Talk:Paraphilic infantilism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Discussion on 'infantilism in teens'

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

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

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


Discussion on Wetting/Bedwetting

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

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

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

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

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

Reference #3 File Location Error.

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

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

KAS 07:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Costumes and Props Derogatory

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

Discussion vs Solo

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

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

Request ADMIN Help

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

Derogatory Statements

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


Transitional Objects

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

Problems

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

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

Problems with Blanket Statements

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

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

A compromise

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

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

AB vs DL

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

Dispute Costume and Props

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

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

Personal Attacks

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

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

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

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

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

2nd Request for Deletion of Personal Information

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


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

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

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

Article protected

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

Distribution of paraphilias among AB/DLs.

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

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

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

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

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


Previous discussion points

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

Transitional Objects

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

  • [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
    • I'd be leary of adding anything that had toddlertime as its only source. - brenneman {L} 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • [Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)]
    • [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
      • [Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
Point of relevance: [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)] This discussion relates to the second point in a four-point case. [Points A through C Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
D) To quote Aaron Brenneman, [If the information required to show a site is "suitable" isn't public, it's not suitable.] BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)]

Distribution of paraphilias among AB/DLs.

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

  • Please note that the Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders does not state that the two are mutally exclusive. Thus an adult baby might have a fetish, and a diaper love may have paraphilic infantilism. BitterGrey 13:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, <devil's advocate> purely based on the above statement, having not yet gone to look at the references. I'm fairly sure it will be two criteria for a person to be diagnosed with parahilic infantilism, and three for a person to be diagnosed with fetishism. So the argument could be made that "adult babies" is defined as "paraphilic infantilism", etc. </devil's advocate> I'm going to lay hand on hardcopy soon.
      brenneman {L} 13:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The devil would have great fun here. "Paraphilic infantilism" is a term specifically defined by the APA, while "adult baby" developed on IRC or before, without a formal definition. Since the term "adult baby" predates "diaper lover," some older diaper lovers still refer to themselves as adult babies. The present article neglects this to avoid perpetuating confusion. <original research> The prevalence or primary diaper fetishes (those who would choose a diaper over a person for sex) actually seems to be higher among adult babies than diaper lovers. </original research> The people (ABs) vs properties (paraphilic infantilism) issue has come up on this discussion page about every other month. BitterGrey 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Is there a way of including both viewpoints, rather than deciding between them? -Will Beback 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
            • Sounds good to me. Does anyone else have input? -Will Beback 22:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
            • What are the proposed changes to the article from this? Can we have the desired section done here, in a little box? - brenneman {L} 01:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The simplest would be to revert to the summary table as shown. Are there comments on whether 'maybe' or 'might have' is grammatically better?
  • Adult Baby (AB)
    • Maybe paraphilic infantilism [1]
    • Self-image/alter-ego focused
    • Sexual relationship with partner separate from adult baby play
  • Diaper Lover (DL)
    • Maybe diaper fetish [2]
    • Focused on an external object
    • No inherent roleplay
BitterGrey 02:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Where exactly in the DSM-IV TR is there any mentioned of AB/DL? I don’t see how this can be used as a reference when there is no reference in the manual. Also, the DSM-IV TR is a Diagnostic manual for mental disorders. Many people can have a fetish and not be dx'd with 302.81 because it has to significantly interfere with the quality of a person's life. Meaning they can have the fetish without being dx'd as a mental illness. Another quesion, what version of the DSM are you refereing too? I'm not seeing anything on page 573. I hope other editors will check out the text before giving the green light on this. KAS 07:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm intending to lay hands on a copy of the DSM this weekend. - brenneman {L} 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Would this be preferable to the bulleted summary? [extra copy removed BitterGrey 16:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)] The phrases on diagnosis by focus refer to earlier in the paragraph, the reference [3] is not repeated here since it related to diagnosis by focus, as opposed to paraphilic infantilism specifically.BitterGrey 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To quickly summarize the theoretical differences, adult babies might have paraphilic infantilism[4], their interests are self-image or alter-ego focused, and might refrain from sexual activities during adult baby play[5]. In contrast, diaper lovers might have a diaper fetish[6], their interests are directed at a sexual fetish object, and don't inherently involve roleplay. In practice, the differences among AB/DLs are much less well-defined.

That reads well. This is me agreeing to the style by the way. Once we do that, we'll have several copies of the desired paragraph here: One "working" copy plus suggested re-writes. In fact, a re-write with a different set of citations in almost this style would be great, KAS. I'd ask that is be set out as opposed to in the body of your comment. Write exactly what you'd want on the page. brenneman {L} 15:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I see logistical problems in the new revision statements on the work of infantilism. [Dispute-related statment moved to user's talk page. El_C 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)] KAS 07:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to take a break from all of this for awhile. Perhaps I will come back and work in this another day. I trust that a sharp and logical mind will double-check the work and can see the logistical problems in the new revision statements on the work of infantilism. For one thing, things are being referenced that are not in the sources, this means they are not clear references.KAS 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This topic has been an issue for months, so the parties should already have had time to consider their positions. Aaron's question has been open for a week now. Can we keep this moving forward? (While personally threatened, I am not going away.) BitterGrey 11:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some other points

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

  • [Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
While external links do not have to conform to NPOV, we should choose them to reflect all the significant viewpoints. Would it be possible to have a divided list? Regression-type links in one section, paraphilic in another, and so on. Sites with articles and facts are preferred to forums and fansites. -Will Beback 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yea, the suggestion of "firsthand experience as an AB/DL" runs soundly against our reliable sources paradigm. Firsthand experiance is a primary source, and while in some few instances it can be used, even then it should be supported by secondary accounts. More specifically
  1. It would make "sorting" the abundance more dificult.
  2. This confusion needs to be sorted out by dueling references.
  3. If the information required to show a site is "suitable" isn't public, it's not suitable.
  4. Again, if we stick to the guidelines and what's verifiable than it shouldn't be "personal."
Even if we leave aside any concerns about personal privacy or safety, it's just bad for the readers. Basing any kind of judgements where an educated layman couldn't confirm the facts for themselves?
brenneman {L} 06:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]
[Removed do to corresponding material removed.KAS 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)]
Can we confirm a consensus for Aaron Brenneman's point #3? I am in full support of it. BitterGrey 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've changed the formatting of the above a very small amount to make it easier to read, and to try to make it more clear who is responding to what. - brenneman {L} 15:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Less words, less abreviations

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

Only TeenBabies, what about PreTeenBabies?

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

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

Scope of discussions

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

Unprotecting

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

Merging sissy baby with infantilism

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


Move to protect again

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

Cure or Treatment

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


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

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


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

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

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

Unsigned udit by User:71.29.195.88

Then they should see a psychologist instead of coming here.

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

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

  1. Sign your comments with --~~~~.
  2. Do not change the comments of others. I am talking about you replacing 'diapers' with '#######'. Yes, I know it is you who is doing that. Wiki keeps track of which IP and user changes what when.
  1. There is little information available and none of them are reliable sources of information. They are contested so we cannot use them on wikipedia.

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

My personal opinion is that some forms of infantilism are curable. However, I don't know of any studies that claimed to have "cured" a sample of paraphilic infantilists. There also hasn't been enough research into paraphilic infantilism to divide it into meaningful, mechanism-specific syndromes. Since there isn't a consensus and little evidence either way, perhaps it is best not to breach the topic in the article? That is, not to write that there is a proven cure, but also not write that there is no cure.
By the way, here is a direct link to Bob G.'s article[1].BitterGrey 02:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

(In reference to what a reliable source is)

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

Unsigned by user:69.40.226.19

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

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

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

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

Unsigned edit by 71.29.206.187

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

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

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

I would greatly prefer it if the second survey reference were left in place. As those familiar with the article's recent history know all too well, the simple point that some ABs also consider themselves DLs was the subject of frequent revision. Those revising it presented no evidence. The second survey reference was frequently attacked because it was available over the internet. In contrast, the first survey reference was frequently disregarded because most didn't have access to it. The text was simply altered to no longer agree with the reference.
Furthermore, the reference is tertiary - individuals filled out the survey, another reported the results, and a third added the reference here. The results were later confirmed by my own survey on the range between AB and DL.To avoid going through that again, I would prefer if both references were left in place.
Now if those involved in the curable vs. incurable debate would be willing to present their references, perhaps we can move constructively toward a reasonably defensible position. Since it is an inflamatory issue, the article's stated position will need to be strongly defended. BitterGrey 06:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It is the lack of credible reference that has me against including the treatment section. I think Geocities is not a credible reference for this article and references should stick to published work, not original research or websites. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 09:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
To date, I have contributed _all_ of the references in this article. It was a difficult, time-consuming, and mostly thankless undertaking. Studies published by others over the internet, while possibly not as reliable as those published on paper, are more reliable than mere individual opinions. Please be constructive by defining and supporting your position. A position without support cannot become the better supported position. BitterGrey 05:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
(To amend that, the stubbed article's first reference, added by an admin [2], was to an internet file. It apparently had not been presented or published. Since it was a file on pedophilia and named DSM_4, I replaced it with a reference to the paraphilic infantism section of DSM IV.)BitterGrey 06:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The recent merging

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

  • Well, it would have been nice for the nominator to have done that, I guess, but no, its not required. I'm not sure if your objection is to the deletion of the article Sissy baby or to the inclusion of the material from that article into this article (and in a perhaps ham-handed way at that). If it's the former, shouldn't you have had Sissy baby on your watchlist, and would have known that it had been put up for deletion? Anyway:
    • If you object to the deletion of the article Sissy baby, you can appeal at WP:DRV. However, WP:DRV is basically for when the closing itself didn't follow process or was otherwise incorrect. You could make a case for that, but not really a strong case, I don't think.
    • If you object to the deletion of the article [[Sissy baby] but don't want to go to WP:DRV, or if you fail there, you could just recreate the article, providing it was a substantially different (and better) article. I did see that a couple of commentors thought that the article needed to be rewritten, and it certainly does need sourcing.
    • If you object to the inclusion of the material from Sissy baby into this article... well, realistically, you could probably just delete the material (I just put it in its own section at the end of the article) and if nobody else working on this article objects you're OK... better would be to take any useful material from the old Sissy baby article and work it into this article in appropriate places, if any of the material is useful. That would more in the spirit of merging.
Does this help? Herostratus 06:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The inclusion of Sissy Baby in this article was contested before and the solution was to create another article; Sissy Baby was a full fledge article before until people started deleting more and more of it without concensus. Esentially, Sissy Baby is its own notable fetish and that concensus has been reached several times. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 09:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Props list

