I'm sure that this fetish isn't just a post 1950?s phenomenon. Nappies, diapers (call them what you will) I believe have been around for a long time.
I myself am in my late 30s and am therefore demographically somewhat typical but I would postulate that somewhere out there should be grandparents, great-grandparents and departed ancestors who are, or were ABDL but I've never heard ANYTHING of this.
I wonder where they are and what (if any) references to their activities survive.
I dimly recall a posting suggesting some form of sexual infantilism took place in the British royal family in the 1930s but I never found an independent reference to this.
Does anybody have any information, literature or diaries etc. that suggests or proves that we had predecessors?
I'm sure, as long as there have been children - there have been adults who did not want to grow up - and of those, there are most likely a lot who have worn diapers for the fun of staying young. Go to the link I posted below. It gives a nice history lesson on diapers.
Hmmm.... now all we need to do is find out how long there have been children. Any ideas?!
Wow, I didn't know this fetish was around before Christ was born. I thoughts diapers were invented in 1882 so I didn't think there would be anyone before that year having the desire to be treated like a baby or be diapered because there weren't any back then.
There was a post a little while ago of a photo from I think the 40s, of teenagers dressed as little girls for a theme party.
I found information concerning a Hollywood party - it was in 1937 or 1938. All the biggest stars went to it as it was hosted by one of the most well known Hollywood hostesses (darned if I can remember her name now, dangit). It was a "kiddie party", and they all dressed as very young children. There has GOT to be some great photos of the stars floating around out there - I only happened upon one in a book.
I also found in a book about the history of Knoxville a picture dating from 1901. It was from a party the students had at UT. all the boys were dressed as baby girls and the girls were dressed as nurses and nannies. According to the note below the picture, these "baby parties" were "common" at the time!
There is a secular mention of AB behavior in "The World According To Garp". This was published first in 1976, but I believe the instance it mentions goes back to the 50s - I could be wrong about that. It mentions a girl who wears diapers because she likes to.
The party you're referring to was hosted by Marion Davies (mistress of William Randolph Hearst)and was held at the Hearst Castle (San Simeon) sometime in the mid 30's. Pictures and stories about the party are not that hard to find really - especially in books about old Hollywood or the stars of that time. Marious Davies was famous for throwing fabulous "theme" parties though, so whether there was any significance to this particular party or not I don't know. It's kind of interesting, however, that Davies and Hearst had a relationship that was almost more father/daughter than lovers. According to several sources she referred to him as "Popsie" and he was very controlling over her. She also had a very pronounced lisp which she used to her advantage in talking "baby talk" to get her way. Whether there was more to this side of their relationship or not is a secret they took to their graves. But you certainly can't beat old Hollywood for any kind of sexual behavior: straight, gay, group, fetishes -- you name it - somebody (usually very famous) was involved in it. Sure makes for fascinating reading.
One biographer of the Duchess of Windsor, Charles Higham, mentions that Wallis was quite dominant and enjoyed playing "child scenes" with the Duke, in which he was "happily submissive" in diapers and that the Duchess was "the master."
One wonders whether she changed the Duke's pants, or had a servant tend to him!
Germans celebrated Lent with "baby balls" as far back as the 15th century, so infantilism is certainly nothing particularly new.
Thank you for that contribution. I think this is pretty much one of the earliest verifiable allegations of true sexual infantilism involving nappies (diapers) that I have seen.
A quick Google isolated the publication and the passage in reference. It seems too unlikely to have been fabricated without implying that this fetish had some social point of reference and it segues well with other documented behaviors by this unusual couple.
I continue to be amazed by the ability of the English aristocracy to presume that their servants are unseeing and silent. Only from this culture could I believe that a couple of this social elevation would be prepared to conduct these activities in the full knowledge that they would either be directly witnessed by staff or at least staff would suffer the unenviable task of laundering its aftermath.
The mind boggles?
I suspect that the ?Baby Balls? that you've referenced however may be nothing more than a quirky fancy dress.
From personal experience, my first diaper and baby feelings were in the late 40s, and I wore and used diapers as a kid in the 50s. One problem, back then, is that there was no way for communicating with others who had similar feelings, before PCs and the internet came along. So, it could have been a very common thing, but no one would know. I did know a boy back in 1951 or so, who had to wear diapers for a week during the summer because he messed his pants in Sunday school once. I was kind of jealous of him.
While researching the origins of infantilism on the net, I came across a book called 'The Sexual History of The Great War'. Certain sections of this book discuss forms of infantilism experienced by soldiers in the trenches. I'm not really sure if the type of infantilism it refers to is similar to the sort we enjoy, although you may find it interesting, seeing as it predates 1950, being published soon after WWI. I have included an excerpt from it here:
One of the most frequent consequences of sexual starvation during the war is the retreat to infantile forms of satisfying the libido. We have already shown that among these masturbation occupied the first place but, in general, we might say that the life in the trenches was calculated in itself to favor the recrudescence of infantilism. Stekel has given the following explanation of this phenomena which, be it remembered, also serves to explain why so many soldiers who returned from the war have become unfit for work and find no pleasure at all in it.
