dictionary defines urolagnia broadly as "sexual excitement associated with urine or with urination." Until recently, the wikipedia article on urolagnia included references to desperation and wetting clothes.[15]. This is how I've been using the word all these years, too. Are some additional references available to support the narrower definition? BitterGrey 03:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that Omorashi is a subculture of Urolagnia. So that Omorashi is a form of Urolagnia. In contrast this could be similar to say Bukkake as a form or subculture of a facial. Both examples are a sub-genre and have a Japanese origin. Would this help clarify? This is of course my own interperatation but that is what I'm going with. Sukima 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Psychology

I have added a psychology section with references to two articles from medical journals. Help from anyone who wants to help build this section would be welcome. Fsecret 03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the full citation for Pate's article, Adult baby syndrome, from the paraphilic infantilism article, and the full citation for Maltz's (full text) from Pate's article, where it is the first reference. Neither article seems to mention a latency period, anal stage, Etc. Would people like to discuss the reference's appliability to the sentence, reword the sentence to match the references, or remove them? BitterGrey 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Malitz's article states that the boy in question developed the paraphilia when he was a young child, then repressed the memory, which "did not recur until puberty when sexual desires were intensifying [...] at 13 or 14." In Dr. Pate's article, she reports that "his wish to be a baby began at approximately age 12, when puberty must have been approaching. We can speculate that one of the determinants of the adult baby syndrome in this case may have been a wish to avoid the threat of genital sexuality by regressing to an infantile dependent state." We might want to use these quotes in the article in order to more clearly show how they might compare with freud's own theorys regarding fixation.Fsecret 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Paraphilic Infantilism

It has suggested that this article be merged with paraphilic infantilism[16]. What are people's views on this?

• Agree: The cultures maintaining the two articles have been different, but this might not preclude merging. There also has been no discussion on how the two articles might evelove on separate paths[17]. The DSM includes separate diagnosies for paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism, however, the empirical studies consistently show a continuoum. Individuals differ along a range. Furthermore, all of the references in the diaper lover article were from the paraphilic infantilism article. ( One was converted for the diaper lover article, from stating the adult baby/diaper lover continuoum from an adult baby perspective to stating it from a diaper lover perspective. Another is the first reference from "The Adult Baby Syndrome," a reference from the paraphilic infantilism article.) BitterGrey 14:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly not: This article is already severly skewed toward the adult baby side of diaper fetishism, regardless of the fact the less than half of diaper lovers are Adult babies. I have a feeling that this is because there is a large and agressive AB community that has been doing most of the work on these articles. In order to maintain NPOV, this article must be allowed to move away from the topic of Adult Babies and toward a more accurate representation of the other more common kinds of diaper use in fetishism. Fsecret 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I did remove the merge tag, but then reverted my own edit when I realized how recent this discussion was. I'll give this a least couple more days before deleting it again. --Umalee 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you not to delete the merge tag no matter how many days have passed. Both articles are quite long and a merge would take time. Consider that the references to this article use the term infantilism in their title, and several do not use the term diaper lover. Given this a merge to the term preferred by the citations seems like a proposal that should stand.Lotusduck 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Until the discussion about merging is settled, it might be practical not to spend much time on text copied from the paraphilic infantilism article and pasted into this one. For example, the sentenses just removed [18] originally summarized two sections in the paraphilic infantilism article. The first contrasted parpaphilic infantilism with diaper fetishism [19]. This section has 12 references, with the contrast most breifly shown in the two references to DSM, #12 and #14 (now #20 and #22). The other section, contrasting both with pedophilia [20], included 4 references. The pedophilia section was one of three pasted into the diaper lover article [21][22][23].BitterGrey 12:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia information should be attributed. Paraphrasing attributed articles is not attribution, and of course brings us farther from the original attributed articles, which is a bad thing. That being said, removing uncited material is still a good thing, and if that material is cited in another part of wikipedia, I think it's far less harm done than if it were not.Lotusduck 04:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asserting that it was wrong, but that it might be more efficient to settle the discussion about merging first. If the articles are merged, the unattributed versions of the copied sections will go away as entire sections, not sentence by sentence. The attributed version, of course, should remain. BitterGrey 12:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly argument. It is a clear fact that diaper use in fetishism is not exclusive to infantilists. One could just as easily suggest a merger to TPE, BDSM, omorashi or rubber fetishism. The entire problem with this article is that too many of its sources draw from material on infantilism. To suggest that it should therefore be merged is circular logic. Fsecret 03:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has not seen any new developements in nearly two months. Since it began, many important changes have been made to the Diaper fetishism article which completely rule out any rational argument for a merger. If no one feels the need to pursue the matter any further, I think we should give it until June 1st, then consider this discussion closed, archive it, and remove the tag. Fsecret 22:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's be patient and get input from others, even if it takes a while. The article appears to have three body sections. The first section discusses other paraphilias, each with their own wikipedia page. The second section, on preferences, could be reintegrated into the practices section [24]. The third attributes diaper fetishes to an anal fixation with two references. The first reference describes an adult baby, and attibutes his infantilism to castration anxiety. The other reference attributes the paraphilia to an attempt to reclaim a mother's affections. While merging would not be trivial, it might be beneficial. Of course, that's just my two cents. BitterGrey 03:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think anyone is trying to contend that paraphilic infantilim is the same thing as diaper fetishism though. In fact, one of the important distinctions the paraphilic infantilim page makes is that it is not nessisarily even a fetish. Several of the souces cited portray it instead as a paraphila. The use of diapers in fetishism is very clearly a seperate issue; key sources on the infantilism page state that fewer than 50% of infantilists identify as diaper fetishists.

