Transitional Phenomenon/Object

neophyte

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,021
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
Yes another post, I am very curios and I enjoy the conversations here. I did do a search on ADISC and nothing came up regarding this topic.

I realized today that to me wearing a diaper is equivalent to a toddler walking around with their security blanket or stuffed animal. This understanding can be useful for some DLs when explaining why they are a DL, we didn't attach to a blanket or a stuffed animal... we naturally attached ourselves to our diaper.

I had seen the term Transitional Phenomenon a few times on the webz, but it didn't hit me until today.

Nearly every toddler becomes attached to a stuffed animal and or a "security blanket", I have personally seen it happen to almost every child in my family. Children become so attached to their stuffed bunny or their blanket that to be without it or to lose it would be to lose the world. We've heard stories of a kid losing their stuffed animal in an airport and mothers will go viral trying to find it. Its their phenomenal object that brings them comfort and calm.

I didn't attach myself to a blanket or a stuffed animal as a toddler; I was attached to diapers. I never wanted to get out of diapers, I always wanted to be in a diaper. I was potty trained by 2.5-3 but I always asked to be put in diapers until I was 4 (parents stopped buying them)

Is it possible that many DLs attached themselves to their diaper, rather than a blanket or a stuffed animal?

Did you have an attachment object that you can remember when you were a baby/toddler?



This phenomenon happens to a child in infancy.

This is about the baby’s first personal possession the first comforting possession known as the Transitional Object that helps the child to console themselves during times of anxiety, when the mother is not there for the child, and is carried with the child all the way through adolescents. These objects range from normally a blanket a teddy bear and yes even a diaper can very normally be that first possession. This is not something to be ashamed of or afraid of for any child or parent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 59684, Kittyinpink, Yooo and 2 others
Strictly as a "transitional" attachement, I doubt it would matter even if any child does get attached to their diapers. Eventually they would grow out of wanting them with the better developed understanding of self vs not-self. Though this could make a good research topic. What if we as abdl are still stuck or never fully developed our sense of self. And as such we need diaper to fill that gap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prairie
I was never attached to other objects. Not sure when i started to like diapers. Maybe 12 or so. Not sure any more.
 
I don't think that's what was driving it in my case. I was well out of diapers and have no memory of being in them when I got curious. I think it stuck with me because I recognized the taboo nature of diapers and being treated like a baby as an older kid.

I do recall being attached to my blanket for a while. It probably goes back before what I remember. No one made a big deal about it and it eventually became less important. That would have been before my diaper curiosity.
 
Last edited:
I am not attached to the product personally it is more the utility, protection and softness that I seek, but the product could be totally different if it brings the same services, features will work just as well for me.
 
But in any case in general I have no emotional attachment to the object, product.the only thing I'm attached to is the utility side, basically if I have an object and I do not have the budget to make it consumable I will do what it takes to keep it otherwise I do not care.
 
Yes. My old Barbie blanket and stuffed bunny. Both of which are on my bed right now.

I'm typing this laying under my Barbie blanket right now
 
I was definitely attached to my teddy bear, but I was adopted at the age of two and I arrived at my new home with an old teddy. As for diapers, I think other psychologies are at work, such as suggested by Trevor. I also am a fan of the imprinting theory. Anyway, who knows.
 
neophyte said:
Yes another post, I am very curios and I enjoy the conversations here. I did do a search on ADISC and nothing came up regarding this topic.

I realized today that to me wearing a diaper is equivalent to a toddler walking around with their security blanket or stuffed animal. This understanding can be useful for some DLs when explaining why they are a DL, we didn't attach to a blanket or a stuffed animal... we naturally attached ourselves to our diaper.

I had seen the term Transitional Phenomenon a few times on the webz, but it didn't hit me until today.

Nearly every toddler becomes attached to a stuffed animal and or a "security blanket", I have personally seen it happen to almost every child in my family. Children become so attached to their stuffed bunny or their blanket that to be without it or to lose it would be to lose the world. We've heard stories of a kid losing their stuffed animal in an airport and mothers will go viral trying to find it. Its their phenomenal object that brings them comfort and calm.

I didn't attach myself to a blanket or a stuffed animal as a toddler; I was attached to diapers. I never wanted to get out of diapers, I always wanted to be in a diaper. I was potty trained by 2.5-3 but I always asked to be put in diapers until I was 4 (parents stopped buying them)

Is it possible that many DLs attached themselves to their diaper, rather than a blanket or a stuffed animal?

Did you have an attachment object that you can remember when you were a baby/toddler?



This phenomenon happens to a child in infancy.

This is about the baby’s first personal possession the first comforting possession known as the Transitional Object that helps the child to console themselves during times of anxiety, when the mother is not there for the child, and is carried with the child all the way through adolescents. These objects range from normally a blanket a teddy bear and yes even a diaper can very normally be that first possession. This is not something to be ashamed of or afraid of for any child or parent.
neophyte

You are absolutely correct. The concept of Transitional Objects is essential to understanding ABDL. I believe it is a psychological process at work for any ABDL who derives emotional comfort from their diapers. It works at an unconscious level, whether the ABDL is aware of the psychological process, or not.

For ABDLs wearing and using diapers is a highly effective means of deriving emotional comfort. It prevents or soothes anxiety. It is a means of self-soothing. That is a distinctive psychological phenomena, at odds with the psychology of the vast majority of the adolescent and adult population who would be greatly dis-comforted by wearing diapers. That disparity is even greater when we consider that many ABDLs intensify their experience of comfort by urinating, or less commonly, defecating in their diapers. Again that is completely at odds with how the vast majority of adults would react. It demands explanation. For ABDLs our diapers are Transitional Objects. That is an established and widely accepted concept in psychology. It originated with Donald Winnicott in a 1953 article ‘Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena—A Study of the First Not-Me Possession’ (and restated in his last 1971 book, Playing and Reality).

What are Transitional Objects? Let me explain. It is commonly understood objects like stuffed toys can help calm a baby or young child. They can help the child go to sleep or tolerate the temporary absence of their caregiver. Winnicott understood it is not just a case of a child deriving comfort from a familiar, but physically inanimate object. To the child the Transitional Object is not inanimate. In the psyche of the child the Transitional Object is alive and represents and embodies the caregiver – the object is the caregiver. Thus -

“The object, because it is a substitute for the “aliveness” of the mother, must begin with a sense of aliveness imbued to it by the child. A ‘dead’ or inert transitional object cannot exist because it would be an atrocious substitute from the very start.” [Steven Tuber. Attachment, Play and Authenticity p154]

“The baby at the point of hope is also able to create a transitional object to maintain hope. Transitional phenomena allow the child to maintain hope because she can use the object(s) to symbolically recreate the absent internal experience of the parent and thus avoid despair and loss.” [Steven Tuber. Attachment, Play and Authenticity p191]

It is called a Transitional Object because it exists between subjective and objective reality. The child’s psyche endows an inanimate object with a subjective meaning which is not intrinsic in its objective, physical form. Typically, not any random soft toy or object can be an effective source of such comfort, because the child has invested a specific toy with that subjective meaning. As transitional phenomena, the object’s meaning goes beyond the confines of the child’s mind, and is apparent to, and can be shared with, others. So, a caregiver might ask a crying or fussing child, ‘want your teddy,’ knowing it has a special meaning for the child.

This psychological mechanism works at the deepest, earliest, subconscious levels of a child’s psyche. Biological children first create Transitional Objects when they are between 4 and 12 months old (Winnicott. Playing and Reality p4). That is before they have language or abstract thought. Infants first create Transitional Objects when they realize that their primary caregiver is separate from themselves. In response to the anxiety created by that realization they endow an inanimate object, typically something with a soft texture which can be cuddled or put in the mouth, with special properties. Transitional Objects are a child’s first step towards psychological independence, they are a means by which a child comforts themselves.

Winnicott’s statement emphasizes the role of the Transitional Object as a means of preventing anxiety –

“Also, out of all this (if we study any one infant) there may emerge some thing or some phenomenon – perhaps a bundle of wool or the corner of a blanket or eiderdown, or a word or a tune, or a mannerism – that becomes vitally important for the infant to use at the time of going to sleep, and is a defence against anxiety, especially anxiety of the depressive type. … Patterns set in infancy may persist into childhood, so that the original soft object continues to be absolutely necessary at bed-time or at time of loneliness or when a depressed mood threatens. …. A need for a specific object or a behavior pattern that started at very early date may reappear at a later age when deprivation threatens.” [Winnicott. Playing and Reality p4]

Winnicott notes that a true Transitional Object “is more important than the mother, an almost inseparable part of the infant” (Winnicott. Playing and Reality p7). That is consistent with the deep psychological importance diapers have for ABDLs. Writing in the era of cloth diapers, Winnicott also cites diapers (presumably in their unfolded form) in the list of items which are candidates to be adopted by the infant as a Transitional Object (Winnicott. Playing and Reality p3).

For ABDLs, urinating in the diaper increases its efficacy as a Transitional Object. It harkens back to the time in infancy or early childhood when a wet diaper was associated with the likelihood of gaining the attention of the caregivers. Defecating in the diaper is another escalation in that trajectory. For the minority, who commonly defecate in their diapers, it likely an indication of a deeper need for the diaper as a Transitional Object, a deeper need for emotional comfort.

The key point is, for infants and young children, Transitional Objects are a powerful and subconscious psychological mechanism. The child is not aware of the psychological processes by which they gain such deep emotional comfort from their stuffed toy or security blanket, or whatever form their Transitional Object takes. Adults can also gain emotional comfort from Transitional Objects, either in a similar form to those used by young children (ie. sleeping with a teddy bear), or in a more sublimated adult form (such as cigarettes or a favourite bag or briefcase). But in either case they probably do not approach the original efficacy of the infant’s first Transitional Object. The adult need not be aware of the psychological explanation for Transitional Objects to derive comfort from them.

ABDLs are different from most other adults, in that the form of their Transitional Objects retains their original, infantile character (diapers, stuffed toys, pacifiers etc). Most importantly, ABDLs are able to access, undiluted, the original efficacy that Transitional Objects had for infants and young children. ABDLs are able to so effectively derive emotional comfort from wearing and using their diapers as Transitional Objects because part of our psyche – our Little - replicates some part of the psyche of a biological infant or very young child. This process is involuntary.

Regards. Dylan.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: anton, Yooo, mattyd and 7 others
DylanLewis said:
neophyte

You are absolutely correct. The concept of Transitional Objects is essential to understanding ABDL. I believe it is a psychological process at work for any ABDL who derives emotional comfort from their diapers. It works at an unconscious level, whether the ABDL is aware of the psychological process, or not.

For ABDLs wearing and using diapers is a highly effective means of deriving emotional comfort. It prevents or soothes anxiety. It is a means of self-soothing. That is a distinctive psychological phenomena, at odds with the psychology of the vast majority of the adolescent and adult population who would be greatly dis-comforted by wearing diapers. That disparity is even greater when we consider that many ABDLs intensify their experience of comfort by urinating, or less commonly, defecating in their diapers. Again that is completely at odds with how the vast majority of adults would react. It demands explanation. For ABDLs our diapers are Transitional Objects. That is an established and widely accepted concept in psychology. It originated with Donald Winnicott in a 1953 article ‘Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena—A Study of the First Not-Me Possession’ (and restated in his last 1971 book, Playing and Reality).

What are Transitional Objects? Let me explain. It is commonly understood objects like stuffed toys can help calm a baby or young child. They can help the child go to sleep or tolerate the temporary absence of their caregiver. Winnicott understood it is not just a case of a child deriving comfort from a familiar, but physically inanimate object. To the child the Transitional Object is not inanimate. In the psyche of the child the Transitional Object is alive and represents and embodies the caregiver – the object is the caregiver. Thus -

“The object, because it is a substitute for the “aliveness” of the mother, must begin with a sense of aliveness imbued to it by the child. A ‘dead’ or inert transitional object cannot exist because it would be an atrocious substitute from the very start.” [Steven Tuber. Attachment, Play and Authenticity p154]

