Talk:Paraphilic infantilism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paraphilic infantilism article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Paraphilic infantilism has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents 1 Previous discussion points 1.1 Transitional Objects 1.2 Distribution of paraphilias among AB/DLs. 2 Some other points 3 Less words, less abreviations 4 Only TeenBabies, what about PreTeenBabies? 5 Scope of discussions 6 Unprotecting 7 Merging sissy baby with infantilism 8 Move to protect again 9 Cure or Treatment 10 The recent merging 11 Props list 12 Request for discussion: should dpf.com be included in the external links? 13 Majority of infantilists heterosexual or homosexual? 14 198.83.126.254 15 Practical or voluntary use 16 "adult babies invariably consider themselves to be diaper lovers" 17 Moving forward (per the Diaper lover talk page) 18 Merging the diaper lover article with paraphilic infantilism 19 Scope of References, part 2.

[edit] Previous discussion points

I'm finding reviewing the archives heavy going, so I'm going to post a skeleton to be filled in {{sofixit}} style. Feel free to colour outside the lines. - brenneman ^{L} 09:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transitional Objects

Some debate as to how widespread the use of transitional objects is. A couple of brief examples of the desired content, with sources are as follows: [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

• [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
  • I'd be leary of adding anything that had toddlertime as its only source. - brenneman ^{L} 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• • [Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)]

• • [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

• • • [Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)]

[Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Point of relevance: [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)] This discussion relates to the second point in a four-point case. [Points A through C Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

D) To quote Aaron Brenneman, [If the information required to show a site is "suitable" isn't public, it's not suitable.] BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• [Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] Distribution of paraphilias among AB/DLs.

Do all diaper lovers have a paraphilic diaper fetish, or, only about half of all AB/DLs are paraphilic as defined by the APA. A couple of brief examples of the desired content, with sources are as follows:

• The Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders lists on pg 573 [4th ed. TR BitterGrey 14:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)] two specific criteria that must be met for an adult baby to be diagnosed with parahilic infantilism. Not all adult babies meet these critia. Thus adult babies might have paraphilic infantilism. [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
• The Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders lists on pg 570 [4th ed. TR BitterGrey 14:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)] three specific criteria that must be met for a diaper lover to be diagnosed with fetishism. [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

• Please note that the Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders does not state that the two are mutally exclusive. Thus an adult baby might have a fetish, and a diaper love may have paraphilic infantilism. BitterGrey 13:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, <devil's advocate> purely based on the above statement, having not yet gone to look at the references. I'm fairly sure it will be two criteria for a person to be diagnosed with parahilic infantilism, and three for a person to be diagnosed with fetishism. So the argument could be made that "adult babies" is defined as "paraphilic infantilism", etc. </devil's advocate> I'm going to lay hand on hardcopy soon.
    brenneman ^{L} 13:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The devil would have great fun here. "Paraphilic infantilism" is a term specifically defined by the APA, while "adult baby" developed on IRC or before, without a formal definition. Since the term "adult baby" predates "diaper lover," some older diaper lovers still refer to themselves as adult babies. The present article neglects this to avoid perpetuating confusion. <original research> The prevalence or primary diaper fetishes (those who would choose a diaper over a person for sex) actually seems to be higher among adult babies than diaper lovers. </original research> The people (ABs) vs properties (paraphilic infantilism) issue has come up on this discussion page about every other month. BitterGrey 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Is there a way of including both viewpoints, rather than deciding between them? -Will Beback 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
          • Sounds good to me. Does anyone else have input? -Will Beback 22:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • What are the proposed changes to the article from this? Can we have the desired section done here, in a little box? - brenneman ^{L} 01:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
            • The simplest would be to revert to the summary table as shown. Are there comments on whether 'maybe' or 'might have' is grammatically better?

