Talk:Paraphilic infantilism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

My Clarification of Infantilism and Pedophilia

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

AspiringActivist 13:12, 26 July 2004 (UTC)

About my recent expansion of this article

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

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

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

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

Is infantilism sexual?

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

Anonymous Apr 7, 2005

Dear Anonymous,

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

Sexuality and Infantilism

Dear Anonymous,


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


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


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

Thanks Orbit, and Ms. X,

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

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

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

AB information continues and extra subjects?

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

AB Contacts

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

Health Risks

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

Furniture

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

Relationships

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


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

Orbit, Thanks Again!

Dear Orbit,

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

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

To Mr. Anonymous Deleter

Dear Mr. Anonymous Deleter,

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

Sincerely,

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


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

Imaged

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

Good picture, thanks

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

Thanks,

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

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

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

Hey, Scott

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

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

Regarding 'Permanent' Regressions....

Dear Orbit,

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

Thanks,

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

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

Further Thought Regarding Permanent Regression

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

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

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

Regarding Multiple Pictures for the Article

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

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

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

Article is split

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

What is the purpose of this page?

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

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

The Purpose of this Article

Dear Elde,

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

19 down to 11

I think that is an okay job in cleaning up.

Had my Go at it....

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

Cheers,

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


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

Nappy Wearing In Public Is No Sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for pointing out the need for clarity here.

Dear Public Nappy Wearer,

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

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



Dear Public Nappy Wearer.

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

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

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

To who ever is adding DD to the links page

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

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


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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave 16:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Please keep porn links off this entry

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


Please keep your own biases out of this entry

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

Response from DD

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

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

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


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

discussion transferred from Cleanup page

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


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

The external links

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

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

What should not be linked to

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

Thus I've removed these links:

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

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


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

Overcoming Infantilism

Scott and others,

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Dean W.


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


OrbitOne,

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

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

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

Dean W.


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Dean W.


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Dean W. (user ID #349586)


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

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


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

A couple of points

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

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

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

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

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

my final attempt to explain the "personal attack" matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Dean W.

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

Refactoring

I've just done some major refactoring of this talk page. I've only moved mostly my comments, and removed any of mine that were not really advancing discussion. I did copy one section of orbit's comment into the copyvio section. If everyone would both move anything they want kept into the relevent section and take out anything that is not helpful, we could make some progress? Oh! Thanks for putting on your "orbit suit" orbit. ^_^
brenneman(t)(c) 07:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm going to be a bit more bold than perhaps is wise. So some careful language is coming, ok?

  • Please first see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages.
    • Up to this point I have neither changed nor moved any comments other than my own.
    • I did copy one section of text to another section while leaving the original intact.
  • The edit summary for this will be "REFACTORING SAVE POINT - REVERT TO HERE IF YOU MUST".
    • Because I'm about to edit the hell ot of everyone else's comments.
    • Please have a good look at the results. The diff will be posted here: [1].
    • If you believe that this was not the correct thing to do, simply revert to this edit.
    • Please be careful of other's edits if you do so!

brenneman(t)(c) 11:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • And a big apology to Orbit for losing his edits while archiving. Thanks for being understanding.
    brenneman(t)(c) 12:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's done. I've really hammered this talk page, and I know that that is a controversial thing to do. However, no progress was being made, and the levels of spite and anger were rising like the tide.
  • Can we all now just play nice? If anyone says something you don't like here, ignore it. Concentrate on the fact this is about producing an ecyclopedia entry.

brenneman(t)(c) 13:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC, peer review, and Feature Article status

The path to a featured article
  • Time to move this article to featured status soon, so a peer reveiw isnt that far out of order, is it? --OrbitOne 08:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Orbit, have you looked at some of those peer reviews, especially for controversial articles? They can be brutal. I've attached the FA linkbox to the side of this section. Steps (2) and (3) need to be pretty tight before considering step (4). That being said, I suppose it's good for you to have a goal in mind, and I would be mightily impressed if an article with a topic as contentious as this could make it through.

Possible copyvio

Please only use this section to address the potential copyright problems of images:

For all other discussion, please either use the relevent section or create a new section using the small + next to the edit tab.

(refactored comment here)

  • The hiatus on copyvio I offered to Orbit is nearly over.
    • If you cannot provide me with a link (to a wikipedia reference) that supports your claim that you've satisfied copyright requirements, I'm going to put the {copyvio} tag on your duplicate photos Friday.
    • Regardless of the outcome of that, please remove one or the other of the pairs.
  • And, since I've complained when people don't do it I should do the opposite as well - Thank you for consistently signing your edits! ^_^

brenneman(t)(c) 02:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

(Split section (part A) by OrbitOne, no time tag - brenneman(t)(c) 12:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC))
...As for CopyVio, the Tod picture is supplied by the email, good as a link. As for the female, it is supplied by DD, but I will look for a different picture. However, copyvio can be applied to alot of pictures, why not check out the diesel article. Past giving the website where it comes from, you do not have a direct link to the picture. Based on the standards of that article, the source of the picture is www.DailyDiapers.com. --80.62.170.94

Orbit,
I've looked at the image from diesel and I'm not sure I understand your point.

  • This image clearly identifies it's creator by name
  • It has the the technical details
  • It has a license tag
  • It does not have a copyright watermark.

brenneman(t)(c) 06:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I think Dave should handle this one. Dave, here are my suggestions. Reupload the image with in creative commons, add all the information as to who created it and so on while you are uploading it, not afterwards. I also see your point about the information, didnt see that part. --OrbitOne 06:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The watermark is actually the biggest problem... if a version could be supplied without that it wouldn't scream "copyvio" quite so loudly.
    brenneman(t)(c) 06:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That is up to Dave. BTW, you again (by accident) edited out one of my entries :). Just prior to the archiving. As for being Civil and the OI case, I want to point out I invited the guy to write the section himself and the only thing I said no to was giving out my phone number, something the OI head has demanded repeatedly over emails. --OrbitOne 07:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

(Comment inserted during refactoring, user expressed opposition to refactoring on talk page, thus will not move comment! - brenneman(t)(c) 12:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC))

Aaron, I don't really care how things look to you. My concern is with following Wikipedia policy. Your personal likes and dislikes are about as relevant to me as your insults. Quote chapter and verse the policy that says no watermarks allowed. Or, you can follow my earlier sugggestion and go do something awful to yourself. Orbit, I'll hgandle the re-uploading. I'm still new at this, and I'll probably botch it a few times before I get it right. Now, I have a favor to ask you. Leave Dean alone, okay? Please. Just let go. The man hasn't come here trying to pick a fight like aaron has. He hasn't spewed any personal venom against anyone. Yeah, okay, I dissaprove of his group and what they teach. So what? Wikipedia isn't a sounding board for airing our grievances. It's supposed to be a bare bones presentation of data that is left in such a state that the reader can make such judgements about right and wrong, good and bad, etc for themselves. And slamming OI every chance we get isn't appropraite here. BTW, I'd like to see who else is with me on requesting an arbitrator review the records of these pages, particularly Aaron's comments, in considering the matter of banning his profile from Wikipedia. Do I have any supporters, or should I let it go? Dave 11:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Todaler releases the photographs under GFDL

I contacted Todaler and asked if he released the photographs under GFDL. He replied that he was asked about it in advance and gave his permission and is okay with it. I have added this information, including a transcript of the request email and the response, to the image files in question. Those images can be used on Wikipedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that opinon, Tony. Could you provide the link to an image with an embedded copyright watermark where permision was given via an anonymous e-mail account so that I might refer to the discussions around this precedent?
brenneman(t)(c) 02:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Religion and infantilism

