Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Obscure fold preference??

  1. #1

    Default Obscure fold preference??

    This may seem totally pointless to some. So i may just be crazy, but really...Is it just me or is there anyone that holds a more established nostalgic appreciation for the single "in half" fold of baby diapers right out of the bag? I always found that i have visual preference toward that over the 3 way fold that almost is too grown up like the way you open a bank statement in the mail.... Just musing here :P

  2. #2

    Default

    For me the 3 way fold creates a pocket in front to give room for your member. But thats just me.lol

  3. #3

    Default

    Funny. I've actually thought about this on many occasions but have never seen it discussed here. In short, I do find the double fold of adult diapers slightly off-putting. It's very far from being my biggest gripe, but it is yet a other way in which adult diapers differ from the baby sort.

    And yes, yes, ... the practicality of double-folding is obvious.

  4. #4

    Default

    Yes, the double fold does anoy me, but for another reason. The diapers are more difficult to get out of the bag without partially unfolding it. Too many times, I have tried to grab one and started to pull out a portion of two. Maybe we should pass this suggestion to AB diaper manufacturers.

  5. #5
    CrinklySiren

    Default

    I also get a nostalgic feeling from the once folded method as well. I bought these diapers a looooong time ago called Snugs from a Canadian site (no longer exists and snugs are no longer available) and they were primarily marketed to ABDLs; they were a bright blue shade and only had 2 wetness indicators and 2 tapes per side; they were reasonably thick and had no waistband ~ there was honestly nothing special about them except for the following:

    They came folded once only, and they came packaged with a design on the plastic that made them look like adult baby diapers (it had an attractive adult girl wearing a one of the diapers and the word "SNUGS" in playful letters)

    They were nice, but the convenience and practicality of the single fold is simply not up to par with the double fold... they do this because the diaper is simply too big and takes up too much space to only be single folded. I've actually grown to like the double fold as well as the 2-tapes per side design ~ I know that one tape per side is a more babyish craving, but after having worn Cushies and SDK, which are still nice, the single tape design is simply not as practical. I would suggest if they were going to do single fold, that they should find a way for the machines to fold it as square as they do the double fold ones because when i got the snugs, they were all scruffy and jagged instead of neatly stacked (as a result of this single fold method) and as for the tapes, i think if they simply made it WIDER than just 70 mm, it would work better. Though I gotta say that i think what makes a tape more babyish is the way it looks ~ pampers and huggies tabs are cute and have the jagged edges as well as the little divots that make it appear cute ~ but i digress.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by CrinklyEmilyLG View Post
    I also get a nostalgic feeling from the once folded method as well. I bought these diapers a looooong time ago called Snugs from a Canadian site (no longer exists and snugs are no longer available) and they were primarily marketed to ABDLs; they were a bright blue shade and only had 2 wetness indicators and 2 tapes per side; they were reasonably thick and had no waistband ~ there was honestly nothing special about them except for the following:

    They came folded once only, and they came packaged with a design on the plastic that made them look like adult baby diapers (it had an attractive adult girl wearing a one of the diapers and the word "SNUGS" in playful letters)

    They were nice, but the convenience and practicality of the single fold is simply not up to par with the double fold... they do this because the diaper is simply too big and takes up too much space to only be single folded. I've actually grown to like the double fold as well as the 2-tapes per side design ~ I know that one tape per side is a more babyish craving, but after having worn Cushies and SDK, which are still nice, the single tape design is simply not as practical. I would suggest if they were going to do single fold, that they should find a way for the machines to fold it as square as they do the double fold ones because when i got the snugs, they were all scruffy and jagged instead of neatly stacked (as a result of this single fold method) and as for the tapes, i think if they simply made it WIDER than just 70 mm, it would work better. Though I gotta say that i think what makes a tape more babyish is the way it looks ~ pampers and huggies tabs are cute and have the jagged edges as well as the little divots that make it appear cute ~ but i digress.
    I saw a pic of the 'snugs' package. I had thought it was a mock design. But yea, youre picking up what im throwin down... And vise versa. One of my favorite things about the goodnites is that 'presentation' :p despite the fact that they are just pushing the size issue.
    (Honestly still havent got the guts to get a pack of appropriately 'jbdl' sized diapers, fold preference be damned... Who knows. I may just fall in love them)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 134
    Last Post: 25-Dec-2013, 19:58
  2. Sewing Your Own Pre-fold Cloth Diapers
    By AnalogRTO in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-Dec-2013, 19:00
  3. Function Not Preference
    By QCEngineer624 in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 27-Jan-2013, 00:46
  4. Underwear preference
    By Peachy in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 06-Dec-2009, 07:22

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.