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

Thanks for seeking to contribute to the article, and for considering the article's embattled past before doing so. Yes, there was one person who was extremely zealous in the removal of the word "prop." Discussing her motives or even referring directly to those past edit wars might cause problems.
My reservation about a list of paraphernalia (assuming there are no objections to calling them that) is that it might imply a detailed uniformity that isn't there. The only defining item of infantilistic paraphernalia is the diaper, and even that is sometimes absent. Some ABs enjoy pacifiers, others do not. Some ABs enjoy enemas, others do not.
<original research> A vague order of paraphernalia collections is plotted in Figure #5 at http://understanding.infantilism.org/results_1a_abdl.php . It quantifies the distribution in layette scope from nothing to furnished nursery across the range from DL to AB.</original research>. BitterGrey 03:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.
It makes no difference to me whether they're called "props" or something else. In fact "paraphernalia" is probably closer to what I meant anyway.
I take your point about a potentially misleading implication of uniformity, and I agree even diapers aren't a universal interest among infantilists. However, my take on that is that while there certainly is value in properly qualifying any statement that's remotely a generalization, so that no-one is excluded or misrepresented, and avoiding any statements that can't be so qualified, that it's unfortunate if that has to come at the cost of making it difficult for someone who's never heard of the topic before being able to get a basic sense of what it's about without reading a long essay. That's one of the reasons I think a paraphernalia list would be a good thing. I think a simple list, saying "these are some things a non-insignificant percentage of infantilists take an interest in", would go a long way toward helping give people an intuitive grasp of what infantilists do/are interested in, while being extremely efficient in terms of the amount of added text.
In a nutshell, I think an article on infantilism of the length of this one, that doesn't contain any of the words: pacifier, high chair, playpen, sleeper, onesie, or bottle, probably has something wrong with it.
Could a carefully-written disclaimer at the top of the list resolve your concerns?
My other reason for wanting to include it, (and in fact my original reason) was simply to improve linking between articles. (And I'll admit a personal interest here, as I wrote about 99% of the Blanket Sleeper article.)Anonymous55 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As a week has passed without further comments, I'm going to go ahead with the paraphernalia list. Feel free to revert if you don't think it improves the article.Anonymous55 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping to get initial thoughts from others before writing again but may have delayed too long. You are right that one week is long enough to wait. The list looks good, without tangential items. Two changes I'd make would be to convert the bulleted list to inline [3] and to add a minimal disclaimer. How does this look? BitterGrey 05:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
While the tastes and collections of individual ABs differ, some items that might be involved include diapers, onsies, blanket sleepers, cribs, playpens, high chairs, baby bottles, pacifiers, and stuffed animals.
That looks fine to me. As long as the terms/links are there, I don't care how it's formatted. And anyway I'll defer to your judgement.Anonymous55 05:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

In general, these are valid points. In the case of the most recent exchange, there is a less debatable point: there were three links that were exactly reproduced elsewhere in the article. A few days ago, links to http://www.dpf.com and http://www.aby.com were exactly duplicated in the Growing Up as an ABDL and Pedophilia Contrasts sections as well as the external links. ( http://www.http//ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/160/11/1932 is the third, reproduced exactly in the references. ) It seems best to remove the fully redundant links first. BitterGrey 04:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC).
While I agree that they should be here to a certain extent, I feel that aby doesn't belong at all -- just for the fact that it provides very little information on the scene. There's some also downright questionable material on aby too. I suppose DPF may belong somewhat in external links, except for it being a commercial site. Mathias Grayfox 17:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that this discussion also applies to the diaper lover article[4].BitterGrey 14:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea, though I'm not sure how to implement it properly - use a system like the current 'references' one: change the in-article links to 'jumps' down to the appropriate part of eternal links section below, so there's only one actual -link- to each such external page, while still allowing the article itself to mention the site and provide an indirect means to it. Note, that my arguments about the valid-despite-being-semi-commercial arguments above were JUST about dpf.com - I wasn't familiar with aby.com, and a quick look shows that, while it might have enough relevance to be mentioned, it's nowhere near to what I think DPF's relevance is, mainly because of how long DPF has been around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pacula (talk • Pacula 17:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I still do not believe that aby.com should be linked to, as it contains very little value compared to dpf... Arguably, the biggest thing for aby is it's photo gallery (eugh...) which is hardly suitable for the unintroduced. Mathias Grayfox 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Mathias Grayfox, and would like invite differing opinions, especially from non-anonymous wikipedians. BitterGrey 03:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of "fact" now, according to wp's style guide (thanks BitterGrey): Aby does not belong as it requires signing up for an account to view content. Thus, I'll continue removing links as necessary. Mathias Grayfox 08:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That's good enough for me. Anonymous55 09:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
A tangential note for information's sake: While www.infantilism.org (SlashDIAPERS) and understanding.infantilism.org (previously BitterGrey's Den) share a domain name, they differ in structure, focus, and editors. The former is a forum maintained by BabyLai, in Europe. The later is a collection of articles that I maintain from the U.S. BitterGrey 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Majority of infantilists heterosexual or homosexual?

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

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

  • From Speaker's survey (1986), pg 78, question 7. "Sexual Orientation: primarily heterosexual (20), primarily homosexual (6), bisexual (6), solitary sex (2) (N=34)."
  • Dave's 2001 survey Straight (66%), Bi (14%), Gay (10%), Non sexual/asexual (3%), Don't know yet (4%), not selected (3%) (N=631, question #64)
  • <original research> The results of the 2006-2007 AB, DL, Etc. survey are heterosexual (58%), bi leaning toward heterosexual (10%), bisexual (8%), bi leaning toward homosexual (6%), homosexual (14%) and solo (4%) among males who are neither transexual nor transvestic (N=742). </original research>
These results can't resolve whether the low ratio of heterosexuals is due to a lower prevalence of heterosexuality among AB/DLs, an increased willingness for non-heterosexuals to complete surveys, increased presence of non-heterosexuals in some of the networks where the surveys were circulated, or other causes. However, these surveys consistently show a heterosexual majority among AB/DLs. BitterGrey 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
<original research>The final results for the survey were 58% heterosexual, 12% bi leaning toward heterosexual, 9% bisexual, 6% bi leaning toward homosexual, 11% homosexual, 5% and solo (N=2038). Note that the above preliminary result was for male AB/DLs only, while this result is for all survey responses.</original research> BitterGrey (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

198.83.126.254

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

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

Practical or voluntary use

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

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

"adult babies invariably consider themselves to be diaper lovers"

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

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

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

Moving forward (per the Diaper lover talk page)

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

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

Merging the diaper lover article with paraphilic infantilism

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

Scope of References, part 2.

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

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

The change description was "this looks like original research.[65]" If the one adding the tag had actually read the references and other published material, he or she would have known whether or not the research was original. He or she wouldn't have to go on "looks" alone. Elsewhere he or she wrote "I do have the time to look for sources but I don't have the sources. The article is original research..."[66] How can one conlcude that an article contains original research without being familiar with the non-original research?
If self-promoted chief editors[67] don't read references, they will be judging articles solely on the frequency of their references. Perhaps those cheif editors would be willing to point us to a section that they themselves have previously written, with verifiable references, as an example of how frequent references need to be?
Massive deletions made with a speed suggesting prejudice (same two days-[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84], not including page removals) won't encourage anyone to put in additional work in wikipedia. Why should we dedicate further months of our lives to improve the "fodder" for someone else's "new kick"[85]? BitterGrey 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"by citation needed I mean this is weasel worded"[86]. Again, I ask those who have not added 56 potentially misleading tags in any recent two day period to share their thoughts on this article's support.BitterGrey 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, there is a policy called good faith, whereby you don't question a users' desire to improve articles unless they are clearly and directly vandalizing them. My new kick is about transiwiki-ing to wikibooks by the way, as it says in the little link you made. But while wetlook is entirely original research, this article is pretty good. A couple things are ambiguous, and I want them cleaned up. Is that ever so bad?Lotusduck 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Critisizing and/or deleting from several dozen articles without first checking their references is not an act of good faith, but of prejudicial ignorance. Have you ever provided any references yourself? What few contributions I found are still completely unreferenced[87][88][89]. BitterGrey 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Coming out"

Can I change the header "Coming out" to "Public acknowledgment" or something like that? I think it's confusing, coming out is mostly related the GLBT matters unless when used for comedic value. And I think public awknowledgment sounds better and more mature, something important for a taboo subject. QuirkyAndSuch 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In my mind I think "Coming out" and "Public acknowledgment" is the exact same thing. BeckyAnne(talk) 15:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems efficient to recycle terms when appropriate. For paraphilic infantilists, coming out isn't that different than it is for those who are GLBT, except that GLBT's have to explain fewer terms. To keep the number of terms minimal, we should recycle. It should also be noted that coming_out and outing have good wikipedia articles. (Although the point about Liberace's succesfull lawsuit[90] against the paper that outed him should probably be in the main outing article as well.) BitterGrey 02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of "coming out" for uses other than GLBT is pretty informal. I doubt you'd find it in a paper encyclopedia. And I do think it's confusing, because it left the impression that this article was connected to the gay community to me, which is why I brought it up. 66.248.96.12 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced?

Given that some paraphilia articles, such as masochism, are without any references whatsoever, could I ask people to be specific about what points they are challenging or think might likely be challenged? BitterGrey 23:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the pic?

