Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: *BDL/Infantilist desires: Literal or Emotional?

  1. #1
    Mesmerale

    Question *BDL/Infantilist desires: Literal or Emotional?

    Ah, what strange levels of insight exhaustion has given me... (As well as an inability to see... I swear that the 'thumbs down' was a question mark when I clicked it...)

    It's strange because one doesn't expect to be thinking about this sort of thing at nearly one o' clock in the morning as they teeter on the bring of consciousness, but I've done it.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I was vaguely thinking about Infantilism, while at the same time another part of my mind branched off to evolution, and primitive humans. I've read this book called Human: The Science behind blah de blah stuff and how we're made. As I'm sure you've guessed, that isn't the full title, but as I said, I'm very exhausted and can't remember the full title. (As a note, and an edit, the book title is actually: HUMAN: THE SCIENCE BEHIND WHAT MAKES US UNIQUE Seriously, it's in all caps like that. Maybe just for the cover, but whatever. I recommend it to anyone interested in the human mind and social behavior. I loved it, personally.)

    To get back to my point: This book discussed the nature of the human mind, among other things, and how every one of our modern actions and desires was coded and influenced by natural selection. For instance, sex is pleasurable because it promotes the chances of reproduction. For those primordial humans who did not associate sex with pleasure, the answer was simple. Don't have sex, don't reproduce, and don't pass on those 'sex == bad' genes to the future generations. Most everything evolved based on how well it supported survival, or how well it supported reproduction, or both.

    Naturally, this doesn't mean that useless things are always wiped out.

    The appendix (I'm spelling it like in a book, is that how it's spelled anatomically as well?) is utterly useless to the modern human body, but it is not wiped out as of yet. Why not? Because it does not harm us. (With the exception of appendicitis) It does not hinder our ability to reproduce, therefore the genes are still passed on. It doesn't help, but it doesn't hurt, so it stays with us.



    Anyways, I was thinking, and wondering how Infantilism developed in the human mind (I believe it to be both environmental and genetic.), and what it had been portrayed as in the primitive human.

    It is obvious that the first generations of the human species did not have diapers, or bottles, or pacifiers or any of the things that we covet and take to be our fetish. ('Our' used loosely, of course.) So, how did Infantilism first appear? How did any of it appear? There were no diapers for DLs to experience the joys of. There were no diapers or any of the aforementioned (That means previously, right?) articles which make us feel like babies, and make us happy.

    I quickly formed the hypothesis that the first base of Infantilism and *BDL is not to feel like a baby, but to feel the protection and love that we associate with the baby/toddler stage of the modern human life.

    This emotional link would be easy to achieve. The primitive human, after all, still had parents. Was still taken care of in the early stages of life, and was most probably still loved in some way. It is possible that the gene developed so as to yearn for the old feelings of protection and ease of life, and this is what evolved into our (again, used loosely) fetish. The association with diapers and such is just used because that is what we most closely associate to the protected, loved, and taken care of part of life, which was, it seems, when we were babies.




    And so I pose the question: Which do you believe is most likely? Was Infantilism/*BDL evolved later on in human evolution, within the last few centuries (Which would imply a remarkable rate of spread), and based on the literal feeling of being a baby? Or is it evolved eary on, in the primordial stages of human life, and based off of the emotional feelings of protected and such? Or perhaps something in between, or a different idea altogether.

    What are your thoughts on this? What support do you have, or that you speculate could be true?

    What reasons do you have for refuting other ideas?


    This is, to me, a broad discussion, and I'm simply interested to hear other thoughts on what it may be.


    And so, I release my thoughts to the ADISC world, to see what will become of them.
    Last edited by Mesmerale; 04-Dec-2008 at 04:00. Reason: Inclusion of humerous remark. Reason: Inclusion of proper book title. Reason: Finally figured out how to change the icon to the question mark!!! Whoo!

