Is it really a kink?

[tiny]

I have heard alot of users call abdl and diaper fetishism a kink. I googled it, and learned it was some sort af a sexual thing. Can we really be calling it a kink when it developed before I even knew what sex was? Of course it became a part of my sexuality later on, but i was just wondering if someone can tell me how a kink would develope at a young age.

A "fetish" is a man-made object believed to exert supernatural power over people -- e.g. a wooden carving of an animalistic spirit that is worshipped/revered/trusted in its own right, etc.

The first person to use the word "fetish" in its psycho-sexual sense was Alfred Binet, in his 1887 essay, "Le Fétichisme dans l'amour". Here, "fetish" means the same as "paraphilia" (or "kink"): an abnormal sexual attraction to anything other than a heterosexual adult partner. It's a controversial concept! Who decides what is "normal"?!

Paraphilia included foot fetishism, watersports, transvestitism, masochism, sadism, bestiality, paedophilia, and homosexuality. A crazy mish-mash of things that evoke very different emotional responses. Some are trivial, some criminally harmful. Some... just depend which way the wind is blowing. Homosexuality was a sign of "psychopathic personality" in 1935. Now it's neither a fetish nor abnormal (in our parts of the world).

This mish-mash of controversial concepts (sex, sexuality, morality, criminality, social norms, etc.), and arbitrary negative social judgements of "abnormality" makes some people reluctant to identify as a fetishist, even if they technically meet the criteria. As Belarin said:

As I previously said I hate referring to my experience of ABDL as a fetish because of the negative connotations and imagery that brings up in most peoples minds, for those with little understanding of kinks/fetish/ABDL calling it a fetish puts it on the same platform as things like asphyxiophilia/BDSM/corporal punishment/CBT etc. Including some things that really are dangerous or just wierd/freaky/gross to most people.

---

Also, I think many people misunderstand what "psycho-sexual" means in the definition of paraphilia: it's the psychological narrative of human sexual identity, in contrast to physical sexual activity.

- A man might be sexually attracted to his wife, but that doesn't mean he rips off her clothes and humps her on sight.
- Transvestitism is a fetish, but men who wear lacy underwear under their business suit aren't seeking an orgasm.
- People with foot-fetishes don't try to copulate with feet.
- Diaper-fetishists don't foam at the mouth and ejaculate when they see a baby wearing a diaper.

Psycho-sexual narratives relate to our identity as sexual beings, not to physical sex acts.

---

Many ABDLs reject the sexual-connotations of having a fetish. ABs might even identifying as being "asexual" during age-play. But the absence of sexual desire is still part of someone's psycho-sexual identity.

And if cross-dressing is a fetish, then it's not a big leap to say that ageplay-dressing must be too...?

---

For some of us, wearing certain clothes gives us butterflies in the stomach, or a downstairs tingle. For others, peeing/pooping stimulates our sexual organs, releasing "feel-good" endorphins in the brain. And others like to experience fantasies/roleplays of submission, humiliation or domination. These are all fetishes.

Such feelings/experiences can happen before puberty, and aren't directly related to sexual activity... Yet they affect our psycho-sexual identity as adults.

So... personally I think ABDL is pretty-much a textbook case of a paraphilia/fetish/kink.

 

[KitsuneFox]

Thread has been cleaned up. Please do not get hostile toward each other with the "definition" of words that are commonly used interchangeably.
Remember rule #4, rule #5, and the community standards.
Thank you.

 

[SwedishAMAZING]

A "fetish" is a man-made object believed to exert supernatural power over people -- e.g. a wooden carving of an animalistic spirit that is worshipped/revered/trusted in its own right, etc.

The first person to use the word "fetish" in its psycho-sexual sense was Alfred Binet, in his 1887 essay, "Le Fétichisme dans l'amour". Here, "fetish" means the same as "paraphilia" (or "kink"): an abnormal sexual attraction to anything other than a heterosexual adult partner. It's a controversial concept! Who decides what is "normal"?!

Paraphilia included foot fetishism, watersports, transvestitism, masochism, sadism, bestiality, paedophilia, and homosexuality. A crazy mish-mash of things that evoke very different emotional responses. Some are trivial, some criminally harmful. Some... just depend which way the wind is blowing. Homosexuality was a sign of "psychopathic personality" in 1935. Now it's neither a fetish nor abnormal (in our parts of the world).

This mish-mash of controversial concepts (sex, sexuality, morality, criminality, social norms, etc.), and arbitrary negative social judgements of "abnormality" makes some people reluctant to identify as a fetishist, even if they technically meet the criteria. As Belarin said:



---

Also, I think many people misunderstand what "psycho-sexual" means in the definition of paraphilia: it's the psychological narrative of human sexual identity, in contrast to physical sexual activity.

- A man might be sexually attracted to his wife, but that doesn't mean he rips off her clothes and humps her on sight.
- Transvestitism is a fetish, but men who wear lacy underwear under their business suit aren't seeking an orgasm.
- People with foot-fetishes don't try to copulate with feet.
- Diaper-fetishists don't foam at the mouth and ejaculate when they see a baby wearing a diaper.

Psycho-sexual narratives relate to our identity as sexual beings, not to physical sex acts.

---

Many ABDLs reject the sexual-connotations of having a fetish. ABs might even identifying as being "asexual" during age-play. But the absence of sexual desire is still part of someone's psycho-sexual identity.

And if cross-dressing is a fetish, then it's not a big leap to say that ageplay-dressing must be too...?

---

For some of us, wearing certain clothes gives us butterflies in the stomach, or a downstairs tingle. For others, peeing/pooping stimulates our sexual organs, releasing "feel-good" endorphins in the brain. And others like to experience fantasies/roleplays of submission, humiliation or domination. These are all fetishes.

Such feelings/experiences can happen before puberty, and aren't directly related to sexual activity... Yet they affect our psycho-sexual identity as adults.

So... personally I think ABDL is pretty-much a textbook case of a paraphilia/fetish/kink.

Absolutely amazing take on this. Thank you so much!

 

[BeTrue]

As others have said, for me it started as an attraction towards diapers, and a desire to wear them again, around the age of 6. Then as a teenager, hormones kicked in, and the diaper desire got "distorted" with sexual feelings. I started having erotic dreams involving diapers. At age 17, I finally was able to buy some, and it immediately became a fetish/kink. But when I think about why I wanted to wear diapers in the first place, it absolutely had nothing to do with sex. I merely wanted to return to a time from my past where I felt more safe and secure and loved - to "feel" like a baby again. Now that I'm accepting this part of myself instead of denying it and running from it, I'm finally able to explore the "little" side of my feelings.

