ADULT BABY GIRL (or Boy): A Big Myth
Things you will not find here are onesies, footed sleepers or teddy bears: And do not bring them here, Either!

Why?

We are "Little", not "Baby"

Why?

We think that the mroe like real life and the less "fake" your Little Girl experinece is, the more you will get from it. This is so because if you are living a "fake" thing, some part of you is aware that it is "fake" or made up. For example a 2 year old little girl has no idea that she is a little girl or even what "little", "girl", "diapers" or "rubber pantie" are. I can tell you this from what I remeber from when I was 3 and a bit younger which fit in well with the works of Jean Piaget and Maria Montessori (which is why I "buy" those two sets of ideas) and other works point to. That implies that an AB who claims to be such or thinks she is such is supermimposing her idea of what a two year old little girl ought to be over what a 2 year old little girl really is and the awareness of both what a 2 year old little girl is and the superimposing of her own ideas intrudes on her experience at some level. If "little girl" is important to you then you need to be at least 4-1/2. You will get more "girl"ness out of it if you are and we want you to get the most out of being here as can be

There is often something I see that is just plain rediculous and explains why the Little Girl age range here is 4 to 13: I often see things like "...Toddler Girl..." or "2 year old baby girl...". Often the writer will go on to tell you about how "little girl [at age 2-1/2] I am in my too-short dress and pink rubber panties..."

It is just flat out not so. The kind of things that mark one as being aware of being a little girl do not even begin to set in until really about 3-1/2 and do not really "take" until one is 4 or older. The age range for "gender aquisition" is listed as "3 to 5" years of age. So the "sissy baby" is a bit bogus (but makes a wonderful epithet) A baby has no gender (boy/girl psychological attributes).

If you look at what we call "baby length" dresses, they are half-way to the knee and we actually discourage the use of so-called "baby dresses" that always let the panties show. In fact the 3 year old feels nothing out of sorts about having her panties show or anything else of that nature. Her clothes probably do not even register. To be truthful, she feels nothing in particular about any of this and her dolly is indistinguishable from a teddy bear.

I have a few memories of when I was under 4 years old. I have two memories of being changed, once with the peach-colored panties and once with semi-clear sort of ecru. I do not remember anything of how the diaper felt or caring about anything. While I remember what the panties looked like, I did not know the names of the colors then or that they were called "rubber".. I rmember some of my third birthday, mostly the only feeling I rmember is curiosity and the only reason I remember it as my third is that I was told I was 3, though I am told I was a bit of a "holy terror". I do remeber a bit of my stay in the hospital for tonsils and did not like the preparations and was screaming like a stuck pig. The only things I rmember really hating were that and an enema and vowed that that was never going to happen to me again. When I was about 3-3/4 we got a television and there was a big to-do and some of the feeling rubbed off on me but it was still a bit detached. The ideas of things being things or of myself as an entity did not happen until I was 4+.

In fact the AB saying that her age is 18 months or younger has no idea of what it is about. From what we can glean, the 18 month old has no real feelings, It seems to me that the only way to experience the world of the under 3 years old would be to be heavily sedated or a prefrontal lobotomy; just where you would get the latter is beyond me as those have been made obsolete by the development of advanced micro-neurosurgery that lets us get at the specific nerves that need to be cut instead of taking out a whole swath of them.

So most of that kind of thing appearing in the AB literature is some kind of wishful thinking and part of the AB Agenda of trying to fit pre-concieved, imagined, "baby" feelings that are really post 3 years of age onto a baby or a toddler where the level of brain development and experience is just not there. That is, there just has not been enough time for the little one to have the right background and even if there was, the physical structure for it just is not there yet. So as for "feeling like a 2 year old baby girl", there is no "there" there. Since this is true then this is more part of the "Agenda" than real life. As proof of this, If it were that humiliating to a 2-1/2 year old to be dressed in one of those so-called baby dresses, would a conscientious parent dress her in such? Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka-dot Bikini was writtein about thte singer's 3 and something year old daughter. However for a 4-1/2 year old girl, a short dress that does cover her panties if she is careful is useful in that it creates a situation that she must learn to carry herself properly and wetting, diapers and rubber panties, becuase they are "for babies" are an issue with her so that there can be this kind of humiliation and it is far more fun to watch or threaten to lift her skirts. At 5 a person does not talk about "wearing diapers" or rubber panties but of "being put back [or kep]" in them or "Mommy makes me wear [them]". In the case of rubber panties with nothing under them or a rubber diaper under a baby diaper, the rubber on the chastity area creates feelings that a 3-2/3 year old is just becoming aware of associating with rubber unless something nasty happens, such as being fondled and she does not like that one bit. A 4 year old does notice and finds unpleasantly strong and distracting. When I was 4 and 5. parents would sometimes, without reailzing this since these were relatively new materials for wetness control, put the little one's "old [no longer used with diapers]" rubber panties on them over, under or instead of the cloth underwear to be sent to nursery school or some other place where a bathroom was not immediately nearby and the parents did not want to use a diaper or training panties, if they thought the child might have minor accidents or dribble a few drops; as usual, the girls got this more than the boys.. Wetting is no real issue to the 3 year old but by the time she is almost 5 a little girl knows that this is "too little" for her.