From a purely editorial standpoint, it is illogical to merge down a broader article to a more specific one. Not only would this be in opposition to wikipedia's stylistic guidelines in general, but also of the policy of avoiding lengthy articles. Fsecret 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the APA's DSM, all sexual fetishes are paraphilias. Can we agree to disagree on this, and wait for other opinions? BitterGrey 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In my mind infantilism isnt anyway connected to sexuality. So I wouldnt call it a fetish, but again everyones mileage may differ. BeckyAnne(talk) 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(I tend to agree that for some, infantilism isn't sexual, and have original research on about how large a percentage we are. Unfortunately, the most verifiable reference on infantilism, the DSM, categorizes it under "sexual" masochism. The combined article or both separate articles will need to deal with the sexual aspects.)BitterGrey 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out, BitterGrey, that though all sexual fetishes are paraphilias, not all paraphilias are sexual fetishes. BeckyAnne's sentiment is a good example of why it wouldn't be right to lump the entire infantilist community with an article about the fetishish community at large. Fsecret 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The last round of changes [25][26] placed infantilism under the header of "Communities in diaper fetishism". This lumps infantilism into fetishism. I have reverted these. The article is now inline with the DSM, which clearly shows that fetishes (302.81) are a subset of the paraphilias (302), not a superset. Although brief, the American Psychiatric Associations' manual, available in most US libraries, is one of the more authoritative and verifiable sources.BitterGrey 06:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote: Neutral. In reading the two articles I find that there is a subtle difference between a Diaper Lover and an Adult Baby (In My Opinion). It seems that the use of a diaper as a paraphilia is more focused on the physical applications. In contrast the Adult Baby view is more the use of the diaper as an aid to the psychological applications. In essence the two camps of thought are extremely related to each other and yet miles apart. It is possible for an Adult Baby to use a diaper in the physical terms of a Diaper Lover (Sexual erotica) and possible for a Diaper Lover to indulge in Baby Play (Again in my opinion). This does not preclude that the Diaper Lover article immediately references Adult Babies without defining the term Diaper Lover first. So it's association with the Adult Baby article is already established in the first paragraph. Perhaps a re-wording where the reference to Adult Babies (infantilism) is a simple section explaining the relationship between the two and the rest of the article could assume a more detached view. I do feel it is appropriate to have two articles but I don't feel the current article for Diaper Lovers currently stands on it's own yet. I do have to say though I liked how the Diaper Lover article makes several references to other related paraphilia and sexual interests like Urolagnia and Omorashi.

A suggestion is the the term Diaper Lover be more referenced (link to) the Adult Baby article and in the section explaining the DL term have that reference a diaper fetish or diaper paraphilia. -- Sukima 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Preferences in Diaper Fetishism

I think that this article might be improved by condensing/rewording/making more encyclopedic some of the details in the "Aspects of the Fetish" which deal with preference into a sectioned called "Preferences in Diaper Fetishism." It might look something like this:

"Like many fetishes, personal preference plays a large role in which communities the fetishist will identify with. In diaper fetishism, one of the primary divisions of preference is whether or not the diapers are used for their intended purpose, and if so, to what degree.

