Talk:Diaper lover

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:  Oké 

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)

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)
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