• Adult Baby (AB)
  • Maybe paraphilic infantilism ^[1]
  • Self-image/alter-ego focused
  • Sexual relationship with partner separate from adult baby play
• Diaper Lover (DL)
  • Maybe diaper fetish ^[2]
  • Focused on an external object
  • No inherent roleplay

BitterGrey 02:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

<reset indent> I'd always rather see prose than a bulleted list. And citations, of course. - brenneman ^{L} 06:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly in the DSM-IV TR is there any mentioned of AB/DL? I don’t see how this can be used as a reference when there is no reference in the manual. Also, the DSM-IV TR is a Diagnostic manual for mental disorders. Many people can have a fetish and not be dx'd with 302.81 because it has to significantly interfere with the quality of a person's life. Meaning they can have the fetish without being dx'd as a mental illness. Another quesion, what version of the DSM are you refereing too? I'm not seeing anything on page 573. I hope other editors will check out the text before giving the green light on this. KAS 07:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm intending to lay hands on a copy of the DSM this weekend. - brenneman ^{L} 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Would this be preferable to the bulleted summary? [extra copy removed BitterGrey 16:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)] The phrases on diagnosis by focus refer to earlier in the paragraph, the reference ^[3] is not repeated here since it related to diagnosis by focus, as opposed to paraphilic infantilism specifically.BitterGrey 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That reads well. This is me agreeing to the style by the way. Once we do that, we'll have several copies of the desired paragraph here: One "working" copy plus suggested re-writes. In fact, a re-write with a different set of citations in almost this style would be great, KAS. I'd ask that is be set out as opposed to in the body of your comment. Write exactly what you'd want on the page. brenneman ^{L} 15:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• I see logistical problems in the new revision statements on the work of infantilism. [Dispute-related statment moved to user's talk page. El_C 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)] KAS 07:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to take a break from all of this for awhile. Perhaps I will come back and work in this another day. I trust that a sharp and logical mind will double-check the work and can see the logistical problems in the new revision statements on the work of infantilism. For one thing, things are being referenced that are not in the sources, this means they are not clear references.KAS 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been an issue for months, so the parties should already have had time to consider their positions. Aaron's question has been open for a week now. Can we keep this moving forward? (While personally threatened, I am not going away.) BitterGrey 11:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some other points

Are we happy that all the current references meet the guideline on reliable sources and also that the external links are meet their guideline? - brenneman ^{L} 09:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

While external links do not have to conform to NPOV, we should choose them to reflect all the significant viewpoints. Would it be possible to have a divided list? Regression-type links in one section, paraphilic in another, and so on. Sites with articles and facts are preferred to forums and fansites. -Will Beback 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, the suggestion of "firsthand experience as an AB/DL" runs soundly against our reliable sources paradigm. Firsthand experiance is a primary source, and while in some few instances it can be used, even then it should be supported by secondary accounts. More specifically

1. It would make "sorting" the abundance more dificult.
2. This confusion needs to be sorted out by dueling references.
3. If the information required to show a site is "suitable" isn't public, it's not suitable.
4. Again, if we stick to the guidelines and what's verifiable than it shouldn't be "personal."

Even if we leave aside any concerns about personal privacy or safety, it's just bad for the readers. Basing any kind of judgements where an educated layman couldn't confirm the facts for themselves?

brenneman ^{L} 06:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)]

Can we confirm a consensus for Aaron Brenneman's point #3? I am in full support of it. BitterGrey 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've changed the formatting of the above a very small amount to make it easier to read, and to try to make it more clear who is responding to what. - brenneman ^{L} 15:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Less words, less abreviations

Just some general advice: be concise. The more words you use, the less likely anyone is to hear them. But please attempt to use complete sentences, complete words, etc. This is all to make it easier for other people to read a statement.
brenneman ^{L} 15:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only TeenBabies, what about PreTeenBabies?