I have often said to some of my non-lifestyle friends that AB's "romanticize" being changed and then recount my experiences and that it was no big deal. I was made aware of diaper/rubber panty humiliation and the effects of rubber on the chastity area after I was 5 and before I was 8 and you have no idea of what that is like to a 6-1/2-7 year old; first, the whole chastity (modesty) issue and then the feelings of the rubber being rubbed on one's "flower" until some really strong feelings happen, your little body is twitching and wriggling uncontrollably and you are being softly but sternly scolded and you have no idea of what is happening to you. This was viewd then as being useful to promote modesty, which was called "chastity" so it was considered all right to do. The general attitude that it leaves towared rubber or any material called rubber are fascination, fear and horror. One big theme that is part of the "adult child" culture, that I share is rubber panty humiliation that centers around having rubber put on one's chastity area and being rubbed until you have "that feeling". The feeling would be wonderful if it were not so strong and intrusive and "eats you up" Also, most little boys would go pale at the threat of being made to wear "...a diaper, pink rubber panties and a girl's dress [question; is there a non-girl's dress?]"

What I dislke about trying to "live the 'Agenda'" is that it is phoney and that is true of any agenda where the attributes of the agenda ideal -- any agenda -- are made to override individual identity and common sense. That is usually called "lifestyle" and I avoid it like the Plague because it sounds too much like "religion" and I am a Classical Freethinker. Trying to Live the Agenda is phoney in at least three ways.

We despise this because it is at best phoney and usually downright dishonest. The words that comes to mind are "unauthentic", "fake" and "shallow". Now you ask "What is it to you?" It is natural to have a reaction to members of your own species being "airheads". Once you get that the person is doing this, there is no "reason" for the reaction, its nature is self-evident and the level of humanity of its practitioner is also self-evident. It is an irreducible primary: What can ever be left of a person who "acts down [in the sense of not being true to herself]"? Nothing. And I do not want to be anywhere near that kind of thing nor do I want it to come here.

Another issue is disposable diapers. Though they were around since about 1942 as part of the Kleinert's "Softext" (non-rubber waterpoof panties) system, and later, Platex Dryper, they did not come into widespread use until about 1968 and were designed for travel convenience more than as a first choice. Parents who lived durning the Depression would be, and were appalled at the waste of money. and diapers, even Pampers, without rubber panties was unthinkable for about another decade and a half. So anoyone born before 1962 using exclusively or primarily that type of thing is doing so for one or both of two reasons

  1. Convenience
  2. Trying to be AB "hip"
Also, diapers did multiple duty, such as burp cloths, and protective cloths for furnature and other things. Also families tended to have more than one child, usually about 3 in the 1950's so baby things were kept about 8 years and often given to a younger relative staring a family of here own. A real status symbol for a little girl was "real" diapers and rubber panties

Both of these are part of the Agenda and have nothing to do with that person's baby life. if they remember any of it before they were 4 and, if you were born in 1962, it could possibly be that pampers were in fact the first diapers you saw being used. The significance of this is that over half the Daily Diaper members were born in or after 1970 and most of that group have no clue about cloth diapers and about a third of the total have no experience with rubber panties. Beyond that, if you were born before the pampers explosion, then the current crop of throw-aways would not have that thick feeling between the legs that make for a full diaper experience, so if you are using them out of convenience, then there is a trade-off of authenticity

The same is true of PEVA (PolyEthelene Vinyl Acetat. When I got hold of a pair about a year ago and felt them material, two words came to mind "trash bags") and PUL (PolyUrethane Liminate, Which has a kind of creepy feel to them) baby panties. None of these existed 20 years aog, let alone 50 So If that is what you are using, how can you claim to be authentic or true to life? While some waterproofed cloth panties esisted as far back as 1942 Baby panties are not called "rubber panties" to this day for no reason.The overwhelming bulk of them from 1947 were either rubber pr vinyl. PEVA at most dates back to 2005 and PUL as a practical fabric that did not give out goes back to about the late 1980's and prior to that was only used in the linings of adult panties. So please, do not talk to me about being 1950's baby using PEVA or PUL. The same also goes for the term "diaper cover". the terms in use by Real People, even today were/are "rubber pant(ie)s" (overhwlemingly, soem use "plastic pants", "Baby pants/panties" or "baby bloomers" (more than a smidgen obscure even then

