Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: The Simplest Explanation for BIID (and GID) I Have Ever Come Up With

  1. #1

    Default The Simplest Explanation for BIID (and GID) I Have Ever Come Up With

    OK, So I'm sure you're all scratching your heads wondering "So PrincessLilyLuna, what radical or eccentric ideas are you going to spew out this time?" Good question. I have been pondering the subject of incontinence desire. For many it's just phase fantasy that many younger AB/DLs grow out of with time, but for a less than a handful few, it's a serious consideration that they have taken the time to understand and educate themselves on the benefits and consequences of their consideration. Body integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) is the most plausible conclusion for this phenomenon. Now I am in NO WAY condoning any form of self harm to achieve that effect, so you can put your torches and pitchforks away and save the witch trials for another day.

    Now, the topic at hand. I made a series of blog entries on the subject, and sometime after I completed the final entry, I had an epiphany. My brilliant mind came up with a fairly simple and hopefully detailed enough explanation for Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) and consequently Gender Identity Disorder (GID).

    Ok, So imagine Mother Nature as an architect or engineer. Any good engineer is going to have schematics on hand listing every detail of how each organism will be made. It details body structure, personality, and every little detail, especially for humans. It details exactly how each body will function from brain functions to bowel and bladder control, and yes, they even detail gender identity. As much as we would like to believe so, Mother Nature is not as perfect as we would like to believe and is just as prone to mistakes as we are. Sometimes the creation process is botched while the guardian angel feel asleep on the watch. This results in the final product turning out very different from how the schematics detailed it to come out. The schematics detail that our body is supposed to be a certain way, either by birth, or by accident later in life, or either of the two. Let's say the schematics for a person say they are supposed to be born female, or incontinent, or both, or any combination of conditions. These individuals turn out far different from the final product detailed in mother Nature's schematic for that individual. As a result many develop a sinking feeling over time that something is missing and this results in the aforementioned GID and BIID.

    Anyway that's my take on the issue and my theory and I hope my explanation cleared alot of things up.

  2. #2

    Default

    Sounds interesting, and seems to be a very plausible idea. Judos to you.

  3. #3

    Default

    I can believe that. Doesn't sound too far off in something just not going the way it was meant to.

  4. #4

    Default

    How exactly is this supposed to be a "theory?" As far as I can tell, this isn't even a well-posed idea. What exactly would we be saying if, for the sake of argument, we were to assume your idea is "true?" Would we expect to see anything different than if it were false?

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by LazyAB View Post
    How exactly is this supposed to be a "theory?" As far as I can tell, this isn't even a well-posed idea. What exactly would we be saying if, for the sake of argument, we were to assume your idea is "true?" Would we expect to see anything different than if it were false?
    I see where she said it is a pondering... are you offended by this?

  6. #6

    Default

    I can see where you're coming from with this post, but I can't see how it could work exactly like this. The structure of the human body is dependent on genetics, and these genetics differ somewhat between every individual. Thus, a more plausible explanation would be that there are some individuals out there who are genetically predisposed to feelings such as these, and their predispositions have then interacted with their environment, for instance seeing posts about the topic of incontinence here, leading to a conscious decision to act on these feelings and newfound knowledge. I'm not saying your explanation is wrong; it has some valid points, but the human body is vastly more complex (incredibly complex, so bad it's not even funny) that the idea of 'Mother Nature' being the root cause and explanation for this syndrome is a gross underestimate of how things such as this actually work. There's always a very complex interaction between the environment and genetics.

    However, I like and respect your ideas about the psychology, and I suspect you have more expertise in this field than me (I'm more of an evolutionary biologist cum health scientist). Genetics do indeed detail exactly how a body is supposed to come together, and due to their variations, lead to the individual characteristics seen in every person. I don't agree with the last part of your theory though, in that a person "supposed to be born female, or incontinent... turn out far different... develop a sinking feeling over time that something is missing... results in the aforementioned GID". This simply isn't how genetics and the human body work; if something does go wrong, it will not not make a person incontinent, and generally if something does go wrong, it's due to the action of chemical influences etc such as alcohol's effect on the foetus that results in a worse disorder than that originally found. Also, (correct me if I'm wrong) but it's near impossible for a genetic female to be born male, unless they have some mutation in their DNA that leads to overproduction of testosterone (the hormone responsible for the development of male genitalia).

    Finally, I think your thoughts apply more to the principles of creation than they do in reality, because as mentioned above, the principles from which the human body develops are far different from the mechanism which you are proposing. Thanks, Kiwi.

  7. #7

    Default

    The explanation was not intended to be an actual representation of real world biology but rather a metaphorical example to give those interested a better understanding of the psychology behind the two disorders. I apologize if you interpreted it as the former.

  8. #8

    Default

    I see something of a disconnect in the comments here! People are responding as if this is a scientific theory, but I think it makes perfect sense if you look at it as a spiritual question rather than a biological one.

    You see, perhaps a person's soul "wants" to be 'female, incontinent, or any combination of conditions'. Perhaps you are "supposed to be" that way -- not by genetics, but by who you are beyond your genetics!

