while i was searching attractions to diapers tonight i came across this: Mednet 2002 - Amsterdam: Online Abstracts
it seems like a glossing over of our fetish, but the outcomes (albeit from the internet) are interesting.
Interesting, but to be honest I didn't find it that suprising. Nice to know that some people do proper research relating to these sort of things though. I think some DL hijacking may have taken place - but also look at it logically. If someone has to wear diapers and is the right personality set to become a *B/DL they are more likely to do so. Also, they are more likely to be comfortable with diapers if they have to use them, even if they aren't *B/DL. To top it off, people don't like new things, so if they are used to wearing diapers, they might not want to try something new.
I would say that there might have been some DL hijacking as soren put it, but that there are a number of valid reasons for these results as well, with someone who wears diapers being more likely to be a *BDL one, but by no means the only, possible reason.
:bunny: This study done in 2002, regardless how skewed the results, suggest buying stock in companies that manufacture adult diapers may be a sure bet for the next few decades. Lots of people like the secure feeling diapers give them and don't want to give them up! :bunny:
:educate:As a social scientist by profession, I can tell you that internet surveys are notorious for self-selection bias, and the sampling bias and validity issues, both internal and external are immeasurable. I'm surprised this study was published.
I suspect the results were skewed by AB/TB/DLs. Regardless though, the researcher draws an erroneous conclusion by stating that infantlisim and diaper fetishes should be considered a "cause" of incontinence. With the exception of those ABDLs who are incontinent or who purposefully lose control, voiding is voluntary, and therefore not incontinence. I doubt many ABDLs would present themselves to a doctor for treatment unless they derived sexual pleasure from so doing. This likewise does not constitute incontinence.