  2. #2

    Default

    I think to say that infantillism is a specific genetic or biological trait is to narrow of an idea to prove. From a scientific standpoint, I have no clue how a gene, or a biological behavior, would cause infantillism. True, I haven't read all the scientific literature in the world, but I can't add up those two things happening.

    What I think is that there is mental predisposition for certain people to have fetishes. Human psychology is complex and...what's a word, doesn't change much over time. In other words, some people are more likely to develop fetishes than others. (Although I think its more along the lines of people are more likely to develop stronger fetishes than other people, as all people have some fetishism in their sexuality)

    That we can see so many varied fetishes, and so much variance within a fetish community itself, leads me to think that the creation of our sexuality over time tends to follow a prescribed route that is beyond our control, but is also greatly dependent on individual experiences.

    Look at some of the 'new' fetishes on the internet, such as vore. I have been unable to find much information about vore, perhaps because it is new, or rare. Only with the advent of the internet did people realize that there is enough of one idea to form a semi-community.

    Although vore is suddenly more visable, the fact that it sprang up because of the internet leads me to think that it has always been around, but it takes either a very special person, or a very unique set of experience to develop vore like sexuality.

    So to answer your question, I think some humans evolved a greater chance to have fetishes, and these fetishes differ depending on human society. A fetish has no real effect on people's reproduction, (Most people with a fetish still enjoy plain vanilla sex) From an evolutionary standpoint there should be no gay people because they wouldn't be able to pass on their genes, so I see it being some sort of general mental kink we all have, just more expressive in some people than others. Some people can run faster, or be smarter, perhaps some brains are just wired to be more sexual.

  3. #3

    Default

    I think evolution has nothing to do with it at all. We still have the basic imprints of gathering food, protecting the tribe, and reproducing. Our instincts have always been this way, but we've learned to control, limit, and redirect our emotions and instincts, since as intelligent creatures it is within our capacity to live a normal life while flying in the face of our instincts.

    In America especially, we do an amazingly crazy thing and encourage uniqueness. The more things in your personality that remain the same as everyone else, the more bland and unfulfilled you feel (except in the "gullible" kind of people who are very happy to blend in, which in some ways is better than the curse of intelligence.) Infantilism is just one more way to divide yourself from the main, to find happiness in a way you feel nobody else did. I don't think anybody who has always been happy will have a desire to be an infantilist, unless they make an emotional and logical connection between happiness and being babied.

  4. #4
    Butterfly Mage

    Default

    I don't think evolution has much to do with fetishism. I think a certain amount of creativity and self-awareness goes into a fetish, which is why lower animals don't develop them. I think it's probably something as simple as "things that feel good are self-reinforcing". People with a diaper fetish think that it feels good to wear diapers. People without the fetish don't voluntary wear diapers and those with incontinence wear diapers simply out of practicality.

    But it is an interesting topic you've created, and one I've thought about quite a bit as well.

    I wonder sometimes if the AB/DL fetish will become somewhat more widespread now that diapers and diaper-like items are pretty much available in every size from infant to adult. I doubt AB/DL will ever become the norm, however, nor would I even neccessarily want it to (I'm not Deeker, ha ha).

  5. #5
    dprdinky

    Default

    Lets make this perfectly clear. Infantilism is not a fetish, although it is associated with a fetish of diapers or a type of clothing.
    The following is a definition of infantilism:

    infantilism - an abnormal condition in which an older child or adult retains infantile characteristics (from The Free Dictionary online source)

    It can be seen as an arrested development in an adult or older child. A marked immaturity.

    Based on that information I feel it is clear about there being an evolution of this type of behavior. At one point is the desire for as a child grows and develops should become more "Mature".

    There are some children who at an early age were caused to experience things that are normally meant for older children or adults. One of which revolves around sexual activities. Some times is becomes associated with an article of clothing forced to wear or causes the child to become aroused and want to continue or hold onto that feeling when wearing such clothing - i.e. diapers, footed sleepers. To explore this subject read the book by Dr. Money "LoveMaps". Very insightful.

