What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

So I was browsing the DailyDiapers forum earlier and I came across this post from our friend Stanley:

"Hello Everyone,

I wanted to take a moment to make a request. Hopefully this is the right spot for this posting. I have been approached to do another documentry on infantilism which begins taping on Feb 6th and will last for 3 days. They would like to include a play date. This was a request last time with Taboo, but no one was able to make it. So here I am trying my request again. If there are any AB’s who are willing to come and do a play date. I am sure they would compensate for gas money. Just have to find someone willing to come up and play. There is a adult size play pen and high chair to play with. They are also going to pay for baby food to. Anyway, if anyone is interested in coming up for a day, let me know. Just message me on here. Thanks everyone.


Seriously, what the fuck? I don’t understand why he is going on TV again. Does he get off on getting his 15 minutes of fame? Or is he deluded and actually thinks he is somehow helping the ABDL community?

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

In Stanley’s case, he genuinely believes he’s taking one for the team, or at least he did when he did Taboo, because he pretty much was the last person on their list (everyone else refused the gig)…

I feel bad for the guy. I’ve no doubt this is at least partially driven by his grief over the loss of his friend. I did my best to try and present it to him in a way where he can see what kind of damage it could potentially do to him personally.

I don’t think berating him is going to do any good at all, though.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

My guess is deluded. If he’s willing to do it again then he either doesn’t know how much damage he caused last time or he doesn’t care. This’ll probably spark another “should we or should we not have more publicity” debate so I’ll just go ahead and say NO! We don’t!!!

Of course…….that’s just my opinion.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

I’m more worried about the damage he’s going to do to himself. It doesn’t hurt me one iota if he goes on TV. I don’t flaunt my kinks in public, so I don’t have to worry about public scorn.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

I wish I could just say: Let him screw up his life and reputation further, if that’s what he wants; it doesn’t effect me much.

No, while it may not effect me much, it is going to effect somebody. It’s going to further complicate the image the general public has of the ABDL Community (an already spotty image). It’s going to be somebody else’s first impression of an “adult baby,” more likely to be a negative impression than a positive one.

I imagine myself, as a teenager, getting caught by my mother with AB paraphernalia and a rather embarrassing internet history. I remember the grief and difficulties our relationship had as a result. The only saving grace there was that my mother had no idea what “AB/DL” was. It was, essentially, what I told her it was. She didn’t have preconceived notions of it and we were able to at least talk about it, over time.

I try to imagine that situation now, for some teenager who either gets caught or “comes out” to his family or friends about this. He might not even get the chance to explain to them what this means to him or how it fits into his life. It may be Stanley’s appearances on Taboo or whatever this new show is that causes his friends and family to say “Yeah, we know about that. It’s not okay, either.”

To take it even a step further, if this is the image that we’re broadcasting of us to the public (nevermind whether its true or not), we could see a trend of younger ABs (and older too, I suppose, but I’m just making an example of the younger ones right now) who are scared to be themselves and even more doubtful of what interests they think they have.

These are all worst-case scenarios, sure, but I think they are believable possibilities. To sum it up in one sentence: Stanley would be a very selfish person to go on television like that again.

(Now, of course, situations like this are inevitable. There are going to be shows that want to exploit this, and there are going to be ABs who think they should go on TV, for whatever reason. I’m simply saying that Stanley has done enough damage and should re-consider.)

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

I feel terrible for Stanley, and I wish people were more understanding. I took the time to read through most of his blog entry (I’ll admit to skimming through a great deal of it) and it shed a lot of light on his life. He’s a little touched, I’ll concede, but WBDaddy has a strong point: he’s probably mad with grief. Who wouldn’t be? With the recent death of his friend and caretaker, he probably sees this as his greatest chance to for human contact. I think everybody wants to be loved, to feel secure, and to make a connection. Maybe in his mind the chance to be on television is an alluring opportunity, and he’s more or less hoping that someone will take the offer because it makes him more attractive?

The night that the episode aired, I pretty much happened upon it by chance. I was visiting a woman I’d met online who had come from out of town to see me, and her reaction was strangely positive. I kept throwing out probing questions and comments to gauge her reaction, and she never once had anything negative to say. She was, in fact, surprisingly defensive of Stanley and his lifestyle.

Do I think he helped the community? No. I just don’t genuinely believe that his publicity was bad enough to cause severe, lasting harm. There may be some people out there who think of Stanley as a freak who tried to cheat the government for social security, but even if Stanley was a physically attractive, working-class citizen who limited his regression to a manageable portion of his life, there would still people out there who would see him as a freak.

