More about musical diaper alarms

After hearing about these in the early 1990s (they probably went back to the 1960s or 1970s), I finally saw a musical diaper alarm in operation at an AB party. Seems somebody changed the birthday boy's diaper and slipped the diaper alarm in without his noticing, then next time he wet, little electronic music started to play, and he was very embarrassed, and everybody giggled.

And after that, I haven't seen one or seen anybody selling one for about 15 years. Occasionally I've seen somebody post a derisive article about how they're available in Japan or China, saying something like, "Oh that's a good idea, putting electricity in a baby's diaper," or, "Some lazy parents will do anything to avoid checking their babies' diapers." (Hello? This is probably a 1.5 volt DC cell at maximum, the kind that people put in their hearing aids, and what if it's a daycare center that has 30 babies in diapers?)

Well, a recent study has showed that using a musical diaper alarm can significantly help children with potty training. So there. Now if only I could find one to buy for myself ...

More Terminology: "Advanced Baby"

As you can probably guess from some of my recent terminology-based postings, I understand Kathi Stringer's desire to come up with a better terminology. The words we have to describe ourselves and our activities are woefully inadequate. We need better ones.

Kathi Stringer, who I seem to agree with on many points (but disagree with on others), has proposed the term "Advanced Baby" to replace "Adult Baby," and indeed, I've seen it used on some websites. But is it a good term?

The first question is whether there's anything wrong with the term "Adult Baby" in the first place. Stringer's argument is that at least for some, the use of the word "Adult" bothers them -- there's nothing adult in their baby play, especially considering the fact that "adult" has taken on the meaning of licentious or erotic in some contexts, such as adult films or adult bookstores. (This is probably because of laziness -- my guess is that these things started out as "adults-only" films and bookstores, and the name just got shortened with use.)

It's true that, for many ABs, when they're babies, they don't want to engage in adult sexual behavior. There are other times for such things, like when they're not expressing their AB side. Now, many ABs do combine adult sexual behavior with their AB side, so presumably they would not have a problem with the "Adult Baby" term. But we're talking about those who don't want any "Adult" in their AB.

Stringer's "Advanced Baby" article, like her "True Infantilism" article, which I have posted about recently, is a good introduction to ABs, conceptually speaking, but it doesn't really make a good case for why the term "Advanced Baby" is better than any other -- although it does explain why Stringer, and probably others, consider "Adult Baby" to be the wrong term for them. She shows us a panoply of other terms, such as "kidults," "rejuveniles," "adultolescents," and "peterpandemonium," but then ignores them all and attempts to coin her own term.

The article suffers from a few problems in its citations -- for one thing, even in the brief passages she quotes, it is obvious that the author uses the word "infantilism" in its original, dictionary sense, which I wrote about in the post before this one. They're not talking about regressive, possibly even therapeutic behavior -- they're talking about immaturity, and somewhat derisively and critically at that. What's more, she cites an article by Ian Shoales, who is not a real person -- he is a satirical character created by comedian and author Merle Kessler, who also portrays Rodney, the sidekick of Dr. Science, whose humorous skits put Duck's Breath Mystery Theater on the map for National Public Radio fans. At least she didn't cite Dr. Science. She does, however, cite herself, linking to her own article on "True Infantilism."

However, she does make many useful points that I agree with, most importantly (in my opinion) the fact that Internet resources for nonsexual ABs are nearly nonexistent, and they may be confused and even emotionally affected by the relatively large quantity of material available for sexual ABs. She's right. There does need to be more material for nonsexual ABs on the Internet. I feel strongly that nobody should feel as if the only way to express one's AB side is in a sexual way.

So Stringer makes some good points in her somewhat flawed essay, but she does not have a compelling argument for why "Advanced Baby" is a term that anyone should use. But is there any reason not to use it? I can think of one: the term "Adult Baby" distinguishes ABs from physical children in a way that "Advanced Baby" does not. Nearly every reputable AB website contains a disclaimer about how no real children are involved, and for a good reason; Western culture seems to see child molestors behind every door and under every bed. Anything that seems even conceptually similar falls under suspicion. And, not helping matters, there are some pedophiles who have masqueraded as ABs and gotten caught (and some that have not yet been caught as well, I'm certain). Most ABs therefore want to distance themselves as much as possible from giving any impression that they want to have anything to do with real children. Thus the term "Adult Baby" -- adult, meaning not physical children -- serves this purpose to some degree, where "Advanced Baby" does not.

