Finally found...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, I don't remember those.
 
That's awesome. Those look too cute to use :)
 
Oh interesting. Can't say I've ever seen that design before.

$59.99/diaper... Ouch. Definitely for collecting, not for wearing! Gonna buy one?
 
I need to list some of my vintage diapers, I have one off brand that I love, they have balloons that fade when wet and I think are from the mid 1980's, no taping panel I wish I could fit into them, when I find them again I think I may list a few
 
pampersboy25 said:

I wonder if I ever wore those, was two at the time.

- - - Updated - - -

DracoAmericanus said:
I need to list some of my vintage diapers, I have one off brand that I love, they have balloons that fade when wet and I think are from the mid 1980's, no taping panel I wish I could fit into them, when I find them again I think I may list a few
fading balloons, mid 80s, next door neighbor, friend at the time wore those, I know drypers had a balloon indicator at one point.
 
Oh I'm not paying for it. Just glad I confirmed what it looked like--I only had vague memories and tiny print ads/home videos from around 1986 to go on before!
 
they look cute and I'm sure I never wore them but I would never pay that much for a single diaper.
 
If you think $50/diaper is bad, you haven't seen the listing that demand 500+ plus for partially open bags from the 90s
 
Note said:
Yes, I have, and I think those ABDLs are the most morally corrupt shitstains on the planet.

Dude, these are things that were literally meant to be shat in and then thrown away. That any of these diapers still exist 30 years later is so exceedingly unlikely, that they can charge whatever the hell they want.

- - - Updated - - -

pampersboy25 said:
The Huggies I used to wear...

Gonna have to change your screen name now :)
 
Note said:
There is a massive difference between providing a service and offering a product at a reasonable price, and having your weaknesses exploited by those that are only out to turn a profit.

What's something worth? "What a buyer is willing to pay, that the seller can find and come to an agreement with." That is all - the amount of money you can turn something into after investing time and effort you consider to be reasonable. It really has nothing to do with what any one specific buyer is willing to pay or thinks is reasonable. "Personal weakness" is the buyer's responsibility to deal with, not the seller's. Falls right in with "don't childproof the world, worldproof the child."
 
Tungsten said:
Gonna have to change your screen name now :)

Haha, guess I will!
 
Going a bit off-topic here, but since we're discussing vintage diaper designs...

My mother always said that she liked Luvs for me, but based on her descriptions I suspect she used different brands. I think she might have mentioned something about ones with balloons, so I suspect Pampers there, but I think she once said something about a book design? This would have been between December 1992 when I was born and December 1994, or probably early 1995, if anyone has any ideas about what brand it could have been.
 
Note said:
Claiming someone should take responsibility for their actions is a lot easier said than done when you're dealing with addiction. That's the demographic I am referring to, and those that wilfully exploit it for profit.

Addiction is a loss of control, but it begins voluntarily. I see it as a bit like drunk driving. There you voluntarily surrender some of your control. Lets say then while you're "driving impaired" as they say, you hit and injure someone. Some drivers will refuse to take responsibility, blaming the alcohol, blaming the liquor store, blaming their job, or saying "no one was to blame". But the great majority of people will say no, you intentionally did something that reduced your level of self-control, therefore you must take full responsibility for your actions while impaired.

I see addiction in the same way. The biggest differences there are the lock-in of the chemical addiction and the longer duration of the partial loss of control. But all the same rules still apply - it started voluntarily and you are fully responsible for your actions while self-impaired. If I put on dark sunglasses while I drive and now I can't see that pedestrian crossing the road and I hit them, no it's not the sunglasses' fault, it wasn't a random accident, it's all on me.

Telling people they're not (or not AS) responsible for their actions while self-impaired is bad for so many reasons. Doing that even harms the addict, because it takes away one of the motivating factors for them to try to quit. It may not be a relatively strong reason compared to the others they have, but every bit helps and adds up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top