Many diaper lovers gain arousal from "wetting" or urinating in their diapers. A smaller number gain the same arousal from using the diaper to "mess" or defecate. Some fetishists do not use their diapers at all. They may find such practices unappealing or they might not want to deal with the cleanup. Others may become aroused by wearing in public; still others prefer the security of wearing only in private.

Many diaper lovers choose to wear in both public and private, using their diapers as intended and never visiting the toilet. Though for a large group this embodies the full spirit of the fetish, others have found that their enjoyment of wearing diapers diminishes rapidly when the need to wear diapers is always present.[27]

Another preference might be cloth or disposable. Disposables have become increasingly popular in recent years due better availability and ease of clean-up, but many diaper lovers who were babies in the era of washable cloth diapers tend to prefer washables as adults.[28]"

Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? Fsecret 01:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are open discussions regarding moving or merging this article. Perhaps it might be practical to hold off on adjustments to the article's form until we decide what form the article should take. BitterGrey 06:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Deletions

There is only one section in this article that needs to mention infantilism, and that is the section about the differences between it and diaper fetishism. Fsecret 04:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Autonephioplia

I think this is a more accurate term, but I don't see it used anywhere on Wikipedia. http://www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/paraphilia/overview.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timocrates (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

The term was coined by Dr. Money, with help from Diskin Clay, Professor of Greek. His 1984 American Journal of Psychotherapy article, "lovemaps," defines it only as "diaperism" as one of 33 paraphilias, 9 of which had terms freshly coined by Dr. Money. (They were marked as new terms in the article.) The list added previously unnecessary terms, such as "peiodeiktophilia" (penile exhibitionism). Long lists of paraphilias favor systematic approaches, so the new terms might have been coined to support the "lovemaps" theory. The APA's (still short) list in the DSM continues to use fetishism (of which diaper fetishism is a subset) and infantilism, a subset of masochism. There is still debate about whether infantilism and diaper fetishism are two expressions of the same paraphilia, two separate paraphilias, or two artificial groupings of a larger number of paraphilias. BitterGrey 14:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fetish Subcultures?"

This article should use the term "fetish" narrowly, as the APA does. The American Psychiatric Association, in the DSM, groups fetishism as #302.81 (pg 569 in 4th TR), while masochism and infantilism are #302.83 (pg 572 in 4th TR). Paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism might be discussed as two aspects of the same continuum; paraphilias (#302) that involve diapers. This is true in some senses. It could also be written that they are separate, which is also true in some senses. (This is why the APA gave them separate terms and numbers.) However, it cannot be properly written that paraphilic infantilism and BDSM are subgroups/subcultures of fetishism. Many misuse "fetish" to mean "paraphilia," a much broader category including fetishes and many non-fetishes. This is a misuse in that it is not consistent with the APA's definition of fetishism. BitterGrey 06:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC) strong desire to wear or use diapers without physiological necessity.

After a week, I made the appropriate changes to the article. A large BDSM quotation was cut for focus. A reference to witholding urine as a masochistic practice was removed since it might cause kidney damage. While it may be necessary to mention unsafe practices, the health risks need to be detailed as well.

What are your thoughts on changing the "...desire to wear or use diapers without physiological necessity" to the more general "...desire to wear or use diapers, not due to a physiological need"? <original research> Unpublished survey data shows that a small percentage of DLs report being in diapers for another reason, such as bedwetting or incontinence, when their interests started. </original research.> BitterGrey 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a lover

Am I the only one on this discussion that likes diapers? I just wanted to know that or not. Anyway, I see there is only one picture in the article, are we planning on getting more?

While there are a few exceptions, the vast majority of AB/DLs do like diapers. <original research> A plot of the importance of a diaper's feel/smell/sound, and how critical it is that the diaper be of the right type, is available here[29]. Please note the small bars for those who held that diapers "Must be absent" from AB/DL games, scenes, and fantasies. These added up to about 1%. </original research> BitterGrey 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Biased images?

