Talk:Diaper fetishism

message: Should the link Diaper Fetishism be deleted as it redirects back to Diaper Lover?
I do not believe so, no.  Diaper Fetish is a very common term describing Diaper Lovers.  It appears the only time that a diaper is viewed as a fetish item is shunned upon, is for infantalism, in a way to avoid conflicts with pedophilia.
I believe we need a new image for this page, and the current image should be moved to the latex fetish page.  Most DL's enjoy images of women in normal white disposable or cloth diapers, and the image of the "pvc diaper" probably appeals more to the latex crowd.
I agree
: <original research> Please note that the two are different.  If we define a diaper fetish as prefering to be with a diaper sexually than with a person, then according to survey results, a similar percentage of ABs have diaper fetishes.  Thus, we can't equate diaper fetishes with DLs.  Other differences are that the APA has a controlled definition for a paraphilic fetish, and DLs are people, while a diaper fetish is an interest.</original research>  
:By the way, if we are going to have a picture of a woman on this page, we might want be more explicit about the gender distribution.  Even though many AB/DL pictures use female models, the AB/DLs themselves are predominantly male.  (DSM 4TR, pg 568)BitterGrey 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lol 

message: The following can be found at Wikipedia:External links:
What should be linked to
#Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site. 
#Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism. 
#If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to. 
#On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is. 
#High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference.
What should not be linked to
#Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead. Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions. See also External link spamming. 
#Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above.
Thus I've removed a few links.  If you want to add them back in, please refer to the above (or note other applicable guideline pages) in discussions here first.
brenneman(t)(c) 04:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, duplicate external links to both Aby.com and dpf.com appear in two places in this article .  Do people agree that exactly duplicated external links should be avoided?  The debate about having one link each to these pages is ongoing at the infantilism article .  Note that the links were added to three articles from similar IP numbers: . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bittergrey (talk • contribs) 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current section "WEB Sites" looks really spammy. If those are good sites to link to, shouldn't they go in the external links? I found it upsetting to see such a good treatment of Diaper fetishism cheapened by three spammy URLs. Ceramufary (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree.  However, I avoid cleaning out external links or "WEB Sites" sections on this and the paraphilic infantilism article myself, because it would have the effect of promoting my own website.  BitterGrey (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I wanted to address a point of contention. Firstly, when I changed Brenneman's comments, they weren't intended to vandalize the page. Sorry about that. The first deletion was a mistake. I wasn't trying to remove it. The second was what I intended to do: Change it to make it more accurate. Again, sorry for the confusion. DPF first of all is an adult site. "people" is an all encompassing term meaing adults, teens, children, etc. I realize it's nit-picky but taking the infantilism page and this page here at Wikipedia into account, both basically state that the paraphilia can be discovered in adolescence and even childhood coupled with the fact that more and more kids are getting online, it's probably a good idea to make the distinction particulary clear. Those sites are fine and dandy for adults but not for youngsters. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.81.106.187 (talk • contribs) 
:No harm, no foul.  If I'd thought you had vandalism in your black heart, I would have put something other than  on your talk page!  There are two reasons I reverted your (second, purposeful) change.  One is that it was inside a signed comment on a talk page, those are mostly considered sancrosect.  The accpeted practice if to do as you've done here and present a different viewpoint while leaving the original intact.  Which is, confusingly, exatcly the opposite to what the practice is on a main page, to just make the change and let the chips fall where they may.  The second reason is that I was actaully reproducing the text as it had been on the main page, a quote if you will.  And welcome again to Wikipedia!  brenneman(t)(c) 06:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult Sites 

