Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:59, 4 December 2007

Paraphilic infantilism has had a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Majority of infantilists heterosexual or homosexual?

"DerkJerk" changed the sentence stating that the majority of infantilists are heterosexual to state that the majority are homosexual. The original version was supported by a reference to the paper by Thomas John Speaker. I don't have access to that paper, so I don't know which assertion it actually supports, but since the "heterosexual" version was longstanding in the article, and since no rationale for the change was made either here or in the edit summary, I reverted to the status quo.

DerkJerk, if you want to assert that the majority of infantilists are homosexual, please provide a reference that supports that view. Anonymous55 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• From Speaker's survey (1986), pg 78, question 7. "Sexual Orientation: primarily heterosexual (20), primarily homosexual (6), bisexual (6), solitary sex (2) (N=34)."
• Dave's 2001 survey Straight (66%), Bi (14%), Gay (10%), Non sexual/asexual (3%), Don't know yet (4%), not selected (3%) (N=631, question #64)
• <original research> The results of the 2006-2007 AB, DL, Etc. survey are heterosexual (58%), bi leaning toward heterosexual (10%), bisexual (8%), bi leaning toward homosexual (6%), homosexual (14%) and solo (4%) among males who are neither transexual nor transvestic (N=742). </original research>

These results can't resolve whether the low ratio of heterosexuals is due to a lower prevalence of heterosexuality among AB/DLs, an increased willingness for non-heterosexuals to complete surveys, increased presence of non-heterosexuals in some of the networks where the surveys were circulated, or other causes. However, these surveys consistently show a heterosexual majority among AB/DLs. BitterGrey 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

198.83.126.254

198.83.126.254, you're making radical changes to an article with a long history of controversy and rancor. You really need to discuss changes of this magnitude *before* you make them. Maybe some bits and pieces of what I reverted can be salvaged, but doing what you're doing now is not helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous55 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

There's a reason that the words "sexual" and "fetish" don't appear in the first sentence of the article. There are many people who would disagree strenuously with your characterization of infantilism as a "sexual fetish". It is for some people; for others it most certainly is not. This is a sensitve topic, there are many shaded of grey, and it needs to be handled with care. Anonymous55 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Practical or voluntary use

Does this section really need to exist? I think it should be obvious that astronauts who wear diapers are not doing it because they want to be treated as a baby. I propose we delete this section because it is cluttering up the the article. Perhaps if a large number of people think that we should point out that astronauts are not adult babies, that can be put as a single clarifying sentence in the intro. Any arguments for or against the move can go here. I say we give the matter one week to be discussed and come to a decision. Fsecret 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- As per my argument above. Fsecret 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I am close friends with a number of ABDLs who simply enjoy wearing diapers, without a practical reason. Since they aren't distinguished by the usual AB or DL themes, the above condition is necessary to include them inside ABDL's scope. I am also concerned that the move to neglect this group is motivated by the attempt to marginalize ABs from DLs: This group that simply enjoys diapers is as much AB as DL.BitterGrey 05:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"adult babies invariably consider themselves to be diaper lovers"

About this time last year, this article was under siege by one who asserted that there was an absolute division between paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishes. She had no references to support her position. It seems to be the happening again. The above is a quote that was recently added to the diaper lover article . In the discussion in that article , I responded with three surveys showing that it is a continuum, not an absolute division. Some adult babies are diaper lovers, some are not. Some diaper lovers are adult babies, some are not. Not all adult babies consider themselves to be diaper lovers. These surveys are:

• Thomas John Speaker, Psychosexual Infantilism in Adults: The Eroticization of Regression. Columbia Pacific University. pg 83. Available from: DPF, Sausalito, CA 94965
• Dave's 2001 survey
• <original research> A 2006 survey.</original research>

Now a large number of changes have been made to both articles, actually reducing the number of references sited. I would ask all to provide references for their assertions or accept the references already in place. BitterGrey 05:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward (per the Diaper lover talk page)

Any objections to adding ageplay to the "See also" section? Anonymous55 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me. BitterGrey 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging the diaper lover article with paraphilic infantilism

It has suggested that the diaper lover article be merged with this one. This merge it is being discussed on that articles discussion page. BitterGrey 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope of References, part 2.