 

[BeTrue]

That is a very nice way you summarised that just there. You make some really good points. My heads a bit all over the place just now as I’ve just decided to come out and feel very good about it but that flies in the face of my default setting over the last 50yrs. I will read your words over and over again as they resonate with me. Thanks. J

Sounds like we're at similar places in life. I'm also in my 50s now and just now learning to accept myself.

 

[BeTrue]

My heads a bit all over the place just now

I TOTALLY get this. Since joining Adisc, it's been one huge emotional rollercoaster. I'm discovering feelings I've suppressed for so long.

 

[SeniorMan]

Paraphilia included foot fetishism, watersports, transvestitism, masochism, sadism, bestiality, paedophilia, and homosexuality.

I am posting the following to clarify homosexuality and other conditions. Part One

Since the 1070s, two significant medical associations (the American Psychiatric Association and the APA—American Psychological Association) have said homosexuality is a standard counterpart of heterosexuality, in other words, usual behaviour, not a mental disorder. Moreover, the two associations have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a standard variant of human sexual orientation. Thus, the credibility of those two groups is typically authoritative and trustworthy.

Furthermore, these medical associations have proposed that scientific evidence supports their claim that homosexuality is normal. Shortly before this, an accusation spread that a Catholic nun used suspect anecdotes, antiquated data, and broad generalizations to demonize gays and lesbians. Another wrote that a nun deviated into realms of sociology and anthropology beyond the scope of her expertise. It is not outright evident what was said, but the event brings to mind some important questions. The accusation of using outdated material and deviating into realms beyond the scope of her expertise implies two things; first, it implies that there is information that is more up-to-date than what the nun presented on the topic of homosexuality, and secondly, it implies that there are credible experts who are more qualified to teach or speak on the topic of homosexuality. The question comes to mind, then, what exactly does the non-antiquated, up-to-date data show about homosexuality? Also, what do credible experts say about homosexuality? When one browses the Internet, one will see that many of the experts on mental disorders say that there is a significant amount of scientific evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Thus, they present their stances on homosexuality, and the scientific evidence supports them. We will begin by describing the APA and the American Psychiatric Association. The APA is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States.

Moreover, the APA is the world's largest association of psychologists, with nearly 130,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students as its members. Its mission is to advance the creation, communication, and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives. The American Psychiatric Association is the world's largest psychiatric organization. It is a medical speciality society representing growing membership of more than 35,000 psychiatrists. Its member physicians work together to ensure humane care and effective treatment for all persons with mental disorders, including intellectual disabilities and substance use disorders. The American Psychiatric Association publishes the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which is the handbook used by health care professionals in the United States and much of the world as the authoritative guide to diagnosing mental disorders. The DSM contains descriptions, symptoms, and other criteria for diagnosing mental disorders. It provides a common language for clinicians to communicate about their patients and establishes consistent and reliable diagnoses to research mental disorders. It also provides a common language for researchers to study the criteria for potential future revisions and develop medications and other interventions. The DSM is the authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders. Same-sex sexual attractions, behaviour, and orientations intrinsically are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders. By standard, they mean both the absence of a mental disorder and the presence of a positive and healthy outcome of human development. Therefore, homosexuality is not a mental disorder but a typical form of human sexuality.

One document begins with Sigmund Freud, who suggested that homosexuality was nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; homosexuality is not classified as an illness but a variation of sexual function. They note that Freud attempted to change one woman's sexual orientation. However, after failing to do so, Freud concluded that attempts to change homosexual sexual orientation were likely unsuccessful. Homosexuality was more common than previously assumed, thus suggesting that such behaviours were part of a continuum of sexual behaviours and orientations. That statement implies the normality of sexual behaviours, specifically homosexuality, on the continuum. Kinsey's books are the basis for the following: (1) In human beings, the demonstration is that homosexuality is more common than previously assumed, and (2) There is a normal variation or a typical continuum, a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, of sexual attractions to different genders. However, the extremes are quite distinct.

An example of a continuum is temperature readings—hot and cold are very different, but 100 °F and 99 °F are challenging to distinguish. Kinsey explains his theory of continuums in nature: Sheep and goats do not divide the world. Not all things are black, nor all things white. It is a fundamental principle of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behaviour, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex.

Because some people experience sexual attraction to the same gender, that automatically follows a normal continuum of sexual attractions. The normality of behaviour is not determined simply by observing behaviour in society. That is the case in all of medicine. It may be easier to understand problems with the argument by using examples of observed human desires for specific actions. For example, some human beings desire to remove healthy body parts; others desire to cut themselves with razor blades, while others desire to harm themselves in other ways. These people are not necessarily suicidal; instead, they desire to remove their healthy limbs or the desire to inflict harm on themselves without causing death.

Thus, body integrity identity disorder (a rare, infrequently studied, and highly secretive condition in which there is a mismatch between the mental body image and the physical body) is one condition known as xenomelia (characterized by the non-acceptance of one or more of one's extremities and the resulting desire for elective amputation of a fully functioning limb or paralysis of it) or apotemnophilia. The other is nonsuicidal self-injury, self-mutilation, or self-harm. Most subjects with xenomelia are male, and the majority desire leg amputation. However, a considerable minority of persons with xenomelia desire a bilateral amputation. Thirteen males with xenomelia longed for a leg amputation. Studies have reported that the condition has an onset in early childhood and may even be present since birth. Some individuals may be born with the desire to remove or a longing to remove a healthy limb. Of fifty-four individuals with the condition, most had a university degree.

They are removing healthy limbs resulting in an impressive improvement in the quality of life for individuals with the condition. To summarize, there is a mental condition in which people desire to remove their healthy limbs. This desire to remove healthy limbs may be inborn, or in other words, people may be born with the desire to remove their healthy limbs. This desire and longing are the same things as an inclination or tendency. The desire or longing is different from the action of having body parts removed, but both the inclination, desire, and longing and the action of removal are considered disordered (a condition characterized by a lack of normal functioning of mental processes). Thus, the removal of healthy limbs is a disordered action, and the desire for the removal of healthy limbs is a disordered desire or a disordered inclination. The disordered desire comes in the form of a thought, as is the case of most if not all desires.