Once again, we are left with no better terminology for Whatever It Is That We Do. Perhaps somebody will come up with something compelling that sweeps across the community and transforms how we think about ourselves in a positive and affirming way. But I don't think "Advanced Baby" is it.

Infantilism: For Want of a Better Term

I've stated my disagreement with Kathi Stringer's term "True Infantilism" (though not with the concept she uses it to refer to), but I'd like to say something about the term "infantilism" itself.

If you look "infantilism" up in a dictionary, you will see definitions that have to do with arrested development and extreme immaturity. Look at dictionary.com, for example. To paraphrase, the definitions are:

Immature physical or behavioral traits persisting past childhood.

The quality or state of being infantile (i.e. the noun form of the adjective "infantile").

I think those two statements pretty much sum up all the definitions. And neither one of them is a synonym for adult babies, is it? I mean, sure, maybe ABs exhibit infantile behaviors, but you might as well describe the sky by saying it's blue, ignoring everything else you could say about it. The sky contains a variety of wind and cloud patterns that produce different types of weather; it's made up of various gases; the atmosphere consists of different layers, each with its own distinct makeup and phenomena, etc. What's more, there are things that are blue other than the sky.

And there are things that are infantile other than ABs. The term as it has been used until relatively recently is really not very descriptive of ABs at all. ABs can behave in an immature way, but usually this is when they are roleplaying; that is, interacting in a prenegotiated common space. The amount of maturity required to be immature sometimes reaches the paradoxical. Most of the time, ABs act as mature as anybody else -- sometimes more so, depending on whom you compare them with. For example, would you say the language I'm using in this post is immature?

The dictionary definition of the word "infantilism" has to do with immaturity. Then along came somebody (Dr. Wilhelm Stekel, perhaps?) and started using the term for ABs, inventing a new definition for it. But if we're going to go inventing definitions, why not invent an entirely new word, rather than use an old one that has baggage? I think "infantilism" is a failure for describing Whatever It Is That We Do.

Back home again

We're back from Duckon -- I built a blinkie! It took forever to get home, though. A 10-mile stretch of I-65 was under "construction," by which I mean the road was narrowed to one lane, but I didn't see any actual work happening, so it took us about 40 minutes of stop-and-go traffic to go those 10 miles.

I wet my night diapers last night (that makes 3 out of the last 4 nights), and although I usually sleep on top of a protective pad just in case, there was a leak that got the sheet wet. The problem is that the pad I sleep on is a chair pad -- it's really too small for this. I should really get a bed pad. In fact, I've ordered one online. It will probably be here next week. Then I can use the chair pad when I sit in chairs and leave the bed pad in the bed, and the bed will be better protected. As will the chairs.

I wonder if some ABs don't wear diapers at all but instead use reusable or disposable bed pads and just relive their bedwetting experiences. I'd be surprised if there wasn't anybody who did that.

Hi from Duckon

I am currently posting from Duckon, a science fiction convention near Chicago. If you don't see me online, that's why. The hotel the convention is in has free wi-fi in the lobby (which is why I can post this) and free high-speed Internet for guests. But we're not staying at the same hotel. The one we are staying at has high-speed (wired) Internet in the rooms, but it costs $13 per day. Sigh.

My wife wants me not to wet my diapers at the convention, but says it's OK to wet them when we're back at our hotel. I reluctantly agreed to this -- I think it's a setback on my road to needing diapers all the time, and I did agree to drive her here as a big favor to her. But she got really upset about it -- mostly she talked about the odor issues, but I don't think that's really it. So when we're away from the hotel, I'm trying to go potty frequently so I don't wet myself without thinking. In the hotel room last night, I wet my diaper three times while I was asleep (and she said she didn't smell anything). But when I say I wet my diaper three times, I don't mean that I flooded it -- I don't wet very much at a time anymore.

Anyway, if you don't see me online this weekend, it's because I'm not going to be able to be online much. We're driving back Sunday afternoon and will be back Sunday evening.