(Split section (part B) by OrbitOne, no time tag - brenneman(t)(c) 11:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)) The Religious section isnt to justify the IO section, rather, it is to give background information on a problem we have all had. Most of America, when it comes to religion, is christian, thus, choosing Christianity as the headliner for the section made sense. Also, since Islam, although a religion of its self, was spawned from Christianity, and the Koran says Islam "must respect the people of the book" (christians), the section covers the Islamic veiw as well. As for other religions, we do not have the background information as to what their veiw on this is. -- OrbitOne

  • Whoa! Did you actually just say that a section {Christianity and Foo} would cover Islam by default?
    brenneman(t)(c) 23:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

(Split section (part B) by OrbitOne, no time tag - brenneman(t)(c) 11:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC))
As for Islam being covered by Christian veiws, that is pretty much true. Islam and Christianity can not be seperated by much, both believe in the exact same god. Islam seperates from the point of its first prophet, which is believed to be the last prophet. Islam believes in all prophets that came before, but none that came after. As a result, Muslims believe in the bibel as well as the Koran. I direct you to Islam#God as a reference. The part about Jesus is a little off though; according to muslims I have asked, Jesus is a prophet, not the son of god. --OrbitOne, or is it --80.62.170.94 06:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ?

OI

(Comment left unchanged as per user's request. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC))
Will whoever it is that keeps harassing Dean Winarski please leave the poor man alone? It's bad enough we have to put up with bigotry, we don't need infighting on top of it all. The man has a dissenting opinion. He's entitled to that. Wikipedia isn't about flaming people, that's what blogs are for. The man has stated he wants his group to be left in peace. After alln the attacks Aaron has made on us, surely you can sympathise, and grant the man the peace of mind that comes with just being left alone? Do unto others, right? Dean, I apologise for the rude behaviour of my peers. Aaron, go do something to yourself. Everyone else, cool out and quit attacking each other. 03:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I've left a message on Dean's talk page to ask him not to revert again until we can work something out.

brenneman(t)(c) 03:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

About the OI section, I think it is relevent information as to the psychology of infantilism. OI has taken a role in helping people treat Infantilism, thus one might assume they have some psychological knowledge of Infantilism. As for a revert war, I find it hard to dismiss what he is saying about the currect version of the section since he hasnt said anything yet, however, civility was lost over the emails. As I understand things though, his gripe is being grouped with fundamentalism. I removed that part so he shouldnt have any current problems with the article. --80.62.170.94 06:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel OI is an important reference to Infantilism which is justifide since they are the only group which practices in helping people 'remove' the desire or practice of Infantilism. The head of this group is welcomed to write the section himself, which he has not yet done. When he does write a NPOV section regarding his group, the old section can be replaced, but I do wish the old section stay up until such time. --OrbitOne 07:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The full text of Dean's edit can be found at Talk:Infantilism\Dean's request. The following is a brief summary.
Dean states

  • The entire (original) section if copied from an attack website.
  • There have been in total thirteen infantilists in this group.
  • The statements in the main article regarding "free from desire" are unrepresentative.
  • Alcoholics Anonymous, for example, does not claim to remove the desire to drink.
  • His perception of the history of how and why this conflict occured.
  • That he is again offering to work together to compose a section on OI if it must be included.
  • Finally, "So please---I'm asking any reasonable person here to back me up---just leave reference to my organization off this article."

brenneman(t)(c) 13:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Orbit - I've removed your reply as well. As it does not relate directly to the content of this article, it should go on Dean's talk page if anywhere. I'd suggest, in the name of peace, that you don't do that, but that is of course up to you. (If anyone want to see it, it's in the history.)
brenneman(t)(c) 13:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I wont repost that reply, I regret it to some extent, but onward. I feel the mention of desire is important to the section as it covers psychology of an infantilist. The want and desire can be considered a kind of behavioural addiction. As for the small number of members; the experience and knowledge base built off of this support group, although private, still can provide insight into the psychology of infantilism. -- OrbitOne (streaking through wiki without his suit)

The last time it was removed, it was with the understanding Dean would post information himself which he found acceptable. He hasn't. The information posted in the section was based off of the groups front page and is factual. --OrbitOne 05:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Structure

  • Although Wikipedia doesn't support subpages for articles now, there's no reason we can't think of pages like in that manner. This would help determine what information goes where. Ignoring the countless re-directs and the disambig made counter to the VfD, the existing articles are
 Infantilism 
  |
  + - >Diaper lover
  |
  + - >Adult baby
        |
        +-> Sissy baby
  • Do we need all four articles, or do we need more? How would they sit in this hierarchy? What content belongs in every article (to allow it to stand alone) and what can happily sit in just one place? How will the content in any of these articles be quality controlled?
  • (removed "crabby boots" comment.)

brenneman(t)(c) 14:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

We did cut down the size by seperating the articles, but we moved information back into the main article because people objected to two articles covering the same subject but containing different information. But, why dont you post one version into the talk pages and we will see what we can agree to. OrbitOne

-Puts on his OrbitOne suit- As for article size, there might be room to reorganize it, and delete the research project section which has my contact link, but over all, this is a complete picture of infantilism. There is even talk about merging it with one or two other articles to cut down on the number of articles covering this subject, so this thing will only grow. We split this article before, and you know the history after we did that. I think the next step is to make this a featured article. --OrbitOne 06:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) 

  Age Play
  |
  + - >Daddys Girl
  |
  + - >Infantilism 
     |
     + - > Diaper lover
     |
     + - >Adult baby
     |     |
     |     +-> Sissy baby
     |
     + - > Teen Baby

All this can go under Age play. This kind of set up would make everything much easier to access. Infantilism should stay the largest, but we can sub-section some of the sections to other articles to cut down on load times. --OrbitOne 07:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I've looked over the content (and existing re-directs and VfDs) and believe that, once the material in this article is summarised and everything is verifiable and NPOV, there will be quite a bit of room for other information to come back into this article. Thus:
 Infantilism 
  |
  + - >Diaper lover - becomes subsection of Infantalism
  |
  + - >Adult baby - becomes subsection of Infantalism
        |
        +-> Sissy baby Information summarised into Adult baby subsection.

This would of course require quite of bit of work to the existing article, and some co-ordination among editors would be desirable.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Current structure

So here's the current article layout: 

   * 1 Clarification
         o 1.1 Infantilism in young children
         o 1.2 Conscious vs Subconscious
         o 1.3 A common object of fixation
   * 2 Some infantilist lifestyles
         o 2.1 Some younger adult infantilists experiment with 'adoption'
         o 2.2 Most older adult infantilists eventually reach a state of equilibrium
   * 3 The psychology of infantilism
         o 3.1 Psychological perspectives on infantilism
         o 3.2 Some commonly experienced inner dynamics
               + 3.2.1 The binge-purge cycle phenomenon
               + 3.2.2 A fantasy of permanent regression
               + 3.2.3 A conscious vs: subconscious tension
               + 3.2.4 A release of stress and tension (similar to the release of sexual tension)
               + 3.2.5 An eventual development of some form of acceptance
         o 3.3 Possible psychological causes and effects
               + 3.3.1 Infantilism and the domineering parent/ submissive child
               + 3.3.2 Infantilism and child neglect or abuse
                     # 3.3.2.1 Forced diaper wearing, a form of child abuse?
                     # 3.3.2.2 Forced diaper wearing, a form of pedophilia?
               + 3.3.3 Some forms of infantilism may not have abuse component
         o 3.4 Infantilism and pedophilia
               + 3.4.1 Pedophilia amongst infantilists
               + 3.4.2 Pedophilia amongst mommy/daddy roleplayers
         o 3.5 Infantilism and gender identity
               + 3.5.1 Infantilism and gender switch roleplaying
               + 3.5.2 Sissy babies
               + 3.5.3 Castration/SRS
         o 3.6 Academic researchers and case study submissions invited
   * 4 Impact and ramifications
   * 5 Subsets based on age, (TB's and AB's)
   * 6 Subsets based on importance of ageplay, (DL's and AB's)
   * 7 Infantilism and Christianity
   * 8 Infantilism and privacy
         o 8.1 Infantilism and privacy for adult infantilists
         o 8.2 Infantilism and privacy for teen infantilists
               + 8.2.1 Disclosure
               + 8.2.2 NonDisclosure
         o 8.3 Infantilism and care for privacy concerns of the general public
         o 8.4 Health problems
   * 9 Some interpersonal relationships that incorporate infantilism
   * 10 The significant others (SO's) of infantilists
   * 11 See also
   * 12 External links

I mean, that's HUGE. Well, I suppose if you check out science, it has 12 sections, too. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed structure

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

Cheers! - brenneman(t)(c) 14:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Over a month has passed with no objections to this proposed structure. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

It might be just me, the the describing of Infantilism itself as "irrational" seems to be a bit POV, to me.