In many cases, the disorder has been present since childhood. Finally, individuals who act on the inclination to remove a limb feel better after removing the limb. In other words, those who act on their disordered desire (disordered thoughts) and perform the disordered action of removing a healthy limb experience an improved quality of life or feel pleasure after performing the disordered action. The second example I mentioned previously is self-harm or self-injury. The intentional destruction of body tissue without suicidal intent and for purposes not socially sanctioned is self-injury. Typical forms of self-injury include cutting, burning, scratching, and interfering with wound healing. Other forms include carving words or symbols into one's skin, banging body parts, and needle-sticking. Some may use self-injury to generate excitement or exhilaration, like skydiving or bungee jumping. For example, reasons given by some self-injurers include experiencing a high: We thought it would be fun and for excitement. When performed, for this reason, self-injury may occur around friends or peers. The prevalence of self-injury is high and probably increasing among adolescents and young adults; it has become apparent that self-injury occurs even in nonclinical and high-functioning populations such as secondary school students, college students, and active-duty military personnel. The increasing prevalence of self-injury suggests that clinicians are more likely to encounter the behaviour in their clinical practice. In nonsuicidal self-injury, the urge often precedes the injury and is experienced as pleasurable, even though the individual realizes that he or she is harming himself or herself. A disordered desire or urge to harm oneself precedes a disordered action, nonsuicidal self-injury. Second, those who injure themselves do so for pleasure. Third, some patients with the disorder are high-functioning in that they can live, work, and act in society while at the same time they still have a mental disorder. Finally, the prevalence of self-injury is high and probably increasing among adolescents and young adults.

Kinsey's studies of homosexuality in men and women were countervailing evidence to the idea that homosexuality is a pathology. In addition, Kinsey's studies demonstrated that homosexuality was more common than previously assumed, thus suggesting that such behaviours were part of a continuum of sexual behaviours and orientations. So, again, an abbreviated version of Kinsey's argument looks like this: (1) In human beings, homosexuality is more common than previously assumed, and (2) There is a normal variation or a normal continuum of sexual attractions. By replacing homosexuality with the examples of body integrity identity disorder and self-harm/self-mutilation, the argument would be as follows: (1) In human beings, some people are attracted to and desire to cut themselves and remove their healthy body parts, (2) more typical than previously assumed are the attractions to cut oneself and remove one's healthy body parts, and (3) There is a normal variation of attractions to self-harm; there is a continuum of normal variations of orientation to harm oneself. The observation that behaviour is more common than previously assumed does not automatically conclude a normal continuum of behaviours. Instead, one concludes that every human behaviour observed is expected behaviour on the continuum of human behaviours. Thus, if the desire to harm oneself or remove a healthy limb is more common than previously assumed, according to their logic, such behaviours would be on a normal continuum of self-harm behaviours and orientations. On one end of the spectrum would be those who desire to kill themselves, while on the other end of the spectrum, there would be those who desire health and normal functioning of their body. According to logic, somewhere between would be those who desire to cut their arms, and next to them would be those who desire to remove their arms altogether. That brings up the question: Why are all behaviours not considered normal variants of human behaviour?

The living world is a continuum in every one of its aspects. If that were the case, then there would be no such thing as a mental or physical disorder, and there would be no need for those groups that diagnose and treat mental disorders. The desire to be a serial killer would be simply a standard variant on the continuum of human desire. Scientific evidence was another source that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Among non-human primates, both males and females engage in homosexual activity. Homosexuality and same-sex behaviours are present in sundry animal species and human cultures, which suggests nothing unnatural about same-sex behaviours or homosexual sexual orientation. Forty-nine out of 76 cultures accepted homosexual activity as usualHomosexual sex happens in some humans and animals. Then the conclusion follows that there is nothing unnatural about it. The phrase nothing unnatural seems to connote the activity being regular. The argument simplifies in the following manner: (1) Any action or behaviour present in a wide range of animal species and human cultures suggests that the behaviour or action is not unnatural, (2) Same-sex behaviours and homosexuality are present in a wide range of animal species and human cultures, and (3) There is nothing unnatural about same-sex behaviours or homosexual sexual orientation. Behaviour in both non-human and human animals is insufficient to determine that there is nothing unnatural about that behaviour. In other words, there are many behaviours or actions that non-human animals and human animals both perform, but this does not always result in the conclusion that there is nothing unnatural about those behaviours. Cannibalism is widespread in human cultures and non-human animals. Applying the behaviour of cannibalism would result in the following argument: (1) Any action or behaviour present in a wide range of animal species and human cultures suggests that the behaviour or action is not unnatural, (2) The behaviour of humans eating humans and other animals eating their species is present in a wide range of animal species and human cultures, and (3) There is nothing unnatural about humans eating other human beings.

Nevertheless, there is something unnatural about human beings eating other human beings. Moreover, we can arrive at that conclusion through common sense without anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, or biologists. Thus, the orientation would be veganism on one end of the standard food continuum, while eating humans would be on the other. In an examination of the mental health status of homosexuality, with homosexual and heterosexual men matched for age, IQ, and education, homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology (psychological and behavioural dysfunction occurring in mental illness or social disorganization). The adjustment for homosexuals and heterosexuals was similar; adjustment supports the claim that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. Homosexual men and women were essentially similar in adaptation and functioning to heterosexual men and women. That last line I emphasized is critical; the newly developed measures compared the adaptation and ability to function in society in homosexuals and heterosexuals and used the comparison to conclude that homosexuality is not a disorder. Adaptation has been used interchangeably with adjustment. Because homosexual men and women were essentially similar to men and women in adjustment and social functioning, it necessarily follows that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Therefore, homosexuality is not a pathology, with data showing that homosexuals and heterosexuals were similar in adjustment. A psychiatric diagnosis is legitimate, but its application to homosexuality is erroneous and invalid because there is no empirical justification. In other words, the diagnosis of homosexuality as an illness is bad science. Therefore, whether one accepts or rejects the plausibilityOneNote Notebooks\Quick Notes. one of the diagnostic enterprises in psychiatry, there is no basis for viewing homosexuality as a disease or indicative of psychological disturbance.