Some people are just anti-fun

Over on Diaperchat's chat room, which I used to go to, there was a bit of an incident today. Maybe it doesn't seem too important to some people, but it's important to me. There wasn't any conversation going on until a "little girl" and her "daddy" came on (obviously these are both adults) and started roleplaying. She talked in babytalk; it was quite adorable.

Then a couple of self-appointed channel cops started implying that roleplay was not allowed on the channel anymore (despite the fact that I've see these two, and others, do this very same thing many times in the past) and that they should create a new channel and go there, or take it to private messages. So they created another channel. And I went there too. And left Diaperchat for good. That's not something I do lightly. It just seemed very wrong for people to appoint themselves to the board of censors and ruin some very nice play that was happening, just because they don't feel like reading it. I will come back if the channel owner clarifies that roleplay is welcome. Some people ...

Here we go again with the antibiotics

Well, the doctor said there were red and white blood cells as well as epithelial cells in my urine test, and those are usually a sign of some kind of infection, so it's back on Cipro for a couple weeks, but at least that will make the weird odor go away and make my wife happier. Normally she can't smell my wet diapers unless I go without changing them for hours for some reason.

Happier wife = happier everybody. 8:-)

Return of the infection?

Some of you might know that I've been having problems with a recurring bladder/prostate infection over the past 2 years. Antibiotics clear it right up, but it keeps coming back. The first symptom is that, well, my wet diapers start smelling really bad. First time it happened I wasn't in diapers but I noticed that odor when I used the potty, and weeks later I started having aches and a fever and went to the doctor, so I started paying attention to that early warning after that. I've had all kinds of tests and they can't figure out why it keeps coming back, but my wife (with her preternaturally acute sense of smell) hates it when I'm in diapers that she can smell, so it's doubly in my interest to keep it under control.

That's the summary of what has gone before. Well, over the last couple weeks I've started smelling that smell again, and now my wife has too -- I was hoping it was just my imagination or something I ate. I'm going to have to call the doctor again tomorrow. I wonder if they'll put me through all the urinalysis and stuff or whether they'll just give me antibiotics. They haven't figured out what caused it before; I doubt they'll figure it out this time. And we're going out of town Thursday through Sunday ...

"True" Infantilism

As a second post in my series of terminology rants (this was unplanned, but it seems to be what I feel like ranting about), I'd like to talk about the recent appearance of the term "True Infantilism."

As far as I know (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), the term was coined by Kathi Stringer of www.toddlertime.com; she explains it in the essay "What Is True Infantilism?" The basic idea (not sure I agree with it, but I can summarize what she says) infantilism is a fetish, but True Infantilism is an emotional condition that starts in childhood. Whereas diapers, pacifiers, baby bottles, etc. are fetish objects for an infantilist, for a True Infantilist they are transitional objects, which means that in childhood they were linked to nurturing feelings, and those links persist.

Now, none of this is anything I outright disagree with, but I just have a tendency to feel immediately apprehensive when anybody calls something the "true" or "real" anything, because it feels like they're calling everybody else false or unreal. "Maybe you're an infantilist, but I'm a True Infantilist." I'd have a much easier time with this concept if its name didn't seem designed to cause arguments. So you know what? I'm going to rename it for the rest of this post. What Kathi Stringer calls "True Infantilism," I'm going to call Regressive Personality Syndrome (RPS). Please note: I'm not saying that it should be called this, or that anything should have this name. This is just an exercise to see whether I agree with Stringer now that I've moved past the name. I'll still use "infantilism" to mean what I'm used to seeing it mean.

I'm not going to take cheap shots at typos and strange syntax, but Stringer could have used a proofreader. Stringer says that a child with RPS feels isolated and alone in these feelings and hides them from friends and family members. Sounds like me so far. She says that diapers are a common theme but that RPS expands to include other items. I'm not sure I agree with that; it hardly seems impossible to start out with items other than diapers, or to emotionally invest in a number of important objects from the beginning.

She differentiates fetish objects from transitional objects -- "The energized transitional object offers relief from separation anxieties from the maternal figure and/or provides a sense of recreation of a period lost in grief." This sounds exactly like me.

Her next paragraph talks about how a child who has suffered abuse or neglect may well identify with "toddlers in neighboring families and yearn for the same infantile attention." She omits what seems to me to be another obvious cause other than abuse and neglect, but it may only be obvious to me because I'm the case she left out: the loss of a parent, especially the mother. My mother died of cancer when I had just turned 6 years old, and I now see that as the root cause for my wanting to return to toddlerhood. I was neglected in a sense, but it's hardly as if my mother neglected me by choice. Stringer should perhaps have thought of the loss of a parent, especially since death is not the only way to lose one -- separation, divorce, or even changing economic conditions forcing both parents to work outside the home can cause a parent to disappear from a child's life in a traumatic way.

Her statement about observing toddlers in neighboring families interests me. This possibility may explain why I feel like I want to be a baby girl rather than the baby boy I was. Right after my mother's death, or so I recall, my best friend's mother had a baby girl, and so did my aunt and uncle, who did not live nearby, but we saw them frequently at holidays. Especially right after my mother died, my father brought my brother and me to visit the rest of the family as often as he could. I remember seeing my beautiful new baby cousin in her pretty baby clothes, smelling the evocative scent of baby powder, and watching all the attention and care she got -- I don't recall wishing I was her at the time, but the seeds of that thought might have been planted.

I don't want to thoroughly analyze every sentence and paragraph of Stringer's essay; after all, this is a blog post, not an academic paper. What I would like to say is that with the terminology substitution in place, I sound like a perfect example of RPS, if you make the allowance for Stringer's omission of the loss of a parent as a possible cause. She does talk about the appearance of the libido in adolescence and the transitional objects becoming something similar to fetish objects, but it seems to me that at that point there is little difference between infantilism and RPS. I suppose RPS might not always develop into infantilism at adolescence, and infantilism might not always have its roots in childhood RPS, so I can see that there might need to be separate terms for the two.

Kathi Stringer has no credentials in the mental health profession as far as I know, but then, neither do I. She does seem to try to present herself as some sort of mental health expert, however, although I suppose we are all experts on our own personal psychological environments. I agree with much of what she says, but I still have to disagree with her choice of the term "True Infantilism," which is unfortunately starting to propagate to a few other websites and seems tailor-made to cause strife and division.

"Paraphilic" Infantilism

Just a bit of a terminology rant here.

Google "infantilism" and the first result you get is the Wikipedia article on "Paraphilic Infantilism." This article describes various aspects of what I've usually just seen called infantilism.

My problem is that, according to the DSM (the mental health profession's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), a paraphilia is a disorder, something that needs curing. The DSM calls a paraphilia a condition that is "characterized by recurrent, intense sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Never mind that they don't bother defining "unusual," but ...

I don't have a paraphilia. Whatever it is that I do doesn't cause me distress or impairment, and certainly not clinically significant distress or impairment. I don't need curing.

I'm sure there are those who disagree with me, but as long as the DSM defines a paraphilia as a negative thing, I refuse to call anything I do "paraphilic." Not that I can change what other people choose to call it, but I would think that most ABs wouldn't want what they do called a disorder either.

Old news but still maybe useful

Hi again! Wow, it's been a while since I posted to this. Well, let's see if I can do better at staying up to date.

This may be old news for people, or it may not. There's some kind of law against selling toddler sippy cups that hold more than 12 ounces of liquid in the USA. Ridiculous as that is, we're stuck with it, even those of us who would like our sippy cups to be larger than that.

Well, the solution is to buy a sippy cup lid that fits onto a larger cup or bottle. At Klean Kanteen, they sell stainless steel sports bottles of various sizes and colors. Since they're stainless steel, they can't pick up the taste of whatever's in them like plastic can, and they're very durable. However, they aren't particularly well insulated (insulating sleeves sold separately), and you can't microwave them.

But the important thing is that they also sell a sippy cup version of their bottle, which is really just the 12-ounce bottle with a special lid that accommodates an Avent sippy cup spout. But all their bottles have the same size opening on top. Also, they sell this special lid separately. So all you really have to do is order one of their sports bottles in whatever size and color you want, then go to their Accessories page and buy a sippy cup lid. You can have a sippy cup of any size and color they sell!

Testing

This is a test. Mostly I'm trying to see whether my Blogger configuration still works. If it does, maybe I'll post more here. If it doesn't, I'll probably rearrange things so as to use a different blogging system on my website (or possibly Blogger with a different configuration).