Gloria Brame, Ph.D.

Diaper Fetish Caper

Filed By Gloria Brame, Ph.D. | August 16, 2009 5:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Media
Tags: Craigslist ad, sexual exploitation

In the category of "why desperately frustrated fetishists need to work on their issues before they do something craaaazy," this strange story about another Craigslist ad debacle.

Woman Falls Victim to Man's Baby Fetish, Via Craigslist

According to a report by Florida's WKMG last month, Janet Schulte, of Melbourne, Florida, answered an ad on the classifieds site to care for a man's older brother who supposedly had a "diminished mental capacity." Schulte took the job and went to work -- feeding the man with a baby bottle and changing his adult diapers. Every time she asked to meet the disabled man's brother, she was given an excuse. When Schulte's weekly $600 payments started arriving late, she and her husband looked into the situation.

According to a report on NBC Miami this Monday, the couple discovered, to their disgust, that the man with the "diminished mental capacity" and the 'brother' who posted the ad were, in fact, the same person. For weeks, she'd just been playing into his baby fetish. (WKMG's earlier report suggests that the diaper-wearer, identified as Ryan, does indeed have a brother, named Mike, although Mike denied any knowledge of the circumstances to WKMG reporters.) To make things worse, NBC Miami reports that there's nothing the Schultes can do, since the man (or men) didn't technically commit a crime.

Every molecule of my being wants to make a raft of jokes about the details of this story and the reportage. ("Falls Prey to Baby Fetish" alone could keep me going for several paragraphs.)

The reality, though, is that someone was conned into doing things she would never have chosen to do if she knew the facts and that must feel horrible. The humiliation of it, the unfairness of it, the betrayal: even if he didn't technically break any laws, he abused and perhaps permanently traumatized the woman and her husband. Their lives and their marriage will never quite be the same again.

You know I'm all about the sexual diversity. SM, fetishes, swinging, poly, homosexuality, bisexuality, trans, you name it: I think it's all good and all clean and all normal. But exploiting other people without regard to their emotional well-being is a sick behavior that has nothing to do with your sexual identity.

That's just being a lousy, low-life human being.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | August 16, 2009 6:01 PM

Gloria, I couldn't agree with you more regarding the despicable lack of consent and dishonesty inherent in what this guy did. Sadly, I suspect the aspect most people will focus on is his fetish. He not only hurt the Schultes, but others out there who share his fetish and suffer society's prejudice without every harming anyone.

A despicable con job on so many levels.

Also a reminder that anyone who places or responds to a free online ad must be a skeptic, ask questions, confirm facts, sign a contract when appropriate.

Tamsin White | August 16, 2009 11:11 PM

Before I say anything, I will let everyone know that I too am an Adult Baby. It's not so much a fetish for me, even though I wear adult diapers. I'm 20 years old, by the way.

I want to make it clear, that I do NOT condone, in any way, the trickery and deceit this man has committed, but I will try and help people understand something.

The drive for an AB/DL (Adult Baby/Diaper Lover) to stay in the 'closet' can be as strong as any homosexual or transsexual individual. The same fear that afflicts LGBT people can also afflict AB/DL's.
As people such as; crossdressers; homosexuals; bisexuals and transsexuals can suffer from transphobia or homophobia, AB/DL's can suffer from a similar type of "Babyphobia," or internalised oppression, in which they need to keep all their baby items hidden, keep their lifestyle a secret, and go to phenomenal lengths to keep ANYONE from finding out. For most of us it goes far, far deeper than simply a fetish.

Now, if this man was brave enough he would've said from the beginning that he's looking for an adult to baby him.

Some points in the article I think are baseless and nothing more than opinion:

1) "The reality, though, is that someone was conned into doing things she would never have chosen to do if she knew the facts and that must feel horrible."

Answer 1) You never know! She might have enjoyed it, or been OK with treating him like a baby, HAD SHE KNOWN he was an AB/DL. It's an unfair and an unfounded generalisation to simply assume that NO adult would ever want to treat another adult like a baby.

2) "The humiliation of it, the unfairness of it, the betrayal"

A2) The humiliation of what, exactly? If 'it' refers to the actual treating the man like a baby, then I can understand if a person may be humiliated by that. However, is it really fair that one would be humiliated by that? Surely the humiliation comes from the exact same "babyphobia" that the AB/DL themselves feel. While it may be a common experience, do we protect the humiliation, fear and guilt and not the AB/DL's actions of acting like a baby?
I feel that the trickery and deceit she went through would've been an embarrassing experience, but I doubt it's a rational or valid emotional response to be humiliated in treating an adult like a baby.