The term adjustment is used more frequently than adaptation, but often in an ambiguous manner that leaves to anyone's whim whether it should be a passive acceptance of whatever life brings—or meeting situational requirements indiscriminately. Homosexuals appeared to have more problems with self-acceptance than heterosexual males, but only a tiny minority of homosexuals could be considered maladjusted. The psychological adjustment of both male and female homosexuals and heterosexuals, that sexual orientation was not related to personal adjustment in either sex. Comparing homosexual and heterosexual women found a mixed pattern of typical range differences that might suggest a poorer adjustment in the homosexuals. At least one indicator of one's adjustment is self-acceptance. Noting that an individual displays specific, definite characteristics can recognize wholesome, healthy adjustment. First, we recognize ourselves as individuals, both like and different from other individuals. He is self-confident but with a practical realization of his strengths and weaknesses. At the same time, he can appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of others and adjust his attitudes toward them in terms of positive values. The well-adjusted person feels secure in understanding his ability to bring to his interrelations those attitudes conducive to practical living. His self-confidence and sense of personal security help direct his activities pointed toward a continuous consideration for the welfare of himself and others. He can adequately solve the more or less severe problems that he encounters daily. Finally, the individual who has achieved successful adjustment gradually evolves a philosophy of life and a system of values that serve him well in the various areas of experience—school or work activities, and relationships with all the people he comes in contact with, younger or older. In psychological research, adjustment refers both to an achievement or outcome and a process. Psychological adjustment is a popular outcome measure in psychological research, and often measures such as self-esteem or the absence of distress, anxiety, or depression are used as indicators of adjustment. Researchers may also measure an individual's level of adjustment or well-being in response to some stressful event, such as divorce, or the absence of deviant behaviour, such as drinking or drug use. Significant differences exist between homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual groups, but not to a level that would suggest psychopathology by utilizing measures of depression, self-esteem, relationship discord, and sexual discord. Then, a person's adjustment is determined at least in part by measuring depression, self-esteem, relationship discord, sexual discord, distress, and anxiety.

Presumably, then, a person who is not depressed or distressed, has high or normal self-esteem, can maintain relationships, and does not show signs of sexual discord is adjusted or well-adjusted. Because homosexuals are similar to heterosexuals in measures of depression, self-esteem, relationship discord, and sexual discord, it automatically follows that homosexuality is not a disorder as he notes: The general conclusion is clear: Homosexuality intrinsically is not related to psychopathology or psychological adjustment: (1) There are no measurable differences in depression, self-esteem, relationship discord, or sexual discord between homosexually inclined people and heterosexuals, and (2) Homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. Many mental disorders do not lead a person to become depressed or distressed or have low self-esteem; in other words, adjustment is not a proper endpoint (a point marking the completion of a process) to determine the psychological normalcy of every thought process and the behaviours associated with those thought processes. Likewise, depression, self-esteem, relationship discord, sexual discord, distress, and one's ability to function in society are not relevant to every mental disorder; not all psychological disorders result in maladjustment. Therefore, measuring self-esteem and happiness to determine one's adjustment is problematic. Those are subjective measurements, which are subject to social desirability. An individual may also be consciously unaware of and therefore unable to report his or her disturbance or mental illness. Likewise, individuals with severe mental illnesses may nonetheless report being happy and satisfied with their lives. Finally, subjective well-being is necessarily dependent on the situation. Some examples are necessary here to prove the point. Paedophiles can report not being distressed with their intense sexual interest in children, and they report being able to function in society; both distress and social functioning have been included under the umbrella terms adjustment and adaptation. If individuals also complain that their sexual attractions or preferences for children are causing psychosocial difficulties, they may be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and their paraphilic impulses do not functionally limit them according to self-report, objective assessment, or both, their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses. Thus, these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not a pedophilic disorder.

Continued in the next post

 

[SeniorMan]

Paraphilia included foot fetishism, watersports, transvestitism, masochism, sadism, bestiality, paedophilia, and homosexuality.

Continued from the post containing Part One

Also, people who cut themselves, self-injurers or self-mutilators, can function in society; their behaviour occurs in high-functioning populations such as secondary school students, college students, and active-duty military personnel. Those who are self-injure to cause pleasure can function in society, just like those adults with an intense sexual interest in children can function in society and not be distressed. Some anorexics may remain active in social and professional functioning, and the persistent eating of non-nutritive, nonfood substances like plastic is rarely the sole cause of impairment in social functioning. There is no mention of depression, low self-esteem, or sexual or relationship discord as a requirement to diagnose the mental disorder in which individuals eat non-nutritive, nonfood substances to cause pleasure known as pica. Tourette's disorder, a mental disorder, can occur without distress or functional consequences and, therefore, has no relation to adjustment measures. Many individuals with mild to moderate tic severity experience no distress or impairment in functioning and may even be unaware of their tics. Tic disorders are involuntary disorders; the patient will express they do not choose to have rapid, recurrent, nonrhythmic motor movement or vocalization; others could likely even claim they were born that way. The DSM-5 (the Fifth Edition) does not require distress or social impairment for one to be diagnosed with Tourette's disorder, and hence, it is yet another example of a mental disorder in which adjustment measures are irrelevant. It is a disorder in which one could not use measures of adjustment as scientific evidence to claim Tourette's disorder is or is not a mental disorder. A final mental disorder unrelated to adjustment is delusional disorder. Individuals with delusional disorder have firmly held false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality despite what almost everyone else believes and what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence of the contrary. Apart from the impact of the delusion(s) or its ramifications, functioning is not markedly impaired, and behaviour is not bizarre or odd.

Furthermore, a common characteristic of individuals with delusional disorder is the apparent normality of their behaviour and appearance for which their delusional ideas are not being discussed or acted. Those individuals with delusional disorder, it appears, do not show signs of maladjustment; besides their delusional ideation, they appear expected. Hence, delusional disorder is a prime example of a mental disorder unrelated to adjustment measures; adjustment is irrelevant to delusional disorder. One could say that homosexuals, though their behaviour is mentally disordered, appear to be expected in other aspects of their lives—aspects like social functioning and areas that would indicate maladjustment. Hence, there are multiple mental disorders in which measuring adjustment has no relevance to the mental disorder; this is a significant deficiency used as scientific evidence to conclude that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The problem with diagnosing mental disorders is by looking at distress, social functioning, or other endpoints included under the adjustment and adaptation of the terms. They noted that some mislabeled mental conditions are due to the assumption that the way to determine that a condition is pathological is to ensure that it causes sufficient distress or impairment in social or role functioning. A harmful condition is pathological in the rest of medicine if there is evidence of biological dysfunction. Neither distress nor role functioning failure is necessary to make most medical diagnoses, although both often accompany severe forms of the disorder. For example, a diagnosis of pneumonia, heart disease, cancer, or innumerable other physical disorders can be made without subjective distress, even if the individual successfully functions in all social roles. An additional disease diagnosed without distress or role functioning failure mentioned here is HIV/AIDS; HIV has a long latent period, and many people will not even be aware of being HIV positive. For example, 240,000 people are not aware that they have HIV.

