>>19377257And I've covered that too, yet you keep going back to it. Face it, you can wear diapers without either pissing or shitting in them, and until someone does that, it's plain retarded to react to them in the same way you would if they were wearing a shitty one.
>>19377262>I instantly cringed at that one ROxie picture itt as soon as I opened it, whereas the thumb made it look sexy.Would you do that from the moment you were born, or if you had never heard of diapers before? No, because there's no instinct that says diapers are disgusting. While I'm obviously not saying children shouldn't learn how to use the bathroom, there are many cases of toddlers not wanting to stop wearing them, so it's not like they're instinctively disgusted by wearing them (shitting in them, on the other hand...).
>This must really be a thing in America.Not even American, though.
>Where I come from, parents simply take their kids and sit them in a toilet until they shit. If the kid can't do it, they try again wen it has grown a couple months.They don't say anything about being a big boy, then? Or that diapers are just for babies? And if they still aren't able by a certain age (1, 3, 5, 15 or whatever), how do the parents (and surroundings) react to that?
Face it, while there are exceptions, people are taught to feel bad about diapers, and to make those who need them feel bad about it too.
>Holy shit you're really grasping at straws if you believe the makings of an independent free thinker are wearing plastic cumbersome underwear reminiscent of infants and scat and don't you fucking deny itI'm just saying that if you associate diapers with infants and scat, you're about as much of an "independent free thinker" as someone who makes fun of people for wearing glasses and says they're just for nerds.