    And certainly, I would say "Mother Nature" includes the formation of one's heart and soul, wouldn't you? There is plenty of room outside of scientific provable things for "just knowing," especially things about yourself, and recognizing dissonance between how things are and how they should be. Like a child's quick instinct, yes?

    And also -- of course there can be an "It should be THIS way!" inside your own self. Maybe your genes say you shouldn't be female (or IC or what have you) but you know, for yourself, inside yourself, that you are supposed to be a certain way. Just because that knowledge can't be quantified or explained scientifically, doesn't make it any less valid.

    At a certain point, the intangible -- or what I call for lack of a better word the 'spiritual,' has to cross over into physiology and biology. You can't really sustain a soul, mind or personality without a well-functioning brain, for example -- yet you couldn't invent a soul, mind or personality just by fabricating a brain, at least not as we understand it at this point. So, on some level, it MUST be physiological -- or represented physiologically, in some way.

    So I must say, PrincessLilyLuna, yes, I completely see what you're saying -- though from perhaps a different viewpoint -- and it makes sense to me!

    I think that whether our inner identity is physically achievable or not (someone who identifies as a dragon can't just morph into one!), we can just do our best to live in the ways that make us happiest

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by FaennaJo View Post
    You see, perhaps a person's soul "wants" to be 'female, incontinent, or any combination of conditions'.
    What's a soul? I've never seen a soul. Can you show me one?



    And certainly, I would say "Mother Nature" includes the formation of one's heart and soul, wouldn't you? There is plenty of room outside of scientific provable things for "just knowing," especially things about yourself, and recognizing dissonance between how things are and how they should be. Like a child's quick instinct, yes?
    Can you build technology that works based on things you "just know?" I want a "child's instinct"-powered television! Or how about "child's instinct"-based medical procedures? Wait, these aren't actual things? That's probably because uninformed intuition isn't that useful for gaining insight into obscure, complicated physical systems

    On a side note, I wasn't aware there was a well-formed ideal of what the world should be. Please direct me to it, it'd free me from all this tedious, effort-intensive rationalistic stuff.



    And also -- of course there can be an "It should be THIS way!" inside your own self. Maybe your genes say you shouldn't be female (or IC or what have you) but you know, for yourself, inside yourself, that you are supposed to be a certain way. Just because that knowledge can't be quantified or explained scientifically, doesn't make it any less valid.
    Observing that you wish to be something that you're not isn't some sort of innately unscientific claim.



    At a certain point, the intangible -- or what I call for lack of a better word the 'spiritual,'
    Or, even better, the 'not fully thought-out.'



    has to cross over into physiology and biology. You can't really sustain a soul, mind or personality without a well-functioning brain, for example -- yet you couldn't invent a soul, mind or personality just by fabricating a brain, at least not as we understand it at this point. So, on some level, it MUST be physiological -- or represented physiologically, in some way.
    Oh, souls again! So they're physiological? But they couldn't be created by replicating the physiology? This is confusing, please elaborate. All I've got so far is that we have these magical (for the sake of brevity, I will use "magical" to mean "having no demonstrable connection with objective reality") things we can't see that somehow tell us want they want, but they need to have a physical manifestation because they're not entirely magical. But, given the lack of any research on "the physiology of souls" in the peer-reviewed literature that I can find, instead we're sort of left with "magical things we can't see that depend in ways we don't understand on physiology no one knows about." How does this help us make any sense of anything? I'm confused.



    Quote Originally Posted by PrincessLilyLuna View Post
    The explanation was not intended to be an actual representation of real world biology but rather a metaphorical example to give those interested a better understanding of the psychology behind the two disorders. I apologize if you interpreted it as the former.
    This makes more sense, but really is this any different than saying "it feels like you're something you're not?" That's got way fewer words and doesn't require lots of tangentially-related imagery.

  10. #10

    Default

    @LazyAB: Dude, my entire post is in conceptual/emotional support of the OP who, like me, seems to operate differently than you. In this thread, there's a ton of "But how and why and please explain and where is the official study to support your 'theory'??" ... and I am saying that I, like her, also don't think those things are the point, or are necessary for her idea to have value.

    Yes I know, how silly, dumb, irrelevant and/or crazy. Got it. People have been making fun of me and dismissing what I say for as long as I can remember for the exact same reason -- because I think and communicate differently than them and because I value different things than they do. I understand that you probably don't see a purpose for anything I said, but I didn't write that post to you or for you; I wrote it for the OP. So I'm declining to debate/'discuss' it with you, bro. I grew up trying to win the circular arguments that exist between what Myers-Briggs calls T and F ... I genuinely think that's the conflict here, and it's not something I'm interested in engaging with.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm super glad folks with linear fact-oriented minds exist. Do your thing, more power to you. But I think it should be obvious that wasn't the angle I was going for with my post, nor the side of discussion I was engaging in. (The sheer incomprehensibility and irrelevancy {to you} of what I said ... might be a clue in that direction )

    + I am still interested in what PrincessLilyLuna thinks of my response, if anything

Similar Threads

  1. A possible explanation for the GUILT feelings
    By Garzilla in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22-Oct-2012, 11:42
  2. A Freudian explanation for Fetishism
    By samwise in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 18-Nov-2009, 03:25
  3. explanation?
    By diaperedteenager in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-Mar-2009, 21:37

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.