Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think a sexual fetish should be re-classified as a disorder that means the person can collect disability payments. Lots of people have all kinds of fetishes and/or sexual addictions but I don't think the taxpayer should be helping to fund that. And I'm not even politically conservative.
Adult baby Stanley Thornton collects disability payments.
You do know there are actual existing disorders (sexual or otherwise) already that don't qualify a person for disability payments, right? It has to be something that prevents working.
And since those disorders don't warrant disability payments, what makes you worry so much that infantilism (not even a disorder) will someday be used to collect disability payments?
That's like saying someone wanting to be a submissive sex slave might be re-classified as a sexual disorder and might someday collect disability payments.
What I find odd is that many people in this section are extremely judgmental of those with mental illnesses or disorders that won't get help.
People with mental illnesses usually end up hurting themselves and/or their families. THAT'S why people expect them to get help. They either can't function or they hurt others.
People with fetishes usually don't hurt anyone, and they can still function.
People with mental illnesses usually end up hurting themselves and/or their families. THAT'S why people expect them to get help. They either can't function or they hurt others.
People with fetishes usually don't hurt anyone, and they can still function.
Can't you see the difference?
He can function? He lets go of bladder and bowl function on purpose. He has to be put in a high chair to be fed.
The GF did NOT like it. His illness was causing her grief like other disorders do for their SOs.
There is a large propensity among certain crowds to label anything that is distasteful to them as assuredly a sign of illness or dysfunction.
I would also agree that whenever anybody goes on daytime TV with their story or issues, whatever those stories or issues are, there is obviously a huge attention-seeking element. Attention-seeking, itself, however, isn't an illness. It's just an annoying behavior. Loads of people are attention-seeking. Doesn't make them mentally ill.
Something being weird to you doesn't make it "wrong." "Wrong" is defined by individual moral and legal codes, which vary by population and culture. There is very little in the world that fits a universal definition of "wrong." Maybe nothing. So it's kind of pointless to argue that everyone should see things through whatever individual cultural lens you see them through. It's also why morality doesn't guide diagnoses.
If more people were comfortable saying, "That behavior is really unappealing to me, I'm not comfortable with it, and I wouldn't attach myself to a partner who is into it...I just don't get why it's a thing, it's not for me," rather than reverting to knee-jerk, "Ugh! Sick and wrong!" especially when it's behavior that isn't inherently harmful or victimizing of anybody, there would just be so much more room for learning, productive conversation, intelligent discourse, etc.
Agree with everything. I know of people who can't stop taking photos of themselves and sharing them on Instagram. They seem more fascinated with themselves than anyone or anything else on the planet. Is that an illness or dysfunction?
A very long time ago when I was in my twenties, I met a guy who was into infantilism.
It's not something I was remotely interested in. Like a lot of people, it's personally a huge turnoff for me, so I didn't volunteer to engage with him in it.
But I have to say, this wasn't a guy that anyone would ever guess was into infantilism. He held down a grueling exhausting job and was hyper masculine in some ways. He had also grown up in a family that was financially comfortable, but they had lived in a city that was dangerous and he had always had to have his guard up to defend himself and anyone he cared about.
His explanation for the infantilism was that he felt he'd never had a real childhood. He wanted to wear toddler stuff and color in coloring books and feel like someone else was in charge of everything for a while.
Bottom Line: No one ever knew of his interest and no one ever got hurt. I didn't get involved because I wasn't interested. No one was forced to do something they didn't want. He went on his merry way and found someone else.
He can function? He lets go of bladder and bowl function on purpose. He has to be put in a high chair to be fed.
Yes. He can function. His letting go of his bladder etc . . . is a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
The GF did NOT like it. His illness was causing her grief like other disorders do for their SOs.
The girlfriend is a grownup. Grownups getting into relationships always have to decide at some point while they are dating, if they are compatible with their boyfriend/girlfriend.
She is not a victim.
She doesn't even need a divorce as a girlfriend. She just needs to find the door, open it, and leave.
Yes. He can function. His letting go of his bladder etc . . . is a choice.
The girlfriend is a grownup. Grownups getting into relationships always have to decide at some point while they are dating, if they are compatible with their boyfriend/girlfriend.
She is not a victim.
She doesn't even need a divorce as a girlfriend. She just needs to find the door, open it, and leave.
EXACTLY.
If the man cannot find someone to play "Mommy" to his "Baby" then he will either have to find quiet little ways to indulge himself alone, or else he just won't be able to do this.
Quite like a person who likes to have partnered sex, but who has no partner for a short or long time.
Quite like how I enjoy board games but most of them are pretty pointless without someone to play them with me.
No matter how fulfilling somebody may find their fetishes or lifestyle choices to be, they aren't the sort of thing that is compulsory. Besides, there are websites where guys like him can go to find others who are into that stuff.
I do think it's not necessarily cool to get all involved in an ostensibly vanilla relationship with someone and then spring something like this on them once they have an emotional bond...but it's not morally reprehensible, just...misleading. And not any worse than the millions of people who say they want a relationship when they only want casual sex, or vice versa. People misrepresent themselves in trying to form relationships all the time. As you say, one can simply open the door and leave.
The issue I take with this kind of thinking, is on what planet are people likely to think that this is "normal?"
Even those of us (hi!) who are like "who cares as long as he's not harming anybody and any partner he finds consents to do this lifestyle with him--his life not mine" STILL I am not saying, and never would say, that this is anywhere near "normal." Merely saying someone can do what they want is not anything close to calling it normal or suggesting it will ever be normal.
I'm just saying I think it's perfectly ok to be something that isn't normal if you can find a way to make it work for you and any other consenting adults involved.
I mean if some guy like inherited money or whatever and he didn't have to work anymore so he dedicated the rest of his life to building tiny spaceships out of toothpicks or something and he found a partner who was ok living with him the way he wanted to live even though he demands that she do the hokey pokey with him at precisely 3PM each Tuesday...WHO CARES? Eccentric but harmless, that's what it is.
But here we are in good ol' Western society where we need to say...wait, wait, wait...a diaper...that might involve...his private parts...so it could be...*dramatic music*...A WEIRD SEXUAL PERVERSION! Oh NOES! Shock and horror everybody! Sick! Weird! Wrong! Tune in tomorrow to find out what his parents think!
Seriously why though.
Yep.
"Outside the realm of typical behavior" does not have to equal "dangerous."
Yes. He can function. His letting go of his bladder etc . . . is a choice.
The girlfriend is a grownup. Grownups getting into relationships always have to decide at some point while they are dating, if they are compatible with their boyfriend/girlfriend.
She is not a victim.
She doesn't even need a divorce as a girlfriend. She just needs to find the door, open it, and leave.
Seriously, in what way is a partner entering into this relationship a victim?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know of people who can't stop taking photos of themselves and sharing them on Instagram. They seem more fascinated with themselves than anyone or anything else on the planet. Is that an illness or dysfunction?
Seriously why though.