In many cases, a disorder may be present even if an individual is functioning well in society or if the individual scores well on measurements of adjustment. In some situations, appealing to measurements of distress and impairment in social functioning leads to false negatives, in which an individual's mental condition is disordered but not labelled as disordered. Mental conditions can be misdiagnosed as false negatives if social functioning or distress, which they call the clinical significance criterion, referring to clinically significant distress, are used as diagnosing criteria. It is common to encounter individuals who have lost control over their drug use and are suffering various harms, for example, a threat to health, as a result, and who, therefore, to us, have a disorder but who are not distressed and who can carry on successful role functioning. Consider, for example, the case of a successful stockbroker who is addicted to cocaine at a level that is threatening his physical health but who has no distress and whose role performance has not suffered. Without the clinical significance criterion, the DSM-IV criteria correctly classify the individual's condition as a substance dependence disorder. Diagnose some mental disorders when the clinically significant distress and social functioning include paraphilias, Tourette's disorder, and sexual dysfunction. The vagueness and subjectivity of the criterion terminology are considered particularly problematic and result in a circular definition: clinically significant distress or impairment defines a disorder, which is distress or impairment significant enough to be considered a disorder. The use of the clinical significance criterion does not coincide with the perspective of general medicine that distress or functional impairment is generally not required to make a diagnosis. Indeed, many asymptomatic conditions in general medicine are diagnosed based on knowledge of their profession or increased risk for a poor outcome (for example—early malignancies or HIV infection, hypertension). It would be unthinkable to suggest that such disorders do not exist until they cause distress or disability. Again, the quotation concerns the DSM-IV, but the lack of distress or impairment in the social functioning criterion categorizes homosexuality. The excellent occupational performance and reasonable social adjustment of many homosexuals are evidence of the normalcy of homosexuality. Then, it is evident that at least some official DSM mental disorders and other non-official DSM-5 mental disorders do not result in problems with adjustment or social functioning. For example, those who cut themselves with razor blades for pleasure and those who have an intense sexual interest in and fantasize sexually about children are not mentally normal; anorexics and those who persistently eat plastic are officially mentally disordered by DSM-5, and those with delusional disorder are also officially considered to have a mental disorder. However, many appear normal and experience no distress or impairment in functioning. In other words, many people who are not mentally normal can function in society and do not show signs or symptoms of maladjustment. Thus, some mental disorders seem to have a latent period of waxing and waning periods marked by the ability to function in society and apparent normality. Homosexually inclined people, those with delusional disorder, paedophiles, self-injurers, plastic eaters, and anorexics can all function in society for a specific period and may not always show signs of maladjustment.

Furthermore, psychological adjustment is irrelevant to some mental disorders; research studies that look at adjustment measures as an endpoint are inadequate to determine the normalcy of psychological thought processes and their associated behaviours. From common sense, we know that telling homosexually inclined people that their behaviour or habit is abnormal or unhealthy may result in a higher risk of major depression, anxiety, and suicidality than heterosexuals. In other words, one cannot necessarily conclude that depression, et cetera results from stigma. We must scientifically demonstrate that. It may be that both are true: the depression, et cetera, are pathological, and individuals who are homosexual are not standard, which in turn adds to the individual's distress. We will need to go on a bit tangent and discuss the implications of looking only at adjustment measures and social functioning to determine whether sexual behaviours and their associated thought processes are mentally disordered. Looking at adjustment measurements is both arbitrary and irrelevant to all psychosexual disorders. Why solely look at adjustment and social functioning measures in some mental disorders but not others? For instance, why do we not look at other aspects of the paraphilias (sexual perversions) that indicate their mental disorderliness? Why is a person who stimulates himself and masturbates to the point of orgasm while fantasizing about causing psychological or physical suffering in another person (a sexual sadist) not mentally disordered, yet those with delusional disorder are considered mentally disordered? Some individuals believe that there is an infestation of insects on or in the skin when the evidence clearly shows they are uninfested with insects; those individuals are diagnosed with delusional disorder.

On the other hand, some men believe they are women; evidence indicates the contrary; some men are not diagnosed with delusional disorder. Individuals with other sexual disorders have shown similar measurements of adjustment as homosexuals. Exhibitionists, also known as exposers, are those individuals who have intense urges to expose their genitals to unsuspecting people in order to arouse the exposer sexually. The sexual arousal they seek is personal, that is, in themselves, not necessarily in the unsuspecting person. One source notes that half to two-thirds of exposers are married, although marital and sexual adjustment is marginal. Intelligence, educational level, and vocational interests do not differentiate them from the general population. Exhibitionists suffered from inferiority and were viewed as timid and unassertive, socially inept, and having problems expressing hostility.

Exposers are unremarkable in terms of personality functioning. The finding that those with deviant sexual attractions can function in society is factual for homosexual and heterosexual sadomasochists. Sexual sadism, as mentioned previously, is intense sexual arousal from the physical or psychological suffering of another person, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviours; sexual masochism is recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the act of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer, as manifested by fantasies, urges or behaviours. Sadomasochists were studied and are socially well-adjusted; the authors noted that most sadomasochists studied had leading positions at work, while most had different forms of service in the community, such as being a member of the local school board. So, both sadomasochists and exposers do not necessarily exhibit social functioning or distress (again, terms are under the umbrella term adjustment). Some have noted that the defining features of all sexual perversions or sexual deviances (also known as the paraphilias) may be limited to the individual's sexual behaviour and causes minimal impairment in other areas of functioning.

Furthermore, they suggest that there are currently no universal and objective criteria for evaluating the adaptive value of sexual attitudes and practices. Outside of sexual homicide, no sexual behaviour is universally dysfunctional. The rationale for excluding homosexuality from the category of sexual deviation was the lack of evidence that homosexuality per se is a harmful dysfunction. Curiously, the same line of reasoning does not apply to other disorders such as fetishism and consensual sadomasochism. Such conditions are not inherently harmful, and their inclusion in this category reflects an inconsistency in classification. Hence, they propose that the only sexual behaviour deemed dysfunctional (and therefore universally considered a mental disorder) is sexual homicide. The conclusion is reached by implying that any sexual behaviour and associated thought processes that do not cause impairment in social functioning or measures of adjustment is not a sexual disorder. Thus, what is evident is not that all sexual deviances are normal, but instead that those in psychiatry and psychology have unintentionally misled society by citing irrelevant measurements as evidence that a condition is average. They may have made honest errors. The catastrophic consequences of solely looking at irrelevant endpoints (adjustment and social functioning) when determining whether a sexual desire is mentally disordered or normal happen by further observed by appealing to DSM-5’s discussions on sexual sadism and paedophilia. Sexually sadistic behaviour itself is not mentally disordered. Individuals who openly acknowledge intense sexual interest in physical or psychological suffering are admitting individuals. If these individuals also report psychosocial difficulties because of their sexual attractions or preferences for another individual's physical or psychological suffering, they may be diagnosed with sexual sadism disorder.

