Petticoat Discipline Quarterly Forum

Full Version: Infantilization
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Much is said in this forum about feminization, making men take "traditionally feminine" attitudes, activities and clothing. But I would like to talk about a topic that I consider just as important and that in fact goes hand in hand with feminization, infantilization. Have men of all ages take children's attitudes, activities, and clothing (Specifically little girls' stuffs).

As you know by my name I love the princesses because they are the stereotype of sissy that I want to be but you can talk about programs for girls in general. The topics they deal with are perfect for feminization since they are full of messages in the background for girls to reinforce those attitudes that they are trying to implant so it would be perfect to educate the sissies in their role of life.

Ideally I would like that the reward for a sissy for a good cleaning or cooking job is being to be able to watch her favorite tv show, obviously one where she will see lots of beautiful princesses and yearn to be as pretty as they are. She would ask her wife to buy her those beautiful dresses full of bows, petticoats, glitters and a lot of pink heart shapes.

She would also see cleaning and home care work so she would ask for kitchen items that would normally be plastic but she is already a married adult and have obligations at home so instead she would receive for example a real kitchen knife but with a pink handle with a printed image of her favorite princess saying a phrase like "Good cooks are the most prettier". The same with all her cleaning and home care articles, to do herr chores while singing a children's song about finding the magic of love and dreams. 

When she see beautiful princesses she will want to look like them and ask for makeup and accessories for their clothes. Waiting for aa prince charming (Woman in this case) will make her have a projection of her marriage for which she want to be prepared and be a good wife.

Feminization and infantilization complement each other very well to create good sissies.

Next is not necessary but I want to talk about it. Diapers and other baby items. Making a sissy wear diapers to remind her of her inferior place before women, a man cannot believe that he is more than his daughter when he wears diapers and she does not. The message is clear, he is inferior to all women regardless of age. Pacifiers are good vows of silence since they could only be removed by a woman, leaving them without the possibility of speaking without permission. The hours of early sleep will make you finish your daily tasks faster, he knows that he cannot go to sleep late and if he is seen out of bed he will be punished.

The final idea is not that sissies are treated 100% like little girls or babies who have to take care. They would still be adults capable of cleaning the house, cooking with fire, taking care of the children, buying things in the market for dinner and having sex if her wife wants it. The idea is simply that they take just what is necessary to learn their place as sissies in society, although in the end the decision will always be of the wife for what she wants to do with her sissy.

One of my fantasies is for my wife to keep me in diapers and not let me change them myself. I would protest "Why you trust me to change our son's diapers but you don't trust me to change my own diaper" to which she would reply punishing me with a good spanking. I don't change my own diapers, not because I can't but to accentuate the power she has over me. After that she puts a pacifier on my mouth and won't let me take it off, since then any opinion that I have has to be asked for by her first.

Maybe I will write a story of how I imagine all this. Anyway, tell me what you think of infantilization as a complement to feminization?


Princess Sophie
Thank you for your input, BPS. I may well be one of the posters you are thinking of when you talk about the feminisation of males as I have posted about this at length previously. 

Your idea about infantilisation is interesting and one which my ‘graduation hypothesis’ (which I primarily use to discuss my feminisation meritocracy in which males basically have to learn to be feminine before they can earn the right to be masculine) comments on. 

My theory was always centred around the education system and does suggest that the lowest level may well include nappies to be followed up by the dress stage, with the nappies then disappearing but with the obligation to act prissy and girly remaining until reaching the skirt stage. Only at the skirt stage would they have earned the right to act more grown up - though still learning feminine skills (I set this out in more detail on my introduction thread back in February).

I think one of the key differences with what you propose is that is essence you would keep males as female infants by virtue of their given gender as opposed to the meritocracy system(whereby all individuals are included and only those who prove their worth - pass an exam essentially - would gain the right to be masculine). My reading of your idea is that a nappy would be just as much a part of a male’s life as (for instance) a bra is for females.

Interestingly, it has occurred to me previously that prospective parents may benefit from a period of infantilisation so that they may better understand some of what their new baby is experiencing. 

I find your idea to be an interesting addition to the discussions held on here in the past and from the infantilisation sense I think actually compliments many aspects of my own thoughts quite well. It would be good to see you flesh it out with ideas such as how it might be legislated (assuming you would make it a legal requirement, what the penalties might be for disobedience), how it actually functions (for instance would males just not be potty trained in the first place or would they be reintroduced to them as adults)?
Basic infant period:
Not only the inability to CHANGE DIAPERS but also include what is worn diaper covers - short frilly wide hem baby dresses - or very short skirts
and open belly riff "T" shirt - enhanced with perhaps LOCKING clothing - thumbless mittens to prevent tampering removing and that all important paci !

Then the gradual stages of earned dressing rights - still though in the restricted phase of No Diaper Changing to be continually and constantly reminded
until adult privileges are granted for good conduct doing chores and tasks.
Hiya Sophie, and welcome to the forum! I'm sure you'll love contributing here, and find plenty of like-minded sissies.

As a child I was punished by my mother by being made to wear my little sister's clothes. It started with being made to put on a pair of Lucy's panties for a spanking, and then being kept in them for longer and longer periods after my spanking. Eventually, when I begged to be allowed to either take the knickers off, or to have something to cover them up, I was given one of Lucy's dresses to put on. The humiliation was two-fold - not only being dressed as a girl, but as a girl two years younger than me.

My mother quickly realised the power of not only making me dress as a girl, but as a younger girl than my sister. Having been clearly the 'big brother', I was now dressed as Lucy's 'little sister'. From ever-frillier knickers and party dresses she regressed me further, and put me back into nappies and even baby clothes. It was intensely humiliating not only having a dress on, but having nappies and frilly baby knickers on under it.

And, of course, no matter how small you are, and like you I'm really quite small, in knickers there's always a little bulge, whereas in a nappy, especially with baby knickers over your nappy, there's really no way of telling whether you're a boy or a girl. A nappy is truly emasculating.

So I agree, there is little more humiliating than being made to wear a pretty dress, with the tell-tale bulge which let everyone know I also had a a nappy on. Often my dress was so short that my baby knickers were on display in any case, leaving no doubt about my infantile status.

I didn't consider myself an especially naughty child, but there's no doubt that being infantilised very quickly taught me to be meek and submissive.
(08-06-2020, 06:11 PM)Ali Wrote: [ -> ]Hiya Sophie, and welcome to the forum! I'm sure you'll love contributing here, and find plenty of like-minded sissies.

As a child I was punished by my mother by being made to wear my little sister's clothes. It started with being made to put on a pair of Lucy's panties for a spanking, and then being kept in them for longer and longer periods after my spanking. Eventually, when I begged to be allowed to either take the knickers off, or to have something to cover them up, I was given one of Lucy's dresses to put on. The humiliation was two-fold - not only being dressed as a girl, but as a girl two years younger than me.

My mother quickly realised the power of not only making me dress as a girl, but as a younger girl than my sister. Having been clearly the 'big brother', I was now dressed as Lucy's 'little sister'. From ever-frillier knickers and party dresses she regressed me further, and put me back into nappies and even baby clothes. It was intensely humiliating not only having a dress on, but having nappies and frilly baby knickers on under it.

And, of course, no matter how small you are, and like you I'm really quite small, in knickers there's always a little bulge, whereas in a nappy, especially with baby knickers over your nappy, there's really no way of telling whether you're a boy or a girl. A nappy is truly emasculating.

So I agree, there is little more humiliating than being made to wear a pretty dress, with the tell-tale bulge which let everyone know I also had a a nappy on. Often my dress was so short that my baby knickers were on display in any case, leaving no doubt about my infantile status.

I didn't consider myself an especially naughty child, but there's no doubt that being infantilised very quickly taught me to be meek and submissive.
I’m with you there, Ali and whilst I didn’t enjoy either my own petticoating or nappy punishment as a child, it is probably telling that female clothes have since come to dominate my life whereas nappies are now used in most cases for convenience.

Although, I did undergo nappy punishment alone, I was lucky in comparison in that my sister had been known to suffer the same so even if she wasn’t in nappies while I was, her ego was reeled in by the threat of it.
Hi. I love the idea of meritocracy for sissies, although the rewards for me would be different, if the sissy really dislikes wearing diapers she will really strive to be a good girl and be able to "increase her age". In my case, my rewards would be that they buy me the most beautiful dresses. And a sissy should never have the possibility of being masculine, a sissy should always be a prim and submissive little princess.

Also, diapers would not be necessary for everyone, as I said "Next is not necessary but I want to talk about it". In the end, everything is up to the mother / wife for what she wants to do with her sissy, she will decide if they want her in diapers or not and I love the idea that a sissy about to become a father is infantilized so that she knows better. what is taking care of a baby.

As for the legal issue, I imagine a society dominated entirely by women where men are second-class citizens, all sissies. Then the mere disobedience to her mother / wife would have its punishments which the mother / wife would give. Only if they are more serious things like a sissy trying to escape from home would the authorities be called upon to do something about it. All decisions are made by women so a mother chooses whether to potty train her child or leave him in diapers. Like the wife who chooses to leave him in diapers, do potty training. Or return him to the diapers if she deems it necessary.

Sophie~

I love the idea, the most suitable clothes are baby dresses with many frills, with an opening to leave the belly exposed and the skirt no more than 10 centimeters below the waist to make the diaper well visible.

Sophie~
Thanks for your response, BPS.

I suppose the next question then is what the role of a sissy is? I get the impression from your original post that you assume they would all serve females and be in essence ‘feminised house husbands’. The problem I envisage with this is that it would likely shift the market somewhat. These days most females work alongside their male counterparts (unlike in the past when many stayed at home full time) so adopting that approach would mean a lot of jobs essentially disappearing. Take a mechanic as an example of a stereotypical Male job. Would this role be done by females going forward (in which case what happens to the role that she might otherwise have done) or do males continue to do these roles but in sissy dresses and nappies?

My own approach to this was in essence to divide jobs up into those that required Male clothing and those that didn’t. In this case any male or female that earned the right to wear trousers could access this role (and quite possibly be restricted to them to keep the job market balanced) whereas a male who was still legally obligated to wear skirt (or dresses) and heels would have to take up a job where such clothing was suitable. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.
Our situation is quite unusual in that I no longer work full time and only take the odd project on consultancy basis, where I work from home. My wife has her own, rather successful company and works very hard with long hours. This is why we decided I should stay at home and tend to the house and she would bring home the pay.

I am therefore in my uniform at all times when at home to look after the running of the house and to take care of my wife's every need as soon as she gets back.
(08-13-2020, 12:39 AM)rubberpinafore Wrote: [ -> ]Our situation is quite unusual in that I no longer work full time and only take the odd project on consultancy basis, where I work from home.  My wife has her own, rather successful company and works very hard with long hours.  This is why we decided I should stay at home and tend to the house and she would bring home the pay.  

I am therefore in my uniform at all times when at home to look after the running of the house and to take care of my wife's every need as soon as she gets back.
We always knew you were ahead of your time, rubberpinafore  Wink  

It sounds like (Whilst there are some key differences in the details) you might in fact already be practicing the essence of what BPS is advocating for.
Actually I am firmly for sexual equality as everyone is equal. We do our thing simply to accommodate my fetishes and my wife wants me to be happy. I in turn want only that for her too, to be happy, and we have found a way that works supremely well for us. I am sure this will no doubt upset a few of the members but I mean no one any disrespect. Each to their own and best of luck in how you achieve that goal.
Pages: 1 2