Posted by DR on July 25, 2005 at 10:11 [67.83.76.91]
In Reply to: Sissy Baby Poll posted by DailyDiapers on July 25, 2005 at 09:04
I have to be honest, I think the Wikipedia articles on "infantilism" and "ABDL" are inaccurate, confusing, wordy, and lacking. I realize many authors have contributed to their construction, which adds to the confusion, but I don't believe the articles there represent diaperism in its fullest. In fact, the articles have an obvious AB and DL bias. Furthermore, the definitions that *are there* aren't correct to WIITWD. The word "infantilism" is an awful term -- I don't know why we continue to use it. Its a clinician's word to define us -- not *our* word. Finally, the articles devote too much attention to pseudo-psychology, to abuse, and to justifications for why we enjoy it. The "infantilism" article plunges way too deeply into "equilibrium" and "psychological effects..." -- way too intense.
Look, the Wikipedia articles aren't primarily for us, but for the rest of the world. Diaper folk are curious enough to scour the net in search of diaper education -- but vanillas aren't. Vanillas aren't going to waste their time searching this diaper site and that diaper site; they go to Wikipedia for a quick understanding and simply want the meat and potatoes. What is it? What are the different types of desires? Is it normal? Is it common? What are some of the activities done? Where to find more information?
Frankly, I would do the edits myself except that I know they will be changed back, and I would rather spend my time educating from my website. Nevertheless, I feel the articles do little to shed light on WIITWD, and actually do more harm than good.
Email: