Jeff The Married Church Attending Guy Who Likes to Wear Diapers and Be an Adult Baby

Jeff The Married Church Attending Guy Who Likes to Wear Diapers and Be an Adult Baby

Because you may think I am making this up (I can assure you I am not), there is a video below in this post from a clip of this episode.

I don’t hardly ever watch the TV show “Cheaters,” but I was up really early a few mornings ago and watched the last 5 – 10 minutes of one episode.

The husband in the episode (I believe his name was Jeff) was sneaking around with another woman behind his wife’s back. The “Cheaters” TV show crew caught him in bed with another woman, and he was wearing a diaper.

His wife, Susan, came in to the motel room, confronted the “mistress” (or whatever she was) and started screaming at Jeff her husband.

Jeff claimed there was nothing sexual going on, it was only about him pretending to be an adult baby.

One of the TV show crew asked Jeff why he couldn’t just tell his wife about this fantasy of his about being an adult baby rather than just sneak around behind her back, and he said something like, “You just don’t understand, I can’t! We are church people! We go to church!”

At another point in the show, the wife yelled, “You stopped going to church a few weeks ago…”

That brings me to this point: a lot of Christians tell single, adult Christians who would like to marry that-

  1. You are still single in spite of trusting God for a spouse because you’re too bad or too immature (or too ugly, too dumb, too whatever) to deserve or merit a spouse, and God is forcing you to improve yourself before he’ll send you a spouse.
  2. and, Christians will tell single Christians it is sinful for them to marry a Non-Christian (the equally yoked rule)

In light of stories such as this one, where we have an adult, married man meeting another woman at a motel behind his wife’s back so he can pretend to be an “adult baby” tells you that no, God is not requiring anyone to clean up their own lives, be more mature (be more whatever – more smart, more pretty, more thin, more X, Y, Z) to “earn” a spouse…,

And, this story also tells you that…

This adult, middle aged man (or is he a 20 something?) wearing a diaper and sneaking around behind his wife’s back goes to show you that just because a man is a Christian and attends a church regularly (or used to), does not mean he is a quality life partner. It makes the Equally Yoked rule look totally foolish and unnecessary.

Even if this guy is truthful and there was nothing sexual about his Adult Baby play- acting, I personally would be weirded- out and too disgusted to stay married to a man if I found out he was fantasizing about being a baby, seeing other women behind my back to indulge this fantasy, and wearing a diaper.

I would rather marry a normal, sane Non-Christian man who is not going to do weird things such as wear a diaper and pretend to be a baby, than marry a self professing, church-going man who wears diapers and wants to pretend he is an infant.

(Link): Diaper Cheater video on You Tube

(this video has since been removed): You Tube: Jeff the Diaper Wearing Adult Baby Husband

(Link): You Tube: He’s Wearing a Diaper, LOL

(Link): What it’s like to be an adult baby diaper lover – on Metro 


‘It feels great sitting in a wet and soiled nappy. For a normal person it would be horrible but for me it feels comforting, while also naughty and humiliating.’

Mark,* a 35 year old who lives in South London, is an adult baby. He has a fetish known as ABDL, which stands for adult baby diaper lovers. For Mark, his fetish began in early puberty, as, ‘a sense of wanting to be a baby again’.

He says it also had a sexual side from the beginning:
‘I’d fantasise about a teacher I fancied changing my nappies. Sometimes at night I’d put all my underpants on at once, to try and feel like I was wearing a nappy. That was when I came for the first time, in a non-wet dream scenario.’

While some involved in ABDL argue there is nothing sexual about it, and that it shouldn’t be classed as a fetish, views within the community vary – and even those who protest ABDL’s innocence send mixed messages.

…Daddy Derek, who looks after adult babies at a nursery near Cardiff, tells me on the telephone that he isn’t willing to do an interview as he still feels burned by a 2015 feature in the Liverpool Echo.

And Nanny Luna of the ABDL London Nursery tells me to ‘f*** off’ then slams the phone down when I ask if she’ll talk to me about working with adult babies.

Nanny Prudence, who’s based in London and Brighton, agrees to speak to me, but with the following proviso:
‘Please be respectful. I always refuse interviews as usually they become sensationalised and twisted. But I feel the adult baby community is misunderstood, and wanted to be open and honest.’

…Nanny Prudence’s clients are aged 25 to 65, and over 95% are male. She tells me there’s a myth that adult babies are all wealthy and in powerful positions, and she sets out to debunk this, explaining:
‘I’ve had bankers, CEOs, a vicar, and politicians, but also taxi drivers and students. No one picks their fetishes. It’s something that emerges as a part of you – you become aware of it, and either bury or embrace it.’

Wearing a traditional nurse outfit, or a 1950s style dress with heels and seamed stockings, Nanny Prudence offers bottle feeding, baby talk, play time and down time, which consists of listening to lullabies. She also changes her clients’ nappies, ‘wet only, no poop.’

Nanny Prudence doesn’t mind the wee, explaining, ‘I just wash my hands afterwards. I prefer not to wear gloves. I’m not germphobic.’

— — —-

4 thoughts on “Jeff The Married Church Attending Guy Who Likes to Wear Diapers and Be an Adult Baby”

  1. I doubt Jeff’s wife knew about his diaper fetish when they married. A lot of atheists/agnostics also deceive women they marry. If a guy says, “Hey, I’m an atheist,” it does not always follow that he is honest, healthy and mature.

    H.G. Wells had a rotten marriage. Hugh Hefner didn’t practice the faith.

    Being an atheist will not make a person holy. A lot of hypocrites and pervs outside the church too!

    1. Response to Rachel N.
      In my way of looking at this story, it doesn’t really matter if the wife knew prior or not.

      The guy was a church-going Christian dude, and according to most Christians I grew up listening to, THAT trait alone was enough to reassure her that he’d be a “stand up,” quality catch – anything but a diaper-wearing weirdo, LOL.

      Yes, I’ve mentioned on a small number of posts over the years here that I am not saying that all atheists all the time are great, upstanding guys.

      Some atheist men are abusive, immature, or weird. I just don’t mention that qualifier in each and every post I make on these issues (I don’t feel I should have to).

      I am mainly pointing out often on this blog that I am tired of the Christian insistence that Christian women should marry ONLY Christian men (equally yoked rule), when that is one reason of several that kept me single this long in life, and…
      The equally yoked rule is impractical and makes no sense – I have one thread on this blog with a billion examples of “godly, Christian” men who have been reported in the media, or arrested for, child rape, beating their wives, etc.

      All of which is why I tell Christian women, please get rid of “equally yoked” in your dating rules, as you’re better off marrying any man who treats you nice, regardless of his religious stance.
      You’re better off marrying a kind-hearted, nice atheist man than marrying a guy who believes in Jesus, prays every day, reads the Bible, goes to church AND who beats you up, verbally abuses you, or looks at child porn.

      My motto as of late is, I’d rather date a kind-hearted, decent, loving atheist man than an adulterous, perverted, or abusive bible- believing Jesus follower.

      I’m not sure if I’m a Christian anymore or not myself, so I find a lot of Christian rules don’t really apply to me so much.

      But. I’m just sick of churches pulling this “equally yoked” stuff on women who are still totally Christian who’d like to marry.

      Waiting and trusting God to send me a “Christian Mr. Right” did not work for me.

      I was taught by Baptists that Roman Catholic men are not “real Christians.” Well, I had the chance to date or marry men previously, but some of them were Roman Catholics.
      If not for “equally yoked,” I coulda been married (to a Catholic guy).

      And I deplore “Pie In the Sky” theology.
      This is when Christians will tell me things like,
      “Oh, so you’ve not married on this earth, but Jesus will reward you in heaven for being celibate so long and holding out for a Christian guy.”
      I don’t give a crap any more about bringing “Glory to God” or being rewarded in the afterlife for being single and chaste now – I want help in the “here and now.”

      1. Been there. Done that. You’re not the only blogger in her 40’s who’s still single and has given up on “Christian” Mr. Right. I can see where you are coming from, but made a different decision. You have your own difficult decision to make. In many ways what I have chosen is tougher than just “getting some” and leaving church or ignoring this particular teaching.

        I would have married a Catholic if it had worked out. Nice guy. More morally upright and Biblically literate than a lot of Protestants.

        Ironically you may be more welcome in churches as someone’s wife–even if he’s not a believer. You can drag him in on Christmas and Easter and talk about “my husband” all the time so they’ll treat you with full matron status. An older lady in my church acted shocked when I broke up with a nice bachelor because he wasn’t a Christian. Conservative church too!

        It’s easy to see you’re in a lot of pain. I’ll be praying for you, CP.

        1. Reply to Rachel Nichols.

          I left your comment alone for a very long time, but I decided to leave a reply now – years later.

          I saw it again as I was searching through old posts.

          Your reply sounds very patronizing in places. Maybe you didn’t intend for it to sound patronizing.

          As to this:
          “(a) In many ways what I have chosen is tougher than just “getting some”
          (b) and leaving church or ignoring this particular teaching.”

          (a.) It’s insulting of you to refer to my view as “just getting some.”

          How dare you boil down my view or choice as “getting some.”

          As I’ve said a time or two in the last few years of blogging here, I am interested in a long term, committed relationship.

          I am NOT, nor have I ever been, a supporter of one night stands or booty calls.

          (b) The last half of your comment, where you indicate that your choice is “more difficult” than mine? Says who?

          You sound like the married people on blog posts dedicated to singles and how single life has its own set of problems who like to “Marriage-Jack” such a thread about singleness to go on and on about how, no, married people have life soooo much harder than singles.

          You’re doing the same thing, but to another single adult about singleness / relationships.

          I’ve also come across this sort of sanctimony from never-married Christians who never wanted to get married who scream at me they have life so much more harder than I do because they feel the church only accepts singles who admit to wanting marriage, but who they feel shun those who admit to not wanting to be married.

          I just really loathe behavior where someone acts like they have worse (or more) pain in life than another person, or their life is so much more difficult, so only they deserve empathy or deserve a trophy for being a martyr.

          I have family members who are into that sort of rhetoric, and I’ve had to put up with it over my entire life.

          You said,
          “Ironically you may be more welcome in churches as someone’s wife–even if he’s not a believer. You can drag him in on Christmas and Easter and talk about “my husband” all the time so they’ll treat you with full matron status.”

          Parts of your post – like that part – are very true. I agree with you on that.
          But you lost me on other parts of your reply.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: