Rereading my last post in this thread brings up a few other ideas I wanted to explore. (I'm slowly getting used to the idea that this is a forum, and more shareing is good, since I tend to feel like I'm nearly spamming the place when I post.)
One concept that jumps right out at me is some variation on what the significance of wetting A diaper semi or totally intentionally is in the face of having wet thousands. Is a diaper truely only there 'just in case', worn only as a backstop to a complete inabilty to control, or is it there as a 'health aid'? If I may illustrate; should one take aspirin only when completely debilitated by pain, or is it ok to take some when one feels a headache comming on? Stated another way, if it is POSSIBLE to walk without the aid of crutches, but more productive and easier to use them, is it shameful or lazy to use crutches? I suspect these aren't even sensible questions to apply to using diapers if it weren't for the use of shaming in childhood toilet training, and victorian disgust with bodily function. In the scheme of things, voiding in a diaper is such a minor and personal event that it's curious just how much emphasis is placed on not doing so. However, having said that I still myself fall victim to some degree of guilt and perhaps a twinge of shame regarding it time to time.
I think another enlightening way of examining the topic for concepts and social/emotional responses is this (and this is less an argument than a thought experiement): Externalizing and projecting, consider the case of someone you care about, a spouse, parent adult child. . . someone you wouldn't like to see in physical and emotional turmoil. Now imagine that the only means of relieving their physical and emotional pain is for them to void in a diaper. How shameful would you consider this act? Would you think of them as lazy, or quite reasonable under the circumstances? I think that one must misunderstand the concept of 'caring about' a person to answer that they would still think it unreasonable and shameful. After all, it's not as if they have to drink the blood of new borns to reduce their own suffering, only to deposit waste in a receptical designed, produced and sold for the purpose of depositing waste. Turn that around, especially my fellow urge sufferers and apply it to yourselves. I hope we all care about ourselves deeply, and if this minor ideosyncracy, this slightly different concept of elimination, wouldn't bother us if a loved one were doing it, why should we allow ourselves any less consideration?
I'm going to make just one more observation in this post, and offer one more perspective.
Firstly, and I throw this out as an insight into how my own mind works as a way of setting the context for what follows. Personally, when wearing absorbent underwear, I'm thinking in terms of avoiding wetting unless it is just not reasonably possible. I'll readily interupt activities, put conversations on hold, and generally drop what I'm doing when the urgency hits to get to the bathroom in time. Failing to do so feels like defeat. That is, wetting in absorbent underwear engenders much more of a sense of failure and shame when it is in fact truely accidental and unavoidable. Further, if on occasion I decide not to rush off from something and semi intentionally wet absorbent underwear there is considerable guilt associated with it. Not the sort of thing that keeps me up at night, not after this many years, but it is a recognizable emotional response for me. Conversely, when I wear diapers, I have generally already made the decision that unless the bathroom is very readily accessable (i happen to be standing next to one) or for whatever reason, it has been a couple of hours or more since I've gone and I'm still dry, then it is my intention to use the diaper and not seek out a bathroom. Under this latter circumstance there is much less anxiety about wetting, little guilt or shame feelings. I suspect this says something about intentions and how they affect our thinking. Thus I wonder if it's possible to say that a part of emotional acceptance of inco (and it's management) is intentional. If it is I think that one must examine ones motives to see if we're seeking out the wrong thing. Is it 'staying dry' we're after, or is it resuming 'normal' life? I think that (and I'm not saying it's this simple, because it hasn't been for me) if we're clear about what it is that we intend, what our goal is, that the emotional component of where wastes end up is greatly lessened, and the choice about whether to seek out a toilet each time the urge arrives (or for that matter each time the normal need is felt) starts to depend on what best suits the goal of enjoying life instead of the sometimes conflicting goal of staying dry. I know that for me, the closer I get to redefining my goal as enjoying life, and the further I get from 'staying dry' as a goal, the less I stress, and the happier I am. After that it's all a matter of what is practical and convenient. If it turns out that's going to the bathroom, fine, if it's using a diaper, equally fine. I guess what I'm saying is that the more I redefine my goal as enjoying life, the less I base my self respect and sense of maturity and 'normalcy' on where I pee. Really, if you think about it, something as insignificant as in what manner one eliminates ones waste, is that what we ought to base our self image on?
|