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

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

message: Despite my reverts, I actually think some bits and pieces of the material Fsecret added could be re-worked into something useable.  I'll work on some ideas, but for now I'll start with something simple, and hopefully un-controversial:
I propose adding the following to the "See also" section:
*diaper
*sexual fetishism
*coprophilia
*urolagnia
*anaclitism
I'm on the fence about omorashi, as the only common factor appears to be urination, which is already covered by urolagnia.  For similar reasons I didn't include ageplay, since the connection is only through infantilism.
Any objections/comments? Anonymous55 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those five seem fine for "see also" entries.  (It would be better if the anaclitism article could support its etiological implications, but it is still a reasonale "see also" entry.)BitterGrey 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll go ahead and add them then.  I figure you know the history, and would have mentioned it if any of the terms were taboo or a focus of contention, which was my main concern. Anonymous55 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward 

message: I have added a psychology section with references to two articles from medical journals. Help from anyone who wants to help build this section would be welcome. Fsecret 03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied and pasted the full citation for Pate's article, Adult baby syndrome, from the paraphilic infantilism article, and the full citation for Maltz's (full text) from Pate's article, where it is the first reference.  Neither article seems to mention a latency period, anal stage, Etc.  Would people like to discuss the reference's appliability to the sentence, reword the sentence to match the references, or remove them? BitterGrey 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychology

message: It has suggested that this article be merged with paraphilic infantilism.  What are people's views on this?
* Agree: The cultures maintaining the two articles have been different, but this might not preclude merging.  There also has been no discussion on how the two articles might evelove on separate paths.  The DSM includes separate diagnosies for paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism, however, the empirical studies consistently show a continuoum.  Individuals differ along a range.  Furthermore, all of the references in the diaper lover article were from the paraphilic infantilism article.  ( One was converted for the diaper lover article, from stating the adult baby/diaper lover continuoum from an adult baby perspective to stating it from a diaper lover perspective. Another is the first reference from "The Adult Baby Syndrome," a reference from the paraphilic infantilism article.) BitterGrey 14:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the discussion about merging is settled, it might be practical not to spend much time on text copied from the paraphilic infantilism article and pasted into this one.  For example, the sentenses just removed  originally summarized two sections in the paraphilic infantilism article.  The first contrasted parpaphilic infantilism with diaper fetishism .  This section has 12 references, with the contrast most breifly shown in the two references to  DSM, #12 and #14 (now #20 and #22).  The other section, contrasting both with pedophilia , included 4 references.  The pedophilia section was one of three pasted into the diaper lover article .BitterGrey 12:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia information should be attributed. Paraphrasing attributed articles is not attribution, and of course brings us farther from the original attributed articles, which is a bad thing. That being said, removing uncited material is still a good thing, and if that material is cited in another part of wikipedia, I think it's far less harm done than if it were not.Lotusduck 04:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't asserting that it was wrong, but that it might be more efficient to settle the discussion about merging first.  If the articles are merged, the unattributed versions of the copied sections will go away as entire sections, not sentence by sentence. The attributed version, of course, should remain. BitterGrey 12:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be patient and get input from others, even if it takes a while.  The article appears to have three body sections.  The first section discusses other paraphilias, each with their own wikipedia page.  The second section, on preferences, could be reintegrated into the practices section .   The third attributes diaper fetishes to an anal fixation with two references.  The first reference describes an adult baby, and attibutes his infantilism to castration anxiety.  The other reference attributes the paraphilia to an attempt to reclaim a mother's affections.  While merging would not be trivial, it might be beneficial.  Of course, that's just my two cents.  BitterGrey 03:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the APA's DSM, all sexual fetishes are paraphilias.  Can we agree to disagree on this, and wait for other opinions? BitterGrey 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my mind infantilism isnt anyway connected to sexuality.  So I wouldnt call it a fetish, but again everyones mileage may differ. BeckyAnne(talk) 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I tend to agree that for some, infantilism isn't sexual, and have original research on about how large a percentage we are.  Unfortunately, the most  verifiable reference on infantilism, the  DSM, categorizes it under "sexual" masochism.  The combined article or both separate articles will need to deal with the sexual aspects.)BitterGrey 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last round of changes  placed infantilism under the header of "Communities in diaper fetishism".  This lumps infantilism into fetishism.  I have reverted these.  The article is now inline with the DSM, which clearly shows that fetishes (302.81) are a subset of the paraphilias (302), not a superset.   Although brief, the American Psychiatric Associations' manual, available in most US libraries, is one of the more authoritative and verifiable sources.BitterGrey 06:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Paraphilic Infantilism 