    So if a child were to develop and grow correctly, infantile/childish behaviors should not exist as they became an adult. But what is interesting with this mindset - hidden deep inside an adult is the "inner child" who occasionally will come out at certain times. Obviously there is a relevancy to our attraction to *B/DL.

    I look forward to hearing what others have to say.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by dprdinky View Post
    Lets make this perfectly clear. Infantilism is not a fetish, although it is associated with a fetish of diapers or a type of clothing.
    The following is a definition of infantilism:

    infantilism - an abnormal condition in which an older child or adult retains infantile characteristics (from The Free Dictionary online source)

    It can be seen as an arrested development in an adult or older child. A marked immaturity.
    This definition you give is not always used, and the word infantalism has meaning in the context that we as abs/tbs use, if you type 'define: infantilism' into google, you can find the two different definitions. More specifically,when we talk about it, I think, we are more referring to paraphilic infantalism (see wikipedia), although I might be wrong.

  7. #7
    Mesmerale

    Question *BDL/Infantilist desires: Literal or Emotional?



    Quote Originally Posted by Babymullet Ver 9.8 View Post
    I think to say that infantillism is a specific genetic or biological trait is to narrow of an idea to prove. From a scientific standpoint, I have no clue how a gene, or a biological behavior, would cause infantillism. True, I haven't read all the scientific literature in the world, but I can't add up those two things happening.
    I agree that the assumption of it being a specific trait is a narrow idea, and it cannot be proven as of yet, if ever at all. For the most part, no single gene takes a totalitarian part in any of a person's physical, or mental make-up. It is a combination of various genes coding various proteins which form single traits, and a vast increase of amount to form the entire being.




    Quote Originally Posted by Babymullet Ver 9.8 View Post
    What I think is that there is mental predisposition for certain people to have fetishes. Human psychology is complex and...what's a word, doesn't change much over time. In other words, some people are more likely to develop fetishes than others. (Although I think its more along the lines of people are more likely to develop stronger fetishes than other people, as all people have some fetishism in their sexuality)
    If there is a mental predisposition for these people to have whatever fetish they may have, then there must be something inducing said predisposition. Logically, this would be a combination of genes which code for the predisposition in one's mind. I also agree about the observation regarding human psychology. The fact that it is so slow to evolve is one of the reason's that I believe there must be some ulterior reason for the fetish to develop. It couldn't become what it is now in merely a few centuries, could it?



    Quote Originally Posted by Babymullet Ver 9.8 View Post
    That we can see so many varied fetishes, and so much variance within a fetish community itself, leads me to think that the creation of our sexuality over time tends to follow a prescribed route that is beyond our control, but is also greatly dependent on individual experiences.
    Any prescribed route would need to be formed at some point in one's mind. This once again brings up my point of evolution and genetics taking part. As an observation, and a simple means of enhancing the level of the discussion: I personally find this viewpoint contradictory. You mean to say that these paths are ingrained in our beings and is beyond our control, but it is influenced by what we do in our lives? Correct me if I've misinterpreted your meaning, but it seems that you are saying that we can't control it, but we control it with our experiences.



    Quote Originally Posted by Babymullet Ver 9.8 View Post
    Look at some of the 'new' fetishes on the internet, such as vore. I have been unable to find much information about vore, perhaps because it is new, or rare. Only with the advent of the internet did people realize that there is enough of one idea to form a semi-community.

    Although vore is suddenly more visable, the fact that it sprang up because of the internet leads me to think that it has always been around, but it takes either a very special person, or a very unique set of experience to develop vore like sexuality.
    I've no inkling of what vore is, though now I plan to look it up a bit. Do you mean to indicate that all of the fetishes exist within our minds, but they need a trigger or set of triggers to develop them enough to effect a person's life?