Just wondering why there is no pic. Didn't there used to be one? Bongothemonkey 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there hasn't been a picture on this article for some time. If one picture is selected, it would present only one image of paraphilic infantilism, not the full diversity. Depending on the image, this may leave out a few AB/DLs or a lot of AB/DLs.
The picture would then require additional explaining. For example, the diaper fetish article has a picture of a diapered woman, which might imply that diaper fetishes were common among females. Except for Clifford Allen's 1969 "A Textbook of Psychosexual Disorders", no verifiable source is known to support a large female presence among AB/DLs. BitterGrey 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If three pictures are required to illustrate the major elements of the subject then we could use three pictures. (If we could find that many.) ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so we need one pic of a male and one of a female. Anything else? Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
More like 63. Assuming an AB-to-DL system of categorization and liberal rounding, we'd need a picture of an AB woman, an AB+DL woman, and a DL woman (there are other systems of categorization) AND to preserve the 20:1 gender ratio mentioned in the DSM (pg 568 of 4TR), 60 pictures of men. Of course, this still wouldn't properly address the difference between the ABs who enjoy contented babyhood, the contrasting ABs who enjoy the loss of status and control (not contented), etc.
In the end, to the rest of us they're still diaper-wearing, nonconformists. For the vast majority of people, an image would be like saying "yes, we really mean adult people dressed up like babies in diapers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.210.34 (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a figure would work? The hurdle would still be agreeing on a figure, but it would be one figure, instead of multiple pictures.BitterGrey 06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
How about a graph? BeckyAnne(talk) 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
A plot or graph would be able to display one distribution, not needing to represent the entire paraphilia in a few mugshots. <original research> If a plot based on original research is acceptable, I could donate a plot or two on a moderate range of topics. The plot could be qualitative (for example, the 1995 Role/Object/Control triangle) or quantitative ( The distribution of AB/DL interests.) Other plots can be found at http://understanding.infantilism.org/surveys.php .</original research> Data for verifiable plots will be harder to come by, but might be findable. BitterGrey 06:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I got permission for some pics. I will try and find an AB male and an AB female. Bongothemonkey 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In Dave's survey (ref #3), 84% of AB/DLs identified themselves as something other than only AB. When will the other pictures will be posted? BitterGrey 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What new categories would you like? I can add a diaper lover - male and female but who are not ABs. What else should I add? Bongothemonkey 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, the male AB pic is remarkably generic, with only a diaper and hospital/concert braclet showing. Would replacing the "AB" caption with a generic "AB/DL" caption be an option? This would be an option for the female too if not for the pacifier and angle. BitterGrey 01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to improve on before. Now there are 4 pics with 4 categories. Bongothemonkey 11:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think any of these photos should be here. These photos are far more DL than they have to do with infantalism. Thus, I pose these question to the rest of you guys: What purpose do these pictures serve to the casual reader? What impression do they get from them? How are they informative about the subject? This is an encyclopaedia article, not some place to oogle at people wearing diapers. RefoX 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest either one photo with a group shot. Possibly similar to a Gay pride parade photo or a select set of individuals together were the reader can get the impression of a common theme for a group of individuals. Or a graph. Or none at all.
I would like to state that in my opinion the term Paraphilic infantilism suggests to me a wish to indulge in or role play infantilistic behavior. This to me would be different then a sexual interest in the diaper as an object. Although most people in this category would associate with more then just one camp (Hence the AB/DL)[citation needed] it might be wise to remove the DL focus in this article and allow references to alternative forms or combined interests related to Paraphilic infantilism point to a different section and or article. Am I incorrect with my interpretation?
Could you have an AB style photo on Paraphilic infantilism and DL style photo in Diaper fetishism? Heck we could make an Adult Baby Diaper Lover page to wrap around these two. Like a disambiguation style page. Would that help? --Sukima 04:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a realistic goal to have an "AB" photo that everyone will agree on. The DL photo is easy... most qualify right off the bat. In essence, attempting to put up an AB photo is asking for a huge debate, and thus, it's not something we should even do. RefoX 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It is difficult to get a photo here to begin with. But just because its hard in not a reason to give up. I will try to find more of an AB photo as opposed to a diaper lover photo. I think though any photo allows the reader to connect with the subject, especially this one. To the uninitiated this subject could be quite abstract and hard to believe. A photo helps make it real to the reader. Bongothemonkey 14:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with RefoX. Any picture that isn't so generic that it would fit into the diaper article would involve elements that aren't typical of the AB or DL experience. Of course, such a generic picture would also be deceptively 'vanilla.' BitterGrey 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Aye, there also exists the problem that, while most infantilists enjoy diapers, some may not. How would you address that issue? Realistically, it's not feasible to double the amount of pictures to demonstrate this. Thus, I believe that Bittergrey's solution in terms of a bar graph showing the distribution of the adoption of various aspects of infantilism is a more realistic, more neutral, approach to having some media on this page. RefoX 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You can't have a simple picture of an adult dressed as a baby? Like a onesie and leave the whole diaper aspect out. If your speaking infantilism (AB) then there isn't a need to focus on a diaper at all. Find a photo of an adult in a crib dressed as a baby with a pacifier. That should encompass enough of a visual to satisfy the association for those unfamiliar with infantilism. Least that is what I would do. I'll posse for a photo if someone is looking for a GFDL version. Not that I have access to much of the baby paraphernalia anyways (Mostly DL here). I'm off track. Never mind. LOL. Sukima 04:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
<original research> Actually, only about 45% of ABs have adult baby clothing in their layette. Diapers are the closest thing to constant, and even they aren't universal. Thanks for the offer though, Sukima. </original research>BitterGrey 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I must reiterate my previous comments: It is impossible to provide one unified view of infantilism through the use one or two (or three... or four...) pictures. So, yeah... how about just leaving it as is? RefoX 05:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Infantilism and fetishism

Because of the ongoing controversy and general confusion of paraphilic infantilism with fetish activity, I have endeavored to add a clarifying section that explains what is fetish activity and what is not. This is a pretty long article. Condensing a few facts into this section would help this issue. Suggestions please. Fsecret 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If such a controversy exists, it should inhibit absolute statements like "Infantilism is not a fetish"[91] or alternatively, the grouping of infantilism as a fetish subculture[92]. In turn, issues of length should inhibit discussions about other topics already in the "see also" section. BitterGrey 02:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A critique on the definition of Infantilism

"Paraphilic infantilism is a paraphilia characterized by the desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant.[1]"

. . .While this is the long-accepted definition of infantilism, it ignores the fact that many adult babies do not like roleplaying as "helpless infants." Many prefer to be treated as toddlers who are dependent on a parental figure. The specific difference being, they seek a more active, independent form of roleplay that is akin to being about 2-3 years old, having the ability to walk, run, crawl, play and explore. This type of adult baby is less likely to spend all his or her time lyeing in a crib, because that is more associated with being an infant and would bore an adult toddler baby to death.

Why have researchers and psychologists neglected this crucial distinction? For the sake of the researcher out there- I offer this knowlege because I happen to be an adult baby myself. I know plenty of other adult babies, and purely defining all of us as liking to be crib bound helpless infants is to ignore the much broader array of potential ages that the infantilist might roleplay. The key, at least I've found, is that all of us have the common interest of wearing diapers. But that is really the only thing that remains constant throughout the community. What age we fantasize we are effects the way we enjoy the fetish or alternative lifestyle. As this article implies, there's a huge array of diversity- from the furry to the sissy, the heterosexual or the homosexual, the AB to the DL to the AB/DL. . . . and the infant to the toddler.

Perhaps the term "infantilism" has outdated itself. 


          71455baby 06:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Who was it that wrote "any short economic maxim is false?" Few would argue that the DSM's one-sentence-long definition is vauge on a number of points. 71455baby has raised one of them. <original research> Recently, AB/DLs were surveyed about their role preference. The majority of those who self-identified as 'AB only,' 'mostly AB,' and 'equally AB and DL' preferred the role of toddler over other roles. (70%, 70%, and 63% respectively. For contrast, the preference for newborn was 22%, 12%, and 7% respectively). [93]</original research>BitterGrey 02:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggested rewrite of the opening sentence: "Paraphilic infantilism is a paraphilia characterized by the desire to wear diapers and to act and be treated as a baby of some sort, ranging from a "helpless infant" to a "rampaging toddler"." I'm not sure if it's common enough to worth a mention in the intro, but another point I thought worth bringing up: I didn't think all ABs were interested in wearing diapers - there's a subset who perfer to roleplay as older children whom don't need them - at least not always. Oh well, just some thoughts from somebody who hopes he didn't just wander into another minefield.... - Pacula 04:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The image of a violently rampaging 200-pound [91 Kg] toddler probably wasn't what was intended, but may occur to readers. Still, there is probably a suitable, middle ground between DSM and the original research above. The exact quote from DSM is "...a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers..." How about "Paraphilic infantilism is a paraphilia characterized by the desire to wear diapers and be treated as an infant[1] or toddler"? BitterGrey 05:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I guess 'rampaging toddler' might be too colourful a phrase - in hindsight, I'm a little shocked that I seriously suggested it (eep). That said, I think that it would be nice to have some adjective to go with 'toddler', to strengthen the contrast with 'helpless infant'. I'm not sure if there is anything that would be both accurate and encompassing enough, though, so it probably would be best to just drop the adjectives as you suggest. - Pacula 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I'd like to invite some discussion on what visitors are seeking when they search for "infantilism." In 2006, the infantilism article was renamed as the paraphilic infantilism article. A disambiguation link to the topic of psychosexual infantilism (in the psychosexual_development article) was in the header. Two days ago, an article on medical infantilism was added. This article described medical infantilism as an obsolete term, and apparently shared the infantilism/paraphilic infantilism discussion page. (Before being moved to medical_infantilism, that is.) For the time being, I've added a disambiguation page, with the three listed in order of the number of references sited (26, 3, 2). Do you think the disambiguation page should remain, or disambiguation links should be added to what was originally the infantilism article? BitterGrey 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • links, not pages - The original infantilism article, now the paraphilic infantilism article, should link to the obsolete uses of the word, as opposed to being linked to by a disambiguation page. BitterGrey (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing, "medical infantilism". Please don't create new medical terms. Article is deleted, disambig in page Infantilism reverted for now. Please also do not move articles by cut and paste. There is a function "Move this page" for renaming. It preserves artcle history. `'Míkka>t 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise between accommodating a new article and the established articles, I created a disambiguation page. To check for consensus, I invited conversation on the common infantilism/paraphilic infantilism discussion page. Now I find that the disambiguation page has been removed by one person, in favor of his own article, without disambiguation [94]. This action is contrary to the spirit and intent of Wikipedia.
I will now synchronize the number of infantilism/paraphilic infantilism articles to the number of infantilism/paraphilic infantilism discussion pages. As you may have noticed, there has only been one.BitterGrey (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my article. `'Míkka>t 03:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted the article on obsolete medical uses of the word infantilism[95] as well my attempts to accommodate your input with proper disambiguation. Can we discuss this like Wikipedians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittergrey (talk • contribs) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I deleted it because it was a cut and paste move from my article to a title which is a non-existent term. Yes we can discuss. What is your problem with the article? `'Míkka>t 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
My problem is that you've displaced the standing article, that many Wikipedians have worked on over past years, in favor of your own article. None of the references in your article refer to a modern infantilism. One reference in that article is to a reprint from 1928. The other, on a syndrome described by Dr. Turner, is about Turner's_syndrome. Do these deserve a position among the meanings of infantilism? Perhaps. Should these be the only meanings of infantilism, displacing things that are still called infantilism? Certainly not. This is why I moved your page in favor of a disambiguation page. The American Psychiatric Association defines infantilism in a specific way in DSM 4TR. (This is the reference that you deleted for not using the term [96]. As I pointed out, it is in Section 302.83, paragraph 1, sentence 7. This reference is available at most US libraries. I'd suggest checking it.) BitterGrey (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Write Infantilism (disambiguation), then. The DSM ref was accidentally deleted when I was deleting a bunch of references from sources inadmissble in wikipedia, please see WP:RS. The DSM mentions "infantilism" in passing and in quotes. The article where "many wikipedians" worked is still hugely unreferenced and thus suspicious. `'Míkka>t 06:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Were this the case, you wouldn't have typed "rm ref to BDSM: no such term there"[97] in the edit summary. Please note that I am not intimidated by the several edits that you've made this hour regarding the user you blocked [98][99][100][101][102] . Also note that deleting more references won't conceal the fact that you didn't check references before deleting them. Admins should serve as examples, and always check references before deleting them. Not doing so destroys their credibility.
I've already tried a disambiguation page, and you deleted it. Now, are you going to explain why your infantilism article should be the only infantilism article? Why the article with 26 references is "hugely unreferenced" [103] while yours with only 2 deserves to be the only listing for infantilism? BitterGrey (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've checked, and disambiguation should be at the root word. For example, those searching for "16th Street Station" would find 16th_Street_Station, not 16th_Street_Station_(disambiguation). Perhaps someone who has been an admin since 2004[104] was unaware of this. However, this seems unlikely. BitterGrey (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Mikkalai knew that a disambiguation page should be at the root term[105] when he advised me to do otherwise.[106]. Following his instructions would have made the disambiguation page useless, as I've shown[107]. He even used a "cut and paste" rename[108] - the type he told me never to do[109]. The evil cut and paste rename was part of the justification for deleting the previous disambiguation page.BitterGrey (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the fact that it was obsolete usage must be prominently seen in article title, to avoid confusion. I think the current state is a reasonable solution. `'Míkka>t 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Mikkalai, if you had simply voted to keep the disambiguation page that was in place when I asked for discussion and cast one vote, all of this trouble could have been avoided. BitterGrey (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
BitterGrey, if you were not so bitter, you would have read carefully my explanation why I reverted it: (1) never rename articles by cut and paste; use "Move this page" function instead. (2) always verify whether the suggested term is actually in use. If you have doubts why it is so, you may consult other seasoned wikipedians. I merely reverted your improper actions, with explanations you chose to ignore. I didn't do what I eventually did because I was not sure which article title for obsolete term will be good. `'Míkka>t 05:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Community Pages

What about adding Community Pages, so toughs who would like to meet others that are AB/DL have a clear place to go... I was trying to add www.RUPadded.com but it will not allow that because it goes outside of the network.

