Runs in the family?

[mikey21]

My mom is an avid scrap booker – in fact she has been designated the family historian. I was over at her place last night for dinner and was shuffling through some photos that she had sitting on her worktable. I came across one photo (black and white) that was dated 1963 on the back. The photo was of a young boy (I would say 3-4 years of age) that was wearing a t-shirt and a (rather huge) cloth diaper sans plastic pants. It seemed unusual given the time period to see a child that old still in diapers so I asked my mom (who knows I’m an AB) what the deal was. Turns out it was my uncle who at the time was indeed four years old. My grandmother (whom we call “the wicked witch of the east” for her evil leanings) had caught my uncle trying on his sister’s diapers, which despite the stories you read on the internet did not fit him. She was so angry that she took a bath towel and pinned it on him. She did not have a pair of plastic pants in his size so he just had to wear the towel while my grandmother took the picture, which she used from to time to humiliate him. My mother was rather angry that the photo still existed and tore it up on the spot, she stridently disagrees with the way my grandmother handled that situation. But it got me to thinking: is there a familial (that is to say genetic) connection within this lifestyle? I know it always comes down to nature vs. nurture and I am wondering if maybe for some of us, it is a little of both? What are your thoughts? Does anybody have siblings, cousins, or other relations that are into diapers or age play? As a side note, my uncle died in an accident when he was a teenager so I don’t if he was just experimenting of if he was a blooming AB/DL.

 

[Diapered Rabbit]

:bunny: It is unlikely that there is any genetic connection in an individuals propensity to grow to be an adult baby or diaper lover. it is not uncommon for a child to be interested in more immature play or dress. Or one sibling (cousin etc.) may emulate the behavior of another (if one non-infant demonstrates infantile behavior the other may be curious or may want to engage in the same behavior. :bunny:

 

[wetatnight]

I think there could be a genetic link in some families.
but even if their was most people untell recently didn't have a name for it of kept quiet about it like people who were gay used to do.

 

[ade]

noses run in our family

 

[Fire2box]

I don't see how liking diapers or acting like a child could be at all genetic. When I was first talking to my dad about myself he pretty much tried to make me feel better, by telling me that he used to wet the bed when he was staying over at some peoples house. I guess he was scared they might diaper him for bed but really it's not like he wanted them.

He also was never required to wear them or anything like that. Of course he also said he might need them in a few years due to his MD disease. But still that would be out of need, not wants.

 

[PostTenebrasLux]

Nature / nurture is always an interesting question. I know many may not agree with this (quite alright), but I find it more useful to do away with the distinction and call it all nature. That doesn't really do away with the question--the same factors would still be at play--but it helps me think about it somewhat more clearly. With something like *B/DL, we can't really come at the question of nature v. nurture until we have a better idea of prevalence. There could be various familial patterns which occur randomly, and it would be easy to see heritability (spell check doesn't like that word...sad face) where there is none.

I think it's safe to assume that genes do play a role somehow, although it's probably indirect. I used to wonder if it wasn't perhaps related to premature testosterone production, but I can't remember what put that thought in my head. But it may well be something along those lines--biological and unforeseen.

I don't mean to derail the thread, so I might start a new one, but this leads me to wonder if we'd really benefit if we knew how this developed. Whether it's nature or nurture, what could be done? What /should/ be done?

Great question, Mikey21, and that's a pretty rare find too. I'd never thought of the possibility of historical evidence of *B/DL before, and I wonder what else might be out there.

 

[spacemanBEN]

I am fairly confident that infantilism is not genetic, because I know for a relative fact that no one else in my family is attracted to that type of thing. I know both of my parents were quite grossed out by the idea of me liking (and using) diapers, though they did kind of accept this.

My thought is that there is likely a genetic aspect, but this aspect is broader than just infantilism. Perhaps it is a genetic tendency towards fetishes in general. As time passed, this tendency would then become focused on a specific object or activity leading to a specific fetish. This would make more sense to me, because I know that fetishes do kind of run in my family (though, thank God I do not know anyones').

 

[Mako]

I lean more towards where Ben is, where I think it's possible that certain people could be genetically inclined to develop a fetish.
Though it may also be possible certain people are inclined to cling to childhood, not specifically to diapers, just regression. It would explain the inconsistencies between *B's childhoods (one with positive and ones with negative), which complicates the nurture theory.

 

[dangermouse]

Not sure. Sexual preference is often claimed to be genetic. Many after all defiantly insist that they are gay because they were born that way, and there are usually huge arguments if you suggest there's any choice or even fetishness involved.

So if you have a sexual preference towards an item, such as diapers, could it not also be influenced by genes?

That is not to say that it means your parents or grandparents will have the same preferences, it's just when all the genes are mixed in the pool and you come out of the pot, it could be that combination could lead to a tendency toward diaper love.

Though maybe more so with asexuals. If you're firmly straight, gay or bi, and diapers are just a plain fetish like any other, then perhaps not.

The fetish argument goes that it's psychological, and could be argued relates to a feeling of doing something forbidden (as after all we are trained very early that diapers are just for babies and we are big boys/girls now and shouldn't wear them, and more so that we should not wet and mess ourselves).

Personally I don't believe any of it is black or white, whether it's wearing diapers or sexual preferences. I don't believe we are one thing or another, and nor is it entirely just a personal choice. It's part genetics, part upbringing, part psychology.

 

[FairestandFallen]

Actually, they've found that a gay gene exists in fruit flies, and it's suspected to exist in humans as well.

I'm just putting that information into the discussion, as I don't beleive I know enough about being a *B/DL to determine whether or not I beleive it to be nature or nurture. Perhaps it's a combination of both?

 

[babyemo]

i hope its not hereditary, that would be CREEPY, AWKWARD, and NOT FUN TO THINK ABOUT

 

[PostTenebrasLux]

Well put, babyemo, well put.

You win the thread.

 

[IncompleteDude]

My dad has kept his childhood plushie for 50 years now, but all I can say is it's creepy looking.

 

[babyemo]

yay i win?

 

[Peachy]

Nope, as far as I'm aware, no one in my family has the runs currently :tongueout: (sorry, couldn't resist).

And I'm sure there's plenty of embarrassing childhood pictures floating around people's scrapbooks. I mean lil kids are always up for silly jokes, but as they grow up, they're probably embarrassed about that kind of pictures. it's like all the pictures people take of their teenage friends when they're drunk, high or otherwise intoxicated and doing stupid things like jumping around tables in bars. 20 years down the road, when you're married and have kids, you're probably embarrassed about those pictures too.
Times change, and so do people's opinions of certain behavior. And a picture is always a snapshot of the past!

Peachy

 

[mizzycub]

A genetic disposition to fetishes and kinks in general wouldn't suprise me. Neither would it suprise me to find a genetic disposition to acting childishly or babyishly. I have no evidence one way or another, but as long as you don't go too specific, I wouldn't think there is an *BDL gene as such. That sort of specificity seems unlikely. Also, families often carry traits through nurture. While people are diffierent they way they raise kids and the environment they create will be somewhat based on how they were raised themselves. Nurture aspects that could trigger, or at least encourage, *BDL tendencies could be repeated through generations. Some, limited relation between this and family wouldn't suprise me.

What you have described however, I wouldn't consider a sign of it. Considering the age of him, the fact he had a baby sibling and so on, I would say that most likely it was jealousy. I wouldn't have thought a thing of it. While the idea of a loose family connection doesn't seem like a complete implausibility to me, this being a case of such family connections seems unlikely.

 

[Hex]

[font="Calibri,Arial"]Disclaimer: This is just my opinion with no factual basis whatever.

My guess is that certain combinations of genes make people "possible TBs" or "possible gays" to use the examples in this thread.

An example of a combination that would lead to a TB might be "Low inhibitions" and "Scared of aging". Other combinations could create TB-inclined people such as "childish" and "tries new things". There is no TB gene. That would be too specific and genes only control vague aspects of personality.

Now of these "possible TBs" (which is say 5% of the population), we have those who have another gene who counteracts that. e.g. "Wants to fit in". We are now down to 1% of the population could be a TB.

Of this 1%, we have people who because of different reasons can't physically be a TB. e.g. Lives in third world and too busy with surviving.

Now of the .4% of the world left as TB-inclined, it comes down to nurture. Those who are exposed to TB factors such as protracted potty training or common presence of adult diapers or easy access to diapers, pacis etc. These people may try TBism.

Of these maybe 50% will like it and another 50% of those will try it again and 50% of those will become a TB

You can substitute TB for DL/Gay/furry/other miniority choice in the post and change the examples to something more releveant.

Remember this is just a guess.
[/font]