Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Philisophical views on *B/DL

  1. #1

    Lightbulb Philisophical views on *B/DL

    So, here's an interesting concept/idea/topic. I was talking to people in the IRC a day or so ago, discussing shitty stories for some reason (I know, ME talk about shitty stories!). We eventually got on the topic of the popular series "Thirteen," including the original "Thirteen Days" and its sequel "Thirteen Nights."

    In thirteen nights, there is a scene in which the main character describes (more of a half mentioned, half 'read between the lines' kind of deal) that, at the very least, to him, a TB is someone who is legitimately babied, or at the very least has baby stuff and uses it. Everyone else was nothing more than a DL, even if they didn't have diapers.

    Whilst the logic there is clearly flawed- depending on how you're looking at it,, it does bring up some good points and ideas. The philosophy of what we consider AB/TB/DL/BF, how we define it, and how we view each individual idea in both concept and act.

    There's an old saying that I'm sure at least a few of you have heard. "Actions speak louder than words." If this is true, wouldn't that then mean that a TB, perhaps, should be more so viewed as someone who is actively using, or at least pretending to be, baby items or being babied? How do we /define/ TB/AB/DL/BF? It isn't like a nationality where you know it simply because of more factual, tangible evidence. Being a TB, at the very least, in a lot of cases is nothing more than an emotion we perceive to be trying to tell us that internally, we have infantile feelings. Then again, for others it's a sexual feeling, but that's not my area of expertise.

    My ramblings and ideas lead me to some strange conclusions. What do we define as a TB? AB, DL, BF? When is the threshold crossed? When is everything started, and where does it end, of at all? Do actions truly speak louder than words, or are unspoken emotions more powerful than the action of suckling on a pacifier? What do you all think?

  2. #2

    Default

    I think emotions and sex drive are more important to this than items and actions. The only baby item I have is an old sippy cup I found in my basement.

  3. #3

    Default

    For me personally, my desires vary from day to day. One day I just want to be surrounded by childish things, however, the main focal point has always been diapers, sexually or not. Being TB/AB, you are acting childish in the way you interact with those objects and your environment, and diapers are just helping the overall experience because they symbolize what it means to be childish, more specifically, the ultimate lack of control and responsibility.

    This would be so much more effective and nerdy with a Venn diagram.

  4. #4

    Default

    I think the elephant's leg is a tree. In other words, perceptions are going to be different from one member to another, depending on our orientation and thus our experiences. For me, I wanted to be back in diapers by the time I was 4. The mere thought of them made me feel funny in my stomach and lower. I would have dreams about finding diapers and being in them. I loved watching cartoons that had characters put back into diapers and babied.

    When I hit puberty and active self sexuality, I found the courage to start wetting my underwear. I never had the courage to go to a store and buy diapers, so I had to make my own. Wanting diapers and wetting were directly sexual for me, so it would seem that I was primarily a DL, one who loves to wear diapers and its associative sexual stimulation. For a long time, I believe that this was my attraction. But having been on ADISC has caused me to think more deeply and probe past memories and feelings.

    As a child, I loved it when television showed Tom and Jerry in Baby Puss. The idea of not only being in diapers, but plastic pants, a bottle, baby clothes and being babied was not only desirable, but also sexually stimulating. I can remember when I wet and (sigh...masturbated) I would also feel like a baby, talk like a baby and want to be a baby. This is my experience so I can't say that both being a DL and a Baby are closely connected. Others may have very different experiences and associations, but this is how it is for me. I am both a DL and an AB, and if I am honest, I would say that both are so interconnected that they are mutually sexually stimulating, to me.

    There is a difference between the two, however. Like others have revealed, wearing diapers is more sexually stimulating than drinking from my sippy cup or baby bottle, or wearing my footed pajamas. Those activities, which I think we would agree are more associated with being a Baby, weigh in heavier on the side of emotional comfort than sexual stimulation. But over the years, I have come to realize that both activities are linked to sexuality for me.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Mikeru117 View Post
    In thirteen nights, there is a scene in which the main character describes (more of a half mentioned, half 'read between the lines' kind of deal) that, at the very least, to him, a TB is someone who is legitimately babied, or at the very least has baby stuff and uses it. Everyone else was nothing more than a DL, even if they didn't have diapers.
    [...]
    There's an old saying that I'm sure at least a few of you have heard. "Actions speak louder than words." If this is true, wouldn't that then mean that a TB, perhaps, should be more so viewed as someone who is actively using, or at least pretending to be, baby items or being babied?
    Well, if you want to get philosophical about it :3 ... goodness, I better get in on this before H3g3l shows up

    The premise of the argument seems to be:
    Actions speak louder than words. Therefore, a TB is one who acts like a baby. Or, more generally, we determine whether one is a *B or DL based upon external circumstances. We'll call this the externalist hypothesis (*snicker* see you're provoked?).