In contrast, if admitting individuals declare no distress, exemplified by anxiety, obsessions, guilt, or shame, about these paraphilic impulses, they are not hampered by pursuing other goals. Their self-reported, psychiatric, or legal histories indicate that their self-reported, psychiatric or legal histories indicate that they do not act on them. They have sadistic sexual interests, but they would not meet the criteria for sexual sadism disorder. The sexual attraction to the physical or psychological suffering of another person is a mental disorder in itself; that is, sexual attractions and fantasies occur in the form of thoughts, and the thoughts of a person who thinks about physically and psychologically abusing another person to stimulate themselves to orgasm are not mentally disordered.

Paedophilia in itself is not a mental disorder, either. After discussing how a paedophile (someone who is sexually attracted to children) could disclose an intense sexual interest in children, they write: Suppose individuals also complain that their sexual attractions or preferences are causing psychosocial difficulties. In that case, they may be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder (characterized by recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviours involving prepubescent or young adolescents, usually less than or thirteen years). However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses, their paraphilic impulses are not functionally limiting. Moreover, their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses. Thus, these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not a pedophilic disorder. Again, sexual fantasies and intense sexual attractions occur in the form of thought, so a 54-year-old man who has an intense sexual interest in children thinks repetitively about children to stimulate himself to orgasm. That person's thoughts are not disordered. Is the happy and otherwise well-functioning paedophile ordinary? Psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress, and social effectiveness—that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively—may coexist with psychopathology, in some cases even of a psychotic order. It is alarming that a sadistic or pedophilic fantasy could not meet the criteria for a mental disorder. Sexual fantasy is almost any mental imagery that is sexually arousing or erotic to the individual. The content of sexual fantasies varies significantly between individuals and is thought to be highly dependent on internal and external stimuli, such as what individuals see, hear, and directly experience. Sexual fantasies are images or thoughts in the mind; they result in arousal, and it is not a stretch to say that those fantasies stimulate orgasm during masturbation. The content of sexual fantasies depends on what individuals see, hear, and directly experience. So, it is also not a stretch to claim that a paedophile with young neighbour children has sexual fantasies about those neighbours; it is also not a stretch to claim that a sexual sadist fantasizes about causing psychological or physical suffering in his or her neighbour. However, if the sexual sadist or the paedophile does not experience distress or impairment of social functioning (again, those terms are under the umbrella term adjustment) or if they do not harm another person, they are not considered mentally disordered. Thus, the sexual images or thoughts about a 10-year-old in the mind of the 54-year-old paedophile or the images or thoughts of a sexual sadist fantasizing about causing psychological or physical suffering in his neighbour are not disordered unless they cause distress, impairment in social functioning, or harm of another person. That is arbitrary, and it is an absurd conclusion arrived at from the erroneous premise that any thought process that does not cause maladjustment is not a mental disorder. They have already normalized sexual deviances with the consent of those individuals involved in the actions. In order to be consistent with the logic used to normalize homosexuality, they must normalize all other sexual actions that stimulate one to the point of orgasm that do not cause wrong measurements of adjustment or result in impaired social functioning. It is true that they also allow a diagnosis of a sexual disorder if deviance only causes harm to another, but that is if there is a lack of consent.

Sadomasochism stimulates one to orgasm by harming someone or being harmed by someone, as expected. Some might call this a slippery slope argument (a course of action rejected because, with little or no evidence, we insist that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends). Nevertheless, that is an incorrect assessment of the proposed; normalized are all orgasm-stimulating behaviours except those that cause adjustment problems (distress, et cetera), problems in social functioning or harm or risk of harm to another person. The last part—harm or risk of harm—needs an asterisk because there are exceptions to that criterion; if there is consent, then an orgasm-stimulating behaviour that results in harm is permitted, which is evident in the normalization of sadomasochism. That explains why there is a push by paedophiles to claim that young children can consent to paedophilia; they do not want to be mentally disordered either. Thus, those mental disorders are normalized. It should be alarming that the authority on mental illness has normalized any orgasm-causing behaviour to which one consents; normalization results from the erroneous premise that any orgasm-stimulating behaviour and its associated mental processes do not result in problems with adjustment or social functioning is not a mental disorder. That is flawed reasoning. While another paper would be required to thoroughly explain the criteria for determining what constitutes a mental and sexual disorder, here are some criteria. Up to this point, mainstream psychology and psychiatry have arbitrarily determined that any and every sexual behaviour except sexual homicide is not a mental disorder. Many mental disorders involve physically disordered uses of the body—xenomalia, self-mutilation, pica, and anorexia nervosa. Diagnose physical disorders by measuring the functioning of bodily organs or systems. A physician or other practitioner would be negligent or ignorant to claim that there is no such thing as the proper functioning of the heart, lungs, eyes, ears, or other organ systems of the body. Physical disorders are somewhat easier to diagnose than mental disorders because of available objective measurements such as blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate used to determine the health or disorder of specific organs and organ systems. So, in medicine, a foundational principle is that there are proper functions of bodily organs. Practitioners must acknowledge that foundational principle; otherwise, they have nothing upon which to base their claims—every organ of the body would have a normal continuum of functioning. An arbitrary exception to the foundational principle of medicine is regarding the orgasm-causing organs; many have arbitrarily, it seems, ignored the reality that the sex organs also have proper physical functioning. The mental orderliness of sexual behaviour could be at least in part determined by the physical orderliness of sexual behaviour.