Why is it that, even though infantilism/diaper fetishism is supposedly more common amongst males than females [30], that all the images on this page feature women and no men? This to me seems biased and in violation of WP:NPOV, catering to what straight male AB/DLs want to see, rather than an accurate reflection of the paraphilia. Not to mention the fact that the image seems to portray infantilism more than diaper fetishism, and therefore isn't relevant to this page. What do other people think? Coop41 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree. (The disagreement is about the leather making it an infantilism picture, but that's not important.) One picture would provide at most one perspective on the diverse interests of ABDLs. The parallel discussion from the infantilism article is here[31]. RefoX wrote "it is impossible to provide one unified view of infantilism through the use one or two (or three... or four...) pictures." The consensus was to leave the article without a picture. BitterGrey (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking so much about the leather picture (which I thought was adequate in a section discussing how diapers can be used in rubber/plastic fetishes) but about the picture which was deleted last night. It was of a diapered woman being breastfed by another woman, surrounded by baby toys. Not very indicative of diaper fetishism in general. I'm not too opposed to images being used in this or the infantilism article, but only if they're relevant to what's being discussed and not just an AB/DL porn gallery. Coop41 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. BitterGrey (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources, reliabel or otherwise

I have concerns about some of the sources used in this article.

• Geocities is clearly not acceptable, I'll be removing that one as soon as I finish writing this.
• Psychosexual Infantilism in Adults: The Eroticization of Regression
  • Does not appear at all in GScholar
  • Appears mostly here in a normal GSearch
  • Auther also has no profile at all, see "Thomas%20John%20Speaker"&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws
• Understanding.infantilism.org is not a reliabe source, and finally,
• Arizona Power Exchange News is also dubious.

Barring substantative support that these are reliable I'll be removing them in a few days.

brenneman 06:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like so long ago when we engaged in a few rounds. It was over a link to a powerpoint file that, based on the lack of proofreading, had never been presented. It disagreed with respected references, and implied criminal activities. It also, by the way, doesn't seem to appear in Google scholar. I took that reference down and you had it back up in, as I recall, eight minutes. I fail to see any criterion for verifiability that your powerpoint link met. Could I ask that you leave references that are more reliable than the one you so actively defended in place? BitterGrey (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, my recollection was that we engaged in spirited but amiable debate as opposed to "going a few rounds." But regardless of that, those diffs are from January 2006. Do you have comments that actually relate to the references I've queried? - brenneman 06:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, after the exchange with the link, there was a two-month period of mass blanking, followed by that time you encouraged one person who is still seeking to do me harm. Yes, I'd consider that 'a few rounds.'

The standard that you applied then was "the entry actually mentions Infantilism _specifically_". This standard is passed by all of those references. They actually do mention diaper fetishism. Now, please be consistent in applying standards, and leave all of those references in place. Otherwise, the right thing for me to do, is to follow your lead, and replace the references just like you did back then. BitterGrey (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please attempt, as much as possible, to depersonalise this.

In this edit you restored this link. It's a link to a GeoCities page with no attribution, editorial information, indication of peer review... Nothing at all to indicate that it is a reliable source. In the policy on Verifiability it describes reliable sources as "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Leaving aside the repetative nature of the quote, go have a browse through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to see the standard.

I am going to re-remove the link. In the event that it is re-added, I will presume that either

1. You have not read the policies, despite being directed to them multiple times, or
2. You are unable to bring to bear sufficient neutrality to apply them.

In either case I will then open a thread at the adminsistrator's noticeboard. I will be asking for a topic ban for you from all articles related to Diaper fetishism, per "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." I am going to place a notice there regardless, asking for independant assessment of my comments here.

Please consider this a final warning: You must comply with policies (including the civilty ones) or you will not be allowed to continue to edit.

brenneman 13:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are the other warnings? To eliminate any conflict-of-interest arguments, I took down the citation to my website. Please note that it was put up by another wikipedian. I hope that we get back to the original discussion, about the need to _consistently_ apply verifiability standards. BitterGrey (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent deletions

For those wondering, WLU's involvement with this page is an extension of a series of edits that also includes paraphilic infantilism[32], adult diaper[33], and infantilism[34]. The disruptive intent of these edits is clear. For example, he altered the article to refer readers to an entire chapter of the DSM (47 pages)[35], when only a subsection (4 pages) was relevant, _after_ the counterproductivity of the same change was discussed at paraphilic infantilism. I had to fix WLU's mess there [36] and now had to fix it here too[37]. BitterGrey (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DLs are not associated with ABs directly

As a DL and incontinent person I dont think we Ds immediately associate ourselves with ABsI'm incontinent and wear Tena Slip Maxi (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The "associated" wording is rather vague. How about "Similarly, some but not all Diaper Lovers (DLs for short) are also Adult Babies (ABs)"? BitterGrey (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made a change that I believe accurately reflects the relationship between DLs and ABs.