I’m not saying he should go, but I think it’s a stretch to call him selfish if he decides to put his face back up on Taboo. I also think that some of the ideas about his affect on public opinion are a little exaggerated. He doesn’t represent us. He isn’t our club president. If somebody’s opinion of me changes because they think of me as “a freak, just like Stanley,” that person isn’t worth having in my life.

Consider this, as well. It may be that Stanley has already done as much damage as he was going to do, and if he takes the opportunity to show people that he was previously misrepresented, he may be able to mitigate whatever damage he caused with his last act. That’s an exceptionally unlikely and optimistic perspective, I’ll admit, but no more so than the suggestion that Stanley’s television spectacle might cause younger infantilists to doubt themselves.

Unfortunately if a “play date” is one of Taboo’s conditions, my intuition tells me that we’re in for another round of freaks on parade.

Personally speaking, I feel like everyone who has any kind of kink has at least some responsibility toward the public, insofar as they shouldn’t throw their fetishes at other people. Anytime you decide to get up and paint the town red in a disposable and a pair of footie pajamas, you’re setting a precedent for the rest of us by exposing people who didn’t ask to be exposed to your private life. I’ve read some posts here and been genuinely surprised to see that there are people who have dressed themselves up and gone out in public only to receive very little in the way of negative attention.

For every person who likes to wear diapers and be infantilized, there are probably several people who will be disgusted. But there are also a surprising amount of people who are equally likely to adopt a live-and-let-live mentality, or who may even be sympathetic and compassionate.

I’ve recently come to believe that the people in my life who need to understand will understand, and if there are people in my life who don’t or won’t understand, than either they don’t need to know or they don’t need to be in my life. Stanley has all of jack shit to do with that.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

You’re probably talking about me.

I was making a general statement, and I deliberately didn’t mention your name. I don’t really know what the circumstances were surrounding your particular situation, nor was I attacking you personally. I do recall a post in which you discussed a few public outings, and I noted that I was surprised that relatively few people reacted unkindly. That was it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I would group you in the same category as someone who dresses up inappropriately to get attention, but it also doesn’t change my feelings on the matter.

Yes, I have gone out dressed in little girl clothing - multiple times in multiple locales. Yes, I have received extremely little negative attention - and a lot of positive attention. I do not flaunt my underwear or diapers when I do so … I wear suitably lengthed dresses or skirts - or even overalls, as well as tights, and a wig …. a jacket or coat if it is cold. I dare say I show a LOT less skin than most of the public surrounding me.

I don’t really care about gender-barriers. If a man wants to dress up like a woman or vice versa, I take absolutely no issue with that. To my thinking, transexuality and cross-dressing fall closer toward lifestyle choices than kinks. Note also that I never specifically said that what you were doing was wrong. I don’t really know what you do or what the circumstances surrounding your situation might have been.

I do not think of this as throwing my private kink in anyone’s face, because this is not a kink. A kink is, by definition: “a peculiarity or deviation in sexual behavior or taste.” That’s not me. I suppose it COULD be called a kink if we used this definition: “An unusual or eccentric idea.”

I always refer to diaper fetishism, age regression and infantilism as kinks or fetishes, because that’s how I identify with them, and – as you just pointed out – because both terms are accurate. I understand that not everyone relates to them in that manner, but it’s very difficult for me personally to conceive of how they can be viewed in any other light. I understood diaper fetishism to be sexual before I knew what it meant to have sex.

The terms “kink” and “fetish” both have broad definitions. I’m willing to bet that these definitions were broadened specifically to clarify situations such as this. You can refer to someone as having a leather kink without necessarily implying a sexual connotation, but it won’t change how I personally feel about people who go to the supermarket wearing bondage masks and nipple clamps.

Why do I do it then? The freedom to be myself. I can do that without waddling around in a full diaper on display - I think most people can - even those who identify more as babies.

Hey, it’s a free country. I never once climbed up on my high horse to tell other people what they could or couldn’t do, but I do feel that people should show some modesty when they put themselves directly in the public light. That doesn’t mean that people will, but it also doesn’t change my feeling on the subject.

And even when we’re talking about completely immodest attire, it’s one thing if a person is headed to an event or a a club that caters specifically to his or her kinks and another thing if that person goes to places that are all adult-oriented. But when we start talking about venues where we can’t control who is and isn’t present, I personally start to take issue.

So people may be exposed to a style of dressing they may not like

It’s more than that. Take a submissive masochist who has some very liberal views about relationships, sexuality, dominance and power exchange. Nothing wrong with that. Now imagine that person is walking into a store on a leash, on all fours, wearing nothing but a dog collar, a pair of boots and some leather chaps. Even if he isn’t putting anyone in danger or exposing his genitals to the public, I still feel like he’s still painting the entire subculture in a poor light. If I had children, I wouldn’t want them to be exposed to something like that at an early age – and I don’t really care whether or not that person considers it to be sexual or not.

