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

Thread: Nature vs Nurture

  1. #1

    Default Nature vs Nurture

    We grew up in a culture that believes unusual sexual desires are a psychological reaction to life events in the same way phobias and PTSD are. In 50 years I have never seen any evidence to support this belief. A psychological cause for homosexuality, trans-sexualism, and other unusual desires, has never been found. Many people here want to believe there was some external event, or series of events, that caused our ABDL desires. I no longer believe this myself because there is no evidence to support it. But there is evidence of something else: ABDL desires are not a psychological response to a childhood event, they ARE the event.

    It's hard to break from traditional beliefs that these desires are a result of nurture rather than nature, but the evidence is pushing us in the direction of nature.

  2. #2

    Default

    (Okay...first I just wanna make sure people understand that I am not comparing being an ABDL to being gay.)

    The thing I don't like about the argument of nature vs nurture is that people underestimate the nurture side. They seem to view that because nurture is external, it is simple a matter of choice. Nurture usually isn't a reaction to any one event, and can be very complex.

    Uganda's "Kill the Gays bill", is an excellent example of this. When President Museveni signing the bill into law, he defended it saying that being gay is matter of nurture, and is therefor a choice. He was using the bill as a way to try and purge Uganda of the external factors that nurture people into being gay. Regardless of whether being gay is a matter of nature or nurture, it's ridiculous to think that homosexuality spreads more homosexuality. He's only viewing it as a simple cause to effect without actually looking for a cause. Not to mention the intricacy of our experiences that shape who we are and how we think, make it impossible to narrow down a cause.

    I'm not saying that being an ABDL is the same as being gay...I'm saying being an ABDL is a lot like how ducklings will view the first thing they see as their mother; I believe being an ABDL is an imprinted trait. Being an ABDL is a part of who I am, and I have no idea why, how, or when this first became a part of me. What I do know is, that this is so well ingrained into who I am, that it isn't a matter of choice.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    It's hard to break from traditional beliefs that these desires are a result of nurture rather than nature, but the evidence is pushing us in the direction of nature.
    What about the examples of identical twins where only 1 of the 2, is homosexual. Genetically, they are the same.
    Last edited by SleepyTyrant; 19-Dec-2014 at 01:24.

  3. #3

    Default

    I think, in truth, it's always going to be a lot more complicated than either nature or nurture. In all liklihood there will be some proportion of the population at any given time that is born with a predisposition to things like this, who will also come under a specific set of external factors (which may be different for each one, and most likely is) which will result in AB/DLism.

  4. #4

    Default

    I think you might be on to something but I don't belive personally that it entirely one thing or another.

    I think there is something in the nature that is triggered by the nurture to make someone an AB if that makes sense.

    It's like how some people can drink but not become alcoholics or some people can gamble but not become addicted. I'm in no way saying being an adult baby is dangerous or an addiction or a bad thing, I think we can all agree that it isn't but my point is that some people are predisposed to certain triggers or responses for biological reasons and I dont think AB behavior is any different.

    I think that it is very much in our nature as its a deep part of who we are but for some people it was triggered and for others it just came on its own.

    It's the last group that leads me to belive this is as much a part of who we are as saying "I'm a woman" or "I love animals." if it wasn't a part of who we are then it would always be triggered and we could pinpoint why people do it.

    We're little. We just are. The journey is unique to all of us but the meeting point will always be the same.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SleepyTyrant View Post
    I'm not saying that being an ABDL is the same as being gay...I'm saying being an ABDL is a lot like how ducklings will view the first thing they see as their mother; I believe being an ABDL is an imprinted trait. Being an ABDL is a part of who I am, and I have no idea why, how, or when this first became a part of me. What I do know is, that this is so well ingrained into who I am, that it isn't a matter of choice.
    This is what I am saying too. Being gay is caused by the same natural process as being straight, or being an ABDL. Research suggests imprinting is responsible for our sexual identity, sexual orientation, and many of our sexual and nonsexual preferences.


    Quote Originally Posted by SleepyTyrant View Post
    What about the examples of identical twins where only 1 of the 2, is homosexual. Genetically, they are the same.
    Nature doesn't stop at the womb. Imprinting is a natural mechanism that occurs after a creature is born. Environmental factors have an effect on imprinting but they are not the cause of imprinting. If it was a matter of "nurture" you would expect two genetically identical individuals to have the same sexual orientation if they were raised in the same environment. Your DNA determines that your sexual preferences will be imprinted in your brain during some critical period in your development but it does not predetermine exactly what these preferences will be.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Talula View Post
    I think, in truth, it's always going to be a lot more complicated than either nature or nurture. In all liklihood there will be some proportion of the population at any given time that is born with a predisposition to things like this, who will also come under a specific set of external factors (which may be different for each one, and most likely is) which will result in AB/DLism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Penny View Post
    I think you might be on to something but I don't belive personally that it entirely one thing or another.
    Psychological factors will definitely complicate matters after an unusual, often socially unacceptable sexual desire is implanted the brain. Still, the implanting process is a natural phenomenon called imprinting.


    Quote Originally Posted by Penny View Post
    I think there is something in the nature that is triggered by the nurture to make someone an AB if that makes sense.
    ...
    my point is that some people are predisposed to certain triggers or responses for biological reasons and I dont think AB behavior is any different.
    Makes perfect sense, with one alteration. It is nature that pulls the trigger at certain, critical, genetically predetermined points in our development that sets in motion a relatively quick process to grab something from our environment to forever influence our desires. These are the two main things that set imprinting apart from the normal learning process. Imprinting occurs faster and tends to be permanent because it can't be unlearned.