Tody Todaler (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed references

Please get yourself familiar with which references are admissible in wikipedia. Self-published texts by a person of unknown expertise and references to internet archives are not among them. Once again, feel free to consult other seasoned wikipedian if you don't believe me. `'Míkka>t 05:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had even read the reference to Dr. Speaker's thesis, you would have known that it was not self-published. I suspect you are persisting in deleting it to draw attention away form your deletion of the DSM reference, which you clearly had not read. [110]. Admins should serve as examples, and always check references before deleting them. Not doing so destroys their credibility. Personal insults [111] are also not good. I am aware that you, an Admin, have been blocked for edit warring and personal attacks.[112] BitterGrey (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"Not self-published?" - so where it was published? Where are the credentials of Thomas John Speaker? `'Míkka>t 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The thesis was published by DPF, not Dr. Speaker, as a result, it is not self-published. As for credentials, what sort of answer are you expecting? The first reference you deleted was a consensus document by the American Psychiatric Association, including many of the most established and respected psychiatrists alive. Credentials don't get any better. Of course, that didn't stop you from deleting the reference, and then lying about it. [113] Stop trying to distract from the fact that you have a demonstrated history of deleting references you have not even read by deleting more references that you have not read. BitterGrey (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you are freaking out on personal issues rather than discussing problems with the article, I will no longer waste my time here and removing it from my watch list. Good luck. `'Míkka>t 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

DailyDiapers as an external link

Comments on the new external link, dailydiapers? "The Daily Diaper was opened in November of 2000 to provide a FREE forum for adults who wear diapers." Thus the reason for excluding aby.com, registration, isn't relevant. However, discussion forums are #11 on the list of links normally to be avoided. It does have other items, including a copy of the 2005 wikipedia article on infantilism around somewhere. What do you think? BitterGrey (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for the link to Deeker's website. Would anyone like to comment on it? (By the way, to avoid conflicts of interest, I've been asking for comment here instead of altering the external links section, except for cases that clearly violate Wikipedia policy.) BitterGrey (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think dailydiapers is an appropriate link. It is one of the larger AB communities, it is free and informative. It does have much more than discussion forums. I am more bothered by the link to abdlsites which is just a top list with ads to porn sites and phone sex lines. No useful content. Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.206.222.44 (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Ben, I have to agree about abdlsites. Which other links do you think should go? BitterGrey (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights

Much of the article is based on the ABDL primer, which I GFDL'd when donating it to Wikipedia. Claims of copyvio should be made to specific to sections or passages. BitterGrey (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Online Communities

Should it be mentioned in this article that many AB/DLs or just DLs, on online communities like YouTube can often get their own accounts suspended or banned from the community for posting offensive videos or imagery that is unsuitable for people to view? I know something like that has happened before. --PJ Pete June 1, 2008 0:14

Getting banned for posting unsuitable material isn't notable. It would happen to AB/DLs and non-AB/DLs alike. However, there are periodic discussions within the AB/DL community about how unsystematic the definition of 'suitable' is. Similar to the Indecent_exposure article, these discussions usually refer to specific cases, and aren't generalizable. A generalizable discussion about something that is unsystematic is going to be difficult to write. BitterGrey (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sex Majority On ABDL's

Hi! I think this phrase needs to be addressed "The majority of infantilists are heterosexual males[5]." The reason is a lot of ABDL's are still in the closet and we don't know definitively what the real majority on that is. More women may have been too shy to come out than men. Also if you think about it, you can't really know unless you visit every ABDL person there is out there and I think its obvious that no one has. That would be a whole bunch of traveling airplane tickets.

That is why I think this needs to be removed or edited.

StarLight257 (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible that multiple sources, ranging from the APA to my own community survey, are incorrect. However, we don't have any reason to think so. BitterGrey (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussions about "where are the women?" happen in just about every atypicality in sexual interest that there is. The same discussion has been had for just about everything from asphyxiophilia to pedophilia. Personally, until there is any evidence suggesting otherwise, I want to stick with the obvious: Women don't get paraphilias as often as men. (Gasp!)

One can hypothesize, without limit, that physics works differently as soon as I turn around, but until there is something more solid than an ideology about women needing to be identical to men in very way, I personally prefer to stick to the evidence. And the evidence that exists suggests that the great majority of paraphilic infantilists are male and heterosexual. I am not an ideologue about this, however; as soon as there is evidence for more female or homosexual infantilists, I/we can change the article.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Gender Ratio" trimming

Recently, I posted the article Girls, Boys, and Diapers. It focused on similarities and differences in ABDLs of the alternate sexes. It is original research, so it might not be appropriate for me to include its observations in the Wikipedia article. However, it seemed reasonable to trim down points in the article that disagreed with the original research, and that lacked other support.

One of the conclusions was that given their frequency in other paraphilias, there were actually more female ABDLs than we would expect. This has a marked impact on the value of discussions about why there are so few female ABDLs. Compared to masochism and fetishism, there are actually a lot of them.

Please accept my apologies in advance for the term "Sex ratio." I too dislike how it sounds, but it is the term used in the section's one reference. While distasteful, it is necessary. Etiologically and demographically, it is important to keep the male and female sexes distinct from masculine and feminine genders. BitterGrey (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

external link abdllive.com beta

I think the external link to abdllive.com should be removed. It appears to be a site in beta testing, that requires login, and might have been posted by its owner.. On the list of external links to avoid items #1, 4, 6, and 16 apply, and a conflict of interest might be present. BitterGrey (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 

 Resaon for the link stating Beta is becasue of the site was opened as a try and was passed up by members and it was never
 edited to show it was fully live, yes this link was provied by the site owner, but not in conflict of intrest but to show
 that stated info EG females in this lifestyle are here and in numbers both site admins within this site are female.
 
 The site need a login only to edit member side data viewing the profiles dose not need a login.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miskware (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

C-class rating

This article is better than most WP articles on paraphilias, but B-class is stretching it, IMO. Requires more sourcing an substantial cleanup.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sections without sources

I've done a mild cleanup of those sections that were utterly bereft of sources. Much of the remaining material does not match core content policy. - brenneman 07:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems the mass blankings have started again, clearly in reaction to an exchange in another article . In it, I asked you to apply the same standards to your own work as to that of others. You threatened to have me blocked for not being nice. If just after that exchange, I went to an article that you had invested in, deleted the references, and then deleted the article as unreferenced, you would accuse me of being vindictive, and push for disciplinary action. How is what you did any different? BitterGrey (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see the note on your talk, and please read our sourcing and verification guidelines. - brenneman 02:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I have seen it, and demand that you support or retract your accusations now. BitterGrey (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Mate, please try to A) Keep discussion in one place a.k.a. your talk and B) Don't demand things. Frankly, you're not in a position to do so... What would you do if I said no? Go to your talk, please. This is an article talk page and is for discussion of the article. - brenneman 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If you can't support an accusation, you shouldn't have made it. Flippant slander is among the most uncivil acts that I can imagine happening on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you made a broad generalization accusing me of repeatedly violating Wikipedia policy. Now you can't even find a single example, much less the multiple instances required to support a generalization. Additionally, I have faith that Wikipedia has ways to limit the abuses of administrator power.
I'm unclear on the reason that it was so important to keep this issue on my talk page, and not yours. Perhaps I'm not alone? Perhaps we are in a better position that you would like us to think?BitterGrey (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
*shakes head*
  1. Who is "we"?
  2. I said twice I like to keep discussions together, as opposed to scattering them on unrelated pages.
  3. I actually created the volountary adminstrator recall system. I'll take asking me to step down as a request to initiate tht system.
  4. In three minutes see my talk page, you'll get you chance to assess your (collective?) position.
brenneman 03:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you should both sit down and take a breath for 24 hours, and dial it back a step, while I do not see inline sources for the referenced sections, I have not been thru all of the links on the page itself, so both of you should sit down and take a deep breath.--Alohawolf (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
And after reading some of the external links on this page, many of these claims could be backed up, and someone should go thru them and use some of those resources to flesh out the unsourced statements, before removing them.--Alohawolf (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
To avoid conflicts of interest, I've avoided altering the article's external links section. (Except for porting over the four from the old article, that is.) I have tried to open discussions though. (Eg. [114][115]). BitterGrey (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be Original research?

I'm trying to understand some of the sources that this page references. For example this is one of them, Could the following be considered original research if it references a page made my a frequent editor of this article?

  • Statement made: "The level of enjoyment in wearing diapers all the time is mixed, and it may have lasting effects; some adult babies have found that the enjoyment diminishes rapidly when the need to wear diapers is always present.[7]:
  • Source used: ^ What Would it be Like to Wear Diapers 24/7?, Understanding Infantilism

This seems to be when the source appeared. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paraphilic_infantilism&diff=88628369&oldid=87860546

Respectfully, my question is, is it okay to have original research included into a Wikipedia article by the same, or different editor? (As what seems to have happened in this case.) I could be wrong as to how I see this. I’m just trying to understand. Thank you. Gogreenlight (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A good question. I think the relevant policy is that perfection is not required.
That link summarizes comments made by a group of AB/DLs on the babyfurs Yahoo group. This makes it a secondary source, albeit not nearly as strong a source as an article in a peer-reviewed medical journal. It has survived multiple waves of deletionists, starting in February 2006. Please note that my experiences going 24/7 are detailed on <original research> other pages</original research>. These other pages include only one person's experiences, and experiences do differ from person to person.
If you have other references on this topic that we could add, that would be great. BitterGrey (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Infantile Sexuality Redirect

I notice that the term 'infantile sexuality' redirects to this page.

Infantile sexuality and paraphilic infantilism are NOT the same thing or even similar.

infantile sexuality is actually one of Freud's ideas.

An online medical dictionary gives that definition as:

"infantile sexuality n. In psychoanalytic theory, the overlapping oral, anal, and phallic phases of psychosexual development that occur during the first 5 years of life."

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/infantile+sexuality

I've changed the redirect on the 'infantile sexuality' page to go to 'psychosexual development'.

--Anycity (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this and making it a bit more rational. I'd imagine that those looking for 'infantile sexuality' would be looking for either Child_sexuality (the sexuality of infants), or psychosexual_development (specifically the lack of development in adults, which Freud termed "psychosexual infantilism.") Redirecting to one of these is certainly better than redirecting here. BitterGrey (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I would like to encourage some discussion about the re-inclusion of the external link to http://understanding.infantilism.org/. It includes multiple articles with several references. (Almost all of this article's references were contributed by that website's maintainer.) Most recently, the external link was removed by an editor who has, among other things, added an external link to his own website to another article, in a clear conflict of interest.

Previous to that, the external link to understanding.infantilism.org was the focus of an edit war. That edit war was the result of a deletionist's unwillingness to discuss his motivations (User_talk:Themfromspace#Paraphilic_Infantilism_ELs, Roguebfl's talk page). Instead, he opened discussions in third, fourth, and fifth other locations, seeking to gather support. BitterGrey (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bittergrey's note above leaves out the following information:

  • After adding a link to my own university website from the pedophilia page, I fully disclosed on that article's talk page my relationship to the topic and to the website here, exactly as instructed by WP:COI.
  • The two editors who commented on the link both indicated their support for the appropriateness of adding my site. [116][117]
  • I am a professional researcher on this topic (having published several research articles on it in academic journals), and WP:EL treats differently sites maintain by topic experts from sites maintained by enthusiasts.
  • My deletion of the link to understanding.infantilism.org is my own edit; whether another editor previously acted inappropriately in making the same edit is irrelevant.

I have no opposition whatever to continued or repeated discussion here for whether there is consensus for having that link on the mainpage. Consensus can change, of course. Regarding the claim that understanding.infantilism.org contains sourced material, I have no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Pardon the pun.) As suggested in WP:EL, any specific information in understanding.infantilism.org that is sourced and appropriate can itself be integrated onto the mainpage, obviating any need to list that site as an EL in the first place. Bittergrey's hostility and personal attacks above will not improve the page. Bringing in better information will.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I left quite a lot out. I didn't point out that, logging in as MarionTheLibrarian, you removed references to the publications of others and replaced them with references to your own(May 23rd). Then, as MarionTheLibrarian, you wrote of yourself and your colleagues into the body of at least one Wikipedia article by name, as the most notable in the field (May 26th). On June 22, another editor discovered your identity and posted the conflict of interest to the COI noticeboard [118]. The confession that you were MarionTheLibrarian followed.[119]. If you would like, we could go into more detail on this example of self-promotional COI edits, the previous example, or more examples. My main point is that those with long histories of self-promotion (self-advocacy) shouldn't be dismissing other resources as advocacy. BitterGrey (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, I am unlikely to convince you of otherwise. If you believe that my behavior has anywhere been inappropriate, you should report it in the appropriate forum.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I would think that becoming known as sort of researcher who had to rely on "convincing" instead of facts, who had to self-promote because he believed no one else considered him notable, who was caught trying to mislead because he lacked the support of truth, would be a worse punishment than anything Wikipedia could dish out.
BitterGrey (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I, of course, do not think the link belongs. I feel I've made my point clear. The link is obviously here to promote a certain advocacy of the material. It also violates the WP:ELNO external link guidelines. The more bittergrey defends it the more I think there's reason to throw the link out. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy. ThemFromSpace 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, many of the descriptions given by people on that EL are decently accurate IMO, but WP holds the bar higher than that. I also have no opposition to the real-world advocacy for people with out-of-the-ordinary sexual interests (outside of sexual offenses), but WP is not the place for it. — James Cantor (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To illustrate the standard for external links in discussion location #3, Themfromspace advocated the homosexuality article [120]. "I looked at the homosexuality article ... I found no advocacy links in the external links section at all". One external link on that list was to ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives. "The ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives honors the past, celebrates the present, and enriches the future of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. We foster acceptance of sexual and gender diversity by supporting education and research about our heritage and experience worldwide."[121]
It is true that understanding.infantilism.org asks AB/DLs to evaluate the acceptability of their practices (there is even a questionnaire) but stops short of recommending imprisonment, surgical alteration, or execution. However, I doubt that advocacy is the real problem here. BitterGrey (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus decides what is advocacy. Repeated hostility, this time in the form of veiled accusations of prejudice, is unlikely ever to garner one. — James Cantor (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you'll check the history on this issue, you'll find that I've been trying to engage in discussion and find a compromise that will make everyone happy since before the edit war began. Let's try to stick to the facts. Otherwise this will degenerate into people accusing other people of making accusations. BitterGrey (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anaclitism

I have just noticed that the term "anaclitism" is redirected to this page but doesn't actually appear anywhere on this page. Should it have its own page? Should it be discussed here? Should the redirect simply be removed? Tomlee1968 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a paragraph mentioning anaclitism, and describing its relationship to paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism. While anaclitism might have fit into the psychological theory of the day well, there just isn't much empirical support for its implications.
One item of original research was left out of the paragraph: Some AB/DLs were raised in cloth diapers, but have desires specific to disposable diapers. This suggests that the desires form after infancy for some or many AB/DLs. The contrast would be rare, since it would only be present if the type of diaper they were exposed to when the desires formed differed from the type they used as a baby. The second AB/DL survey will permit us to quantify this group. Might there be a consensus for including this observation? BitterGrey (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on mainpage over unsourced text.

There is a long passage on the mainpage that lacks any sourcing. It has been tagged as lacking references for a very long time (more than two years). Although I have removed the text in according to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR, user:Bittergrey has repeatedly re-added the text, still without sources.

Bittergrey has a long-standing history of POV issues on this page, on which he is adding unsourced material that appears on his off-wiki activist/enthusiasts' page on the topic (http://understanding.infantilism.org/).

In this edit summary, Bittergrey asks that I "detail your accusations" on the talkpage. This demonstrates yet another misunderstanding on Bittergrey's part about how WP works: It is the person who adds text that holds the burden of justifying what is (in this case) unsourced text.

Any input from other editors and efforts at ending Bittergrey's edit warring would be appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a substantial amount of context which James Cantor leaves out. For the past week, I've been involved in discussions about three EL's that he hoped to add to one article [122]. They were to his organization, and I discovered the undisclosed relationship. The week before that, he attempted to add an EL to his own website to multiple articles. I raised questions[123] and drew attention to the fact that multiple articles were involved.[124]. All this from one who tried to get others to forgo ELs and donate their website's content to wikipedia.[125] Now he is asking us to accept that the attack this week is coincidental.
As for wikipedia policies, James Cantor is the last one who should be accusing others of wrongdoing. As MarionTheLibrarian, he (she?) wrote himself and his colleague into the body of at least one Wikipedia article by name, as the most notable in the field (May 26th 2008). A month later, another editor discovered and announced the conflict of interest[126]. The confession that James Cantor was MarionTheLibrarian followed.[127].BitterGrey (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


In his third revert of re-instating the unsourced text, Bittergrey wrote in his edit summary: "There are articles without a single reference, and yet you aren't edit-warring to delete them." Not only does this fail to justify re-including unsourced text, it is also untrue. Very many of my edits involve removing unsourced text, which any review of my contribs page will reveal: e.g., [128], [129], [130].

I have noted Bittergrey's 3RR on his user talkpage.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that the doctor cannot count. 3RR comes in to play after more than three actions on the same text. For example, James Cantor is now in violation of it with his fourth action[131][132][133][134].BitterGrey (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:TALK, I have removed the name of an editor from the heading of this section. Please focus on the content and not the editors.
Regarding the content, verifiability policy requires that information be removed if sources can't be found. The deleted section has been tagged as unsourced for two years, that's enough time to find sources. It should not be re-added unless references are included. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm the one who added most of the article's references[135]. WP:V doesn't specify how many references are needed, so an editor with an agenda could use it as an excuse to delete text no matter how many references are present. In my experience, editors who disagree with a point will delete that point. Editors who have a conflict with the article topic or other editors will delete large blocks, even deleting around references if necessary. No number of references will be an effective defense. Given James Cantor's repeatedly demonstrated willingness to violate wikipedia policies and his claim that retribution is involved in this matter[136], expectations are no longer a matter of faith. Basically, those with axes to grind will delete anyway. I have the option of putting a lot of work into what he deletes, or not. BitterGrey (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You won't get the results you want by focusing your comments on editors, the focus belongs on the content. If you have sources that meet reliability requirements for the text you want to include, then it's likely you will find support from other editors in reaching consensus to include the material. As I noted above, the removed section had no sources at all after two years, so it was appropriate to remove it. In reading through the article, I see there are other sections missing references, and several sources of questionable reliability such as personal websites. Some of those might need to be removed. If the information they present is accurate and notable, better sources can be found.
Another point to consider is that this article presents as a scientific topic, but much of the content is about the pop-culture terms "adult baby" and "diaper lover". Most of the references that mention those terms do not refer to the term that is the title of the article, and it's not clear whether or not any of the scientific sources in the article refer to those pop-culture terms, but several of those sources clearly do not. Also, several of the scientific sources discuss psychosexual infantilism, that is a different topic. I've done a few quick Google scholar and books searches and my initial impression is there seem to be only a few academic sources on the term "Paraphilic infantilism". Perhaps the article should be moved to Adult baby since that is what most of the article is about. For example, the article makes wide use of the abbreviation "AB/DL". Is that term used in even one of the scientific sources? If not, then it does not belong in this article, other than in passing as a note. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, references before DSM-IIIR (1987) wouldn't use the term introduced in that revision, but would use other terms. Psychosexual infantilism, for example, is a broader term that would include paraphilic infantilism. Due to Criterion B, only some of those who have the condition of paraphilic infantilism would be diagnosed with paraphilic infantilists. The remainder would be grouped under some other title, such as AB/DL. The acronym is was developed by the AB/DLs much like BDSM, etc.
Since so much of the article has been deleted in the past two days, it is now no longer mostly about Adult Babies. Having two articles, one for the medical diagnosis and one for the community, probably won't be that successful. As you might have noticed, there is only one person consistently contributing here. Furthermore, I don't receive any financial gain from my efforts.BitterGrey (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The suggestions about adding references sounded more neutral before references started being deleted. BitterGrey (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
No reliable sources were removed. For the removed non-reliable sources, specific reasons were noted in the edit summaries. If you think any of those meet the requirements of WP:RS, please bring the details to the talk page.
With further consideration, I recommend that we move this article to Adult baby where notable subculture information would be more appropriate. Descriptions of contemporary sexual subcultures do not require the same kind of scientific references as a medical condition. The current article title could be represented by a subsection in the renamed article. Since there are so few scientific sources for this condition, it would make a better article that way. Even the article you mentioned, BDSM, that addresses a more widely researched topic, does it that way. If that article were about a medicial condition, it would be a very different article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I oppose this move, since the stated motivation is unreasonable. To extend Jack-A-Roe's example, one might think Sadism_and_masochism_as_medical_terms would be better referenced that BDSM, but that isn't the case. The BDSM article has 101 references, and the sadism and masochism as medical terms has 8 inline citations, including external links to non-English websites. If anything, the "medical term" page is much looser with its inline references. BitterGrey (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
That article, Sadism_and_masochism_as_medical_terms is not a good example because it's not in good shape. Hopefully, someone will improve it one of these days, but the condition of that article has nothing to do with this one. It doesn't matter to me if the article is moved or not. The reason I suggested the move is that by doing so, I think you would be more likely to achieve your goals of including the sexual subculture information in the article. Under the current title, unless there are reliable sources connecting those behaviors and terms with the medical term, it is original research to present them as if they are the same thing. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To simply omit all reference to the possible origin of paraphilic infantilism from the article, due to the fact (which I think we can all agree on) that no broad-based scientific study has yet been done on it, seems to me to be rather unnecessary. In the absence of this, there are still many anecdotal accounts by AB/DL's available on the internet which I think it is fair to report on and to attempt to summarize on here. Unfortunately I don't have the time needed to cross reference all of the anecdotal accounts listed in the origins section, but I would hope that someone else might, as I know I have read all of the accounts referred to in the origins section somewhere or another. As such, I have gone ahead and re-inserted the Origins section, but more clearly identified the information in the section as only anecdotal. I agree with BitterGrey that the scarcity of available scientific data on paraphilic infantilism should not be any reason to block any type of attempt at a scientific discussion of it in an article dedicated to it in Wikipedia. I think that there is a need for, and room for both types of articles on AB/DL and paraphilic infantilism in Wikipedia.

Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding references to 'Origins' section.

Note: My "talk" entry below was made after I had attempted to rewrite the Origin section more in alignment with Wiki policy, but user: James Cantor had just deleted the section. He had also apparently deleted the same section several times before in an edit war with an earlier editor. Note by Scott P. (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The need for references is understood. As I stated above, I really was hoping that someone else would step in to help with this. I will add two references per week. Seeing as this section was left standing for 2 years without any references, I would hope that a few more weeks with only partial referencing might be tolerated. I have just added one reference, and will add another by the end of the day.
Thanks,
Scott P. (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: user: James Cantor's "talk" entry below was made after his having again promptly deleted the Origin section. Apparently he was not willing to wait until I had completed inserting my references for the day as I had promised. Note by Scott P. (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that there exist few, if any, sources on this topic. That does not, however, permit the sourcing standards to drop just so that there is something to be said on the mainpage. The WP thing to do is not to say anything until such RS's emerge. The source to John Money does not solve the problem. To say that an unsourced theory is consistent with John Money's theory doesn't help. It is OR unless an RS says that the etiological theory is consistent with Money's. A WP editor saying so is not sufficient (even if the WP editor is correct).
— James Cantor (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Allowing a section regarding the 'Origins of AB/DL' on this page, and reference standards therein

An editing war seems to have erupted regarding two questions:

  1. Should a section regarding the 'Origins of paraphilic infantilism' be permitted in this article?
  2. If this section is allowed, then what reference standards should apply in this section?

Any leading comments by editors who have not recently contributed to this article would be appreciated. Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All editors can opin as they like, of course, but no one has argued against having an origins section or against having referenced anecdotal information in that section. The problems (to my eye) are about having anunreferenced origins section and having unreferenced anecdotal information in that section. That John Money thought that the paraphilia started by age 8 is not at all a sufficent basis to use Money as the source to support the entire (unsourced) theory.
The main question, to me, is whether the single source contained in this edit is sufficient to justify all of the other text added to the mainpage in that edit.
That said, an RfC is a good idea; and I also believe that the input from new editors would be helpful.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The Money Lovemap theory states that nearly all humans have the fundamentals of their Lovemaps fully developed by the age of 8. By pointing out the consistency between Money's theory, and the developmental experiences of most AB/DL's and by referencing Money's writings on this, seems to me to be at least the beginning of referencing this section of the article. Obviously some further reference will be needed to substantiate the reports of the early onset of the thought patterns, and I will grant you that. I hope we get some fresh perspectives here too.
Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor (but who has given input on RfC's and discussion connected to this), and who has no interest in the topic, if Money did not address this issue specifically, then to use this to justify a whole section about this topic, rather than as a mention about his view of paraphilias generally, would be WP:OR. It is unfortunate if no verifiable sources can be found to justify the section(s), but unless there is a consensus to waive that for the article, and it is challenged, then the onus is on the inserting editor to verify the accuracy. Would the challenger and the inserting editor be prepared to work towards producing a compromise consensus version which used sources where available in a way that gave some leeway in retaining useful unsourced material?Mish (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
MishMich, have you or have you not checked the reference yourself?BitterGrey (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdenting) I regret that, contrary to wikipedia policy, no assumptions of good faith were made when Scott P. offered a schedule for finding additional references[137] nor was there any acceptance that wikipedia is a work in progress. His offer was ignored. The material was redeleted along with the new reference that he added. This suggests that this week's edit war between James Cantor and Scott P., like last week's edit war between James Cantor and myself, was driven by some other desire. References were merely the justification.

Technically, WP:V doesn't quantify how many references are needed. Similarly, the guidlines about references are equally open to interpretation. WP:3RR does specify a quantity - four or more reverts - which James Cantor has already violated[138] regarding this issue.

As for MishMich, two weeks ago he rushed to support James Cantor regarding three self-promotional ELs[139], only checking those ELs himself several hours later[140]. This suggests that he is nowhere near as uninvolved as he claims[141].

Now, if we could get some truly unbiased editors involved, then an environment of good faith might possibly be restored. In this current environment, it seems that any new contributions, no matter how well referenced, will be deleted thoughtlessly. BitterGrey (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of responding to editors who respond to RfCs by discussing what they have said, you seem to only be capable of responding with personal attacks. Let me make this clear to you. I responded to an RfC on a project I participate in, and you liked what I said as I supported your position, and you did not attack me. Then I responded to another RfC on the same project, and you didn't like what I said, and you attacked my motives. Now, somebody posts another RfC on the same project, and I respond and you obviously don't like what I said, and you attack me again. I did not 'rush to support to James Cantor', I responded to an RfC. I can assure you, I have no brief for Cantor whatsoever, and have my own issues with him on a couple of matters - but my primary focus is on making sure we get things right. Now, this project doesn't get a lot of activity, so if RfCs get posted here, do not be surprised if editors involved with the project respond - that is what RfCs are posted for. You are explicitly attributing bad faith when there is none, and being uncivil in the process. I do not intend to be bullied out of responding to RfCs when they are lodged, so don't do it. I told you, I have no interest in paraphilic infantilism, so I am an unbiased editor.
I think it is very unfortunate that this section has only the one source, because I am sure that Wikipedia would be better with it rather than without it - but by being clear about the source and the material derived from it, you will ensure that the article is stronger and less vulnerable to challenges like the one Cantor is making. Believe me, I know this is not easy - some of the articles I have worked on can have every sentence challenged, which means working through an entire article to ensure that the accuracy of everything is verifiable from reliable sources. I am sympathetic, having worked on articles on Christianity and homosexuality where other editors may be Mormon fundamentalists, articles about LGBT people with neo-Nazi content, as well as responding to requests for assistance on articles on topics I am not familiar with, like pederasty. What I have found is that the way to work on this is rather than try and argue for maintaining poorly sourced material, to ensure that the material is unassailable because it conforms to the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, enhances the article and improves the encyclopedia. That has nothing to with bias - and regardless of bias, if you do this, provided you do not breach WP:NPOV or WP:ORor WP:UNDUE the material should stand. But - it is hard work.
To answer your specific (and irrelevant) question - no, I do not have this book - and you should not expect an editor who responds to an RfC to have it. Reading the text you insert, I am relying on you as the editor to tell me what John Money says. This is why I said if John Money did not say this - I do not know whether he did or not, but Cantor seems to think he didn't - and the way you have cited him, it appears what he said relates to one sentence in one paragraph in the section. If what you have written all comes from that one source, then you need to guide me to that conclusion by citing him more than once for one sentence mid-way through one paragraph. An easy way for you to settle this is to quote what he did say below here, and if Cantor has the book he can confirm this - unless it is too long, in which a clear summary of what he did say would suffice, and Cantor can comment on whether that is accurate - then we can compare that with the text in the section(s) to see how far they match up, and that will start to assist making some progress on this matter. I have lots of papers by Money, and one book, but none that relate to this topic. All I am able to find by him are definitions of paraphilic infantilism (he seems to have been much more interested in infantilism in sex development than the paraphilia):
  • "impersonating an infant and being treated as one by the partner - one of the stigmatic/eligibilic paraphilias"Gay, straight and in-Between
  • "erotic fixation on acting like and being treated as an infant." The lovemap guidebook
So, what does he actually say? And forget the personal attacks, they won't work. Stick to the point of the RfC.Mish (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind adding diffs to all the negative comments you just made about me above? Using diffs is a matter of wikipedia policy. As for personal attacks not working for you, this might be because many unbiased editors have sense enough to ignore diffless negative statements. BitterGrey (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm contributing my opinion as an uninvolved editor. Since the unreferenced section was challenged, I think that references should be provided if the section is to be re-instated, and I suggest that no unreferenced statements be included in the section. The standards for references should be the same as for other medical/scientific articlesWP:MEDRS. References should mention the topic of paraphilic infantilism specifically, per WP:SYN. Secondary sources are preferred. Feel free to put a message on my talk page asking for my opinion again after you develop a referenced section, if there's still disagreement about the quality of the references, or earlier if you have questions e.g. about specific refs. In the above discussion, one reference seems to be mentioned (Money) but I didn't find enough information (e.g. title? date? type of publication? etc.) to make a decision about it; sorry if that info is included in the above and I missed it somehow. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It was included in text linked to in the comment that followed the RfC: [142] but it wasn't obvious - this is the source:
  • Money, John: Love Maps - Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transpostition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity, New York, Prometheus Books, 1986
No page number was attributed. Mish (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, MishMich. From the Wikipedia page about John Money it appears that there's controversy about his work. Therefore, while I think perhaps that book can be used as a reference, I suggest that at least one additional reference should also be found. (Either supporting Money's POV, or opposing it, or some refs that do each; ideally, find out what the POVs of many reliable sources is and determine due weight for each POV.) Here's a reference I just found via a google scholar search; it may or may not be relevant (I don't see the word "infantilism" in it): [143]Chapter 2 of Sex Offenders: Identification, Risk Assessment, Treatment, and Legal Issues Authors Fabian M. Saleh, Albert J. Grudzinskas, John M. Bradford, Paul Appelbaum, Daniel J. Brodsky Editors Fabian M. Saleh, Albert J. Grudzinskas, John M. Bradford, Daniel J. Brodsky Oxford University Press US, 2009 ISBN 0195177045, 9780195177046. When giving a book as a reference, page numbers should be given. By the way: consider possibly titling the section with a word such as "causes" or "development" or something instead of "origins", since I wondered whether "origins" meant origin of the theory or what. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I believe the second case you mentioned was reported separately in more detailhere. It isn't the typical etiology: he was being chemically treated for pedophilia when he developed a list of other interests, at age 46. It is notable that the author refers to it as "infantilism" and "'adult baby' syndrome," as opposed to paraphilic infantilism. This is notable since, unlike pedophilia, acting on infantilistic desires isn't enough to result in a diagnosis of paraphilic infantilism, since DSM's Criterion B differs for the two paraphilias. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-text revised. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pgs 572-573, 571-572)BitterGrey (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Question. Given that the side arguing for deletion has used siege language (e.g:"vulnerable","unassailable,"[144]) should those who are considering contributing to the article prepare to build an encyclopedia article, or a fortress? The set of references deleted from this article has already included the APA's DSM[145]. While trying to find background on Mich's linkless and diffless monologue above, I came across one article with 12 references dedicated to one sentence. Clearly, no wikipedia article can ever be considered "unassailable." BitterGrey (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Again you divert from discussion, and try to belittle and misrepresent. I have never said I am in favour of deletion - I am in favour of you providing sources for the material that you believe should be retained so that it does not get deleted. You seem reluctant to do that. I suggested you detail what Money said on this matter, so we can get an idea about this, but you have avoided this. Instead you bring up vandalism from two years ago, where well-sourced material was deleted. Then you reverted it. That is what I mean by unassailable - if the material is pertinent, non-synthetic, and properly sourced, it cannot be excluded (unless there is consensus for some reason why it is not appropriate). Anybody can delete material they don't like - but if such deletion amounts to little more than vandalism then it can be dealt with. If you are building an article that some people have issues with - then yes, you do have to build it like a fortress - and yes you will get people deleting stuff simply because they don't like it, and have to revert this. That is because of the way this encyclopedia is designed - open access means any half-wit can edit it. Why would I want to produce diffs to this article? I have no knowledge of its history - I am responding to a notice on sexuality/sexology that there was an RfC here, and came to see if I could assist in any way. As you don't seem to appreciate my suggestions, I will leave you to argue for inclusion of a poorly sourced section against policies and guidelines - and withdraw my advice that you need to find some sources, as you don't seem to want to find any. Mish (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
As clearly displayed above, the RFC was to maths, science, and technology[146], not to sexuality/sexology as you assert[147]. The diffs that I requested added to the statements that you were making about me were so that others could see what I wrote, as opposed to having to rely on your representation. They might have noticed that my comments are extensively diff'd, while yours are completely unsupported.
As for "you will get people deleting stuff simply because they don't like it, and [you] have to revert this"[148], I have to agree. Intent is often a factor. BitterGrey (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion with appropriate references The question at the RFC page is whether a section about PI's origin should be included, and if so, what kind of sources should be used. My answer is "Yes, and the 'usual' kinds of sources, as spelled out in the standard policies and guidelines" -- which is to say, that the majority of information in the this article should be adequately referenced by high-quality, non-controversial, scientific, secondary sources (such as textbooks, reference manuals, and scholarly papers), and that any minority views (e.g., John Money's) should be included with the best possible source that accurately represents the view. These sources (for both mainstream and dissident views) will always directly and specifically say what we assert in this article, including specifically naming this particular condition, and the section's contents should be limited to what is actually said in these sources.
    Since this is all so perfectly obvious from the policies, I can't really imagine why this question requires an RfC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we can't dismiss anything as perfectly obvious, not even that there was an (only one) RFC[149][150]. BitterGrey (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Following DGG's comment on the talk the page, I would support inclusion of a section on "etiology" (rather than "origins", using WP:RS where available, but if there has been insufficient coverage of the phenomenon in medical sources and the media, then the net be cast wider to include a consensus view derived from activist/support sites and publications. Mish (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued removal of references

Since there are people marking this article unreferenced on a phrase-by-phrase basis[151], references should not be arbitrarily merged merely to leave phrases unreferenced[152]. The continued removal of references suggests that the continuing series of deletions was never about references, but something else. If both sides would be honest about their objectives, perhaps we could work together to achieve them. My objective is to provide a reliable and meaningful encyclopedia article. BitterGrey (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC) <a name=1003></a>

"Origins/ Causes" section

I have now re-inserted the previous "Origins" section, and renamed it "Causes". While doing so, I have also inserted copious references. Scott P. (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC) <a name=1004></a>

Deleted 2 to 1 AB to DL ratio without documentation

The intro had an undocumented statistic, claiming that the ratio of AB's to DL's is 2 to 1. This statistic was added in the edit: Ratio insertion. If this could first be properly documented, then re-inserted into the article, this would be helpful. Scott P. (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the statement was that about 1 in 3 ABs is also a DL. (It didn't state the number of DLs who weren't also ABs.) It had two refs:
In the past, this text has only been challenged by those asserting an absolute separation between ABs and DLs or infantilism and fetishism. A third ref describes an AB/infantilist as having a diaper fetish. However, it doesn't discuss the ratios in the general AB/DL community.
  • Pate J.E., Gabbard G.O. (2003). Adult baby syndrome Am J Psychiatry 160:1932–1936
BitterGrey (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bittergrey. Thanks for tracking down the archived version of the documentation. I've re-incorporated it into the intro paragraph. Too bad Geocities is no more. One wonders about the Web-Archive as well. That may not last forever either. I see that the Web-Archive has not archived the web for the last 4 years. I am hoping that somebody might download and save what is left of Dave's Diaper Survey in the Web-Archive sometime soon, so that should the Web-Archive take a dive someday, Dave's work wouldn't be entirely lost. I feel that his work was quite good and valuable, and hopefully will not be lost. Please also note that in the intro paragraph, I have attempted to interpret the survey results in as scientific of a manner as I could. I've intentionally subtracted all of the TB's from the results I reported on, trying to focus on the more stable adult community. Obviously the TB's should not be omitted all together, but I feel that any scientific study does best to focus on adults first, as teens are inherently difficult to closely study or to quantify. Perhaps once the phenomenon is better understood within the adult community, then future studies could focus more exclusively on the teen aspects of it. Again thanks for the links.
Scott P. (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome, Scottperry. Dave plans to get his website back up, but hasn't set a date. I've saved a copy and have offered to host it online. However, that link probably would have been deleted along with all other mention of infantilism.org. So for now, we need to make due with the web archive. BitterGrey (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, what are your thoughts on changing the language from "40%" to '4 in 10?' Technically, the trailing zero is significant (+/-0.5%). BitterGrey (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

<a name=1005></a>

Clarifying AB vs: DL vs: Paraphilic Infantilism

It seems to me that there may be a muddling of terminology. The distinction between AB's and DL's seems clear enough. But whether or not DL is or is not a form of paraphilic infantilism seems to me to be muddled. I would suggest that because a diaper is something normally only worn by infants, that a DL ought to be considered as a subcategory of paraphilic infantilism. Attempting to separate DL's into a separate and basically mutually exclusive category seems to me to be counterproductive, very confusing, and contrary to the etymology of the term "paraphilic infantilism". Even though some psychologists and psychiatrists may sometimes seem to prefer to create a myriad of confusing, overlapping and even misleading diagnosis, I think that it would best serve us to try to place all diaper related behaviors and fantasies under the umbrella term "paraphilic infantilism". As far as I have been able to determine, the DSM only mentions infantilism, paraphilic infantilism, diaper fetishism and autonepiophilia in passing, without laying out any clear distinctions between these four, and without making any attempt to delineate the exact relationship between them. I assert that all of these things ought to be under the umbrella term of paraphilic infantilism because the terminology means essentially: A love of infantile things, and a diaper is an infantile thing, and the diaper seems to be central to nearly all of this.
Scott P. (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's address the paraphilas first, and then the people. According to the DSM, paraphilic infantilism is a type of masochism (302.83). In contrast, diaper fetishism would fall under fetishism (302.81). Masochism focuses on a change in role, loss of status, or loss of comfort. Fetishism involves a sexual desire for an object. The two are distinct but not mutually exclusive. Someone can have both, or have one without having the other.
Outside of the DSM, those who have these interests call themselves AB/DLs. Some ABs would be diagnosed with paraphilic infantilism if they met Criterion B. The interests and desires might be the same, but the diagnosis would hinge on "distress or impairment." Similarly, some DLs would be diagnosed with fetishism. Since infantilism and fetishism, as well as DL and AB, aren't mutually exclusive, some ABs might also be diagnosed with fetishism, as was the case with Dr. Pate's patient.
Perhaps we should continue the convention of using paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism to refer to the diagnoses, and AB, DL, or AB/DL to refer to the people who might or might not receive them?
BitterGrey (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously we need to stay within the guidelines of the DSM IV in the terminology we use. I am not certain that the DSM IV clarifies that diaper fetishism (DF) would or would not necessarily be a subcategory of paraphilic infantilism (PI), or that the masochistic component of PI is something that is not a component of DF therefore making DF not a subcategory of PI. Logically it just makes sense to me that it would be a subcategory, just as diapers are a subcategory of all things related to infancy.
If what you are saying is all there is to it, then it would appear that you may be correct. Still if that is the case, then I feel that the DSM IV may be doing a disservice to ABDL's by attempting to view a condition that seems to me to be essentially various gradiations of the same underlying condition and dynamic, and claiming that there are two significantly different dynamics at work, when I see only one, namely an over-reaction to probable parenting deficiencies or abuses surrounding infancy and diapers. I guess I'll have to hit the old DSM IV for a better answer on this one, unless you might happen to have any direct quotes from the DSM IV that might help to clarify the answer to this question. Thanks,
Scott P. (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
After a closer read of the DSM IV, nowhere does the DSM IV employ the term "paraphilic infantilism". If we are going to follow the DSM IV, we are limited to one of two routes:
  1. Classify some of the behavior under "Sexual Masochism via Infantile Regression Fantasies" and some of the behavior as "Diaper Fetishism".
  2. Classify generally all AB/DL behavior as a "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified, DSM IV 302.9, and simply call it as we already have, "Paraphilic Infantilism (DSM IV 302.9)".
Scott P. (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
True, the DSM refers to the paraphlia simply as "infantilism" in section 302.83 (masochism). Fetishism is 302.81. The section structure seems pretty clear that neither is a subcategory of the other.
As for classifying AB/DLs who wouldn't be diagnosed with paraphilic infantilism and/or diaper fetishism as Paraphilia NOS, 302.9. This is a reasonable suggestion. However, in the current combative and unreasonable atmosphere, it might be best left as a thought for the discussion page.
BitterGrey (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DSM Verifiability

Personally, I do not believe that the DSM has enough material about paraphilic infantilism to be of much use for this article. That is, I think the scientific literature on the topic will have to provide most of the RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The DSM is a consensus document of a major professional psychiatric organization, representing a large number of researchers and a substantial volume of research. It is also available in most US libraries. While I don't agree with everything it says, sources don't come any more verifiable than the DSM.
Additionally, if you would like editors to give any weight to your thoughts, please consider accepting accountability for your statements, as opposed to deleting[153] reasonable requests for support, clarification, or retraction of negative comments[154].
I believe that one is not several.
BitterGrey (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


First let me correct my earlier entry, after a closer reading of the DSM IV, I did find the actual word "infantilism" in the "Paraphilic Masochism" section. I apologize for not being thorough enough to find this earlier. Bittergrey, you are certainly correct that the DSM IV is generally considered, within the US mental health professional community, as almost the 'final authority' in all mental health disorders. Unfortunately in the case of infantilism, as I think we all know, the amount of scientific research done on the topic to date is extremely, extremely, thin. I think your own survey (which I just stumbled upon for the first time today) may be the first such survey ever done using standard statistical analysis! I think it goes without saying that the DSM IV, which came out in 1994, did not incorporate any such research in the decision of the revision committee to define infantilism as a type of masochism. This decision seems to me to be rather ill informed and arbitrary. It is like classifying transvestitism as strictly a fetish, when in fact it contains elements of gender identity disorder, and several other distinguishing thought and behavior patterns that are especially prevalent in it.
Why does transvestitism have its own diagnosis, while infantilism does not? In my opinion, this is for two simple reasons: First, because there are not nearly as many infantilists as there are transvestites, therefore it is a matter of economics of scale. Second, because due to these economics, there just has not yet been enough research done on infantilism for the DSM editorial commitees to be able to comfortably define it as a unique diagnosis. Hopefully in one of the next revisions of the DSM they will give infantilism its own unique diagnosis.
Meanwhile here at Wikipedia, I feel that we would be doing a disservice to all concerned parties if we were to allow what I believe are the shortcomings of the DSM to dictate to us such nonsense as the implied notions of the DSM that there is not a single dynamic at work amongst the ABDL community, but rather two separate diagnosis and dynamics. One who might approach ABDL's after only having read the DSM, would tend to believe that the ABDL copmmunity is really two distinct groups or communities, that may just happen to have a small overlapping group shared amongst them. This is nonsense, as I think we all know. So, until the DSM is able to come to terms with the realities of the AB/DL community, I think that Wikipedia might do best to work to keep a single article under the header 'Infantilism' as it once was before, and to devote a properly documented subsection to clarify the relationship between infantilism and the manner in which the DSM addresses the issues and diagnoses that deal with it.
Scott P. (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is another possible future for the diagnosis. One explanation for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was that the distress and impairment were cultural. The marginalization and stigmatization were part of the homosexual experience, but not a direct result of homosexuality. Thus, while it might be a paraphilia, it wasn't really a disorder. Infantilism might follow a similar path.
Thanks for noticing the surveys. In the past, when they were relevant to the discussion, I would link to specific survey results from the talk page, marked by <original research> tags. Recently, I've been hesitant to, given the current atmosphere here.
BitterGrey (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The answer to the question about whether or not society's general receptivity towards infantilists will ever increase, to me seems uncertain at best. But one can always hope for greater tolerance for those who are seen as 'different', however long it may take to evolve.
Regarding the possibility of re-merging the two articles about infantilism, I'm hoping that you might be able to be tolerant of that? Scott P. (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm open to the idea, however we would need to do it 1) for the right reasons, and 2) after confirming that the diaper fetish article's culture was willing to adapt to this article's culture. Infantilism and diaper fetishism might one day share the same article, but they aren't the same. Specifically with regards to the DSM, infantilism is a masochism (302.83), while diaper fetishism is a fetishism (302.81). While there is much commonality, they are different diagnoses.
The article cultures are also remarkably different. The infantilism article had two edit wars last month, and one the month before. One 2006 edit war at paraphilic infantilism resulted in ongoing off-wiki harassment. (I'm the target, by the way.) I forget when the last edit war at diaper fetishism was.
BitterGrey (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"True infantilism"

Why there is no article about the so called "true infantilism"? A psychological condition that is in the same relation to paraphilic infantilism as transsexualism is to transvestism (in that order). 83.4.192.181 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That neologism was made up by one individual to avoid using the proper terminology for her condition(s). During a 2006 on-wiki debate, she claimed that discussions about it were too personal. She also began threatening to 'out' a Wikipedia editor. All references to the neologism were removed at her request. BitterGrey (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Neologism for what? Browse a bit ADISC and you will clearly see that there is at least one more mental disorder other than paraphilic infantilism (or any other paraphillia) which has only some themes in common with paraphilic infantilism (like wearing diapers or using pacifiers). I'm not saying that "true infantilism" is a good name for it. 83.7.210.112 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree that there are other conditions that have common themes with paraphilic infantilism. These other conditions would be discussed in articles using the proper terminology. For example, someone with dissociative identity disorder might have a child or infantile alter. He or she might appear regressed like the person with infantilism. However, the conditions aren't that hard to differentiate: The person with paraphilic infantilism will typically have a complete memory of what happened while regressed while the person with DID might have partial or no memory of what happened in one alter while in another.
Even within paraphilic infantilism, there is a range of interests. For example, some experience it sexually while others do not. I tend to think the sexual component is commonly overemphasized in print.
AB/DL groups, such as ADISC, include people with paraphilic infantilism, people with diaper fetishism, people with other conditions driving an interest in diapers and/or babyhood, and others who are simply interested in diapers and/or babyhood without any particular condition. BitterGrey (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
How something can be paraphillic (a paraphillia) and not experienced sexually. If the second is true (and it is) we have at least two different types of infantilism. You've said that there are "people with other conditions driving interest in diapers and/or babyhood". Which other conditions cause interest in diapers and/or babyhood?
And you have not answered my question: for what "true infantilism" neologism is for? She also coined one more term: "advanced baby". What about this?
And take a look at this thread for example. It seems that there are some who are like a child trapped in an adult body. 83.7.210.112 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, paraphilic infantilism is a range. Depending on how it is divided into types, there could be an infinite number of types. In my experience, I've found it more practical to discuss continua than discrete categories. These discrete categories generally depend on arbitrary divisions. For example, the ADISC discussion that you link to refers to teen babies (TBs), which are adult babies (ABs) who are under 18. In turn, adult babies are AB/DLs with an interest in roleplay, above some threshhold dividing AB and DL. The survey data doesn't show a division between AB and DL, so this threshhold would have to be arbitrarily set.
One basic rule I've found for separating paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism from the other conditions that might drive an interest in diapers and/or babyhood is this: If the direct symptoms are more severe than diaper rash, the driving condition is likely to be something more severe than paraphilic infantilism or diaper fetishism. <original research> While I don't have a complete list of all conditions that might cause an interest in diapers and/or babyhood, data on the prevalence of some other conditions among AB/DLs is available from my second AB/DL survey.</original research>
The second neologism, written about on 22 March 2006, might have been made-up in response to the first round of Wikipedia debates about the first neologism and about the acronym AB/DL, which concluded on 20 March 2006.
Sorry if it seems that I'm avoiding your questions. I'm trying to guide this discussion towards being about AB/DLs in general, as opposed to one individual's list of real and made-up diagnoses. BitterGrey (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
There might be different types of infantilism, but they may often coexist, so that's why you are observing a range. If not all of them are sexual in nature, then "paraphilic infantilism" is completely inappropriate name for the group. And I'm not talking about arbitrary divisions (like TB/AB or AB/DL). It seems that there are multiple fundamentally different causes resulting in strange behaviours collectively called AB/DL in the Internet slang. I know about a lot of mental disorders but don't know about any, which would be a likely cause of this strange behaviours. It is possible that there are for example three different types of infantilism: paraphilic infantilism, dual-role infantilism and people who are "childlike adults"; which are roughly equivalent to: fetishistic transvestism, dual-role transvestism and transsexualism; but instead of gender they are all about the age. But it seems that the whole subject is uncovered by the science.
When browsing the Internet I've found one more interesting community. 83.7.209.72 (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In some ways, it is good that the subject is uncovered by science, given how much sexology takes place in prisons and morgues. BitterGrey (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AB/DL Symbol

AB/DL Symbol
The quasi-universal symbol representing AB/DL.

I don't know where this symbol originated, so I didn't want to post it on the main article without a proper source citation. However, I have seen it in many places, and it is the generally recognized, de facto symbol for the AB/DL subculture. If someone can find where it originated, maybe it could be added to the article. One person told me she saw it as early as 2004 on the Daily Diapers web site.

I drew this image myself and release it into the public domain. Matt Whitlock (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: (again) I was informed that the symbol originated here: http://babypridestore.com/ However, there is also a claim that the symbol was created by Mommy Has and Baby Mako of www.hasmako.com (now defunct). Their symbol uses different colors and geometry than the one I created, so perhaps it should be recognized as the canonical standard in lieu of mine. I happen to think mine looks better, but that's just my opinion. Matt Whitlock (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Baby Mako is one of the three people operating babypridestore.com, so both claims might be true. The website also describes it as "given to the public domain and can be used by anyone for free" and offers an updated art kit. I think adding either version of the symbol to the article would be reasonable. BitterGrey (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Teen use?

Is there a basis of estimate of how often teens fake wetting or bedwetting in hopes of getting put back into diapers? I'd expect the attempt would result in endless visits to the urologist instead. The AB/DL community seems to consistently discourage this ruse. (e.g. [155]). If the practice is common, the section might be worth keeping, but should be made balanced by adding information about the prognosis and community position. BitterGrey (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Infantilism in popular culture

I think this article would benefit from a list, or at least a few examples, of infanitlism in popular culture. More and more frequently television shows are having entire episodes focused on this fetish, often portraying a misinformed view of what ABs are like. I can think of several tv shows which have featured ABs off the top of my head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.204.8 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A section on how the media presents infantilism, with examples, might be useful. One thing that is important to note is that the paraphilic infantilism article is considered medical turf. Roving gangs of sexologists demanding peer-reviewed articles from major medical journals to support the significance or possibly the mere existence of some TV episodes wouldn't be surprising. A separate article might be much more practical, analogous to the article BDSM_in_culture_and_media.
It would also permit a broader scope. The medical definition of infantilism requires misadjustment (Criterion B; DSM 4TR pg 573). In some ways, this is necessary, but it means that infantilism is circularly defined as a disorder, a source of distress or impairment. The separate article would be able to discuss well-adjusted AB/DLs who would be excluded by the medical definition. BitterGrey (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Main topic (again)

Although I'm probably beating a dead horse, I agree with User:Jack-A-Roe's recomendation on 19 July 2009 (now archived) to focus & rename this article on the subculture rather than the medical term. I did just that with muscle worship and sthenolagnia; you may want to look in the histories of those two to see how they looked before. Basically, when a kinky sexual practice results in very little or no impairment that would justify clinical diagnosis/intervention for a paraphilia (under DSM-IV), there's almost no serious medical or psychology literature on it. Ancient (as in older than 30yrs. or so) psychology texts, especially psychodynamic ones, hardly qualify as science today. So, having the article focused on the paraphilia seems plain wrong. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that per DSM IV terminology, only a minority (<original research> around 40% </original research>) of AB/DLs would be considered paraphilic infantilists because of the lack of direct distress or impairment. However, this is expected to change with DSM 5 terminology. Then, paraphilic infantilism will include both those with and without distress and impairment. (Again, nice addition to the paraphilia article explaining that, Tijo098.)
As for the dead horse, most of the material Jack-A-Roe was referring to was deleted back in 2009.
I am curious about why paraphilic infantilism is listed as a "see also" for muscle worship. Other than weight room jokes about baby fat, what do the two have in common? BitterGrey (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
One of the sources has an account by a female wrestler/bodybuilder reporting that she thinks some of her clients are aroused by giving up control to someone physically stronger, e.g. those that like to be carried around; there are also some scenes along this line in the Muscle Worship Channel 5 documentary (you can watch it on youtube). Most if not all personal accounts of muscle worship practices are from the perspective of the dominator; I wasn't able to find any detailed real-life account of the feelings of a "schmoe", except for fantasy/erotic literature. I'm guessing some of those that like to feel like a baby might also enjoy the lack of control aspect, although I'm sure there are other feelings involved in "baby space". "See also"s are generally original research around here, when you can't find a source to state a connection that seems to exist (otherwise you can just state the connection explicitly it in text). If you think this one is too far fetched, I'll remove it. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
OK. While some AB/DL fantasy stories involve giant/titan/bionic/etc. women, it usually serves as a way to explain how she can lift a grown man as if he were a baby. I can't recall any where the muscles served more of a role, but given the diversity of literature out there, there probably are a few. Of course, that would be a connection between the interests, not the articles. I don't foresee the infantilism article including sections on minor plot devices in AB/DL fiction. (In 2006, it had a section on major plot devices, now long since deleted.) Without such a section, the articles themselves won't have a discernable connection. Would you mind removing the listing in the "see also" section? BitterGrey (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text-Revised. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pg 572-573.
  2. ^ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text-Revised. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pg 569-570.
  3. ^ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, 2000 Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pp 569-570
  4. ^ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text-Revised. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pg 572-573.
  5. ^ Stekel, W. (1952). Patterns of Psychosexual Infantilism. Washington Square Press., pg 143, ISBN 0871408406
  6. ^ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text-Revised. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pg 569-570.
  7. ^ What Would it be Like to Wear Diapers 24/7?, * Understanding Infantilism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism/Archive_2&oldid=1092044362"