"Though distinct, diaper fetishism can also be used as a component of ageplay or paraphilic infantilism, which together form a spectrum of practices colloquially referred to as "adult baby/diaper lover" or "AB/DL"."

Of course not every person with a diaper fetish is interested in ageplay (broadly) or adult baby play (more specifically), but diaper fetishism can certainly be a part of ageplay, and the existence of the common umbrella term "ABDL" hints that there is a connection and overlap there. I think that most people in the ABDL subculture would argue that there is really an entire spectrum of lifestyles or behaviors on which both AB and DL lie, with many people expressing something in-between. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh?

The article first says that DF doesn't involve sex, then it say that it's involved in sexual masochism. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that WLU has had free reign to modify the article however he chooses, and he has[38]. This is what the paraphilic infantilism article might have become like if he had gotten his way there. It is particularly interesting that he replaced references to the fetishism and general paraphilia sections of the DSM, with only the one page of the masochism section of the DSM. This is the page that defines paraphilic infantilism. Needless to say, most seem to consider diaper fetishism a fetish for diapers; that is, a fetish.

In the last round, WLU expanded the DSM refs to include the entire chapter, only part of which was about the paraphilias[39]. First he expands the page range to the point of being mostly irrelevant, then he contracts the page range to the point of being mostly irrelevant. My preference would have been to have left the relevant citations in place. WLU seems to have other goals. BitterGrey (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing in the lead is sub-par and there were a lot of {{fact}} tags. I've removed more of the lead since it confuses paraphilic infantilism with diaper fetishism and spends more time discussing the former than it does the latter. I believe a careful reading of the version you tagged actually says paraphilic infantilists do not engage in sexual activity, but it's easy to misread it as saying diaper fetishists do not. This was not only unsourced, it was as far as I can tell factually inaccurate since there are several sources saying paraphilic infantilists will engage in sexual activity. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the DSM-V and the reference to diapers has been removed form the section on sexual masochism. The only reference made to (used) diapers is now in the Hoarding Disorder section, p.251, as an example of a rare case of hoarding (which has nothing to do with diaper fetishism). Should the sentence be removed? Frdrcv (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Coprophilia and urophilia

These are linked in the see also section. Are they really things related to diaper fetishism? I don't think diaper lovers are any more likely to have those than anyone else. I think they are no more related to this topic than pedophilia is. 209.86.226.56 (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm... you do realise what nappies are for, right? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In a way, you are both right. Having one paraphilia doesn't imply having the other paraphilia. However, there are commonalities in practice, so some overlap in practice and practicing populations could be expected. Of course, this is academic. It seems clearly obvious that those who have diaper fetishism have a fetishism, and so citing the DSM section on fetishism would be reasonable. Yet, due to WLU's anti-DSM/pro-CAMH campaign, the article does not. BitterGrey (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked the {{sex fetishism}} template to include all of these. Per WP:ALSO, there's no longer a need to have any of them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diaper fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501005903/http://ntn.seoul.co.kr/main.php?cmd=news%2Fnews_view&idx=50793 to http://ntn.seoul.co.kr/main.php?cmd=news%2Fnews_view&idx=50793

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Should this article have an image?

I find the image very weird and think that there shouldn't be any visual representation on this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C63:647F:E51E:205F:FD01:3CBD:C7D5 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I see you guys would prefer to leave this filth on here. Alright. 2600:6C63:647F:E51E:EC6B:F504:2A5B:7233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what image was attached before, but if there is going to be an image on this article it should be something that's plainly SFW. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember the last one. It was a mediocre selfie you find throughout the community. A bit cringe for the Wikipedia page, but nothing too egregious. Snaperkids (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I just removed an image of a person in a visibly wet diaper. I'm not totally sure what the wikipedia official guidelines are for content, but if we're going to include a picture of a person wearing a diaper, it's probably best to at the very least avoid anything in which bodily fluids are present. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Adult demonstrating diaper fetishism by wearing an adult diaper.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Adult baby wearing diaper.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A section devoted to showing views of most people, specifically, from South Korea???

I think that is very specific, ideally I would recommend changing: "==Views== This sort of fetishism is often [...] (reference ...) and as a result, [...]