“The baby at the point of hope is also able to create a transitional object to maintain hope. Transitional phenomena allow the child to maintain hope because she can use the object(s) to symbolically recreate the absent internal experience of the parent and thus avoid despair and loss.” [Steven Tuber. Attachment, Play and Authenticity p191]

It is called a Transitional Object because it exists between subjective and objective reality. The child’s psyche endows an inanimate object with a subjective meaning which is not intrinsic in its objective, physical form. Typically, not any random soft toy or object can be an effective source of such comfort, because the child has invested a specific toy with that subjective meaning. As transitional phenomena, the object’s meaning goes beyond the confines of the child’s mind, and is apparent to, and can be shared with, others. So, a caregiver might ask a crying or fussing child, ‘want your teddy,’ knowing it has a special meaning for the child.

This psychological mechanism works at the deepest, earliest, subconscious levels of a child’s psyche. Biological children first create Transitional Objects when they are between 4 and 12 months old (Winnicott. Playing and Reality p4). That is before they have language or abstract thought. Infants first create Transitional Objects when they realize that their primary caregiver is separate from themselves. In response to the anxiety created by that realization they endow an inanimate object, typically something with a soft texture which can be cuddled or put in the mouth, with special properties. Transitional Objects are a child’s first step towards psychological independence, they are a means by which a child comforts themselves.

Winnicott’s statement emphasizes the role of the Transitional Object as a means of preventing anxiety –

“Also, out of all this (if we study any one infant) there may emerge some thing or some phenomenon – perhaps a bundle of wool or the corner of a blanket or eiderdown, or a word or a tune, or a mannerism – that becomes vitally important for the infant to use at the time of going to sleep, and is a defence against anxiety, especially anxiety of the depressive type. … Patterns set in infancy may persist into childhood, so that the original soft object continues to be absolutely necessary at bed-time or at time of loneliness or when a depressed mood threatens. …. A need for a specific object or a behavior pattern that started at very early date may reappear at a later age when deprivation threatens.” [Winnicott. Playing and Reality p4]

Winnicott notes that a true Transitional Object “is more important than the mother, an almost inseparable part of the infant” (Winnicott. Playing and Reality p7). That is consistent with the deep psychological importance diapers have for ABDLs. Writing in the era of cloth diapers, Winnicott also cites diapers (presumably in their unfolded form) in the list of items which are candidates to be adopted by the infant as a Transitional Object (Winnicott. Playing and Reality p3).

For ABDLs, urinating in the diaper increases its efficacy as a Transitional Object. It harkens back to the time in infancy or early childhood when a wet diaper was associated with the likelihood of gaining the attention of the caregivers. Defecating in the diaper is another escalation in that trajectory. For the minority, who commonly defecate in their diapers, it likely an indication of a deeper need for the diaper as a Transitional Object, a deeper need for emotional comfort.

The key point is, for infants and young children, Transitional Objects are a powerful and subconscious psychological mechanism. The child is not aware of the psychological processes by which they gain such deep emotional comfort from their stuffed toy or security blanket, or whatever form their Transitional Object takes. Adults can also gain emotional comfort from Transitional Objects, either in a similar form to those used by young children (ie. sleeping with a teddy bear), or in a more sublimated adult form (such as cigarettes or a favourite bag or briefcase). But in either case they probably do not approach the original efficacy of the infant’s first Transitional Object. The adult need not be aware of the psychological explanation for Transitional Objects to derive comfort from them.

ABDLs are different from most other adults, in that the form of their Transitional Objects retains their original, infantile character (diapers, stuffed toys, pacifiers etc). Most importantly, ABDLs are able to access, undiluted, the original efficacy that Transitional Objects had for infants and young children. ABDLs are able to so effectively derive emotional comfort from wearing and using their diapers as Transitional Objects because part of our psyche – our Little - replicates some part of the psyche of a biological infant or very young child. This process is involuntary.

Regards. Dylan.

Um wow, okay ... mind blown! That was a very well written post, with citations too. I may have to snip that and save it somewhere.