    Quote Originally Posted by Babymullet Ver 9.8 View Post
    So to answer your question, I think some humans evolved a greater chance to have fetishes, and these fetishes differ depending on human society. A fetish has no real effect on people's reproduction, (Most people with a fetish still enjoy plain vanilla sex) From an evolutionary standpoint there should be no gay people because they wouldn't be able to pass on their genes, so I see it being some sort of general mental kink we all have, just more expressive in some people than others. Some people can run faster, or be smarter, perhaps some brains are just wired to be more sexual.
    So you seem to rest somewhere in-between, Babymullet? Somewhere between fetishes being evolutionary and environmental? Apart from this, I don't quite see any viewpoint on the nature of Infantilism, though you have introduced some interesting points, and some real support for them. The subject of homosexuality does pose as a kink in my belief of natural selection, and the genetic nature of most, if not all, fetishes. It is true that, if my viewpoint were entirely accurate, that homosexuality would not be passed on. I've set to account for this by suggesting that sexual preference may be developed not genetically, but while one is still developing in the womb. I've read somewhere in my research about transgenders and transsexuals that there are three individual parts of one's sexuality. There is their physical sexuality, their mental/inner sexuality, and their sexual preference. These are acquired through chemical events while the brain is still being developed. Each is developed separately, therefore allowing a person to have differing sexualities along each part. I, for instance, see myself as having a male physical sexuality, a female mental sexuality, and a male sexual preference (Meaning the sexual preference of the male gender, not towards the male gender. IE: Attraction to women.). Using this belief, I am able to support my view of fetishes, while at the same time accounting for homosexuality and the like. They are not entirely genetic, they are chemical, and are therefore not subject to the same rules of natural selection.



    Quote Originally Posted by DLGrif View Post
    I think evolution has nothing to do with it at all. We still have the basic imprints of gathering food, protecting the tribe, and reproducing. Our instincts have always been this way, but we've learned to control, limit, and redirect our emotions and instincts, since as intelligent creatures it is within our capacity to live a normal life while flying in the face of our instincts.
    I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're saying, nor do I completely agree with what I do understand. I don't believe that we've learned to redirect our emotions and instincts as much as we have learned to hide our visible emotions and suppress our instincts. They are still very much there, we simply do not always act on them. Our instincts have developed us as a species since long before we managed to suppress them. Our instincts allowed one human to take a whack at sharing, and seeing what would happen. He/She soon learned that the interaction was beneficial, because it created a tacit bond that the act of kindness would be repaid. For the most part - not entirely - a person only does something kind because they know, or expect, that they will eventually be on the receiving end of such kindness. Others do it so as not to be alienated from the 'tribe', or society. They do not want to be kicked out, so they do kind things to mask their true natures.



    Quote Originally Posted by DLGrif View Post
    In America especially, we do an amazingly crazy thing and encourage uniqueness. The more things in your personality that remain the same as everyone else, the more bland and unfulfilled you feel (except in the "gullible" kind of people who are very happy to blend in, which in some ways is better than the curse of intelligence.) Infantilism is just one more way to divide yourself from the main, to find happiness in a way you feel nobody else did. I don't think anybody who has always been happy will have a desire to be an infantilist, unless they make an emotional and logical connection between happiness and being babied.
    I happen to live on the East Coast of America, and while I understand the notion that America promotes uniqueness, I don't believe this to be true in practice. Personal experience leads me to believe that people prefer being part of a like group rather than being unique. Doing things the same way creates a sense of comfort. Being too different creates a sense of discomfort and awkwardness, sometimes leading to embarrassment. While it is not fulfilling to be a clone in a group of people, it usually feels better to be similar to people then it does to feel alone and different. Also, to find happiness in being alone in your actions does not strike me as realistic. I personally believe that humans strive for social interaction. Without it, they are less effective at what they do, and tend to be less happy. Talking to someone else, in most any way, will make a person feel better than being completely alone. This is, in my opinion, also true in the case of lifestyles or actions.