South Korea

" and than may be also: "===US=== [...]" So unless South Korea is an important part of this I belive this has to be removed. 2804:14D:7E81:ACC3:0:0:0:94D (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit oddly specific and I think it would be better to have a section dedicated to general social views. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: I have gone ahead and merge the appropriate paragraphs into a general section on "Cultural views". I've also removed a line about a late night comedy joke involving adult diapers, because that is (a) not unique to South Korea and (b) not indicative of South Korean cultural views on diaper fetishism specifically. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Adult baby wearing child attire.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice: I've made a number of edits recently, but I think they are accurate and beneficial.

Hi all. I've made a number of substantial edits to this article recently, many of which (but not all) are based on the discussions here. My recent edits have been added very in bits and pieces to make them easier to review, debate and, if needed (but hopefully not) revert. My edits fall into a few main categories: (1) style and housecleaning, (2) organization, and (3) new (and I believe both accurate and relevant) content.

Content-wise, the most notable changes are that the section on paraphilic infantilism has been broadened to ageplay. The motivation for this is that paraphilic infantilism is a form of ageplay, and that diapers can also be a component of ageplay scenarios that do not necessarily involve infantilism (for example, in "middle" play, or even elder play.) If there is disagreement concerning the relationship between ageplay and paraphilic infantilism, we can have that debate, but I feel that, by definition, paraphilic infantilism is a form of ageplay.

Second, I've added a new section about diapers as used in BDSM scenes. As well as a brief note on CG/L. Admittedly, I was torn on whether a reference to CG/L was more appropriate for the Ageplay section, but I figured that the relationship to power dynamics made it more fitting for the BDSM section. Certainly debatable, but generally I'm happy with where it is.

Third, I've added a new section on "Clinical significance", which highlights two important facts. (1) That diaper fetishism, like all paraphilic behavior, is in and of itself not clinically significant according to the APA, and (2) that, being a paraphilia, there is the potential for it to become associated with a "paraphilic disorder", in cases where it causes a person significant mental distress. These points are all relevant, sourced and, I think, pretty clear.

The final big content change is broadening the section of "Views in South Korea" to just "Cultural views". Because there is no specific relationship between diaper fetishism and South Korea, it feels impossible to justify having a section dedicated to it. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, a quick note on "diaper fetishism" vs "diaper lovers" in the current version of the page:

I have done my best to carefully delineate between those people who choose to wear diapers for at least some degree of sexual gratification (for whom the term "fetish" certainly applies), and those people who choose to wear diapers only for some other non-sexual feelings (for whom the term "fetish" may be inaccurate).

Let's quickly define "diaper lovers" as "people who wear diapers 'recreationally'", and "people with a diaper fetish" as "people who wear diapers 'recreationally' for sexual arousal".

Although this article is titled "diaper fetishism", I would strongly argue that evidence and logic suggests that "people with a diaper fetish" are "diaper lovers", but not all "diaper lovers" are "people with a diaper fetish". That is to say that some subset of diaper lovers has zero sexual motivation and would probably not be considered to have a "fetish".

However, because there is no page dedicated to "diaper lovers" or the non-sexual recreational use of diapers in general, I would argue that it is appropriate that both are included in this article, especially when we consider the substantial overlap, as many DLs fall somewhere on a spectrum between sexual fetish and feelings of comfort.

That's a few too many words to say that this article has quite a lot of important ground to cover, between "diaper fetishism" as a strictly sexual practice, "diaper lovers" as the general case of people who enjoy recreational use of diapers, as well as the very real and noteworthy potential links to other behaviors (like ageplay, BDSM, "omorashi"/urolagnia, etc.).

People are complex, and many of these topics are fundamentally intertwined, hence the existence of the ABDL community. But I feel that the current version of the page does a pretty good job of making specific distinctions where appropriate, without becoming overly pedantic to the point of noninclusion (for example, 'erasing' the experiences of non-sexual diaper lovers by being so strict in our definition of 'diaper fetishism' as omit them entirely. That would be a disservice to them, and also a disservice to the goals of Wikipedia!) FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Fetish diaper makers of note sub-section.

I've added a sub-section alphabetically listing noteworthy makers of fetish/ABDL diapers, but I'm not sure if it's something that we all find appropriate or worth including in the article, so I'm adding this item where we can talk about whether to include this list as well as which makers should be included.

Keep in mind that the list should remain unbiased and alphabetically sorted. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)