So, concerning men who have sex with men, the physical trauma caused by penile-anal intercourse is a physical disorder; penile-anal intercourse almost always results in a physically disordered state in the anorectal area (involving both the anus and rectum and possibly the penile area of the inserter as well). The optimal state of health of the anus requires the integrity of the skin, which acts as the primary protection against invasive pathogens. Failure of the mucous complex to protect the rectum happens in various diseases contracted through anal intercourse. Intercourse abrades (damage by continued friction) the mucous lining (various tubular structures consisting of the epithelium and lamina propria) and delivers pathogens directly to the crypt and columnar cells allowing for easy entry. The mechanics of any receptive intercourse, as compared to vaginal intercourse, almost demands denuding the protecting cellular and mucous protection of the anus and rectum. The established information in the previous paragraph is a solid scientific fact; it seems that a researcher, practitioner, psychiatrist, or psychologist would have to be ignorant or negligent to deny that fact. So, one sign or indicator of whether sexual behaviour is normal or disordered could be whether or not it physically harms one or both people. It seems clear that penile-anal intercourse is physically disordered, and it also causes physical harm. Since many men who have sex with men desire to perform those physically disordered actions, it seems to follow that the desire to engage in such actions is disordered. Since desires occur at the mental or thought level, such male homosexual desires are mentally disordered.

Furthermore, the body has within it various types of fluids. Those fluids are physical and have proper functions (again, that is simply a reality of medicine or health—the fluids in the human body have proper functions). Saliva, plasma, interstitial fluids, and tears all have proper functions. For example, one proper function of plasma is transporting blood cells and nutrients to other body parts. Semen is a male bodily fluid, and hence (unless one arbitrarily applies one's own rules to the field of medicine), semen has a proper physical function (or multiple proper functions). Semen typically has many cells, known as spermatozoa (a mature male germ cell, the specific output of the testes, which fertilizes the mature ovum—secondary oocyte—in sexual reproduction), and those cells have a proper location to be transported to—the cervical area of the woman. Thus, a physically ordered sexual act of a male would be one in which the semen physically functions appropriately. Hence, other criteria for standard or ordered sexual behaviour is when the semen functions correctly by delivering spermatozoa to the female's cervical area. Some might counter that some men experience azoospermia (diagnosed when, on two separate occasions, your sperm sample reveals no sperm when examined under a high-powered microscope following a spin in a centrifuge) or aspermia (the complete lack of semen with ejaculation). They might conclude, then, that the healthy or proper function of semen is not delivering spermatozoa to the cervical area of the woman, or they might suggest that, according to a different argument, aspermic individuals can place their ejaculate wherever they wish. Azoospermia/aspermia is an exception to the norm and a result of either profound impairment of sperm formation (spermatogenesis) due to damage to the testes or—more commonly—obstruction of the genital tract (for example—resulting from vasectomy, gonorrhoea, or Chlamydia infection). Healthy males produce spermatozoa, whereas medical impairments
may result in no measurable spermatozoa in semen. If there are objective normal functions of body parts, then the malfunctioning or absence of one body part does not necessarily result in an expected change in the function of another body part. Such a claim would be similar to claiming that healthy or normal plasma does not function to deliver red blood cells to the body because some people are anaemic. It is also evident that the body has a pleasure and pain system (which could also be called a reward and punishment system). Like all other body systems, that pleasure-and-pain system has a proper function; its essential function is to act as a signal sender to the body. The pleasure-and-pain system communicates what is good versus evil for the body. The pleasure-and-pain system, in a way, regulates human behaviour; eating, excreting urinary and faecal waste, and sleeping are common human behaviours that involve a degree or type of pleasure as a motivator or reinforcer. Pain, on the other hand, is either an indicator of physically bad human behaviour or a disordered bodily organ; the pain associated with touching a hot stove should steer one away from that behaviour, while painful urination often indicates a problem with a bodily organ. A person with CIPA (congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis) cannot feel pain, and hence, the pain system (using broad, non-medical terms) is disordered. It does not send the proper signals to the mind to assist in one's bodily actions. The pleasure system can also be disordered, as in individuals with ageusia who cannot taste food.

Now, orgasm is a particular type of pleasure. It compares to the drug-like high experienced by those who use opiates like heroin. Orgasm, though, occurs generally in human beings who have correctly functioning sex organs. Orgasm is a type of pleasure that is good in and of itself, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the orgasm. Again, another paper is needed to show the flaws in that argument. However, if those in the field of medicine are to be consistent and non-arbitrary, they would have to acknowledge that the pleasure associated with orgasm serves as a signal or communication to the body that something good occurred. It also would have to be argued that orgasm occurs in marriage. Something good associated with orgasm is stimulating the penis to release the semen near the cervix. Any other type of orgasmic stimulation (like any masturbation—whether it is self-stimulation, same-sex, or opposite-sex masturbation) would abuse the pleasure system. The abuse of the pleasure system during masturbation (and in all same-sex orgasm-stimulating actions) can be understood by referring to other bodily pleasures. If one could press a button that caused the full or satiety feeling associated with eating, one would be abusing the pleasure system; the pleasure system would be sending a false reading or a false signal to the rest of the body. The pleasure system would be lying to the body in a sense. If the body felt the pleasure associated with a whole night's rest but had not actually rested at all, or the pleasure of urination or defecation without actually urinating or defecating, eventually the body would suffer significant ill-health. Thus, another criterion for determining whether sexual behaviour is normal or disordered is whether the sexual behaviour causes malfunctioning of the pleasure or pain systems in the body.

Finally, it should go without saying that consent and, therefore, appropriate age-of-consent is a criterion for determining healthy versus mentally disordered sexual orientations. Homosexuality is a standard variant of human sexual orientation. Therefore, homosexuality intrinsically implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities. Therefore, remove the stigma of mental illness associated with homosexual orientations.

The DSM-5 does not consider body identity integrity disorder to be a disorder; the DSM-5 says: Body identity integrity disorder (apotemnophilia, which is not a DSM-5 disorder) involves a desire to have a limb amputated to correct an experience of mismatch between a person's sense of body identity and his or her actual anatomy.

From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771012/

 

[Calico]

For me wearing them is a lifestyle. Instead of underwear, it's diapers. Instead of using the toilet, it's my diaper. Sometimes I get turned on by it.

 

[OscarS]

ABDL isn't really a kink these days because it's Pedophilia-less thus ABDL isn't a Kink. However for Teens ages 13-17 there's a Teen version of ABDL called TBDL, for kids ages under 13 we have KBDL.

 

[dogboy]

And for kids under 3 we have toddler. Okay....just kidding. It just struck me as funny.