Infantilism has been known to happen from age 10. 65.12.134.148 20:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

True. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders states that interests may begin during "childhood or early adolescence" (pg 568 4th ed. text revised). However, since there is a limited amount of information (even before we filter for verifiable sources), there might not be much that we can add about PreTeen Babies. BitterGrey 06:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of discussions

Given recent events, I would like to make explicit something that should be obvious: The act of initiating a post of one's own work or ideas to wikipedia will be viewed, by me and possibly others, as an expression of both approval and invitation to discuss that work or idea on wikipedia. Within the confines of public information and proper discretion, this discussion may involve the background or context of the work or idea. This act of initiation (as well as the approval) does not apply to those responding in a discussion initiated by another. Ideally, all discussions on wikipedia would be based on verifiable sources, which are both more reliable and less personal. BitterGrey 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

This article has been protected for over a month and there has been no discussion in weeks and weeks. Time to edit. Please play nice. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging sissy baby with infantilism

Since sissyhood is a significant flavor of infantilism, it seems reasonable to merge the the sissy baby article into the infantilism article. However, there might be a difference in the culture of the two articles. For example, points in the infantilism article have been contested even though they were supported by multiple references, while the sissy baby article is without references. BitterGrey 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to protect again

It has just been vandalised again, I am moving to have it reverted & protected. --Beyond Realistic

[edit] Cure or Treatment

How come theirs no reference to a cure or for better words treament for people who have infantalism such as making it so ones does not have to act one's infantile behavior such as wearing diapers. Unsigned edit by User:69.40.230.9

Because there isn't a treatment and many infantilists have no desire to change their behaviour. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 10:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Schouldn't this be noted, also it has been noted that if a person with Parafelic Infantalism wants to stops for moral or personal reasons they could, http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:Bgl_Te2zeZIJ:understanding.infantilism.org/essay.php+%22In+you+opinion+is+is+possible+to+treat+an+infantilist%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 The link in a cache (site unavailable at the time) and also heres a specfic quote:

Question: In you opinion is is possible to treat an infantilist, to

          the point where the desire to be an infant will be
          overcome, or is it more of an "acceptance" type cure?

Nutter:   It is possible to try and treat infantilism thru
          psychoanalysis, behavior therapy or antiandrogen
          medication.  However, it is my opinion that it is better to
          help the infantilist to try and accept his behavior.  If
          for strong moral reasons someone wishes to stop his
          behavior, then one of the above methods can be applied.
          Usually antiandrogen plus psychotherapy is the most
          successful.

Unsigned udit by User:71.29.195.88

Then they should see a psychologist instead of coming here.

--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 07:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point, the point is their is treatment, and just like for any other disorder (mental, physical or etc.) it schould be in the entry about it. Also by not putting the fact theirs is treatments, this articles "neutrality" is compromised as it's favored towards only one side.

1. Sign your comments with --~~~~.
2. Do not change the comments of others. I am talking about you replacing 'diapers' with '#######'. Yes, I know it is you who is doing that. Wiki keeps track of which IP and user changes what when.

1. There is little information available and none of them are reliable sources of information. They are contested so we cannot use them on wikipedia.

--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that some forms of infantilism are curable. However, I don't know of any studies that claimed to have "cured" a sample of paraphilic infantilists. There also hasn't been enough research into paraphilic infantilism to divide it into meaningful, mechanism-specific syndromes. Since there isn't a consensus and little evidence either way, perhaps it is best not to breach the topic in the article? That is, not to write that there is a proven cure, but also not write that there is no cure.

By the way, here is a direct link to Bob G.'s article[1].BitterGrey 02:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(The following was removed from the middle of my last edit. It was done by an anom user and unsigned)

(In reference to someone replacing 'diapers' with '#######')

This was a result of a over-sentive blocker which changes would be offensive words into #######, please excuse me I've turned it off for the purpose of this dicussion.

(In reference to what a reliable source is)

May I truly ask what you consider, 'reliable sources'? The website is from "Understanding Infantalism", surely it could be considered a reliable source cause everything I've learned of Infantalism comes from the internet. And again, if you refuse that "treament or cure" just out of personal beliefs then you are conflicting "again" the neturality of this article. I'm not trying to flame, just trying to reason, cause their was a something like this previously in this article.00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)~

Unsigned by user:69.40.226.19

(--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

A reliable source is not a website unless it comes from an institution. A reliable source is a published book.

--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have one last thing, how is "Section 10 - Into the Future Retrieved 2002 from http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Island/5861/ds3_s10.txt, now mirrored at http://web.archive.org/web/20010424192400/www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Island/5861/DS3_S10.txt" , #3 in your sources, is reliable source as its not a book. If you could explain this, I won't agree but I'll somewhat agree why their isn't any reference or talk about a treament.

Unsigned edit by 71.29.206.187

1. PLEASE end all your posts with FOUR tilde (~~~~) so we know who wrote what.
2. If you contest the reference, then be bold and remove it along with what it referenced.
3. I do not consider geocities a reliable source.

--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 09:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've removed it, this honestly wasn't needed as you had 2 references for DL, and I guess I have to agree that until someone writes about this in science journal or something of that nature, then you can't put in anything about a cure, yet. Though I belive the essay schould be given a 2nd thought due to fact that the part I quoted from was answered by a person, namily a Doctor, that schould be considerly reliable due to their creditals,(71.29.195.16 02:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)).

I would greatly prefer it if the second survey reference were left in place. As those familiar with the article's recent history know all too well, the simple point that some ABs also consider themselves DLs was the subject of frequent revision. Those revising it presented no evidence. The second survey reference was frequently attacked because it was available over the internet. In contrast, the first survey reference was frequently disregarded because most didn't have access to it. The text was simply altered to no longer agree with the reference.

Furthermore, the reference is tertiary - individuals filled out the survey, another reported the results, and a third added the reference here. The results were later confirmed by my own survey on the range between AB and DL.To avoid going through that again, I would prefer if both references were left in place.

Now if those involved in the curable vs. incurable debate would be willing to present their references, perhaps we can move constructively toward a reasonably defensible position. Since it is an inflamatory issue, the article's stated position will need to be strongly defended. BitterGrey 06:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is the lack of credible reference that has me against including the treatment section. I think Geocities is not a credible reference for this article and references should stick to published work, not original research or websites. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 09:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To date, I have contributed _all_ of the references in this article. It was a difficult, time-consuming, and mostly thankless undertaking. Studies published by others over the internet, while possibly not as reliable as those published on paper, are more reliable than mere individual opinions. Please be constructive by defining and supporting your position. A position without support cannot become the better supported position. BitterGrey 05:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(To amend that, the stubbed article's first reference, added by an admin [2], was to an internet file. It apparently had not been presented or published. Since it was a file on pedophilia and named DSM_4, I replaced it with a reference to the paraphilic infantism section of DSM IV.)BitterGrey 06:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The recent merging

Is it not the norm to ask others who know something about this subject to come and comment instead of just putting up an AfD? I think this is rather back handed and would like to explore the possibility of undoing this AfD since most of the people who contributed to this article were never made aware. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 06:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it would have been nice for the nominator to have done that, I guess, but no, its not required. I'm not sure if your objection is to the deletion of the article Sissy baby or to the inclusion of the material from that article into this article (and in a perhaps ham-handed way at that). If it's the former, shouldn't you have had Sissy baby on your watchlist, and would have known that it had been put up for deletion? Anyway:
  • If you object to the deletion of the article Sissy baby, you can appeal at WP:DRV. However, WP:DRV is basically for when the closing itself didn't follow process or was otherwise incorrect. You could make a case for that, but not really a strong case, I don't think.
  • If you object to the deletion of the article [[Sissy baby] but don't want to go to WP:DRV, or if you fail there, you could just recreate the article, providing it was a substantially different (and better) article. I did see that a couple of commentors thought that the article needed to be rewritten, and it certainly does need sourcing.
  • If you object to the inclusion of the material from Sissy baby into this article... well, realistically, you could probably just delete the material (I just put it in its own section at the end of the article) and if nobody else working on this article objects you're OK... better would be to take any useful material from the old Sissy baby article and work it into this article in appropriate places, if any of the material is useful. That would more in the spirit of merging.

Does this help? Herostratus 06:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of Sissy Baby in this article was contested before and the solution was to create another article; Sissy Baby was a full fledge article before until people started deleting more and more of it without concensus. Esentially, Sissy Baby is its own notable fetish and that concensus has been reached several times. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 09:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Props list

I had the idea of adding a list of items/props used by infantilists - just a simple list of terms like diaper, crib, pacifier, blanket sleeper, etc., each one linking to the article on the given subject. At first glance it seemed like a no-brainer that it would improve the article. But that was before I was aware what a long and volatile history this article has had, and I'm guessing there may be a reason there wasn't such a list there already, other than simply no-one having thought of it before. What's the feeling on this? There's just too much history to wade through for me to figure out what the reason is, if any, on my own.Anonymous55 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for seeking to contribute to the article, and for considering the article's embattled past before doing so. Yes, there was one person who was extremely zealous in the removal of the word "prop." Discussing her motives or even referring directly to those past edit wars might cause problems.

My reservation about a list of paraphernalia (assuming there are no objections to calling them that) is that it might imply a detailed uniformity that isn't there. The only defining item of infantilistic paraphernalia is the diaper, and even that is sometimes absent. Some ABs enjoy pacifiers, others do not. Some ABs enjoy enemas, others do not.

<original research> A vague order of paraphernalia collections is plotted in Figure #5 at http://understanding.infantilism.org/results_1a_abdl.php . It quantifies the distribution in layette scope from nothing to furnished nursery across the range from DL to AB.</original research>. BitterGrey 03:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.

It makes no difference to me whether they're called "props" or something else. In fact "paraphernalia" is probably closer to what I meant anyway.

I take your point about a potentially misleading implication of uniformity, and I agree even diapers aren't a universal interest among infantilists. However, my take on that is that while there certainly is value in properly qualifying any statement that's remotely a generalization, so that no-one is excluded or misrepresented, and avoiding any statements that can't be so qualified, that it's unfortunate if that has to come at the cost of making it difficult for someone who's never heard of the topic before being able to get a basic sense of what it's about without reading a long essay. That's one of the reasons I think a paraphernalia list would be a good thing. I think a simple list, saying "these are some things a non-insignificant percentage of infantilists take an interest in", would go a long way toward helping give people an intuitive grasp of what infantilists do/are interested in, while being extremely efficient in terms of the amount of added text.

In a nutshell, I think an article on infantilism of the length of this one, that doesn't contain any of the words: pacifier, high chair, playpen, sleeper, onesie, or bottle, probably has something wrong with it.

Could a carefully-written disclaimer at the top of the list resolve your concerns?

My other reason for wanting to include it, (and in fact my original reason) was simply to improve linking between articles. (And I'll admit a personal interest here, as I wrote about 99% of the Blanket Sleeper article.)Anonymous55 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As a week has passed without further comments, I'm going to go ahead with the paraphernalia list. Feel free to revert if you don't think it improves the article.Anonymous55 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to get initial thoughts from others before writing again but may have delayed too long. You are right that one week is long enough to wait. The list looks good, without tangential items. Two changes I'd make would be to convert the bulleted list to inline [3] and to add a minimal disclaimer. How does this look? BitterGrey 05:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

While the tastes and collections of individual ABs differ, some items that might be involved include diapers, onsies, blanket sleepers, cribs, playpens, high chairs, baby bottles, pacifiers, and stuffed animals.

That looks fine to me. As long as the terms/links are there, I don't care how it's formatted. And anyway I'll defer to your judgement.Anonymous55 05:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for discussion: should dpf.com be included in the external links?

Considering the volatile nature of this article (not to mention those of us who edit it ;) ), and the fact that I'm pretty sure the link had already been added and later removed in the past, I'm going to bring this question up for discussion before making any changes on my own: what are people's thoughts on adding dpf.com to the external links list? I can see arguments both for and against the idea, but my own personal feelings is that it does belong. It is a commercial site, yes, but it also has a lot of useful information available publicly, and it's also one of the oldest existing AB/DL sites/communities on the net - in fact, I'm pretty sure that the organization has been around longer than the web itself (though obviously not the site itself!). - Pacula 18:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, these are valid points. In the case of the most recent exchange, there is a less debatable point: there were three links that were exactly reproduced elsewhere in the article. A few days ago, links to http://www.dpf.com and http://www.aby.com were exactly duplicated in the Growing Up as an ABDL and Pedophilia Contrasts sections as well as the external links. ( http://www.http//ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/160/11/1932 is the third, reproduced exactly in the references. ) It seems best to remove the fully redundant links first. BitterGrey 04:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC).

While I agree that they should be here to a certain extent, I feel that aby doesn't belong at all -- just for the fact that it provides very little information on the scene. There's some also downright questionable material on aby too. I suppose DPF may belong somewhat in external links, except for it being a commercial site. Mathias Grayfox 17:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this discussion also applies to the diaper lover article[4].BitterGrey 14:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea, though I'm not sure how to implement it properly - use a system like the current 'references' one: change the in-article links to 'jumps' down to the appropriate part of eternal links section below, so there's only one actual -link- to each such external page, while still allowing the article itself to mention the site and provide an indirect means to it. Note, that my arguments about the valid-despite-being-semi-commercial arguments above were JUST about dpf.com - I wasn't familiar with aby.com, and a quick look shows that, while it might have enough relevance to be mentioned, it's nowhere near to what I think DPF's relevance is, mainly because of how long DPF has been around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pacula (talk • Pacula 17:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I still do not believe that aby.com should be linked to, as it contains very little value compared to dpf... Arguably, the biggest thing for aby is it's photo gallery (eugh...) which is hardly suitable for the unintroduced. Mathias Grayfox 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mathias Grayfox, and would like invite differing opinions, especially from non-anonymous wikipedians. BitterGrey 03:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of "fact" now, according to wp's style guide (thanks BitterGrey): Aby does not belong as it requires signing up for an account to view content. Thus, I'll continue removing links as necessary. Mathias Grayfox 08:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Anonymous55 09:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A tangential note for information's sake: While www.infantilism.org (SlashDIAPERS) and understanding.infantilism.org (previously BitterGrey's Den) share a domain name, they differ in structure, focus, and editors. The former is a forum maintained by BabyLai, in Europe. The later is a collection of articles that I maintain from the U.S. BitterGrey 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majority of infantilists heterosexual or homosexual?

"DerkJerk" changed the sentence stating that the majority of infantilists are heterosexual to state that the majority are homosexual. The original version was supported by a reference to the paper by Thomas John Speaker. I don't have access to that paper, so I don't know which assertion it actually supports, but since the "heterosexual" version was longstanding in the article, and since no rationale for the change was made either here or in the edit summary, I reverted to the status quo.

DerkJerk, if you want to assert that the majority of infantilists are homosexual, please provide a reference that supports that view. Anonymous55 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• From Speaker's survey (1986), pg 78, question 7. "Sexual Orientation: primarily heterosexual (20), primarily homosexual (6), bisexual (6), solitary sex (2) (N=34)."
• Dave's 2001 survey Straight (66%), Bi (14%), Gay (10%), Non sexual/asexual (3%), Don't know yet (4%), not selected (3%) (N=631, question #64)
• <original research> The results of the 2006-2007 AB, DL, Etc. survey are heterosexual (58%), bi leaning toward heterosexual (10%), bisexual (8%), bi leaning toward homosexual (6%), homosexual (14%) and solo (4%) among males who are neither transexual nor transvestic (N=742). </original research>

These results can't resolve whether the low ratio of heterosexuals is due to a lower prevalence of heterosexuality among AB/DLs, an increased willingness for non-heterosexuals to complete surveys, increased presence of non-heterosexuals in some of the networks where the surveys were circulated, or other causes. However, these surveys consistently show a heterosexual majority among AB/DLs. BitterGrey 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 198.83.126.254

198.83.126.254, you're making radical changes to an article with a long history of controversy and rancor. You really need to discuss changes of this magnitude *before* you make them. Maybe some bits and pieces of what I reverted can be salvaged, but doing what you're doing now is not helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous55 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

There's a reason that the words "sexual" and "fetish" don't appear in the first sentence of the article. There are many people who would disagree strenuously with your characterization of infantilism as a "sexual fetish". It is for some people; for others it most certainly is not. This is a sensitve topic, there are many shaded of grey, and it needs to be handled with care. Anonymous55 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Practical or voluntary use

Does this section really need to exist? I think it should be obvious that astronauts who wear diapers are not doing it because they want to be treated as a baby. I propose we delete this section because it is cluttering up the the article. Perhaps if a large number of people think that we should point out that astronauts are not adult babies, that can be put as a single clarifying sentence in the intro. Any arguments for or against the move can go here. I say we give the matter one week to be discussed and come to a decision. Fsecret 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- As per my argument above. Fsecret 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I am close friends with a number of ABDLs who simply enjoy wearing diapers, without a practical reason. Since they aren't distinguished by the usual AB or DL themes, the above condition is necessary to include them inside ABDL's scope. I am also concerned that the move to neglect this group is motivated by the attempt to marginalize ABs from DLs: This group that simply enjoys diapers is as much AB as DL.BitterGrey 05:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "adult babies invariably consider themselves to be diaper lovers"

About this time last year, this article was under siege by one who asserted that there was an absolute division between paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishes. She had no references to support her position. It seems to be the happening again. The above is a quote that was recently added to the diaper lover article [5]. In the discussion in that article [6], I responded with three surveys showing that it is a continuum, not an absolute division. Some adult babies are diaper lovers, some are not. Some diaper lovers are adult babies, some are not. Not all adult babies consider themselves to be diaper lovers. These surveys are:

• Thomas John Speaker, Psychosexual Infantilism in Adults: The Eroticization of Regression. Columbia Pacific University. pg 83. Available from: DPF, Sausalito, CA 94965
• Dave's 2001 survey
• <original research> A 2006 survey.</original research>

Now a large number of changes have been made to both articles, actually reducing the number of references sited. I would ask all to provide references for their assertions or accept the references already in place. BitterGrey 05:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward (per the Diaper lover talk page)

Any objections to adding ageplay to the "See also" section? Anonymous55 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me. BitterGrey 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging the diaper lover article with paraphilic infantilism

It has suggested that the diaper lover article be merged with this one[7]. This merge it is being discussed on that articles discussion page. [8] BitterGrey 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of References, part 2.

Would a contributor who has inserted less than 56 citation needed, original research, or verify source tags in the past two days[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] [61][62][63][64] care to comment on this article's support? Needless to say, the opinion of those who have taken the time to read the references and have a history of investing constructively in wikipedia has more weight with those of us who actually find the references. BitterGrey 00:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely removing what does not closely follow sources is constructive, as it is in line with wikipedia policy. In this article I am trying to remove what is unneccessary or non-compliant with policy to make the merge become more reasonable.Lotusduck 16:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The change description was "this looks like original research.[65]" If the one adding the tag had actually read the references and other published material, he or she would have known whether or not the research was original. He or she wouldn't have to go on "looks" alone. Elsewhere he or she wrote "I do have the time to look for sources but I don't have the sources. The article is original research..."[66] How can one conlcude that an article contains original research without being familiar with the non-original research?

If self-promoted chief editors[67] don't read references, they will be judging articles solely on the frequency of their references. Perhaps those cheif editors would be willing to point us to a section that they themselves have previously written, with verifiable references, as an example of how frequent references need to be?

Massive deletions made with a speed suggesting prejudice (same two days-[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84], not including page removals) won't encourage anyone to put in additional work in wikipedia. Why should we dedicate further months of our lives to improve the "fodder" for someone else's "new kick"[85]? BitterGrey 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"by citation needed I mean this is weasel worded"[86]. Again, I ask those who have not added 56 potentially misleading tags in any recent two day period to share their thoughts on this article's support.BitterGrey 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)