Perhaps we should scan this article and take out things which overtly criticize or support Infantilism, such as said statements?

Hello Tobias Lane, and welcome to wikipedia. That's an excellent first edit, and I agree completely. I think the the best first step is to determine the shape/ skeleton/ outline/ whatever of the article before getting into anything specific (see above). It would be good if you could contribute there, too. Oh, and don't forget it's polite to sign with ~~~~ to make it easier for others to follow the conversation. brenneman(t)(c) 05:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Overcoming Infantalism group

Please refer to the discussion above regarding the inclusion of this group. It's a very small organisation, it's history with relationship to this page is acrimonious, and its inclusion adds very little to the article. As a possible alternative how about a link to the Ex gay article in the "See also", with short (and non-specific) commentary?
brenneman(t)(c) 05:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree to use the this talk page and reach some agreement here prior to adding this material to the main page?
brenneman(t)(c) 06:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes we can agree to that. As for ex-gay, I do not believe it can be applied. New research suggests homosexuals are born gay; the same can not be said about infantilism. --OrbitOne 06:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just briefly: the parallel I was drawing was religious intervention to change sexual behavior. Are you suggesting that these methods work?
brenneman(t)(c) 05:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, but I am saying Infantilism is psychological, homosexuality might be genetic. But really, I don't like the idea of any group coming in and deleting what they do not like and the rest of us bowing down to avoid a fight. --OrbitOne 22:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that statement. However, the reason I do not believe that OI should be included in the article has nothing to do with that. While I did try and soothe Dean's feelings as much as possible, had the group been notable I'd have been stamping for NPOV content to be included. Even if it is the *only* support group for infantilists, it's just too small to warrent a mention.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've put a cleaup tag - too many refernces to "your" or "ones partner" etc.. Also a lot of weasel words "Some infantilists who have been known to take these sorts of games too far have on occasion been arrested by the police." could perhaps be "This behaviour has lead to arrests." Rich Farmbrough 13:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please give me a definition of 'weasel words'? Keep in mind please, it is reference to actual cases. --OrbitOne 18:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Weasel words" are words or phrases that say "something exists" or "something may happen" or "something happens in some undefined quantity" without ever showing any evidence, references, or quantitative measurements.
My two criticisms with this article are that (1) it is very rambling and poorly organized, more stream of consciousness than essay; and (2) there are lots of "facts" asserted without any references. If you are referencing actual cases, OrbitOne et al., give a link to an article about it, or reference a book's author. Anecdotal evidence (stories from your life or that of people you know) is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
--zandperl 02:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Just for completeness - Weasel words
  2. I'd be happy to work on some collaboration here. I've put a proposed structure up above, but it never got commented on.
    brenneman(t)(c) 02:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My take, defining infantilism is like defining LOVE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love) That may be the problem with this page. Everyone has a different idea of LOVE.

I would like to comment on this suggested statement: "This behavior has lead to arrests." Personality traits are not isolated only to Infantilism. Individuals are complex and are a ‘mixed bag’ that are subject to other diagnostic behaviors. The DSM IV-R has expansive content describing disorders and has complex algorithms to sort out amalgamated pathologies. Additionally, disorders that are prominent are examined first while ruling out other axis II personality disorders. I believe that stating, "This behavior has lead to arrests." misses the mark and miss-informs the reader. Components of infantilism have lead to arrests in extremely rare cases. More directly, 'Qualifiers' are more accurate in these cases with no deception indented. 7 November 2005 (UTC) KAS PS: If you think the subject if infantilism is long, check out this one - 17 sections! Narcissism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissist

That's a very good point, and it doesn't help anyone to include such a statement. The average reader will only get a negative viewpoint, and a practicing infantilist will probably not take it as advice or a warning, and more likely be offended. As an infantilist myself (and an extremely cautious one at that) I don't believe the entry should carry that sort of tone. I'm going through the article and making changes where I feel they are either misinformative, misleading, or incorrect, but I'm also careful not to show too much POV or bias towards my side. DLGrif

Removing Original Research

A large portion of this article appears to consist of original research. Wikipedia articles are supposed to consist only of facts that have already been published in primary and secondary sources.

I've removed the most serious violation of the policy, the section on possible causes of infantilism. It appeared to consist of speculation or anecdotal experience. To my knowledge, there are no published studies about the causes of infantilism. If there are any, the article should cite them; if there aren't, the article shouldn't say anything on the subject.

I'll be going through the article to remove other cases of original research. This may shorten the article quite a bit. Infantilism is an obscure subject; there hasn't been much published about it. But if not much has been published, not much should be said here.

Brenneman's suggested structure might help with this problem; it leaves out several of the sections that have original research issues. Flatlander 23:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The longer I look at this article the more I see that it needs to be burnt to the ground and built anew. If we could have a single unbiased source to cite, that would be a good start. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It's tempting. It is deeply flawed. It should only be a last resort, but perhaps we might have to move all the material to a subpage of the Talk page: Talk:Infantilism/Old Article, and restart with a fresh stub. Then readd material from the old article as and when we find sources for it. — Matt Crypto 11:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad so much of this is being changed. And yes, it might actually be very helpful to start over from a stub. DLGrif

Teen Babies

I have one experience with a good friend who insists on staying immature at all times (with an exception for school and work) in the hopes that he will stay a Teen Baby. He does not understand that when he turns 21 he will automatically be an Adult Baby, regardless of his thought process. How might I fit this into the "Subsets based on Age" section, as an example of TBs being afraid of ABs or afraid of becoming one? --DLGrif


Link removal

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

List of justification (Point by point)

What has been justified so far.

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

Habituation

Section: (A) As in everything else, the newness and novelty of specific AB/DL practices eventually wears off. (B)Some AB/DLs are stable and continue doing what they have been doing, at about the same frequency. Others will try new things to maintain the novelty. These new practices are usually more elaborate and extreme. (C) This pursuit continues until stability is reached, or some other factor limits the escalation.
Justification. (A) For readability. It can be cut if needed for length. (B) A paraphrase of the DSM text quoted above, and already cited, with infantilism substituited for masochism. According to DSM, infantilism is a masochism. (C) The logical result. A falling object will continue to fall until it stops. This could also be cut if we need to be more brief.BitterGrey 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia sections

Article section (with points lettered for discussion) (A) "Confusing infantilism with pedophilia is a common misunderstanding. (B) Pedophilia is a sexual preference for children. (C) In contrast, infantilists have a desire to be infants, and those with a diaper fetish have a sexual interest in diapers. (D) Generally, they have ordinary heterosexual or homosexual sexual experiences otherwise. (E) Inside the AD/DL communities, a sharp distinction is observed. DPF, one of the older AB/DL organizations, will expell child molestors. "
Justification: (A) Arndt, William B., Jr. (1991). Gender Disorders and the Paraphilias, pg 394, International Universities Press, ISBN 0823621502. (Promoted from Further Reading) (B) "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." ICD-10 sect. F65.4 (quote from Pedophilia. (C) DSM previously cited. (D) Tom Speaker, previously cited, pg 80. (E) "The Diapers They Are a-Changin'" by Peter Gilstrap, The New Times Los Angeles, March 7-11, 1999. While the newspaper doesn't seem to be around anymore, the article is available from DPF (http://www.dpf.com/gilstrap.html) and other sources. BitterGrey 16:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

New stub

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

Sources

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

Recent massive expansion

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

Re: Recent massive expansion

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

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

Behavior or paraphilia?