message: I think that this article might be improved by condensing/rewording/making more encyclopedic some of the details in the "Aspects of the Fetish" which deal with preference into a sectioned called "Preferences in Diaper Fetishism." It might look something like this: 
"Like many fetishes, personal preference plays a large role in which communities the fetishist will identify with. In diaper fetishism, one of the primary divisions of preference is whether or not the diapers are used for their intended purpose, and if so, to what degree. 
Many diaper lovers gain arousal from "wetting" or urinating in their diapers. A smaller numberThomas John Speaker, Psychosexual Infantilism in Adults: The Eroticization of Regression. Columbia Pacific University. pg 81. Available from: DPF, Sausalito, CA 94965. gain the same arousal from using the diaper to "mess" or defecate. Some fetishists do not use their diapers at all. They may find such practices unappealing or they might not want to deal with the cleanup. Others may become aroused by wearing in public; still others prefer the security of wearing only in private.
Many diaper lovers choose to wear in both public and private, using their diapers as intended and never visiting the toilet. Though for a large group this embodies the full spirit of the fetish, others have found that their enjoyment of wearing diapers diminishes rapidly when the need to wear diapers is always present.
Another preference might be cloth or disposable. Disposables have become increasingly popular in recent years due better availability and ease of clean-up, but many diaper lovers who were babies in the era of washable cloth diapers tend to prefer washables as adults."
Does anyone else think this would be a good idea?
Fsecret 01:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are open discussions regarding moving or merging this article.  Perhaps it might be practical to hold off on adjustments to the article's form until we decide what form the article should take.  BitterGrey 06:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preferences in Diaper Fetishism

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

message: I think this is a more accurate term, but I don't see it used anywhere on Wikipedia.
http://www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/paraphilia/overview.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timocrates (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term was coined by Dr. Money, with help from Diskin Clay, Professor of Greek.  His 1984 American Journal of Psychotherapy article, "lovemaps," defines it only as "diaperism" as one of 33 paraphilias, 9 of which had terms freshly coined by Dr. Money.  (They were marked as new terms in the article.)  The list added previously unnecessary terms, such as "peiodeiktophilia" (penile exhibitionism).  Long lists of paraphilias favor systematic approaches, so the new terms might have been coined to support the "lovemaps" theory.  The APA's (still short) list in the  DSM continues to use fetishism (of which diaper fetishism is a subset) and infantilism, a subset of masochism.  There is still debate about whether infantilism and diaper fetishism are two expressions of the same paraphilia, two separate paraphilias, or two artificial groupings of a larger number of paraphilias. BitterGrey 14:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autonephioplia 

message: Am I the only one on this discussion that likes diapers? I just wanted to know that or not. Anyway, I see there is only one picture in the article, are we planning on getting more?
:While there are a few exceptions, the vast majority of AB/DLs do like diapers. <original research> A plot of the importance of a diaper's feel/smell/sound, and how critical it is that the diaper be of the right type, is available here.  Please note the small bars for those who held that diapers "Must be absent" from AB/DL games, scenes, and fantasies.  These added up to about 1%.  </original research> BitterGrey 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am a lover 