    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly Mage View Post
    I don't think evolution has much to do with fetishism. I think a certain amount of creativity and self-awareness goes into a fetish, which is why lower animals don't develop them. I think it's probably something as simple as "things that feel good are self-reinforcing". People with a diaper fetish think that it feels good to wear diapers. People without the fetish don't voluntary wear diapers and those with incontinence wear diapers simply out of practicality.
    I somewhat see your point, Butterfly Mage, but isn't it also possible that lower animals don't develop fetishes because they don't have the same level of meta cognition that humans do? You can't act on any fetish-like desires if you are mentally unable to think about your own actions and thoughts. (Meta cognition, at least in my use, is meant to mean higher self-awareness. Lower animals are aware that they are alive, and are a separate being, but they do not think in retrospect about their actions. They are, as far as we know, unable to inspect another person's actions and predict what they will do. Consider a guessing game in which one has to guess the color that another person is thinking of. It would involve some sort of thought regarding the colors that are most likely, the colors that the person favors, and other factors. A lower animal would not be able to think at such a level.) I agree that fetishes could be mostly pleasure though. But why would some people think that diapers feel good and other would not? I bring forth again my view on it being genetic in some way.



    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly Mage View Post
    But it is an interesting topic you've created, and one I've thought about quite a bit as well.

    I wonder sometimes if the AB/DL fetish will become somewhat more widespread now that diapers and diaper-like items are pretty much available in every size from infant to adult. I doubt AB/DL will ever become the norm, however, nor would I even neccessarily want it to (I'm not Deeker, ha ha).
    I wonder about that too. And I agree that it won't ever become the norm, though it would be nice for it to be more widely accepted, hm? =)



    Quote Originally Posted by dprdinky View Post
    Lets make this perfectly clear. Infantilism is not a fetish, although it is associated with a fetish of diapers or a type of clothing.
    The following is a definition of infantilism:

    infantilism - an abnormal condition in which an older child or adult retains infantile characteristics (from The Free Dictionary online source)

    It can be seen as an arrested development in an adult or older child. A marked immaturity.
    dprdinky, as tom has already pointed out, there are more definitions of infantilism than simply the medical condition. The medical condition, granted, was the first definition that I came upon when I looked Infantilism up.



    Quote Originally Posted by dprdinky View Post
    Based on that information I feel it is clear about there being an evolution of this type of behavior. At one point is the desire for as a child grows and develops should become more "Mature".

    There are some children who at an early age were caused to experience things that are normally meant for older children or adults. One of which revolves around sexual activities. Some times is becomes associated with an article of clothing forced to wear or causes the child to become aroused and want to continue or hold onto that feeling when wearing such clothing - i.e. diapers, footed sleepers. To explore this subject read the book by Dr. Money "LoveMaps". Very insightful.
    So you mean to say that every person is coded to grow up "normally" but events may alter their mental state and cause them to grow attached to infantile objects? If so, this ignores the idea that some people do not have a love of the objects themselves, but more enjoy the idea of being a baby again. Or, as this discussion is meant to address, the emotional ties to protection and love that are associated with being a baby. I'll look into the book and, if I find it, will gladly read it. Thanks for the suggestion.



    Quote Originally Posted by dprdinky View Post
    So if a child were to develop and grow correctly, infantile/childish behaviors should not exist as they became an adult. But what is interesting with this mindset - hidden deep inside an adult is the "inner child" who occasionally will come out at certain times. Obviously there is a relevancy to our attraction to *B/DL.

    I look forward to hearing what others have to say.
    This seems to reach more into the spiritual ego and id of the human mind (or soul, perhaps.). I do believe that we all have some sort of inner child, but is it our inner child's forceful assertions that motivate us towards Infantilism? If so, how is ours so strong while others merely throw a tantrum every few years?



    Quote Originally Posted by tom View Post
    This definition you give is not always used, and the word infantalism has meaning in the context that we as abs/tbs use, if you type 'define: infantilism' into google, you can find the two different definitions. More specifically,when we talk about it, I think, we are more referring to paraphilic infantalism (see wikipedia), although I might be wrong.
    Tom, I agree with you. There is more than one definition, and context has a lot to do with what one means. In this instance, I was referring to Paraphilic Infantilism, as you thought. You weren't wrong.

    (Sweet. I just found the real question mark! ^.^)

  8. #8
    TechnoBaby

    Default

    I really don't know, but I think that we, AB's, AB/DL's, TB's, Babyfurs, Sissy Babies, etc., unconsciously, use diapers and all those things to feel protected, loved and cared like we were in childhood. We may not know, but acting like babies we feel protected, loved and cared, so I think infantilism existed since the men was created, but it was more related to staying always with someone to take care of you. I also think that the man always look to be cared and loved, and infantilism is a different way to make it.

  9. #9
    Mesmerale

    Question *BDL/Infantilist desires: Literal or Emotional?



    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoBaby View Post
    I really don't know, but I think that we, AB's, AB/DL's, TB's, Babyfurs, Sissy Babies, etc., unconsciously, use diapers and all those things to feel protected, loved and cared like we were in childhood. We may not know, but acting like babies we feel protected, loved and cared, so I think infantilism existed since the men was created, but it was more related to staying always with someone to take care of you. I also think that the man always look to be cared and loved, and infantilism is a different way to make it.
    Okay. So this is saying more along the lines that the nature of Infantilism is the emotional links involved, and that it has only just adapted to revolve around actual baby-like articles because that is what modern humans believe to be the most protected/loved/cared for/etc. time of their lives?
    Last edited by Mesmerale; 04-Dec-2008 at 03:59. Reason: Title.

  10. #10

    Default

    Mesmerale....it is clear to see from reading this thread that your a real big evolutionist. It seems to me it has caused you to think in a tunnel vision type of way. You keep saying evolution could have done it this way, or evolution could have done it that way, and so on. Well you leaving out A LOT of other possibilities by purely only focusing on evolution.

    With that said, I agree with most of the things babymullet and dlGriff have said. I believe that evolution has nothing, or at best very little to do with infantilism, diaper fetish, or any fetish. I believe what babymullet believes, and let me see if I can word it in a less scientific way than mullet did. He (babymullet) said that fetishisms and infantilism are not caused by evolution (which I agree), but yet evolution can create more potential for an individual to develop a certain fetish. Meaning that when a baby is in the mothers womb and it is growing and developing its brain, the brain is being arranged very different than other peoples. This is part of what gives us different personalities. Think of our brains as computers, because that is essentially what they are, biological computers that are far superior than a regular desktop or laptop. Now just like computers, our brains are all set up differently. Mine is different from yours, hers, his, and so on. Of course they all have the same basic structure in that the emtotions is this section of the brain, and the touching part is this section of the brain, and the memory part is this part of the brain, and so on, but even though all brains are structured the same way, they are still wired completly different!!!

    When a baby is born their brain is essentially blank, with no information in the brain except bare basics to keep the baby alive. For example, the brain is programed on how to make the heart beat, how to make the lungs breath, how to make the liver filter blood, and so on. But there is nothing programmed in the baby about how to talk, walk, or who the first president of the US was, and so on. Main point is it is only programed to do basic things to live. To be able to learn anything else it has to watch someone else, either their parents or sibiling, or family friend, or even the TV to get an idea of how to do something. Then the baby has to practice the thing itself by using trail and error until it gets it right. Then when the task or fact is learned that is when new nueron connections are made in the brain which stores it in our brain so we do not forget it. Just like programing a computer with information.

    So with taking all that into consideration (which is all scientifically proven of the few things we do know about the brain), everythinga baby/child learns is by example. Which is why people alwas say"watch what you do around the baby because he/she will pick that up!" because it is sooooo true! With that said it means that most likely our infantilism and diaper fetish (or any fetish) was all picked up from a young age. So like I mentioned a baby's brain is constantly connecting nuerons allllll the time. Except as the baby gets older less nuerons are being connected because there is less to learn. For example if a 8 year old is sexually abused, is going to have a waaayyyy less of a mental effect on him/her than a 4 year old. Of course it will still effect both of them mentally in a horrible way, but the 4 year old will be worse trust me. All because that 4 year old has had less time to learn as much (therefore has less conneted nuerons) than that 8 year old. So most likely that 4 year old has no idea what sex is, no idea how babys are made, and no idea why the hell his/her father is touching them between the legs where no one else ever touches him/her except when mommy is washing him/her. So that confuses the 4 year olds brain, it trys making sense of the situation but can not rationally because it does not have the basic knowledge to do so. So this horrible traumtic expeirance(s) of sexual abuse causes nuerons to be connected to areas of the brain they should not be. It might cause the sexual part of the brain to connect to a part of the brain that its not suppose to. So when that child grows up, they will have a phobia of sex and be afraid to do it, look at it, talk about it, or even think about it. Or maybe it might desensitize the kid so that sex is just like combing your hair. It is no big deal because the brain has dettached from all sexual feelings, causing the kid to be stripper or prostitute when they grow up. The way it effects the child all depends on what happened to the child (physical, verbal, or sexual abuse, or parent abandoment, or whatever it was), how old the child was when it happened (like I said the younger then the worse effect it will have on them), how often it happened if more than once, and how the persons personality is and how their brain trys to rationalize the traumtic expeirance.

    This can all relate to infantilism and fetishes in that, I believe in all of us it was caused by life expeirances as babys and/or kids. Now like I said, evolution and genes could set us up to be more vulernable to be a infantilism by making our personalities more prone to it, if so happen an expeirance that causes us to program our brain into infantilism. As an example I will use myself, this is my story of how I believe I became an infantilist and got a diaper fetish..... (it is the last post on that page)
    http://www.adisc.org/forum/adult-bab...matters-6.html

    So this expeirance of me being abused during potty training, by being forcefully made to sit on the potty, and by being suddenly forced into potty training, and by ultimately being potty trained when my mind was not ready to be. This horrible expeirance which I remember like it was yesterday, caused nuerons in my head to do things in my brain they werent suppose to. Maybe by not disconnecting the nueron of the pleasure of being pampered and babied, cause I was forced into it when my brain was not ready to make that adjustment in my brain. Also maybe it made a nueron connection from my babyhood to my adulthood which was not suppose to happen.

    No matter why or how my nuerons programed me to be infantilist, it happened after birth, I do not believe it all happened in the uterus, or during fertilization of the mixing of two peoples genes. I believe that every single infantilist, developed their infantilism sometime after birth. Now it may have been at a different age than me, and it may have been a totally different expeirance than me. Maybe your grandmother used to diaper you at her house when you were 6 (I knew a girl infantilist and thats how she thinks she became an infantilist) so it made your brain make nueron connections that should not normally be there because of that.

    All in all I believe your brain may be prepositioned to be more likely to be an infantilist if the opprotunity presents itself (by my bad potty training expeirance or that girls diaper expeirance at her grandmothers or any other relating baby/diaper expeirance) then our brains will be wired to enjoy being babied and/or wearing diapers.

    I am sorry for writing so much, but that is my whole view, I wish I could have wrote more on it, and as you can see I have my mind pretty much made up on how it happens. I just hope this gigantic post makes sense to you and that hopefully it brings light to you all on how it happens.

Similar Threads

  1. TB/AB and Emotional Fortitude
    By IncompleteDude in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 13-Oct-2008, 21:15
  2. Emotional Issue...
    By baby kiffer in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 15-Aug-2008, 15:36

Tags for this Thread

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.