Thank you for that, very insightful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Subtlerustle, DylanLewis and LainIsLain
Funny that this tread was resurrected. My thanks. I’ve been pondering this very subject and started reading and compiling some other posts to show my wife. She’s fine with my DLisms but in the course of our discussions I’ve always felt the “why” needed a better answer. This, to me is the best explanation, especially given diapers occupied my earliest curiosities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neophyte and DylanLewis
I am 18 and still sleep with my childhood teddy bear. I guess you are right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neophyte
DylanLewis said:
neophyte

You are absolutely correct. The concept of Transitional Objects is essential to understanding ABDL. I believe it is a psychological process at work for any ABDL who derives emotional comfort from their diapers. It works at an unconscious level, whether the ABDL is aware of the psychological process, or not.

For ABDLs wearing and using diapers is a highly effective means of deriving emotional comfort. It prevents or soothes anxiety. It is a means of self-soothing. That is a distinctive psychological phenomena, at odds with the psychology of the vast majority of the adolescent and adult population who would be greatly dis-comforted by wearing diapers. That disparity is even greater when we consider that many ABDLs intensify their experience of comfort by urinating, or less commonly, defecating in their diapers. Again that is completely at odds with how the vast majority of adults would react. It demands explanation. For ABDLs our diapers are Transitional Objects. That is an established and widely accepted concept in psychology. It originated with Donald Winnicott in a 1953 article ‘Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena—A Study of the First Not-Me Possession’ (and restated in his last 1971 book, Playing and Reality).

What are Transitional Objects? Let me explain. It is commonly understood objects like stuffed toys can help calm a baby or young child. They can help the child go to sleep or tolerate the temporary absence of their caregiver. Winnicott understood it is not just a case of a child deriving comfort from a familiar, but physically inanimate object. To the child the Transitional Object is not inanimate. In the psyche of the child the Transitional Object is alive and represents and embodies the caregiver – the object is the caregiver. Thus -

“The object, because it is a substitute for the “aliveness” of the mother, must begin with a sense of aliveness imbued to it by the child. A ‘dead’ or inert transitional object cannot exist because it would be an atrocious substitute from the very start.” [Steven Tuber. Attachment, Play and Authenticity p154]

“The baby at the point of hope is also able to create a transitional object to maintain hope. Transitional phenomena allow the child to maintain hope because she can use the object(s) to symbolically recreate the absent internal experience of the parent and thus avoid despair and loss.” [Steven Tuber. Attachment, Play and Authenticity p191]

It is called a Transitional Object because it exists between subjective and objective reality. The child’s psyche endows an inanimate object with a subjective meaning which is not intrinsic in its objective, physical form. Typically, not any random soft toy or object can be an effective source of such comfort, because the child has invested a specific toy with that subjective meaning. As transitional phenomena, the object’s meaning goes beyond the confines of the child’s mind, and is apparent to, and can be shared with, others. So, a caregiver might ask a crying or fussing child, ‘want your teddy,’ knowing it has a special meaning for the child.

This psychological mechanism works at the deepest, earliest, subconscious levels of a child’s psyche. Biological children first create Transitional Objects when they are between 4 and 12 months old (Winnicott. Playing and Reality p4). That is before they have language or abstract thought. Infants first create Transitional Objects when they realize that their primary caregiver is separate from themselves. In response to the anxiety created by that realization they endow an inanimate object, typically something with a soft texture which can be cuddled or put in the mouth, with special properties. Transitional Objects are a child’s first step towards psychological independence, they are a means by which a child comforts themselves.

Winnicott’s statement emphasizes the role of the Transitional Object as a means of preventing anxiety –

“Also, out of all this (if we study any one infant) there may emerge some thing or some phenomenon – perhaps a bundle of wool or the corner of a blanket or eiderdown, or a word or a tune, or a mannerism – that becomes vitally important for the infant to use at the time of going to sleep, and is a defence against anxiety, especially anxiety of the depressive type. … Patterns set in infancy may persist into childhood, so that the original soft object continues to be absolutely necessary at bed-time or at time of loneliness or when a depressed mood threatens. …. A need for a specific object or a behavior pattern that started at very early date may reappear at a later age when deprivation threatens.” [Winnicott. Playing and Reality p4]

Winnicott notes that a true Transitional Object “is more important than the mother, an almost inseparable part of the infant” (Winnicott. Playing and Reality p7). That is consistent with the deep psychological importance diapers have for ABDLs. Writing in the era of cloth diapers, Winnicott also cites diapers (presumably in their unfolded form) in the list of items which are candidates to be adopted by the infant as a Transitional Object (Winnicott. Playing and Reality p3).

For ABDLs, urinating in the diaper increases its efficacy as a Transitional Object. It harkens back to the time in infancy or early childhood when a wet diaper was associated with the likelihood of gaining the attention of the caregivers. Defecating in the diaper is another escalation in that trajectory. For the minority, who commonly defecate in their diapers, it likely an indication of a deeper need for the diaper as a Transitional Object, a deeper need for emotional comfort.

The key point is, for infants and young children, Transitional Objects are a powerful and subconscious psychological mechanism. The child is not aware of the psychological processes by which they gain such deep emotional comfort from their stuffed toy or security blanket, or whatever form their Transitional Object takes. Adults can also gain emotional comfort from Transitional Objects, either in a similar form to those used by young children (ie. sleeping with a teddy bear), or in a more sublimated adult form (such as cigarettes or a favourite bag or briefcase). But in either case they probably do not approach the original efficacy of the infant’s first Transitional Object. The adult need not be aware of the psychological explanation for Transitional Objects to derive comfort from them.

ABDLs are different from most other adults, in that the form of their Transitional Objects retains their original, infantile character (diapers, stuffed toys, pacifiers etc). Most importantly, ABDLs are able to access, undiluted, the original efficacy that Transitional Objects had for infants and young children. ABDLs are able to so effectively derive emotional comfort from wearing and using their diapers as Transitional Objects because part of our psyche – our Little - replicates some part of the psyche of a biological infant or very young child. This process is involuntary.

Regards. Dylan.
Thank you Dylan finally someone has done their homework. I am the the author of "This phenomenon happens to a child in infancy" posted by neophyte. As you can see there is true well researched information published in well respected medical journals, and is well corroberated by many child psychologist colleges today. Yes this phenomenon has been known about for many decades but you will not find many psychologists who are aware of this. However this phenomenon is quite well known by good Child Psychologists and is also being taught about in Early Childhood Learning classes today.

I have posted many replies on Quora about this phenomenon for parents needing help in understanding why their child is so attached to diapers. This phenomenon does normally drift into limbo as I saw mentioned in another post but if the child or even an adult is reintroduced to diapers for one reason or another either for bed wetting a hospital stay a medical condition or even through play the phenomenon is awakened.

Studies have also shown that as high as 38% of babies will choose a diaper as their transitional object over a blanket or teddy bear a diaper is also the #1 choice. There is also a possibility that the child can have multiple number of objects. but only a small number two or three. This only happens very early in infancy and the item cannot be changed by anyone other than the infant and only for a short amount of time, and will be buried in the child's sub conscious mind throughout their entire life. It is a part of them it is a part of their being taught to them by their mother it is what makes them the good person that they are.

Let me say this is strictly about the bond the security and the love built between the mother and child in infancy and a diaper is just a very important part of the bonding process. This is NOT about Infantilism. This happens long before a child can become involved with Infantilism. Let me also say this I am not finding fault with anyone into Infantilism. But you are always a diaper lover first.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DylanLewis and Subtlerustle
Without talking about my being AB/DL with my psychologist, we did talk about attachment theory which involves transitional objects. I initiated the conversation as I was talking about my attachments to characters in stories as well as people in real life. Part of this discussion involved me being Borderline Personality, at least when I was younger and when I had to see a psychiatrist. Also in the discussion was me explaining how I was adopted at the age of two. I had two teddy bears, one old and worn and the other, new. I'm sure the old one came with me from an adoptive orphanage.

You probably know the studies that were done with infant chimpanzees who were removed from their mothers. Some were given no object and others something that resembled a mother monkey.