message: Why is it that, even though infantilism/diaper fetishism is supposedly more common amongst males than females , that all the images on this page feature women and no men?  This to me seems biased and in violation of WP:NPOV, catering to what straight male AB/DLs want to see, rather than an accurate reflection of the paraphilia.  Not to mention the fact that the image seems to portray infantilism more than diaper fetishism, and therefore isn't relevant to this page.  What do other people think?  Coop41 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree.  (The disagreement is about the leather making it an infantilism picture, but that's not important.)  One picture would provide at most one perspective on the diverse interests of ABDLs.  The parallel discussion from the infantilism article is here.  RefoX wrote "it is impossible to provide one unified view of infantilism through the use one or two (or three... or four...) pictures." The consensus was to leave the article without a picture.  BitterGrey (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I wasn't talking so much about the leather picture (which I thought was adequate in a section discussing how diapers can be used in rubber/plastic fetishes) but about the picture which was deleted last night.  It was of a diapered woman being breastfed by another woman, surrounded by baby toys.  Not very indicative of diaper fetishism in general. I'm not too opposed to images being used in this or the infantilism article, but only if they're relevant to what's being discussed and not just an AB/DL porn gallery. Coop41 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. BitterGrey (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased images?

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

message: These are linked in the see also section. Are they really things related to diaper fetishism? I don't think diaper lovers are any more likely to have those than anyone else. I think they are no more related to this topic than pedophilia is. 209.86.226.56 (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... you do realise what nappies are for, right? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way, you are both right.  Having one paraphilia doesn't imply having the other paraphilia.  However, there are commonalities in practice, so some overlap in practice and practicing populations could be expected.  Of course, this is academic.  It seems clearly obvious that those who have diaper fetishism have a fetishism, and so citing the DSM section on fetishism would be reasonable.  Yet, due to WLU's anti-DSM/pro-CAMH campaign, the article does not. BitterGrey (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworked the  template to include all of these.  Per WP:ALSO, there's no longer a need to have any of them.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coprophilia and urophilia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diaper fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501005903/http://ntn.seoul.co.kr/main.php?cmd=news%2Fnews_view&idx=50793 to http://ntn.seoul.co.kr/main.php?cmd=news%2Fnews_view&idx=50793
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I find the image very weird and think that there shouldn't be any visual representation on this article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C63:647F:E51E:205F:FD01:3CBD:C7D5 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what image was attached before, but if there is going to be an image on this article it should be something that's plainly SFW. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember the last one. It was a mediocre selfie you find throughout the community. A bit cringe for the Wikipedia page, but nothing too egregious. Snaperkids (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article have an image? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I think that is very specific, ideally I would recommend changing:
"==Views==
This sort of fetishism is often [...] (reference ...) and as a result, [...]
===South Korea===
" and than may be also:
"===US===
[...]"
So unless South Korea is an important part of this I belive this has to be removed.
2804:14D:7E81:ACC3:0:0:0:94D (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's a bit oddly specific and I think it would be better to have a section dedicated to general social views. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I have gone ahead and merge the appropriate paragraphs into a general section on "Cultural views". I've also removed a line about a late night comedy joke involving adult diapers, because that is (a) not unique to South Korea and (b) not indicative of South Korean cultural views on diaper fetishism specifically. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A section devoted to showing views of most people, specifically, from South Korea??? 

message: " and than may be also:
"===US===
[...]"
So unless South Korea is an important part of this I belive this has to be removed.
2804:14D:7E81:ACC3:0:0:0:94D (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's a bit oddly specific and I think it would be better to have a section dedicated to general social views. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I have gone ahead and merge the appropriate paragraphs into a general section on "Cultural views". I've also removed a line about a late night comedy joke involving adult diapers, because that is (a) not unique to South Korea and (b) not indicative of South Korean cultural views on diaper fetishism specifically. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: South Korea

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I've added a sub-section alphabetically listing noteworthy makers of fetish/ABDL diapers, but I'm not sure if it's something that we all find appropriate or worth including in the article, so I'm adding this item where we can talk about whether to include this list as well as which makers should be included. 
Keep in mind that the list should remain unbiased and alphabetically sorted. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fetish diaper makers of note sub-section.