    That seems rather at odds to the normal usage of our terminology, which is concerned almost exclusively with the internal circumstances of the individual, namely, the wish or desire to wear diapers alone or regress and act as a child.

    The critical objection to the externalist hypothesis is: suppose we have individual who is forced into regression, or who regresses as a course of avant-garde therapy, or whatever, but beyond this has no real desire to do so. Would we still call this person a *B? No. Suppose we have an individual who wears diapers, but has ho real desire to do so, or perhaps is incontinent, and wishes to do so purely for the sake of not soiling herself. Would we call this person a DL? Again, no.

    But the converse does hold true: suppose we have an individual who doesn't regress and wear diapers, but desperately wants to. Is this person a *B? Certainly. And the person who desperately wishes to wear diapers alone? Yes, he is indeed a DL.

    Moreover, if the externalist hypothesis were correct, it would be the case that one who ceases to regress or wear diapers for reasons other than a change in desire -- for example, because one lives with one's parents -- is no longer a *BDL. But that seems wrong. We could even extend it to say that whenever one us stops wearing or regressing for any reason, we therefore lose our identities *BDLs, and this, too, seems wrong.

    So in the way the terms are normally used, they must refer to the internal circumstances of the subject, namely, her desire to wear or regress, regardless of her external circumstances.




    Being a TB, at the very least, in a lot of cases is nothing more than an emotion we perceive to be trying to tell us that internally, we have infantile feelings. Then again, for others it's a sexual feeling, but that's not my area of expertise.
    This is a separate issue. The first point you raised was about the general definitions of the terms AB, TB, DL, BF, etc. This one, however, inquires about the precise distinctions between them. Those distinctions, as you suggest, are quite tenuous; many of us (like me) slip between the margins. That's why it's important to remember that concepts are ad hoc and nothing more. They exist to serve us in divvying up the world in a sensible manner, but their arbitrariness makes them prone to failure.

  6. #6

  7. #7

    Default

    So by this definition my use of a teddy and paci makes me a TB? Not sure I completely understood where you were going with this.

  8. #8

    Default

    In my opinion, a DL is someone who, obviously, has the desire to wear diapers. Now, there are many sub definitions under that one sentence, like some enjoy wetting and messing, some only enjoy wetting or messing, some don't use the diaper at all, some just like the feel without putting it on, etc. Then there are the main two categories of sexuality and comfort. So from that eight word definition, we have several complicated sub definitions. Now, the definition of a AB/TB, in my opinion, is someone who has urges/is inclined to act like a small child. Like in DL, this definition has many sub definitions. For example, some like sucking on pacifiers, but they're disgusted by breast feeding. Some like ageplay, and some (including myself) would like to save it for the RP boards. Some enjoy acting like toddlers, while some like acting even younger. There's really no one series of words that can define who we are. If there was, I'd buy Websters and memorize it. But alas, we're a pretty complicated group.

    Sorry if my writing isn't at it's best, I just woke up

  9. #9

    Default

    For the record, I DID say that the logic was flawed, and that I don't necessarily agree with it. Just, for the record and all.

  10. #10

    Default

    I would consider that the AB/TB/DL/BF titles are the self identifying interpretations of deep internal thoughts and feelings, concluded by the personal experiences one has exhibited in their life so far. Basicly they are simply labels to identify each other with more easily, what they actually are, are your own personal interpenetration's of how you expresses your sexuality or indeed simply your infantilism.

    That was what you was asking, right? o.o

Similar Threads

  1. Philisophical Question
    By diaperedteenager in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 13-May-2010, 01:33
  2. Your views in other fetishes?
    By ZodiacPup in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 20-Sep-2009, 18:37
  3. Your views on Christianity?
    By andrew90 in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 227
    Last Post: 12-Aug-2008, 05:32
  4. Your Views on Sex
    By starshine in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 29-Mar-2008, 07:09
  5. Views on Religion
    By Angel-In-Diapers in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 02-Feb-2008, 15:10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.