For us, objects associated with being a baby seem to play some role from our past now being a part of our present. I suspect that the desire for these objects and especially the desire to wear and use diapers is convoluted with a number of factors influencing our need to act on it.
 
These sorts of topics mostly tend to converge on the mechanisms by which our attachments are formed, and a lot of times we stop there and congratulate ourselves for having cracked it. When that happens, I feel like we've just forgotten what the question was. Common mechanisms obviously can't explain uncommon behaviors. Not in any particularly satisfying way, anyway. There has to be something else--some other predisposition, some unusual experience, a trigger, whatever you want to call it. If there wasn't, if it was all just down to some process, then we'd all be DLs or we all wouldn't be.

Somebody here used to have a funny quote in their signature. It went something like this: "Some people are like a box of crayons that's melted together. You know they're interesting, but you're not sure how useful they are." I laughed at the truth of that, and then realized that it actually applies to everybody. Really, all of us are like boxes of melted-together crayons, so if you're trying to explain our differences, the melting process is a rather mundane common denominator. Instead, for each of us, it's more about what colors were lost, what ones were still there, and how used, gnawed-on, or peeled they were when the melting started. Ya know? :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: anton, alarara, Subtlerustle and 2 others
jasonallen122000 said:
Thank you Dylan finally someone has done their homework. I am the the author of "This phenomenon happens to a child in infancy" posted by neophyte. As you can see there is true well researched information published in well respected medical journals, and is well corroberated by many child psychologist colleges today. Yes this phenomenon has been known about for many decades but you will not find many psychologists who are aware of this. However this phenomenon is quite well known by good Child Psychologists and is also being taught about in Early Childhood Learning classes today.

I have posted many replies on Quora about this phenomenon for parents needing help in understanding why their child is so attached to diapers. This phenomenon does normally drift into limbo as I saw mentioned in another post but if the child or even an adult is reintroduced to diapers for one reason or another either for bed wetting a hospital stay a medical condition or even through play the phenomenon is awakened.

Studies have also shown that as high as 38% of babies will choose a diaper as their transitional object over a blanket or teddy bear a diaper is also the #1 choice. There is also a possibility that the child can have multiple number of objects. but only a small number two or three. This only happens very early in infancy and the item cannot be changed by anyone other than the infant and only for a short amount of time, and will be buried in the child's sub conscious mind throughout their entire life. It is a part of them it is a part of their being taught to them by their mother it is what makes them the good person that they are.

Let me say this is strictly about the bond the security and the love built between the mother and child in infancy and a diaper is just a very important part of the bonding process. This is NOT about Infantilism. This happens long before a child can become involved with Infantilism. Let me also say this I am not finding fault with anyone into Infantilism. But you are always a diaper lover first.
jasonallen122000

Great post. I noted the statistic about 38% of babies choosing a diaper as their transitional object. Donald Winnicott specifically noted that a (presumably cloth) diaper might be a transitional object.

I wholly concur with your distinction between diapers as transitional objects for infants, and infantilism in adolescents and adults. Winnicott wrote that the normal fate of transitional objects was to be 'de-cathected' through the child's normal maturational processes. The Object gradually loses its efficacy and psychological symbolism presumably as the child internalises the safety associated with their caregivers. Winnicott did note that subsequent stresses could reactivate a child's need for their earlier Transitional Objects, and also that for some a transitional object could become a fetish object.

I concur with the symbolic link you draw between diapers and nurturing by a child's caregivers. The association between diapers and nurturing is clear. Diapering an infant or young child is commonly, an intimate nurturing act. A nurtured infant or child feels comforted and safe/protected and bonded with their caregivers. Further, the diaper is symbolic of childhood in more than just a general sense. The singular character of a diaper is it is inseparable from the child’s dependent relationship with their caregivers. A child young enough to need diapers cannot diaper themselves. Symbolically, the diaper and the caregiver are inseparable. This distinguishes it from other childhood attachment objects like a pacifier or stuffed toy which a child can engage with unaided.