    Quote Originally Posted by Penny View Post
    I think that it is very much in our nature as its a deep part of who we are but for some people it was triggered and for others it just came on its own. It's the last group that leads me to belive this is as much a part of who we are as saying "I'm a woman" or "I love animals." if it wasn't a part of who we are then it would always be triggered and we could pinpoint why people do it.
    Again, think of these trigger points as being biologically programmed events that will occur during our development. That's the theory, anyway, and there is some research to back it up.

    Theoretically we would be able to roughly "pinpoint why people do it" if we have enough data. For example, we know the critical time frame when a baby duck is imprinted with what it determines is it's mother. We know we can get it to permanently believe a basket ball, or a researcher's boot, is it's mother. This imprinting happens within a few hours after hatching. With enough knowledge we could apply these techniques to people, which would be interesting but kind of scary.

  7. #7

    Default

    I don't think that genetics or prenatal biological events could be the whole explanation why someone develops a diaper fetish. It's not possible to develop a diaper fetish without having seen or touched a diaper. There are no diaper fetishists in societies that don't use diapers.

    But the idea that some people have a genetic disposition to develop fetishes (or fascinations that turn into fetishes) makes a lot of sense to me. It could be that genetics or some other aspect of biology is the main explanation why some people in a given society develop a diaper fetish (or a non-sexual form of AB-hood) and others don't.

    BitterGrey's analysis of the data from his ABDL surveys contains an interesting observation: the type of diaper that DLs develop a fetish for often is not the same as the type of diaper that they were raised in. The best predictor of what diaper type an ABDL of a given age will like most is not the type of diaper he or she wore as an infant, but the type of diaper that was most commonly used when he or she was age 5. This suggests that some key part of the fetish-formation process often takes place around that age.

    http://understanding.infantilism.org...references.php

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    Theoretically we would be able to roughly "pinpoint why people do it" if we have enough data. For example, we know the critical time frame when a baby duck is imprinted with what it determines is it's mother. We know we can get it to permanently believe a basket ball, or a researcher's boot, is it's mother. This imprinting happens within a few hours after hatching. With enough knowledge we could apply these techniques to people, which would be interesting but kind of scary.
    A number of experiments have applied these techniques to people and have shown that we can apply classical conditioning to humans. One of the most famous is that of Little Albert.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning

    I remember seeing another experiment where parents who were weaning children expressed either delight ("oooh! yummy!") or disgust ("yuk!") when eating various vegetables. It was very easy to "indoctrinate" the child into liking vegetables that they initially find unpleasant, and into hating ones that they initially liked.

    I've just started reading a book that discusses the way in which our upbringing strongly contributes to our identity, personality and neuroses as an adult. It mentioned Elton John and how his mother was desperate for a girl and how that may have affected his sense of self as an adult... although I haven't really got to that bit yet.

    Anyway, it looks like an interesting book. It's called, "They Fuck You Up" by Owen James.
    http://www.amazon.com/They-You-Up-Survive-Family/dp/1569243239

  9. #9

    Default

    Arguing which contributes more, nurture vs. nature, is about as stupid as arguing which contributes more, width vs. height, in regard to the area of a rectangle. :/

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by buridan View Post
    I don't think that genetics or prenatal biological events could be the whole explanation why someone develops a diaper fetish. It's not possible to develop a diaper fetish without having seen or touched a diaper. There are no diaper fetishists in societies that don't use diapers.
    Imprinting is a postnatal biological event that uses things in the child's environment to form a connection. This would explain why someone who was never exposed to diapers as a child would not develop a diaper fetish.


    Quote Originally Posted by buridan View Post
    But the idea that some people have a genetic disposition to develop fetishes (or fascinations that turn into fetishes) makes a lot of sense to me. It could be that genetics or some other aspect of biology is the main explanation why some people in a given society develop a diaper fetish (or a non-sexual form of AB-hood) and others don't.
    The idea is that all people have this genetic disposition to develop sexual attractions to various things. When these things are certain physical attributes of the opposite sex they are considered normal. When they are outside of that range they are considered abnormal attractions or fetishes. But the process that created any of these desires is the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by buridan View Post
    BitterGrey's analysis of the data from his ABDL surveys contains an interesting observation: the type of diaper that DLs develop a fetish for often is not the same as the type of diaper that they were raised in. The best predictor of what diaper type an ABDL of a given age will like most is not the type of diaper he or she wore as an infant, but the type of diaper that was most commonly used when he or she was age 5. This suggests that some key part of the fetish-formation process often takes place around that age.
    This fits in well with imprinting theories.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    A number of experiments have applied these techniques to people and have shown that we can apply classical conditioning to humans. One of the most famous is that of Little Albert.
    Poor Albert! I wonder if he grew up to become a serial killer.

    Classical conditioning can be seen as the normal way humans acquire their knowledge and beliefs - repetition, reward and punishment. Those doing imprinting research are fairly adamant in making the distinction between this and imprinting. Imprinting is a biological event that happens quicker than conventional learning and tends to be permanent. Generally, things learned through classical conditioning can be unlearned. Pavlov's dogs can be retrained.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by AshleyAshes View Post
    Arguing which contributes more, nurture vs. nature, is about as stupid as arguing which contributes more, width vs. height, in regard to the area of a rectangle. :/
    Nature gives us abnormal desires. Nurture tells us we are bad for having them. This can create an area of psychological distress.

Similar Threads

  1. Dominance vs. Nurture
    By tickles51 in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 19-Sep-2013, 04:01
  2. on the nature of friendship
    By kerry in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-Sep-2013, 22:28
  3. Nature or nurture?
    By Kovy in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-Aug-2009, 03:30
  4. Nature Vs. Nurture?
    By Nicky in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 25-Apr-2009, 02:36

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.