Would a contributor who has inserted less than 56 citation needed, original research, or verify source tags in the past two days care to comment on this article's support? Needless to say, the opinion of those who have taken the time to read the references and have a history of investing constructively in wikipedia has more weight with those of us who actually find the references. BitterGrey 00:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely removing what does not closely follow sources is constructive, as it is in line with wikipedia policy. In this article I am trying to remove what is unneccessary or non-compliant with policy to make the merge become more reasonable.Lotusduck 16:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The change description was "this looks like original research." If the one adding the tag had actually read the references and other published material, he or she would have known whether or not the research was original. He or she wouldn't have to go on "looks" alone. Elsewhere he or she wrote "I do have the time to look for sources but I don't have the sources. The article is original research..." How can one conlcude that an article contains original research without being familiar with the non-original research?

If self-promoted chief editors don't read references, they will be judging articles solely on the frequency of their references. Perhaps those cheif editors would be willing to point us to a section that they themselves have previously written, with verifiable references, as an example of how frequent references need to be?

Massive deletions made with a speed suggesting prejudice (same two days-, not including page removals) won't encourage anyone to put in additional work in wikipedia. Why should we dedicate further months of our lives to improve the "fodder" for someone else's "new kick"? BitterGrey 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"by citation needed I mean this is weasel worded". Again, I ask those who have not added 56 potentially misleading tags in any recent two day period to share their thoughts on this article's support.BitterGrey 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, there is a policy called good faith, whereby you don't question a users' desire to improve articles unless they are clearly and directly vandalizing them. My new kick is about transiwiki-ing to wikibooks by the way, as it says in the little link you made. But while wetlook is entirely original research, this article is pretty good. A couple things are ambiguous, and I want them cleaned up. Is that ever so bad?Lotusduck 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Critisizing and/or deleting from several dozen articles without first checking their references is not an act of good faith, but of prejudicial ignorance. Have you ever provided any references yourself? What few contributions I found are still completely unreferenced. BitterGrey 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Coming out"

Can I change the header "Coming out" to "Public acknowledgment" or something like that? I think it's confusing, coming out is mostly related the GLBT matters unless when used for comedic value. And I think public awknowledgment sounds better and more mature, something important for a taboo subject. QuirkyAndSuch 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In my mind I think "Coming out" and "Public acknowledgment" is the exact same thing. BeckyAnne(talk) 15:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems efficient to recycle terms when appropriate. For paraphilic infantilists, coming out isn't that different than it is for those who are GLBT, except that GLBT's have to explain fewer terms. To keep the number of terms minimal, we should recycle. It should also be noted that coming_out and outing have good wikipedia articles. (Although the point about Liberace's succesfull lawsuit against the paper that outed him should probably be in the main outing article as well.) BitterGrey 02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of "coming out" for uses other than GLBT is pretty informal. I doubt you'd find it in a paper encyclopedia. And I do think it's confusing, because it left the impression that this article was connected to the gay community to me, which is why I brought it up. 66.248.96.12 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced?

Given that some paraphilia articles, such as masochism, are without any references whatsoever, could I ask people to be specific about what points they are challenging or think might likely be challenged? BitterGrey 23:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the pic?

Just wondering why there is no pic. Didn't there used to be one? Bongothemonkey 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there hasn't been a picture on this article for some time. If one picture is selected, it would present only one image of paraphilic infantilism, not the full diversity. Depending on the image, this may leave out a few AB/DLs or a lot of AB/DLs.

The picture would then require additional explaining. For example, the diaper fetish article has a picture of a diapered woman, which might imply that diaper fetishes were common among females. Except for Clifford Allen's 1969 "A Textbook of Psychosexual Disorders", no verifiable source is known to support a large female presence among AB/DLs. BitterGrey 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If three pictures are required to illustrate the major elements of the subject then we could use three pictures. (If we could find that many.) ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we need one pic of a male and one of a female. Anything else? Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

More like 63. Assuming an AB-to-DL system of categorization and liberal rounding, we'd need a picture of an AB woman, an AB+DL woman, and a DL woman (there are other systems of categorization) AND to preserve the 20:1 gender ratio mentioned in the DSM (pg 568 of 4TR), 60 pictures of men. Of course, this still wouldn't properly address the difference between the ABs who enjoy contented babyhood, the contrasting ABs who enjoy the loss of status and control (not contented), etc.

Perhaps a figure would work? The hurdle would still be agreeing on a figure, but it would be one figure, instead of multiple pictures.BitterGrey 06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How about a graph? BeckyAnne(talk) 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A plot or graph would be able to display one distribution, not needing to represent the entire paraphilia in a few mugshots. <original research> If a plot based on original research is acceptable, I could donate a plot or two on a moderate range of topics. The plot could be qualitative (for example, the 1995 Role/Object/Control triangle) or quantitative ( The distribution of AB/DL interests.) Other plots can be found at http://understanding.infantilism.org/surveys.php .</original research> Data for verifiable plots will be harder to come by, but might be findable. BitterGrey 06:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I got permission for some pics. I will try and find an AB male and an AB female. Bongothemonkey 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In Dave's survey (ref #3), 84% of AB/DLs identified themselves as something other than only AB. When will the other pictures will be posted? BitterGrey 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What new categories would you like? I can add a diaper lover - male and female but who are not ABs. What else should I add? Bongothemonkey 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, the male AB pic is remarkably generic, with only a diaper and hospital/concert braclet showing. Would replacing the "AB" caption with a generic "AB/DL" caption be an option? This would be an option for the female too if not for the pacifier and angle. BitterGrey 01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to improve on before. Now there are 4 pics with 4 categories. Bongothemonkey 11:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think any of these photos should be here. These photos are far more DL than they have to do with infantalism. Thus, I pose these question to the rest of you guys: What purpose do these pictures serve to the casual reader? What impression do they get from them? How are they informative about the subject? This is an encyclopaedia article, not some place to oogle at people wearing diapers. RefoX 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest either one photo with a group shot. Possibly similar to a Gay pride parade photo or a select set of individuals together were the reader can get the impression of a common theme for a group of individuals. Or a graph. Or none at all.

I would like to state that in my opinion the term Paraphilic infantilism suggests to me a wish to indulge in or role play infantilistic behavior. This to me would be different then a sexual interest in the diaper as an object. Although most people in this category would associate with more then just one camp (Hence the AB/DL) it might be wise to remove the DL focus in this article and allow references to alternative forms or combined interests related to Paraphilic infantilism point to a different section and or article. Am I incorrect with my interpretation?

Could you have an AB style photo on Paraphilic infantilism and DL style photo in Diaper fetishism? Heck we could make an Adult Baby Diaper Lover page to wrap around these two. Like a disambiguation style page. Would that help? --Sukima 04:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a realistic goal to have an "AB" photo that everyone will agree on. The DL photo is easy... most qualify right off the bat. In essence, attempting to put up an AB photo is asking for a huge debate, and thus, it's not something we should even do. RefoX 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to get a photo here to begin with. But just because its hard in not a reason to give up. I will try to find more of an AB photo as opposed to a diaper lover photo. I think though any photo allows the reader to connect with the subject, especially this one. To the uninitiated this subject could be quite abstract and hard to believe. A photo helps make it real to the reader. Bongothemonkey 14:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with RefoX. Any picture that isn't so generic that it would fit into the diaper article would involve elements that aren't typical of the AB or DL experience. Of course, such a generic picture would also be deceptively 'vanilla.' BitterGrey 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye, there also exists the problem that, while most infantilists enjoy diapers, some may not. How would you address that issue? Realistically, it's not feasible to double the amount of pictures to demonstrate this. Thus, I believe that Bittergrey's solution in terms of a bar graph showing the distribution of the adoption of various aspects of infantilism is a more realistic, more neutral, approach to having some media on this page. RefoX 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't have a simple picture of an adult dressed as a baby? Like a onesie and leave the whole diaper aspect out. If your speaking infantilism (AB) then there isn't a need to focus on a diaper at all. Find a photo of an adult in a crib dressed as a baby with a pacifier. That should encompass enough of a visual to satisfy the association for those unfamiliar with infantilism. Least that is what I would do. I'll posse for a photo if someone is looking for a GFDL version. Not that I have access to much of the baby paraphernalia anyways (Mostly DL here). I'm off track. Never mind. LOL. Sukima 04:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

<original research> Actually, only about 45% of ABs have adult baby clothing in their layette. Diapers are the closest thing to constant, and even they aren't universal. Thanks for the offer though, Sukima. </original research>BitterGrey 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I must reiterate my previous comments: It is impossible to provide one unified view of infantilism through the use one or two (or three... or four...) pictures. So, yeah... how about just leaving it as is? RefoX 05:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Infantilism and fetishism