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

For most paraphilia (and lots of other things as well) the desire is the defining factor. A common example is alcoholism. Alternately, I think that someone who dressed in an outfit for the pleasure of their partner would not self-identify as being part of the group. But I'm not a psychologist, despite my diploma from Elbonia. - brenneman(t)(c) 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It is true that the desire, not merely the action, is a factor. As was stated in the article, those who engage in infantilistic practices for reasons other than an infantilistic desire are not inherently infantilistic. Astronauts, divers, and sadomasochists were given as examples, but this point applies equally for those who dress up to make someone else happy. The desire, however, is generally defined by the desired behavior. An alcoholic is distinguished from a drug addict by the substance (or more broadly, behavior) that they desire. The first of DSM's two criteria for the diagnosis of infantilism is action. Thus, when discussing infantilism, it is appropriate to discuss what infantilists desire to do.

BitterGrey 05:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

rolled back

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

Aaron Brenneman, when you first replaced the standing article, your new article had only one reference. That powerpoint file didn't show any indication of having been published or presented, and didn't site any checkable references on infantilism. (Had the powerpoint file actually been presented, someone in the audience might have pointed out that the policeman didn't spell "infantalism" consistently.) The mere presence of a link in an infantilism article to a presentation on pedophilia makes the most dangerous assertion that you could have made. This sole reference was uncheckable, off-topic, biased, and inflammatory - everything that wikipedia should not be. However, you not only posted the link, but reposted when it was taken down. Your speed to undo the work of others while not accepting changes to your own work draws your objectivity into question, especially when it comes to evaluating which articles are "fully cited." Please desist from undoing the work of others. BitterGrey 05:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at my notes, and what I've written bears no resemblance to the link that you've described. I'll check again, but I've probably copied the wrong address when I was looking for sources. I'd prefer if we didn't make this personal at all, so I won't respond to anything else above except to say that I've only ever removed from any article material that was properly cited once, and that was a simple oversight. (It was the word "woofter" from List of sexual slurs.)
brenneman(t)(c) 05:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If that wasn't the presentation that you meant to reference, shouldn't you have noticed when you reviewed the validity of its removal before putting it back up? BitterGrey 06:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Too short?

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

The answer to this question was removed from the article on Feb 7th. If you would like, I would be happy to restore it. BitterGrey 03:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Bittergrey's edits were fine enough as they were, though possibly too extensive and biased. They seemed to reflect the views and terminology of the infantilist community rather than the views of what it actually represents. But the current version of the article is way too short to be useful, and damned if this would be useful to anyone who's curious about the issue. Does it really need to be 100% accurate if that means nothing important is said? I'm at least changing a few phrases around. DLGrif 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it really need to be 100% accurate?

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

If you must, you must. I suppose until it becomes a work of art, I'll just show people the old page. I won't be making anymore edits. DLGrif 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
We can only quantify absolute accuracy in specific results, such as the exact length of a particular ten-inch rod. In general, accuracy is more subjective. We can shed a layer of semantics by grading on a curve, based on verifiability. The article with more references cited is expected to be more accurate than one with few references. A sample of 42 wikipedia articles found that 31 had zero references cited, 5 had 1 reference, 2 had 2 references, 3 had 3 references, and 1 had 5 references (although it was marked for deletion). This puts the pre-Feb 7th infantilism article at around the 94th percentile. (The sample was based on the last 50 articles edited by a particular Wikipedia admin, as of this morning. Since a number were redirects, there were only 42 unique articles.) Why was the infantilism article (3 references) axed while gay (zero references) was not? This is the second example of this admin's lack of objectivity.
I must agree with DLGrif's conclusion, but for better-defined reasons. If Wikipedia administrators practice double-standards and won't acknowledge their mistakes, they make their personal issues a liability to Wikipedia. The result is no longer worthy of the time of decent authors and readers. BitterGrey 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can only presume that you're refering to me. Please don't make sideways accusations or personal assumptions. To say "a particular Wikipedia admin" is to try and introduce facts not in evidence, and makes refutation difficult. See the guideline about this sort of speech.
  • If you believe that I have a personal problem with this material rather than one based upon verifiability, I urge you to find sources and put in good material citing those sources to see my reaction.
brenneman{T}{L} 06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, unless you answer for the two above examples of your double standard, I'm not wasting any more of my time. You dismiss complaints that mention your name as "personal." You dismiss complaints that don't mention your name as "sideways." I don't need to see what you will do, I've seen what you have done.
The sample was Raskol gangs, Loudspeaker, Dweeb, Loudspeaker, Ball hog, Major Bloodnok, Low Fell, BitTorrent, Jerry Jewell, Jeff, Credit score (United States), St. Edward High School, Debt consolidation, Death, Bid price, Haggling, Fecula, Sexual abstinence, Edward Davy Wedge, Nuclear utilization target selection, Debt, Gay, Jeremy Hammond, Colony 5, Wedding invitation, Online dating service, London Welsh F.C., Groucho glasses, Debt consolidation, Warrior, Water empire, House training, Okko Salminen, Ejszyszki, Rowarth, Conjoint, Brain Licker, Pontiac, Matchmaking, Pontiac, Interpersonal relationship, Sam A, and Robert Pickton, from Aaron's edit history. The majority of these articles cite no references whatsover, and yet they are stil up. The infantilism article has be cut down to a stub four times now. BitterGrey 15:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Gay is encyclopedic and in all appearance verifiable. The apologia formerly here is not possible to reference reliably. 24.224.153.40 16:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
"Encyclopedic" and "apparent verifiability" don't seem to be Wikipedia standards, they are words arbitrarily applied, based on one's personal bias. The Wikipedia standard is verifiability by references sited. Gay, like most of the articles above, has no references at all. BitterGrey 05:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Not true.

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

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

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

Again, this level of semantics would only be appropriate in a much longer article, one that had a chance to distinguish between desire and action. BitterGrey 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
So the nonsense goes until that article is here! Problem solved. 24.224.153.40 16:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the contribution. However, the sentence in question serves to summarize the reference, differentiating infantilism and pedophilia. Since your contribution does not fill this need by showing the contrast, the sentence needs to remain.BitterGrey 05:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It's false; it has absolutely no basis in fact. It does not belong in Wikipedia. I'm sorry.
If you can write a verifiable, factual, neutral summary about why pedophilia and infantilism are different, please do -- though it seems really obvious to me. 24.224.153.40 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

This article is about paraphilic infantilism. Paraphilic infantilism if by definition sexual. If you want to start an article elsewhere about people who just find it comforting to dress as a young child, go ahead -- but this article is about the specifically sexual form of infantilism.
btw, the only comparison to pedophilia here is to show the contrast. 24.224.153.40 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is about Infantilism, as the name of the article implies. If you want to have an article about paraphilic infantilism, make an article with that title. --OrbitOne 21:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Paraphilic infantilism is the sexual desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant -- as present. 24.224.153.40 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This has become -IDIOTIC-!!