As a closing statement I will just make clear, that an AB/DL's need to be babied can and is sometimes stronger than any sex drive, or need to eat. That should help people realise the desperation we can face. As an addition to that, I do acknowledge that for this very reason, we DO need to keep an eye on our 'cravings' and make sure we indulge them ETHICALLY! Every AB/DL needs to indulge their baby-self in small and consistent doses, because abstinence breeds compulsion.

In conclusion, I feel equally bad for the AB and his unsuspecting 'Mummy.' The inner struggle and turmoil AB/DL's face can be devastating.


Clearly the fact that she has gone to the media about this would denote that she did not enjoy this experience. Why you would even think that it could be read that way is beyond me.

The problem here isn't that he was an adult baby. The problem is that he lied to get a woman to do something under a false premise. That makes it a non-consenting behavior. It doesn't matter if you consider it "sexual" or not.

Tamsin, thank you for giving us a better understanding of the Adult Baby fetish. I knew it existed, but otherwise knew nothing about it.

I am not sure I agree with your point #1. Yes, some women act as mommies to persons with AB interests. But I don't think that is the point.

Her anger and outrage went beyond merely being offended at his deception. Online relationships often result in deception until the two parties actually meet... but the deceived person doesn't go to the police to file a complaint.

And she was willing to talk to the press, despite the embarrassment of having her name splashed across the nation and being the subject of many jokes. Again, this goes beyond the resentment of simply being deceived.

As for point #2, here is her explanation of why she is outraged: ""I feel violated, Schulte said, sharing her story because she said the man has deceived other women and will try again. "I feel disgusted....I consented to change his diapers, but I legitimately thought this man needed help," she said. "How can that not be a crime for him to come into my house and expose himself?"

Tamsin White | August 17, 2009 7:59 AM

Thanks for your reply, Dale. I'm glad I was able to share my knowledge on this.

However, I feel that you took her comments out of context. She said she felt violated and disgusted, but she did not say them either at "Because he's an AB" or "Because he tricked me." I know, technicalities, but she is most likely referring partially to both areas, and not specifically one as the incident in its entirety would overwhelm someone.

My first point, where I said she may have enjoyed it had she known about it, was to emphasise what a person can enjoy if they're told from the beginning about it, and given time to adjust. Her sensibilities and moral standpoints were severely jolted and abused by the magnitude of the deceit.

You seem to be placing more emphasis on the aspect of being an Adult Baby, than the deceit itself. As "Brynn Craffey" stated in the first comment, that may be sadly what would happen.

Schulte's statement, "I consented to change his diapers, but I legitimately thought this man needed help," is unrelated to the statements about feeling violated and disgusted. It also shows where she was at with her emotions during that time. She legitimately thought he was disabled, and therefore was in an extremely different mind frame to a person who'd have been asked to care for an AB.

She would've been in shock for a few reasons:
a) Because she thought he was disabled, and later found out that was a lie.
b) Admittedly, due to his REAL intentions, to be cared for like a baby without telling her this at the start.
c) Because she trusted him, and that trust was broken.

The biggest shock and disgust I say, would come from the fact that she thought he was handicapped, but later found he wasn't. I know that if I was pushing someone around in a wheelchair, who told me they were paralysed, then I later caught them walking, I'd be utterly in shock.

I honestly feel that the AB aspect of it all, was LESS of a shock, than pretending to be disabled. A shock none the less, but not the main focus of her outrage.

So I'm a regular commenter here under a different name but am using this pseudonym to reply to this post. The reason being is that i'm also an ABDL person, but don't particularly care to be "out and proud" about my lifestyle.

Initially when I heard about this story on an ABDL forum, I was shocked, disgusted, and irritated like many people and for the reasons Gloria outlines above. The more I started thinking about it though. The more I realized that this woman is ridiculous and that furthermore the way this story is reported both in the MSM and the blogosphere is really the rightful target of my disgust.

Let me point out one small terse fact: This woman was doing a job.

This woman is a home health aide and does this kind of thing for a living. Not out of some purely altruistic need to help the handicapped, but because she was raking in $600 a week. Now I know thats not a tremendous sum of money, but to some people, its tidy enough to live on. Its a little over 3 times minimum wage if in fact the job is full time, which if I know anything about home health aides, she didn't work 40 hours a week at it and probably has other patients under her tutelage.

Notice that she wasn't even interested in looking into the matter until the payments started coming in late. The only reason she was even curious as to the intentions of the man is because it was disrupting her financial situation.