Because of the ongoing controversy and general confusion of paraphilic infantilism with fetish activity, I have endeavored to add a clarifying section that explains what is fetish activity and what is not. This is a pretty long article. Condensing a few facts into this section would help this issue. Suggestions please. Fsecret 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If such a controversy exists, it should inhibit absolute statements like "Infantilism is not a fetish" or alternatively, the grouping of infantilism as a fetish subculture. In turn, issues of length should inhibit discussions about other topics already in the "see also" section. BitterGrey 02:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A critique on the definition of Infantilism

"Paraphilic infantilism is a paraphilia characterized by the desire to wear diapers and be treated as a helpless infant."

. . .While this is the long-accepted definition of infantilism, it ignores the fact that many adult babies do not like roleplaying as "helpless infants." Many prefer to be treated as toddlers who are dependent on a parental figure. The specific difference being, they seek a more active, independent form of roleplay that is akin to being about 2-3 years old, having the ability to walk, run, crawl, play and explore. This type of adult baby is less likely to spend all his or her time lyeing in a crib, because that is more associated with being an infant and would bore an adult toddler baby to death.

Why have researchers and psychologists neglected this crucial distinction? For the sake of the researcher out there- I offer this knowlege because I happen to be an adult baby myself. I know plenty of other adult babies, and purely defining all of us as liking to be crib bound helpless infants is to ignore the much broader array of potential ages that the infantilist might roleplay. The key, at least I've found, is that all of us have the common interest of wearing diapers. But that is really the only thing that remains constant throughout the community. What age we fantasize we are effects the way we enjoy the fetish or alternative lifestyle. As this article implies, there's a huge array of diversity- from the furry to the sissy, the heterosexual or the homosexual, the AB to the DL to the AB/DL. . . . and the infant to the toddler.

Perhaps the term "infantilism" has outdated itself.

          71455baby 06:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Who was it that wrote "any short economic maxim is false?" Few would argue that the DSM's one-sentence-long definition is vauge on a number of points. 71455baby has raised one of them. <original research> Recently, AB/DLs were surveyed about their role preference. The majority of those who self-identified as 'AB only,' 'mostly AB,' and 'equally AB and DL' preferred the role of toddler over other roles. (70%, 70%, and 63% respectively. For contrast, the preference for newborn was 22%, 12%, and 7% respectively). </original research>BitterGrey 02:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite of the opening sentence: "Paraphilic infantilism is a paraphilia characterized by the desire to wear diapers and to act and be treated as a baby of some sort, ranging from a "helpless infant" to a "rampaging toddler"." I'm not sure if it's common enough to worth a mention in the intro, but another point I thought worth bringing up: I didn't think all ABs were interested in wearing diapers - there's a subset who perfer to roleplay as older children whom don't need them - at least not always. Oh well, just some thoughts from somebody who hopes he didn't just wander into another minefield.... - Pacula 04:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The image of a violently rampaging 200-pound toddler probably wasn't what was intended, but may occur to readers. Still, there is probably a suitable, middle ground between DSM and the original research above. The exact quote from DSM is "...a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers..." How about "Paraphilic infantilism is a paraphilia characterized by the desire to wear diapers and be treated as an infant or toddler"? BitterGrey 05:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess 'rampaging toddler' might be too colourful a phrase - in hindsight, I'm a little shocked that I seriously suggested it (eep). That said, I think that it would be nice to have some adjective to go with 'toddler', to strengthen the contrast with 'helpless infant'. I'm not sure if there is anything that would be both accurate and encompassing enough, though, so it probably would be best to just drop the adjectives as you suggest. - Pacula 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I'd like to invite some discussion on what visitors are seeking when they search for "infantilism." In 2006, the infantilism article was renamed as the paraphilic infantilism article. A disambiguation link to the topic of psychosexual infantilism (in the psychosexual_development article) was in the header. Two days ago, an article on medical infantilism was added. This article described medical infantilism as an obsolete term, and apparently shared the infantilism/paraphilic infantilism discussion page. For the time being, I've added a disambiguation page, with the three listed in order of the number of references sited (26, 3, 2). Do you think the disambiguation page should remain, or disambiguation links should be added to what was originally the infantilism article? BitterGrey 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review