My Diapery Diary

Normalization

Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Hot take: Adults wearing diapers really shouldn’t be a big deal

But even though a lot of people might agree with this idea, the people who actually need to wear diapers often feel ashamed of themselves; ashamed to acknowledge it or to talk about that facet of their existence at all–and people who actually kinda like having them as part of their personal aesthetic often feel like something must be seriously wrong with them

But why?

What about diapers makes them instantly such a powerful magnet for so many bad vibes?

Is it because they imply something gross about your hygiene?
Is it because they are something normal people “grow out of” needing?
Is it because they imply you have an embarrassing disability? (Bonus hot take: No disability should be seen as “embarrassing”)

Maybe some combination of all the above?

I’d like to challenge these things, because one of my biggest hopes is that I can help normalize diapers as a thing people can wear–for any reason at all! Medical reasons, physical reasons, emotional reasons, joke reasons, curiosity reasons…any reason at all!

Why is normalization important?

The main thing to keep in mind is that diapers are actually an incredibly human thing to wear; they were invented by humans, and are primarily worn by humans!

They’ve also improved the living conditions of people in incredibly important ways, and it’s not an exaggeration to say that their invention has prevented an unimaginable amount of death and suffering throughout their history; basically, I guess what I’m trying to get at is that, their invention was important

But why is this relevant?

Because, sure–obviously they are important! But so are a multitude of other things that you probably don’t like, right? How does this all translate to diapers themselves being important to “normalize”?

The distinction here is, diapers were created to improve the lives of the people who wear them

And by labeling something designed for the benefit of individual people–something these people will be associated with; as “bad”, the negative feelings of the object inadvertently transfer to the humans they are associated with. Meaning a person who is associated with diapers is a person with a more difficult life because of their lack of normalization

And that’s awful

Basically, normalizing diapers is important because there are a lot of reasons that people will be associated with them! And I don’t think that any of those reasons are adequate justifications for someone to effectively be tormented by society

But what about the weirdos who like them?

So, you might concede that normalizing adults wearing diapers normalizes incontinence–removing the stigma that a lot of people face by being subjected to something unpleasant about their everyday lives

But what about the people who don’t need them? After all, they’re just weirdos who we shouldn’t encourage to fly their freak flags unchallenged, right? But here’s the thing…

How do you know why someone likes diapers?

Isn’t it incredibly presumptuous to assume that someone wearing one who isn’t incontinent must therefore be doing it for the wrong reasons?

The thing is, there are people who wear diapers for comfort or security reasons, there are people who wear them for emotional ones, there are even people who just straight-up have a preference with no external reason at all! By and large, the biggest thing the “weirdos who like diapers” have in common, is that they are people who find that diapers improve their lives in one way or another

I’d like to repeat that because it’s important

Someone who likes diapers, is someone who finds that they positively impact their life!

We are talking about the ability for someone to passively improve their emotional wellbeing for the simple tradeoff of slapping on something that was made to improve the lives of humans to begin with!

Why should someone “liking a thing” disqualify them from being able to improve their life with it? Is it because you “shouldn’t” like them? And if so, isn’t that such a bizarre justification when you break it down to its core?

So yes! I think it’s okay to need diapers; and it’s even okay to like them!

Conclusion

Diapers are a thing that exist because they improve the lives of people–and I think that any way that they improve someone’s life is a valid one

The fact that diapers have such stigma attached to them, and the fact that they have so many negative associations is…not great!

Normalizing diapers to help reduce those negative associations would be amazing! Especially so that the people whose lives are genuinely improved by them don’t need to simultaneously feel like that improvement was a mistake

Normalizing diapers, normalizes people

Hidden kink

Wed, 06 Dec 2023 04:04:49 +0000

“I want to exist, but I don’t want to be harmful” – a lot of us, probably

After you get over the monumental hurdle known as “not loathing the fact you like things”, there is a common follow-up inner war that rages on inside of a lot of us; if it’s okay for us to exist, how much is is okay for us to exist?

Of course we can’t roll up into every situation totally decked out in our new-found self acceptance. That extreme is very obviously a no-go, but I also don’t think that only allowing yourself to exist in ways that are imperceptible to others is the answer either.

So where’s the line?

The most important rules in any kink context (or with any sexuality in general!) are the rules of consent.

Basically we are responsible for what we put out into the world, and if by putting something out there, we involve someone who did not explicitly consent to be included with our kinks, we are doing something Terribly Wrong.

I think that trying to respect this rule is the reason why so many people feel like the only acceptable way to exist is “imperceptibly”. When you want to do good by others, and the only way to exist around them is by explicitly asking them about something extremely personal that they might not even care about, that barrier to entry makes it very easy to make it seem like the only non-exhausting way to morally exist is to pretend like you don’t.

On one hand, this dedication to respecting others is admirable! But this line of thinking actually has a pretty big double-standard hidden deep within that isn’t doing us any favors too: What exactly does it mean to “involve” someone in something? And what are the implications of us not considering that?

Sexuality != Sex

The status quo is filled with examples of acceptable displays of sexuality, be it as simple as holding hands and kissing, or as complex and ubiquitous as the way society recognizes relationships, to the point where it is documented on some of the most boring and mundane paperwork on the planet.

These things aren’t sex, but are a recognition of sexuality.

Sure, you can extrapolate from your tax documents that intimacy might have happened with someone in specific, but showing someone your tax documents, sadly, isn’t an action that the rules of consent typically apply to.

Weddings are basically just huge parties where the sole purpose for many people throwing them is to declare to the world that they wish to be intimate with someone!

Basically, the implication of intimacy isn’t the same as exposing people to said intimacy.

So, if that’s the case, then the main sin kink must be committing is not that it can imply sexuality, but that it must be inherently sexual itself, and therefore immoral to draw attention to, right?

What’s okay for others versus what’s okay for me

Have you ever seen someone joke about your kink in a casual setting? (Even if you haven’t I’d like you to imagine for a moment what that would be like)

…does it seem immoral for them to have done that?

Now, I can’t read your thoughts, but if I had to guess at what your answer was, at worst, it would be weird, right? But very likely it probably wouldn’t feel actually-immoral for them to have said that, right?

The absolutist “it’s irresponsible to be visible at all” idea implicates that those very same words would be immoral or inappropriate coming from you, strictly on merit of the fact that you like the thing being joked about.

But why does this transformation happen? If the topic were something inherently immoral to bring up, then shouldn’t those rules apply to others as well?

Double standards aren’t good standards

So, if kinks themselves aren’t inherently immoral to bring up, and the implication that they exist isn’t the same as exposing others to those things, what does this mean for the idea that the only moral way to exist is by effectively erasing ourselves?

It means it’s a double-standard, silly!

Obviously we still need to be respectful of others, but visibly liking something that could be seen as kinky isn’t nearly the cardinal sin that it might intuitively seem to be.

Being visible normalizes the idea that we are beautifully diverse, and that it’s okay to exist outside of the status quo–and by quashing ourselves, we not only are limiting that message, but we are subjecting ourselves to a standard that simply doesn’t exist. Because it can’t!

But if that’s true, then how much can we morally exist in the public eye?

I think the answer to that lies within the rules of consent–but applied without the distortion that there is something inherently “wrong” with specifically-our-own kinks being anything besides invisible and unknown; it’s okay to be known! Just not okay to engage others without consent.

Double standards aren’t good standards, so we shouldn’t feel the moral responsibility to hold ourselves to them, but instead should treat all involved with respect–and that includes ourselves!