 

[Kirisin]

I would say for the majority of us this love came long before my sexual interest. I was 6 when this punishment came at 7 I wished I hadn't lied to get out of them. It would have been nice to have a dry bed and a wet diaper. That i suppose was the beginning of wanting to wear a diaper and wishing i could get diapers. I suppose i could have talked to mom bit never gave it a thought. It wasn't till teens that it became a serios need to put a diaper on and pee in it. With sex I always thought of my best friend Sean. I wanted him so bad he was a bigger obstacle that I never got. I dont really see a diaper as a sexual tool but as a regression to a part of my life when I was 6. There isn't any sexual thoughts at 6

 

[TeddyBearCowboy]

I have heard alot of users call abdl and diaper fetishism a kink. I googled it, and learned it was some sort af a sexual thing. Can we really be calling it a kink when it developed before I even knew what sex was? Of course it became a part of my sexuality later on, but i was just wondering if someone can tell me how a kink would develope at a young age.

Thanks for this post SwedishAMAZING,

I agree with your thinking. I was 3 or maybe 4 (literally just out of having to be in diapers) when I have my first memories of seeking then out. So sex had NOTHING to do with my initials attraction to them. My interest and desires for wearing diapers continued throughout my childhood, and it wasn’t until I was in my teens where there was any association with anything sexual with them. Perhaps what happened was going through puberty and exploring my diaper interests that somehow there was at times a connection with self gratification that it became sometimes jointly connected. But still even many years later, I do not see a diaper or the feelings of being babyish and associate that with a sexual thing.

I know that for some, diapers may be a “kink” as it is physiologically defined. But to propose this is what it is all about… That is bull shit! (Sorry for the expletive, but I am a real life cowboy and so I deal with that on a regular basis).

Being DL or ABDL is not a kink! Can there be a kink twist for some? Certainly yes! But it’s no different than someone who may love shoes and have a wardrobe of them, but for others, shoes is a turn on and indeed a sexual kink. I would hate to think that because I enjoy a good pair of nice fitting cowboy boots that folks think I am kinky for doing so! Can you see the comparison?

Hence, I immensely and greatly refute the ludicrous idea that DL and ABDL is a kink. That is simply untrue! But can folks have a kink that is associated with being DL or ABDL, well, yeah. That does happen and many may experience it.

But the base orientation of being DL or ABDL is not anymore of being a kink than us cowboys who seek out and wear chaps and leather to protect us from the brush and trees as we gather cattle, but there are those who might think chaps and leather as being a sexual thing.

Neither is being attracted to diapers or being an adult baby a kink in and of itself!!!! There may be kinks associated with it, but the actual base desire is not a kink!!!

Need I say more?


Okay, maybe I do…

Stop associating something that may be a kink for some as being a kink in and of itself!

Being DL or ABDL is one of the most misunderstood and complex feelings and interests as any that might be out there. The more I learn through decades of research and careful thought, the more I find I do not understand. But what I do know, is that it is a part of oneself that often is as deep rooted as as a religious affiliation or association with oneself as their gender identity or sexual orientation.

There are not many posts or threads on ADISC or any other site where folks have truthfully shared they no longer are DL or ABDL and have successfully disassociated this interest from who they are. Not saying it isn’t done or possible, but rather the probability of giving up these interests is more rare than having them in the first place.

Anyhow, bottom line… being DL or ABDL is not a sexual link, but rather it can become one just as shoes, bondage, or leather.

 

[Rainbow]

Here's my personal definitions (take them with a grain of salt):

Fetish: an atypical sexual interest that one is born with or is brought on through early life. To the person with the fetish, the fetish is just as, if not more, fulfilling than typical sexual interests. The fetish could even be the primary or sole interest of the sexual self.

Kink: an atypical sexual interest that is temporary, something experimented with and sometimes kept, but not as deep-seated or firm as a fetish.

But these terms might be misleading. I consider messing a fetish, because it is primarily sexual to me. But it also contains elements of deep emotional and physical catharsis -- are these also part of the "fetish" label, or does messing in these instances (or fragments of a whole moment) describe something else?

As for an interest completely removed from sexual ideas -- people who wear diapers solely for therapeutic or calming reasons, for example -- I just call these "interests."

I refer to messing as my "interest" sometimes when I'm too scared to say the word "fetish," but I also sometimes use it to emphasize the non-sexual elements of my fetish.

But maybe we can discover or invent a better term for non-sexual yet non-typical activities, something to categorize them away from the association with sex. Language is power, after all.

 

[AsherDearing]

I personally believe that this is a benign psychological phenomenon that usually gains a sexualised element during puberty.

They have been very infrequent in my life (I can count them on one hand) but I have had episodes of regression that have happened without my consent I have not been able to stop until it wears off naturally. That to me is more than a fetish or kink.

The sexual element occurred for me during puberty and lasted through my teen years, but has now faded and I’m pretty sure my ABDL is non-sexual, and there are lots of non-sexual littles that aren’t explained by the term kink or fetish.

But I don’t really care what it is anymore, I’m happy being me and living my best baby life .

 

[dogboy]

I'm often aware that Kink and Fetish are just words and it really depends on how you define them or how you think of them. I don't think it's worth worrying about. The reality is that those of us who wear diapers and don't need them, do so for some deep seated reason. Whether it's a kink, fetish, sexual or not really doesn't matter in the big picture. It's just something we do and as long as it doesn't dominate one's life where they don't see friends because they'd rather wear a diaper or some other interruption in normal life activities, how one defines it doesn't change much who we are or our value as a person.

 

[Kirisin]

This internet thing gave me an opportunity to explore my feelings. I read somewhere that the first documented case of AB or DL may have been in the 50s. The wrighter said in there stydy into ABDL that there didn't seam to be anything associated with sexual overtones. His study suggested that while some in our community may have sexual gratification the vast majority it is simply a copping mechanism or an attempt to recapture youth, regress while others may have been abused during there early childhood. The one commonality in the study was that there doesn't seam to be a sexual link for that vast majority of the new and growing community. But that there may be a few who do get some kind of sexual gratification wearing diapers.

I think this study suggest it isn't a kink or fetish but more a desire to be as we call it a little. Or just simply our desire to wear a diaper (and use it) in my case a need to be that 6 year old little boy punished for wetting his pants and then lieing to get out of the humiliation of wearing a diaper. Maybe I regret lieing and I'm punishing myself. Who really knows why I am ABDL or why you are ABDL. Each of us has our own reason why and some of us don't know why just that we want to be / need to be ABDL. Bottom line we only need to please ourselves. Call it what you will. The only thing I see in common is where happiest when we are being who we are ABDL. I think Stitch said it best "I'm am what I am your approval isn't necessary" I am happy being ABDL.