"I have frequently emphasized that all infantilists are lazy. They revolt at work because it disturbs their fantasy life and dreams. The retreat from work and the avoidance of it is a dangerous social phenomenon. Owing to the war it has become a psychic epidemic which has infected whole nations. The reasons are quite obvious. In the trenches and in the playfulness of the war stations during periods of idleness and enforced inactivity, there were numerous, totally empty hours in which the soldier was driven back to his infantile fantasies in order to kill time and to escape from the painful present into a pleasurable dream world. The war drove numerous men and women into the comforting arms of infantilism. Numerous marriages were destroyed by it and innumerable men lost all joy in work and in reality. It will take decades until these noxious consequences will be remedied."
Stekel's definition of infantilism differs greatly from ours...for example, his book on psychosexual infantilism never mentions baby play.
Instead, he refers to individuals who refuse to act in what he believed was an appropriate manner for an adult. He was a very moralistic psychologist; in my view, he misapplied the term because there was no other word or catchphrase available to him at the time.
To Stekel, most infantilists were "shirkers" who wanted to escape from responsibility. While some of us practice infantilism with the same goal in mind, the actual act - and Stekel's rationalization of the same name - are two different things.
Interesting - but I suspect that "infantilism" in this context is more of an arrogant and patronizing disdain for mentally stressed and bored soldiers.
I suspect that infantilism and sexual infantilism are quite different things.
Hi. This is a very interesting thread, one of the most intriguing to me. My thoughts are that from 1950 on the evolution of both cloth and disposable diapers and rubber pants has made diapering a more comfortable and easy to manage experience. Prior to the 50's diapers were not like they are now. Even further back in the 1800's wetting and messing in diapers was almost like doing it in your pants cuz you didn't have rubber pants to hold the wetness in.
I think that ever since the beginning of time, some people had thoughts and fantasies about returning to an infantile or childish time. Probably few ever spent much time in actual diapers in the earlier times. People didn't have the privacy we do today either, especially in the earlier days of America when people were in the wild west and so on.
There has always been a few people that were into this stuff but how would we know if Grandpa liked crawling around in wet and messy diapers and grandma dressed up as a mommy and changed him? It's not like that would be passed down in the family photo albums, not much less the history books.
To those who had references of infantilism in the parties in Hollywood and in England, perhaps those were places where morality wasn't so strict. Perhaps it allowed the few that did have these interests to openly have at it!
Now with the advent of the PC as mentioned, we all can talk to each other. It's funny one will rarely find another AB in his or her small town, But with the internet, you can find friends all over the world. One thing though, is that it seems now with the internet we all are mixed we become a collective one sort of, I mean some of my fantasies and desires in the "alone years" before I knew anyone was out there, were totally different then the ones I have now. I think reading others accounts and stories and posts, has somehow added to who I am as an AB and that some of the original infantilism in me is lost and replaced by the collective experiences of infantilists online. Does anyone else ever feel that way sometimes?
Anyway, its a safe bet to say that infantilism is on the rise steadily. it seems to be more common all the time. I bet by the time we're grandparents, there will be a substantial amount of our grandchildren into infantilism. Enough to equal the BDSM, gay, and other sexual movements.
These are just some of my thoughts anyway have a nice day! :)
Although there may have been highly isolated incidents ? it seems that none (with the possible exception of King Edward) have been documented in any way and no literature or unambiguous cultural references appear to have been passed down.
The near-total availability of information and personal connections together with the record afforded by the internet may have allowed what was formerly, a disparate and buried collection of isolated individuals to coalesce into a sub- culture. We might be the ?1.0? of this group!
I remember reading a translation of an 18th century Spanish woman's diary posted on the wetter's board some months or a year ago.
This woman was clearly a pants-wetting enthusiast and diarized her fear of discovery that she was ?wet? when unexpectedly dragged into a dance.
This got me thinking: ABDL History! This would actually be a pretty interesting topic for many. And then I thought: maybe this history doesn't exist. Maybe this history is only starting now, with us, in places like this.
I've wondered the same thing too of how long this fetish has been around. I always though there were was no diaper fetishes back when my parents were kids because they didn't have disposables back then they said until I read that pampers came on shelves in 1961 (or was that 1962) but I wasn't sure when adult disposables came out. I didn't know the fetish has been around longer than the 1980's until I started coming on DL and ABs forums and then I learn yesterday that this fetish was around before my mother was even born.
Just because there were no disposable diapers around doesn't mean that we who were into this long before the internet, didn't wear cloth diapers. I can remember when the first Pampers came to. My cousin used them on her son. They had no tapes and were pinned on like a cloth diaper. There was also a product called the "Playtex Dryper". It was a pair of plastic pants that had an elastic band or something (I can't remember for sure) that you inserted a disposable liner into to hold it in place. That was the first disposable that I tried. Of course I couldn't wear the plastic pants, so I put the liner into my underpants and peed and pooped in it. Of course, there was no plastic backing, so my pee soaked right through the pad, and wet my pants. Still, it held more pee than my underpants and felt good.
Hello, I didn't know people liked cloth diapers and I wasn't sure if there were adult diapers back in the old days when my parents were kids until my grandmother told me about she had to wear diapers for a awhile because the growth in her effected her bowels and made her lose control and I asked if they were cloth or disposable and she said they were cloth so I figured, oh so they did have adult diapers back then. I'm sure adult diapers have been invented too the same time diapers were invented. I didn't know people liked cloth diapers until I started coming on these boards more and talking to DL's. Before that I just stumbled on websites and the AB's happened to like disposable diapers. People didn't start mentioning they like cloth until I was 17 and that was when it was to my face. Now thanks to them, I want to try cloth sometime just to experience it.
Like every other kind of human behavior --- probably since the beginning of time.