Infantilism is something which draws on diapers as Transitional Objects and the diaper as a symbol of childhood caregivers, but there have to be additional causal factors which are not present for the vast majority of the population.

Regards. Dylan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattyd and Aby
DylanLewis said:
jasonallen122000

Great post. I noted the statistic about 38% of babies choosing a diaper as their transitional object. Donald Winnicott specifically noted that a (presumably cloth) diaper might be a transitional object.

I wholly concur with your distinction between diapers as transitional objects for infants, and infantilism in adolescents and adults. Winnicott wrote that the normal fate of transitional objects was to be 'de-cathected' through the child's normal maturational processes. The Object gradually loses its efficacy and psychological symbolism presumably as the child internalises the safety associated with their caregivers. Winnicott did note that subsequent stresses could reactivate a child's need for their earlier Transitional Objects, and also that for some a transitional object could become a fetish object.

I concur with the symbolic link you draw between diapers and nurturing by a child's caregivers. The association between diapers and nurturing is clear. Diapering an infant or young child is commonly, an intimate nurturing act. A nurtured infant or child feels comforted and safe/protected and bonded with their caregivers. Further, the diaper is symbolic of childhood in more than just a general sense. The singular character of a diaper is it is inseparable from the child’s dependent relationship with their caregivers. A child young enough to need diapers cannot diaper themselves. Symbolically, the diaper and the caregiver are inseparable. This distinguishes it from other childhood attachment objects like a pacifier or stuffed toy which a child can engage with unaided.

Infantilism is something which draws on diapers as Transitional Objects and the diaper as a symbol of childhood caregivers, but there have to be additional causal factors which are not present for the vast majority of the population.

Regards. Dylan.
 
Hello again Dylan



I truly appreciate how you have read Dr Winnicott’s papers. All of my encouragement with other readers has been fruitless maybe because after doing so they sit there with egg on their face.



I appreciate that you mentioned the attachment to cloth diapers by Dr. Winnicott. I have also read from other colleges the same acknowledgement but who also felt that with the use of disposables this would negate their attachment.



I find this to be quite the norm weather it is a cloth or a disposable diaper. It seems to be irrelevant there are still many children today who still have the same connection with this phenomenon. Which I believe is still strictly about the bonding process between the mother and child and a diaper is just a very important part of that process.
 
I have a weird experience on the whole transitional object thing. I have had a craving for diapers since not long after I was out of them. I remember imagining myself back in Pull Ups when I was 5, but when my wish was sorta granted in the form of a weird joke, I ended up getting scared of my family and ripping it off. However, my stuffed animal I'm attached to is actually not from my childhood. I actually just got Sketchy last year only a couple weeks before the lockdowns started from Build a Bear. I love her a lot and sleep with her every night. However, I think Sketchy for me marks a transitional object for when I began to explore myself. So Sketchy will always have a very special place in my heart because the imaginary conversations with her have led me to really start exploring who I am. The emotional attachment is very strong with her and it was from day one. As an actual kid though, I was attached to a little Curious George doll. I also have a strong emotional attachment with Monkey as I used to call him. However, his eyes and hand were messed up by my dog. So now I can't really sleep with him anymore. At least until I figure out how to sew the hand back on. I love Sketchy alot now too though, so I would end up sleeping with both of them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DylanLewis
I dunno much about transitional object but i myself was a bedwetter and what i believe was that i was potty trained late about 6 meaning i was in diapers 24/7 till age 6 , my guess would be somewhere inside me probably my unconscious missed wearing diapers and it manifest itself as bedwetting , i then wet often at night and it continued till i was about 17 and then it stopped . Soon after i immediately missed wearing diapers , the comfort and security of it , i have been wearing diapers for so long it just somehow made me feel weird without it and i fought it for a while thinking it was weird and i was confused at the time as a teen , im a normal person in school and yet im drawn to diapers , everytime i go to the supermarket i would be drawn to the diaper aisle and everytime i try to resist and fight it thinking whats wrong with me , why do i like to wear diapers . It was after some time that i have learn to accept my DL side after i found out that i am one and that there are others out there.
 
Back
Top