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

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

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

The version you reverted to is unverifiable, unencyclopedic, probably WP:OR, and POV. For example, it asserts that pedophiles view children as sexual objects, and implies pedophilia inherently involves nonconsenting partners.
Lets rewrite it from the ground up, but cite our sources this time! Besides, much of the old article is apparently from BitterGrey's site, which isn't GFDL. 24.224.153.40 19:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL)?? Yeah, when you want to claim plagierism, you must give reference as to where it was stolen from. If you mean from bittergreys own website, he cant claim ownership when he has made the information public domain by posting it here himself.
By definition of law of many countries, children can not consent, so it is true enough.
As far as sources go, things were coming along well enough. References were made to several books, which validate this article. As mentioned before, articles on average have less than one refence, yet are accepted as good enough for wiki. I will hold this article to the standard which other articles are held by in regards to references, and call this good enough.
--OrbitOne 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of it appears to be from here. I wouldn't call this plagiarism, but BitterGrey hasn't included any copyright notice and he has recently asserted that his site is not available under the GFDL. If this is true, we can't use it here.
He also hasn't made the information public domain by posting it here. 24.224.153.40 23:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As for pedophilia, I don't think you get it. Children can't consent because they're not cognitively capable of giving informed consent. However, if I were fantasizing about children, and I decided the child in my fantasy can -- well, they can. It's a fantasy; it's not restricted by real-life rigmarole.
Pedophilia is viewing children as sexual objects as much as male heterosexuality is viewing females as sexual objects. Just, no. There's no such thing as "true enough" on Wikipedia, there's either true, not true, or neutral.
I don't have access to all the books, but they're listed as "further reading" and I doubt they provide the same information as this article. 24.224.153.40 23:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
We should get into the pedophillia subject a bit later, the GFDL is more pressing. There is a notice on the edit option. It reads "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." He agreed to license his site uder the GFDL by posting the information here. He did post the information here himself, correct? --OrbitOne 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Some history might be helpful. In August 2005, I started gathering notes for a handout titled "An AB/DL Primer." (Because of professional obligations, progress was slow.) Unlike most of my work, this was intended to be a broad stand-alone article, as opposed to one focused page in a website, to be read alongside many other focused pages. A draft of this handout was distributed to several reviewers in January 2006. One of the reviewers had a question, and while looking into this question, I noticed that the wikipedia article on infantilism had been reduced to a stub and a link. The link was particularly dangerous since it implied that infantilists abused children sexually. Since misinformation like this can do irreparable damage, immediate action was needed. First, steps were taken to get the misleading link taken off and kept off. Next, the handout was modified for use as a new starting point for a wikipedia article. (Reposting the previous Wikipedia article would probably have just gotten it re-removed, wasting time and effort.)
It was hoped that the primer-turned-starting point would...
  • Reduce semantic debates by differentiating terms. For example, contributers probably wouldn't address the differences between paraphilic infantilism and psychosexual infantilism. However, they and the readers would be affected by these differences. The definitions wouldn't be final, but at least they would be part of the discussion.
  • Provide an initial structure for the article, to be adjusted or replaced as needed.
  • Offer a context in which specific points can be made. This need was illustrated by 24.224.153.40's attempts to differentiate between desires and practices. As we've seen, an article of only a few sentences doesn't permit such delicate points to be explained. Without the context, there was a shouting match over what those few sentences should be.
  • Eliminate the chance that someone will post something before taking the time to understand it, just to fill the blank space.
This contribution was then removed three times by two individuals. Why they did so is discussed elsewhere. (This contribution was under the GFDL. The additional material taken from my website, by one of these individuals, is not under the GFDL. The copied material was from my research back in 1995.) After doing what I could for Wikipedia, I moved on to start updating Understanding Infantilism with the material from the research that went into the AB/DL Primer.
While I could have done without the month of stress, it is great to see that an article is finally being adjusted specifically (well, at least for the momment), instead of broadly blanked. If it can stabilize, stay reasonably correct, and steer clear of unsupported criminal allegations, I'll be happy. BitterGrey 07:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL. BitterGrey, if you don't understand the GFDL, please don't lecture others about non-existent violations of it.
Also, you're violating copyright law on Understanding Infantilism at present. You need to include a notice that some portions are under the GFDL.
And I'd be interested to see which version ever implied infantilists sexually abused children.. Ineloquent 22:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The sole reference of one January 17th version was a powerpoint file on pedophilia. One bullet reads "Not all infantalists are paedophiles but there is a definite link." The powerpoint file doesn't give references to support this accusation, or discuss what kind of "link" he was refering to. It might be nothing more that a presumption made by another policeman. BitterGrey 01:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

GFDL copyright

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

One book, yes, but all six?. It was blatantly clear that you only knew the books from the further reading from my website, and that you did not credit the source. Where I posted page numbers, you copied the page numbers to here. Where I didn't post page numbers, you didn't have page numbers - because you haven't seen the books. I would have prefered it if you had acknowledged that my contributions were rooted in sound research before trying to give the appearance that you had done that research. BitterGrey 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
So if we give you credit, everything is cool? --OrbitOne 10:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. BitterGrey 15:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
BitterGrey, you added the books in the first place, I googled to try to fix your formatting, found your site, and put the rest of the information there without an edit summary. This is not a copyright violation, and if you don't like it, too bad. I don't really give a damn whether you want credit for reading a book. Don't get so worked up over other people using your website, k?
And there's no need to give BitterGrey credit in the article for the Further reading section, since it's not under any copyright other than GFDL, which is in the history. Ineloquent 22:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples of citations

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

  1. The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques
  2. Oil paint
  3. Mainstreams of Modern Art
  4. Gardner's Art Through the Ages
  5. Archie McPhee
  6. Gouache
  7. H. Kramer and Company
  8. Brian Curtin
  9. Operation Amethyst

Mediation

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

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

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

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

I'd actually prefer a request for comment, to draw a wider range of editors to this. - brenneman{T}{L} 13:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You are welcomed to make the request sir. But you will need to make the request to others yourself if you want that. --OrbitOne 13:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. In terms of stability, it seems better to wait for those who have thoughts, insights, and research to share than to invite many, who might not have an interest in the topic, to come and make changes. BitterGrey 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually find that comment a bit worrying. I cannot think of a circumstance where we should not welcome greater attention being placed on an article. We have a policy that dictates that all articles are public property. Is there some reason that this article in particular would not benefit from broader input? - brenneman{T}{L} 04:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Please interpret it in context. I welcome and encourage thoughtfull adjustments, or even insightfull rewites. However yesterday, the article was again been blanked by someone who seems not to have read the further reading. We need the right people, not just more people. BitterGrey 05:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
And again, that comment doesn't seem hopeful to me. Some who makes an editorial decision to remove a section is not the "right" kind of person? Additionally, I notice that the page was quickly reverted to the "preferred" version. Part of compromise is allowing m:The wrong version to stand. - brenneman{T}{L} 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The page was reverted to the version that was up when the request not to edit the article for a bit was made. It was also not a section that was edited, but nearly the entire article that was blanked. And yes, someone who repeatedly blanks an article without checking the reading or references, after being asked not to, is the wrong kind of person.BitterGrey 06:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Proposed structure

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

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

(2nd try at posting this) This proposal wasn't overlooked, but I chose not to get involved with Wikipedia back then. We might not want to dedicate much space to sissy babies, since there is another article on that. (There might not have been back then.) Some mention of diaper lovers might be useful, since it is extremely difficult to discuss infantilism as anything other than a fetish, without contrasting it with diaper fetishes. This mention wouldn't be extensive, since there is already an article on diaper lovers too.
If you have some references on the frequency of paraphilic infantilism and Castration/SRS, could you share them? While this topic has a high shock value, it doesn't seem disproportionately common among the infantilists that I know.
As you know, I'd move the binge-purge section back to practices, and permanent regression over to fantasies.
Finally, everyone that I have spoken with about infantilism has had a question about the contrast between infantilism and pedophilia. I think this would be one of the more important points that the article could make. An encyclopedia article that did not adress it would be lacking.
For a side-by-side, here is an outline of the second article posted in January, with similarities emphasized where possible.
  * 1 Psychology 
        o 1.1 DSM-infantilism
        o 1.2 ...contrasted with diaper fetishes (different categories in DSM) 
  * 2 Other contrasts
        o 2.1 pedophilia
        o 2.2 related but unequal terms; psychosexual infantilism, regression, etc.
        o 2.3 similar actions/different urges
  * 3 Fantasy
        o 3.1 permanent regression fantasy
        o 3.2 with other things included; sissies, etc.
        o ....
  * 4 Practices
        o 4.1 binge-purge cycle
        o .....
  * 5 See also
  * 6 References
  * 7 External links

BitterGrey 14:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


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

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

Bittergrey, do you care to give more rsources to your article?
The example below has been blanked four times in the last eight days, even though it is clearly covered by a reference that is respected and available in many libraries. A lack of references is not the problem. As for resources, if we were able to get people to edit after reading the references, as opposed to blanking out of prejudice, I would have more time to give towards improving the article. BitterGrey 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I will talk with an admin about locking this page since they keep getting deleted. I think this falls under vandalism to some degree since there is no reason to delete references. I will see what I can do to get it locked with references until you have some more sources which we can see. --OrbitOne 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The article has been protected for the time being. I am watching your discussion with interest. So far it seems to be a nice and friendly tone here. Inter\Echo 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Scope of references

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

I agree. I'd assume that anyone doing this to themselves is engaging in some kind of self-degradation anyway, so I think the masochistic qualities of this phenomena would be near-obvious. I agree that this aspect certainly needs to be addressed and see no reason why anyone should delete it. --DanielCD 15:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If a statement or assertion comes from a specific source, it needs to be clear what that source is. Many, if not most, infantilists I've met do not consider themselves to be masochistic. This whole topic generates a lot of disagreement over semantics. In this particular example especially, it is important to be clear who is defining the terms. --Herold 07:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It took a number of informal surveys around the community for me to accept DSM's classification, under masochism, as well. There are clearly infantilists that aren't into conventional bondage or other typical expressions of BDSM, just the loss of the status and control of adulthood. There is also a large set that is both into diapers and bondage, but not at the same time. Finally, there are some that mix the two. After this clarification, the academically respected source agrees well with first and second-hand observations. BitterGrey 15:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Should references be repeated wherever applicable, or could we ask that people actually read references before assuming that the reference applies to only one sentence?BitterGrey 13:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
John Money's 1984 article in American J. of Psycotherapy, for example, includes multiply cited references (and two words on "autonepiophilia"). Perhaps it would be reasonable in this article as well. BitterGrey 16:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Workshop!

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

This seems like a good idea, if you can keep in mind that this is just like the live article with one exception, nobody will see it except the editors who are currently debating it. I'll allow this as long as it doesn't generate into a flame war or an edit war. What about taking each section, one by one, of the article and work on it until everyone can agree on it? Inter\Echo 22:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a good idea. Might I suggest that we start with the pedophilia section? Pedophilia was the topic of the new article's first conflict, and has been affected by a third of the changes since. (As of 5 AM Feb 16th, there were 66 changes since the first stubbing. 11 were marked as minor. The pedophilia section was involved in 19 of the non-minor changes, 34%. ) I have a hunch that if we can settle on a compromise for this section, most of the article's volatility will disappear. BitterGrey 03:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
That section mustn't imply pedophilia involves nonconsenting partners or actual children, nor should it claim that pedophilia is a "compulsion to treat children as sexual objects." That's all. Ineloquent 04:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Since we've already been through a number of cycles of sequential revision without coming to a stable compromise, perhaps we should try a different tactic. Let's each write our own isolated version of the pedophilia section here on the talk page. Include references and background information if available. Then, after we've defined our positions, we can try to find a common ground. BitterGrey 04:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Another good idea. Inter\Echo 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add it here after I'm done sleeping. Ineloquent 04:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

article location

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

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

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

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

Pedophilia sections

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

Article section (with points lettered for discussion) (A) "Confusing infantilism with pedophilia is a common misunderstanding. (B) Pedophilia is a sexual preference for children. (C) In contrast, infantilists have a desire to be infants, and those with a diaper fetish have a sexual interest in diapers. (D) Generally, they have ordinary heterosexual or homosexual sexual experiences otherwise. (E) Inside the AD/DL communities, a sharp distinction is observed. DPF, one of the older AB/DL organizations, will expell child molestors. "
Justification: (A) Arndt, William B., Jr. (1991). Gender Disorders and the Paraphilias, pg 394, International Universities Press, ISBN 0823621502. (Promoted from Further Reading) (B) "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." ICD-10 sect. F65.4 (quote from Pedophilia. (C) DSM previously cited. (D) Tom Speaker, previously cited, pg 80. (E) "The Diapers They Are a-Changin'" by Peter Gilstrap, The New Times Los Angeles, March 7-11, 1999. While the newspaper doesn't seem to be around anymore, the article is available from DPF (http://www.dpf.com/gilstrap.html) and other sources. BitterGrey 16:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
That looks really good to me. Just two qualms:
"They have ordinary heterosexual or homosexual sexual experiences otherwise."
The word "generally" is probably needed here. As with any group of people, sex diversity is bound to be present in at least a minority.
"DPF, one of the older AB/DL organizations, will expell child molestors."
The source says they will expell pedophiles. Does he mean pedophiles or child molestors? Ineloquent 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The first observation seems reasonable. Changed. Regarding the second, the New Times Los Angeles article doesn't seem to make the distinction between the urge (pedophilia) and the act (child molestation). DPF doesn't employ 'thought police,' and so expulsions would be based on actions. Since the urge vs. action differentiation has repeatedly been an issue here, I thought it best to be specific. BitterGrey 17:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Should we give others more time to post their sections, or move on? BitterGrey 14:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Others are clearly eager to move on. Can we get a buy-in from Ineloquent and Aaron Brenneman at least? BitterGrey 14:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we can move on now. Ineloquent 20:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Binge Purge section

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

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. The practices, such as binge-purge, are largely experiential. My guess would be that many of the publications on paraphilias would tend to focus on the paraphilia, not their behavioral side-effects. Technically, these aren't part of the paraphilia, but may be part of life as a young paraphilic. (As in the case with the related eating disorder, stability is generally developed over time. However, adressing the issue can reduce the damage done.) There were two webpages that dealt with the binge-purge cycle in infantilism. One was at SIDNY (http://www.sidny.org/home.php) but was taken down with their educational section, due to political issues. SIDNY's newsletter also had a 'Dear Abby' style advice column that responded to a letter from someone experienceing it. The other was written by me in 2002, so I didn't put it in as a reference ( http://understanding.infantilism.org/purge.php ).BitterGrey 15:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you submit your paper to any publication in psychology. This will make it possible for you to reference yourself without credibility being put on your shoulders; credibility would come from the publication. --OrbitOne 17:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Habituation