I’m not saying that this is the equivalent of what you do. I don’t really know what you do or how you dress - and I’ll admit that a footed sleeper was probably a poor example, considering what people have gotten away with; it was the first thing that came to mind at the time. Still, I feel that there absolutely comes a point where a line gets crossed, and I feel like everyone, from the man who wears a leather collar around his neck as a symbol of his dominant’s power to the woman who likes to wear her pacifier out in public (neither of which is inherently wrong), should be conscious of that line.

Since when did we start getting the idea that because I don’t like to see something, that makes it wrong for anyone to do or dress such in public?

These are my personal feelings on the matter. I’m sure everyone will have a different opinion on the subject.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

Stanley is just like Brett who went on Dr. Phil. They think they are helping, when they are in fact hurting the community. I really think Stanley needs to rethink this, considering what he went through last time he was on TV. Sure he got cleared, but really, why put the bullseye back on the back like this?

I wonder if Taboo would pixelate the face and distort the voice of the playmate if requested

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

I’m guessing they would have to do so if asked. They open themselves up to a lawsuit otherwise.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

Taboo wound up doing Stanley the first time because everyone else they approached wanted the face pixelation and the voice distortion. I think they’d fish for as long as necessary to find someone willing to debase themselves, considering how many people have already done so.


Oh, and Kip, if someone signs a contract stating that they agree to have their face shown on TV, they can’t sue over it later. And it’s not discrimination if the producers insist on signing that contract as part and parcel to being involved in the shoot.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

I never knew that Stanley was not the first choice. Thanks for the info

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

He said it himself in his blogs, that he was one of the last people on their list.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

I think you missed my point. If the contract said the playmate’s face would be pixelated, then the production aired the episode without the pixelization, they open themselves up to a lawsuit.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

Well duh, but what TV network would do something that phenomenally stupid?

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

I sent Stanley a private message on DD and I told him how I felt and that I felt he was making a mistake. I know he feels he’s taking one for the team, but sorry, I am NOT part of that team and I would NEVER go on a show like that. I have several key reasons for it. First off, I would risk destroying my life, what I have worked for and what I have earned through that hard work. I told him, ‘You risk attracting a bigger fish than Coburn, maybe one of the Republican presidential candidates.’

I don’t think Stanley is really all that sane to be honest. I think he’s out there in space somewhere, maybe just past Vulcan and Bajor to be honest- Sorry, I couldn’t resist the Star Trek references.

I think Stanley lives in a fantasy world. I told him in my message, yes I have been on TV. I have been on TV several times. I was on WJKW TV8 in kindergarten, I was on 10TV in Columbus in '95, I was part of a crowd shot at WWE Saturday Night’s Main Event in Detroit in '06 and I was interviewed by 19ActionNews WOIO on October 21, 2009 on my way into work about Swine Flu and I have video proof of that.

One wonders if he wants to hang onto his fifteen minutes of fame. One wonders how delusional he really is.


Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

He not only risks the Repub candidates, but he also risks the Govt re-opening the investigation, especially after it was reported a few days ago about how a dentist cheated the system, a doctor in my area cheated the system, and the fact that the Govt is looking for ways to cut waste in govt now. I won’t be surprised if in a few months, we do not see him making a post complaining because they decided to review his case and make him re-qualify either.

So he could be somewhere in the Briar Patch or even the Mutara Nebula :slight_smile: (sorry couldn’t resist since both are past Vulcan and Bajor)

I to have been on TV before and it is not anything to make a big deal about.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

ok i saw the taboo episode and am i missing something but i didnt think it painted us in a bad light. The only bad thing that came from it was that people jumped all over the social security thing. Which to me doesnt make us look bad, it makes everyone else look bad. They dont want to accept us so they look for any reason to hate us, so in stanelys case its that he is on social welfare and that he is over weight. Really the only thing i got from taboo was that society doesnt want to know about us.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

Actually, as much as I hate defending an obviously delusional man like Stanley, there is an unfortunate side-effect for everyone but him of that investigation.

As a direct result of the investigation he has 365 days of protection from further review of his case unless new definite proof of wrong doing on his part or the doctors who reviewed his case is presented. To make it more fun the proof can’t come from another appearance on tv unless he openly admits to wrong doing. Welcome to the wonderful world of an over worked and understaffed government agency.

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

Obscure Star Trek references at that… :o

Re: What is it with ABDLs and going on TV?

What the AB/DL community needs is some red matter and a warp ship that can fly at warp speed around the sun and then no AB will ever have been on TV.