So to be an authentic, true-to-life diapered chiled or baby of the mid 1940's to about 1967, it is cloth diaperes and "rubber panties"

Since we are committed to being as like to real life as possible for a Little Girl (whether that Little Girl is male or female) and pride ourselves on that matter, and since we hate things that are phoney as a matter of course, then we must start at an age when those kinds of feelings become relevent. Our "Baby Nursery" is really a place for girls starting at age 3-1/4 and mostly a place where Little Girls learn how to take care of babies, meaning dolly, and Pampers, Chux, Luvs or Huggies are no part of RUFFLES & RIBBONS GIRLS' HOME. For Girls over 4 we have a diaper of our own design. Home made diapers for over-age betwetters, especially in large families and "homes" like ours was quite common in 1950 and even many babies wore homemade diapers since grownups who went through the Great Depression were seletive with their money and girls leaned to sew well enough to do this as a matter of course and fabric stores were all over the place. by 1953 a very good diaper for a 5 or even 7 year old could be made by taking 3 prefolds (then quite new) sewing 2 of them togehter the long way and sewing the third one straight out where the other two joined so that you had a "T" that was about 32" x 40" could be put on with one pin directly in front and would be adjustible from age 4 to about 9. Our diaper is made after real diapers of just that type that I knew about

Another Big Myth is "Daddy" as any kind of presence. The only reasons that is part of AB come from

  • Sex: More often than not AB play is used as a warm-up for the Big Nasty
  • Homosexuality: As above but with a gay spin and gay males are statistically over-represented in the AB population. Also "dom" and "sub" (overt dominance/submissiveness) as part of sex is more prevalent in homo than in heterosexual lifestyles
  • Pampers: Not only were men not part of the nursery but could not be. You could count on one hand the number of them who could change a cloth diaper. Also, the "look and feel" of the nursery is feminine; pastel colors, ruffles and baby powder. These were not the stuff of boyhood and any boy who showed an interest in this was regarded as a sissy and avoided like the plague. So not only were men disinclined to partake of nursery ife, they would not know Jacqueline about what to do. Part of that same myth is that boys have a place in the nursery. The idea of a boy either being diapered and having any status as a boy was and is still ludicrous in 90% of the Real World. The idea of a boy being a caregiver in the nursery is equally laughed at. The least that would happen is that he would be considered an effete jellohead. more likely, he would be thought either a sissy or sissified: "You don't want that; that's for girls" in a tone of voice that says "who wants to be a girl; ewww!". As was written in the DPF newletter by Little Christine some 17 years ago, after describing the ruffles, pastel colors and other feminine aspects of the nursery "...What kind of little macho heor could survive, let alone thrive, in that environment?". This too comes form the submissive sissified and sissy, with it's rhumba panties, doll and pink, but not willing to be an honest girl-person, homosexual; with dominant Daddy and submissive Son and we know who was doing what to whom. and self-pitying persons who crave "acceptance" and unconditional, read unearned, love. for just "being" and of no value, and usually a disvalue for being such a high-maintenance person. Even for a girl it is excessively sappy and saccharine. at age 3, I liked to be into things and so did all the girls I ever saw, true we were not as loud or boisterous but not by much.

    So, as you see, most of the "adult baby" themes are just flat out flat wrong. The "adult kid" or "little" is a different matter. It is a world rich in memories and images. There too, there is a strict gender separation with the boys being required, encouraged and naturally inclined to be more active with things like cowboys, spacemen, Blackhawk, Army and vigorous team sports all with a sense of honor and teamwork We girls, however, seem to get the better end of it. we get all the pretty things that we appreciate. It is the rare boy who can cross over, and rare girl who can cross over without being lessened in some ways. There was only one Annie Oakley. Also we are better trained, or were, to the things that we would actually be doing. Very few boys would ever fly jet fighters, stop cattle ruslters, slay dragons or fly the kinds of rockets that were envisioned in the middle of last century and the building toys seem almost antiquish. It is also worth noting that, these days, fewer girls know how to take care of children, too. Any of my friends could take care of her siblings for a couple od days by the time we were 11

    But that is why RUFFLES & RIBBONS GIRLS' HOME is not Adult Baby except in the way used by DPF to include "pre-schoolers" and "grade schoolers" but is now called "Adult Kid"