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

Can you give us a few links and can you rewrite the section based off of what is in those references? --OrbitOne 20:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Section: (A) As in everything else, the newness and novelty of specific AB/DL practices eventually wears off. (B)Some AB/DLs are stable and continue doing what they have been doing, at about the same frequency. Others will try new things to maintain the novelty. These new practices are usually more elaborate and extreme. (C) This pursuit continues until stability is reached, or some other factor limits the escalation.
Justification. (A) For readability. It can be cut if needed for length. (B) A paraphrase of the DSM text quoted above, and already cited, with infantilism substituited for masochism. According to DSM, infantilism is a masochism. (C) The logical result. A falling object will continue to fall until it stops. This could also be cut if we need to be more brief.BitterGrey 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Finding a mommy or daddy

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

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

Source

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

In hopes of reading responces from others, I delayed in answering. My own bias isn't hard to guess, but I'd like to think that I've demonstrated objectivity in the references made and not made. The pages listed above (under Examples of Citations) as having exemplary citations are clearly the ideal that we should work for, however, some great articles do not meet this standard. (Would this be the right place to point out that the third reference in the third example, Mainstreams_of_Modern_Art, appears to be a link to Google?) BitterGrey 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ouch! The talk page there would have been better... but now that I've looked again, it was from a google cache which is perhaps borderline, and it's been fixed up now to point to a web.archive.org location. The point that our references should be as good as we can possible make them is well taken, though. Now back to our regularly schedualed programming.
brenneman{T}{L} 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What Infantilism is Not

For many, what Infantilism is NOT

Infantilism is NOT Practiced;

Infantilism is NOT Pedophilia;

Infantilism is NOT ABDL (alaphabet soup);

Infantilism is NOT sexual or psychosexual;

Infantilism is NOT Paraphilic;

Infantilism is NOT a Fetish

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

KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

and Feedback here:

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

In depth components here:

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

KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


EVIDENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Point -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

And this bears repeating again as it keeps getting missed:

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

KAS 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

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

APA Style References

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

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

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

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

EDITS

“as costume and props.”

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

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

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

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

Removed "Maybe"

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

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

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

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

'AB/DL' removed for clarity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Weasel Word'

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

Above it is stated:

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

Then goes to Weasel Word 'Maybe' Inconsistent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Intro'

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

Paraphilic infantilism is the desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant. [2] One who engages in infantilistic play is known as an adult baby (AB). Few Adult babies are diaper lovers (DLs),[3][4] and Speaker and Watson uses the acronym of AB/DL to join adult babies in the same pool as diaper lovers. [5]. However, the DSM-IV-TR, a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a handbooks used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders does not support or use the acronym AB/DL. The majority of known infantilists are heterosexual males[6].

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

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

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

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

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

'Dispute on reference that was added:'

Section 10 - Into the Future Retrieved 2002 from http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Island/5861/ds3_s10.txt
There is no way to verify if the sample used was characteristic of the population. Perhaps some do not have computers, perhaps some do not go to fetish sites. There are a lot of reasons to dispute this as an accurate reference. If this reference is used, these concerns should be stated. KAS 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
The reason for removal of the link is valid. The sample cannot be confirmed as a representation of the total population and this reason is not stated on the main page. KAS 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
The reason for deletion is stated. I have experience sitting on Quality Improvement Committees that looked at mental health issues and have often had to consider the source and validity of samples. KAS 03:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Word Removed: 'themselves' See below:

Confusing infantilism with pedophilia is a common misunderstanding[7]. Pedophilia is a sexual preference for children[8][9]. In contrast, infantilists have a desire to be infants 'themselves,' and those with a diaper fetish have a sexual interest in diapers. Generally, they have ordinary heterosexual or homosexual sexual experiences otherwise. Inside the AB/DL communities, a sharp distinction is observed. DPF, one of the older AB/DL organizations, will expell child molestors. [10]
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
Goes to biased opinion. You assume and allude to facts not in evidence as to re-editing the article. Edits are valid. KAS 03:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I see no evidence of anything that I need to address in the above message. As for references, I addressed those of concern. The edits are valid with notes on the discussion page. KAS 04:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

'Reference to this site DPF deleted.' The following comment has nothing to do with the definition of infantism. If this was allowed, we could reference many sites and their polices on who is allowed in and who is not. Deleted: DPF, one of the older AB/DL organizations, will expell child molestors. [11] KAS 18:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Edit War

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

Wikipedia's Disclaimer

In part response to 'Edit War'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a note: This page is about infanilism.

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

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

There already is an AB/DL page. It correctly redirects to infantilism.
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

The problem is at least (2) two reasons.

1. You are deleting this valid statement:
However, the DSM-IV-TR, a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a handbooks used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders does not support or use the acronym AB/DL.
2. And, you are using references that can be disputed because, for one, you indicated the population sampled was EMAILED. There are many reasons this is not a valid sample. Again, There is no way to verify if the sample used was characteristic of the population. Perhaps some do not have computers, perhaps some do not go to fetish sites. There are a lot of reasons to dispute this as an accurate reference. If this reference is used, 'these concerns should be stated.
If I were to use your criteria for referencing, I could state a position on a webpage and reference myself (as you have).

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

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

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

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

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

(a) The references sited include a survey which started via email around 1999, and continued to roughly 2004. In the available archive, 589 people responded to the survey. Of these, 148 identified themselves as ABs, and 91 as both AB and DL.’’
(b) Speaker – In 1986, there was no reference to DIAPER LOVER (DL) in existence that I know of. If Speaker used the term, “DIAPER LOVER” please include evidence of that to support the following, The other reference was Dr. Speaker's thesis, dated 1986. His survey gave the result of 8/(10+8) = .44, or 44% – were diaper lovers," and we can go from there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Reference Removed:

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

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

Also, certain personality profiles may be more inclined to behave favorably to responding to samples then others. It would take a ‘special study’ just to tease out this one single property to consider a sample valid. These concerns and many others make a good argument why this reference needs have this concern addressed on the main page if you are going to use it. KAS 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor - Author Profile Update

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

For KAS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KAS#KAS_for_Kathi_A._Stringer
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
BitterGrey, your responses to me lately appear snide and personal. Please don't KAS 05:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
Again, for the second time, please stop with the snide and personal remarks. It is my understanding that snide remarks by posting members is contrary to how Wikipedia wishes to represent itself in the Global Internet forum. Please stick to the issues. I understand that you can be disagreeable to the statement but not to the author. Please discontinue the snide remarks. KAS 06:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
A "You" statement tends to make things personal. You stated an inflammatory and unprovoked comment: "You could better impress me by providing evidence for your conclusions..." I'm telling for the 3rd time to discontinue this type of communication. Again, I understand that you can be disagreeable to the statement but not to the author.KAS 07:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

I prefixed my statment with SINCE - '"Since the DSM-IV-TR is being included as an authority on INFANTILISM, it is not unreasonable to include a disclaimer....." Since you quoted this reference, then it was opened up for further reference. KAS 21:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
Yes, it should have. I place it into two places. However, it doesn't take away from the point any less.

A Viable Solution

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

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

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

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

I would be open to having a disambiguation page, connected to an infantilism/AB page, a diaper fetishism/DL page, Tourette syndrome, and the other infantilisms. The ABDL redirect should point to either the infantilism/AB page or the fetishism/DL page. My vote would be for the infantilism/AB page, since it includes a contrast between infantilism and fetishism, and has more references. It also discusses fantasy and practice, where the separate paraphilias often mix into AB/DL.
To quote Dr. Gabbard's 'Adult Baby' article "The diaper fetish obviously led us to consider paraphilia as Mr. A’s central diagnosis." One is entitled to an opinion that there is an absolute division between AB and DL. However, Dr. Gabbard's article does not support it. He describes ABs engaging in diaper-related sexual acts, as would be expected of DLs. Please don't misunderstand: I believe that there are many ABs who are not DLs, but there is also a substantial ratio who are both AB and DL. The surveys from Dave and Dr. Speaker quantify this ratio. Since this ratio is substantial, we cannot treat AB and DL as fully isolated. There also may be a tendancy to develop an interest in one after having an interest in the other. AB/DLs will need to be adressed, and they currently are adressed in the infantilism article.BitterGrey 02:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Edits -2

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

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

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

Clarity Adjustment on Reference.

Move Ref 2&3, Some adult babies are also diaper lovers (DLs),[2][3] and Speaker and Watson uses the acronym of AB/DL to join adult babies in the same pool as diaper lovers. KAS
It is great to see a willingness to negotiate. It is reasonable to offer some flexibility in the "About one in three adult babies is also a diaper lover" phrase, but only if the resulting phrase isn't negated by its context. Specifically, we shouldn't read too much into the work of Dr. Speaker, Joe Watson, or the APA. Regarding references 2, 3, and 4, neither the one author nor the two surveys are trying to stereotype infantilists by forcing a label on the community. We also shouldn't read anything into the absense of the AB/DL acronym from DSM. The entire section on paraphilias, only ten pages, seems to be free of any acronyms whatsoever. DSM does list infantilism under the header of "sexual masochism," but we shouldn't read too much into this either. Perhaps we could settle for a first paragraph that reads...
  1. Paraphilic infantilism is the desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant.[1]
  2. One who engages in infantilistic play is known as an adult baby (AB).
  3. Some adult babies are also diaper lovers (DL)s [2][3] so they are collectively known as AB/DLs[4].
  4. The majority of infantilists are heterosexual males[5].
This would result in one or more references for each contested point. The second sentense is without a reference, but it seems to have gone uncontested.BitterGrey 08:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

.#2 Adult babies engage in infantilistic play.

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

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

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

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

For now, the agreed description:

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

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

PS: It as been assumed that I do know the history of this essay. For the record, I do know the history of this essay. I saw the orginal essay before it was even printed in Wikipedia! My friend Scott was the original author before it was burnt to the ground. We've spoke many times on the phone on these types of issues and he has also helped do some edit work for my book '5150' that is soon to be published. So please do not assume I can't relate to the hard work here. I've seen first hand the hell this page has put my friend Scott though. For the record. KAS 11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

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

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

"many, many comments" - There has been a lot said. Provide references that actively say something on the topic, and then there will be something to discuss. Until then, stop altering the article so that the text does not match the references.
For example, the DPF/Mike A. reference, #17 on the references list in your version, now appears at the sentence "Pedophilia is a sexual preference for children." Knowing Mike A. personally, I am confident that he would agree with this sentence. However, you were in error when you applied Gilstrap's article to this sentence, since it doesn't actually include a definition. This is yet another instance of flippant changes, damaging the integrity of the article.
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

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

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

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

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

No Original Research

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

Valid Statements

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

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

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

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

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
Wrong. This is an axiom between Infantilists, ABs and DLs. Axioms also count on Wiki and is not Original Research. BTW Kas, I am also an original author to this page, but have also given up like Scott. How is he doing btw?
Confused as there is no signature. Any advise as to how I can give up and walk away like you did? I'd sure appreciate the input on getting away from this nutcase essay that is controlled and extrapolated by a single person. My friend Sam Vaknin http://www.toddlertime.com/sam/index.htm indicated I should run like hell from this mess. His views here (links below) and from my experience with Bittergrey, I belive it! At this point I'm about gone myself. KAS 08:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
http://samvak.tripod.com/busiweb13.html
http://samvak.tripod.com/busiweb23.html

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

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

This author is OrbitOne. --OrbitOne 08:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there Denmark guy. Last time I spoke with Scott he was working toward a degree in psych. He's a real intellect and we are able to converse well and spin off ideas. I'm on my way out, but I wanted to say that I've already read your profile the other day and was impressed with your studies. For a 23-year-old, ya doing great with some ambitious challenges. To translate words takes an acute eye. Hang in there - KAS 08:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Axioms

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

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

[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
Like I said, the pitfall of first hand research is we can not do it here on wiki. --OrbitOne 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened personal actions BitterGrey 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

Child or baby?

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

The short answer is 'I don't know.' I've exchanged emails with some women who would be considered adult babies, except that they didn't wear diapers. They liked to dress up as small children and play with stuffed animals. Stekel lists some male cases discusses in his book "Patterns of Psychoseual Infantilism." They enjoyed wearing playing in the park, making things with ribbons, wearing boyish clothing, etc. They were under the header "The Eternal Adolescent," but this wasn't used as a formal term. So there are others like what you describe, but I don't know if there is a formal term.BitterGrey 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
maybe the term is juvenilism or adolescantism, forms of ageplay.--Sonjaaa 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Sonjaaa - the terms you are looking for are here: http://www.toddlertime.com/dx/regression/advanced-baby.htm KAS 23:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer reveiw!

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

Ok. The article could use some cleaning up, and additional well-researched contributors, of course. BitterGrey 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The first reviewer, AndyZ, responded with three good points, but left us with a decision regarding the coercion subsection. Two of the section's three sentences were cut, along with the section's original point. ("The AB/DL deflects the guilt of wanting to be put back in diapers by fantasizing that someone else forced it upon him. Superficially, this makes it someone else’s fault.") Should we remove the coercion section, put these sentences back, integrate the coercion subsection with material on masochism among infantilists (also previously removed), or do something else? BitterGrey 22:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

You're welcome KAS. But can you give us a source for that feed back? Thank you.
BG, we should let the peer review have a fair chance to add more comments, then we will have a to do list and decide that what needs to be done with the article.--OrbitOne 23:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
While I didn't want to rush ahead of a group effort, to keep things moving it seemed appropriate to write out a second paragraph for the lead and post it here for discussion. (The article is around 10K words, so per WP:LEAD, it should have 1-2 paragraphs.)
Infantilism and diaper fetishes differ in their focus of attention and self-image. However, they can coexist in individuals and have some similarities in practice. Neither include a sexual preference for children. There is no singular, archetypical infantilism, but a range. Some fantasize about being free of guilt, responsibility or control while others might not. Some act indistinguishably from a baby at times, while others practice in a way that would be unnoticed by passerbys on the street. The desires and tastes of infantilists vary around common themes of diapers and babyhood.
If we go with this one, we can add links. If necessary, references already in the body can be repeated in the summary.BitterGrey 14:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we can put it in. The Perr Reveiw has been short and fizzeled out. Rather disappointed. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

General cheerleading

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

The slow deletion???

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

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

?

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

There are countless specific fantasy elements that are or can be associated with infantilism. If space were given to discuss them all, this page would be far too long. Even some more common and important elements have been cut. For example, there used to be a section on the permanent regression fantasy. This fantasy element, although a central fantasy element and common to many infantilists, is no longer in the article.
I'd love to see this list of countless entries or find a place where we could post it and have people add their own items. I understand Wikipedia isn't the best place to put stuff like that, but is there someplace that is? Lollip 22:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Cloudy's page used to have a forum for gathering tips. A side-forum might have been easy to add to develop a long list of fantasy elements. However, it seems to be offline now. My website doesn't have a page on fantasy elements currently. Are there other fantasy elements that you would like to write about? BitterGrey 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
As for stubbing the article again, the Admin who stubbed the previous article, Aaron Brenneman, recently praised the improvement of this one. Might I ask why you would like to see it stubbed again? BitterGrey 01:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I meant to archive and restart the comments page, not the article itself. It's over 50K now. Lollip 22:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism/Archive_1&oldid=1143732739"