So what exactly was she conned into? Conned into changing diapers for $600 a week? Nope, that was in the contract. In fact, she is probably doing that right now for someone else. Oh wait, no, she is raking in money doing talk shows and other media appearances. Willing to talk to the press, and be the butt of jokes just to express her outrage my ass. What right does she have to know the exact mental state of her employer. If I was a lawyer and had to hire a secretary. Should I disclose every time I ever fantasized about secretaries to her? No. I tell her the job. Do X tasks, get X dollars.

This man never had her perform explicitly sexual acts on him. He just had her do his job and privately (meaning inside his own head and never shared this) enjoyed it.

And seriously how the fuck was her husband hurt in all of this? The only way he was involved was probably spending the money she was earning.

So how exactly was this unfair?
How exactly was she exploited?
How exactly was she abused?

Sure, this guy probably wasn't acting very prudently when he wrote that add. But acting wrongly? Hardly. People post adds for home health aides all the time and a lot of the time they don't post the reason they need the help. Thats a private medical issue, that you aren't obligated to reveal the details of to your employees.

I'm with the state on this one. Technically he didn't do anything wrong, and actually he didn't do anything wrong. Well, there was one thing he did wrong. He wasn't paying her on time.

It was participation without her knowledge or consent in the behaviours of a fethish that she may or may not approve of, and further, with all of the sexual overtones and gratification components of that fetish, also without her knowledge or consent.

It is vile, deceitful, and disgusting; dragging the unwary into someone's sexual play. Isn't most fetish supposed to be about "safe, sane and consensual?"

I do not see that here.
Your willingness to accept this troubles me and begs the question: what other fetish activities permeate your life that you cannot step back to the normative and look objectively at this?

Tamsin White | August 18, 2009 7:12 AM

Infantilism is rarely a fetish. If he was a diaper lover and had no adult baby aspects in it at all, I can safely bet that his enjoyment was NON sexual.

Tamsin White | August 18, 2009 7:14 AM

I meant to say, UNLESS he was a diaper lover then I can safely say this is not classed as a fetish

your comment,I believe your right,two poly-graph tests...She is more guilty to me going to the press,and if she diaperd him around kids!!they are both GUILTY

Gloria Brame | August 17, 2009 3:33 PM

Tamsin, just to clarify.

I've been involved with ABs (and play with that fetish myself) for over 20 years. We probably have some friends in common.

My point is simply that he lied to get her to do this. That removes the power of consent from her. Consent is an issue I deeply care about, and it doesn't matter whether it attaches to vanilla het sex or hardcore SM sex.

To me, this case goes beyond a fetishist just figuring out a clever angle to get done. It's a case of someone who showed a complete lack of empathy for the other person's (in this case, the care-giver's) feelings. If you can't ask for what you want outright, deal with your own guilt and get over it. Deceiving others is not the answer.


Tamsin White | August 18, 2009 7:16 AM

And I agree with you. That was a point I made clear from the start. I do NOT condone, in any way, the deceit or trickery he used to get his way.

PRICELESS! I can't help but be amused but you are right about the honesty issue causing a sense of betrayal. They must be steaming.

She was exploited by being hired to take responsibility for an apparently vulnerable person's care without being given crucial relevant facts about the person's condition.

It's also important to note, from what has been made public so far, that rational, reasonable steps weren't taken on her behalf. Had she insisted on a face-to-face meeting with the brother, gotten and confirmed family and emergency contact numbers, and required a simple contract which identified the client's needs and the services to be rendered, either the situation would have been prevented, or the person could be sued for fraud. To the extent such steps weren't taken, she was putting herself at risk: Had the client needed the services, but also had a history of violence toward caregivers, she wouldn't have known, and still wouldn't have had legal recourse.

Setting aside the impacts on her for a moment, P, this whole thing strikes me as sad for the guy, too. I can only imagine that part of the fetish is about finding safe space in which he could feel nurtured and cared for. In an attempt to meet those needs, though, he was seeking out anonymous folks, not knowing whether they'd end up being safe at all.

You make a valuable point, Bose. In reality, this guy risked a much worse outcome than public exposure. If he met his match in the "lacking in empathy" department, this could've led to violence and worse. I bet the lady's husband has had some violent ideation over this situation, whaddya think?

Oh yeah, Gloria.

Re-reading the FL Today article, I noticed for the first time that she was apparently caring for "Ryan" side-by-side with children. Given that her ad was offering child day care, and she cared for him for weeks, it sounds possible that there could be a number of incensed parents. Add to it that a number of other former care givers have come forward, and you've got a lot of upset people.