At what age is it unacceptable for a kid to wear diapers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 for daytime.

Don't be ridiculous. It is not unacceptable for a three year old to be wearing diapers.

And before you say it, my kid trained at two, but I remember plenty of three year olds, especially boys, who wore diapers.

Diapers yes, pull ups no.

If a kid is in pull-ups, he is still in diapers, duh.

OP asked about diapers, not pull ups? I see a distinct difference in them -- in our family, pull ups are for just in case. My two year old wore pull ups while we were potty training -- she went in the potty maybe 90% of the time, but the pull ups were just in case of an accident and required by daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 for daytime.

Don't be ridiculous. It is not unacceptable for a three year old to be wearing diapers.

And before you say it, my kid trained at two, but I remember plenty of three year olds, especially boys, who wore diapers.

Diapers yes, pull ups no.

Well if you're using the pull up as a diaper there is no difference, is it? ,

Then you're using pull ups wrong. They're supposed to be used like underwear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DS is pushing 3.5 and still not potty trained. He is the only one in his preschool class still in diapers.

Yes, it is a parental failing and nothing more. We really screwed up on this in not training him earlier. Now that he is 3 years and 4 months, he is simply defiant and has no problem walking around in wet pants.

Do you actually put him in DIAPERS and not pull ups? I'm so confused about people using those terms interchangeably here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS is pushing 3.5 and still not potty trained. He is the only one in his preschool class still in diapers.

Yes, it is a parental failing and nothing more. We really screwed up on this in not training him earlier. Now that he is 3 years and 4 months, he is simply defiant and has no problem walking around in wet pants.

Do you actually put him in DIAPERS and not pull ups? I'm so confused about people using those terms interchangeably here.

Honestly they serve the same purpose. If they crap in either one someone else has to change them. I don't understand why you think they are so fundamentally different.

That being said, my son was like the PP's above. At 3.5 I did a three day potty training camp. It worked like a charm. He just wasn't a kid who could sit on the potty for 10 minutes every day and figure out that's what he needed to do. But in 3 days he was fully potty trained.

[Anonymous]

Pull ups are marketed to be like safety underwear--hence the "pull up/down" action. Kid is ready to use the toilet, but isn't there yet, so you still have a backup in case they pee/poop in their pants. I would not equate that as a diaper, which is for the distinct purpose of peeing/pooping in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pull ups are marketed to be like safety underwear--hence the "pull up/down" action. Kid is ready to use the toilet, but isn't there yet, so you still have a backup in case they pee/poop in their pants. I would not equate that as a diaper, which is for the distinct purpose of peeing/pooping in.

They're MARKETED that way, and some people successfully use them as such. But they are effectively diapers, and as noted above, many people use them essentially as diapers and only use them at all because 1) their child has outgrown "regular" disposable diapers, 2) their daycare requires them over a certain age to encourage PT, and/or 3) to "start the process" (ineffectively at least 50% of the time IMO)-- but not actually for use only in an emergency or in case of rare miss. A good friend had an almost-2 who requested to use the potty at least 75% of the time, at least for pee, and was in pull -ups... and by 2.5, she has regressed, because she felt it easier to go in a fully absorbent diaper that simply pulls up. I had figured my friend would have put her in underwear to complete the process, but she never figured on actually PT until closer to three, so... The point being, she definitely wasn't using pull-ups as emergency accident-protection.

[Anonymous]

Anyone I have known with a kid over about 3.25 feels the need to explain it when they come over for a play date. I'll add myself to that list.

All the way to 3, no one bats an eye. As they get closer to 3.5, people start to feel like they're behind, and they get worried that the kid won't use the potty before 4, which genuinely does raise eyebrows.

I try not to judge, but I'll admit that any kid over 4 who is still in diapers I assume has some sort of delay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 for daytime.

Don't be ridiculous. It is not unacceptable for a three year old to be wearing diapers.

And before you say it, my kid trained at two, but I remember plenty of three year olds, especially boys, who wore diapers.

Diapers yes, pull ups no.

Well if you're using the pull up as a diaper there is no difference, is it? ,

Then you're using pull ups wrong. They're supposed to be used like underwear.

They don't feel like underwear to the kid, though. He/she doesn't feel wet, so they aren't getting the reminder they need to use the potty before it happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS is pushing 3.5 and still not potty trained. He is the only one in his preschool class still in diapers.

Yes, it is a parental failing and nothing more. We really screwed up on this in not training him earlier. Now that he is 3 years and 4 months, he is simply defiant and has no problem walking around in wet pants.

Do you actually put him in DIAPERS and not pull ups? I'm so confused about people using those terms interchangeably here.

Honestly they serve the same purpose. If they crap in either one someone else has to change them. I don't understand why you think they are so fundamentally different.

That being said, my son was like the PP's above. At 3.5 I did a three day potty training camp. It worked like a charm. He just wasn't a kid who could sit on the potty for 10 minutes every day and figure out that's what he needed to do. But in 3 days he was fully potty trained.

Because I taught my child that pull ups were like undies, so they were for accidents and naps/nighttime only. I guess other people use them differently and I didn't realize it.

[Anonymous]

I think Americans are generally the last in the world to potty train LOL All the kids I knew overseas were trained by 1.5 like clockwork. The fact that we waited till 2.5 horrified everybody.

Methinks by 3 it's high time. Our PK3 requires children to be fully trained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pull ups are marketed to be like safety underwear--hence the "pull up/down" action. Kid is ready to use the toilet, but isn't there yet, so you still have a backup in case they pee/poop in their pants. I would not equate that as a diaper, which is for the distinct purpose of peeing/pooping in.

They're MARKETED that way, and some people successfully use them as such. But they are effectively diapers, and as noted above, many people use them essentially as diapers and only use them at all because 1) their child has outgrown "regular" disposable diapers, 2) their daycare requires them over a certain age to encourage PT, and/or 3) to "start the process" (ineffectively at least 50% of the time IMO)-- but not actually for use only in an emergency or in case of rare miss. A good friend had an almost-2 who requested to use the potty at least 75% of the time, at least for pee, and was in pull -ups... and by 2.5, she has regressed, because she felt it easier to go in a fully absorbent diaper that simply pulls up. I had figured my friend would have put her in underwear to complete the process, but she never figured on actually PT until closer to three, so... The point being, she definitely wasn't using pull-ups as emergency accident-protection.

See, I'm like your friend except that I got the hint and switched my child to underwear at the right time.

[Anonymous]

If a kid is still in daytime diapers at age 4, I'd assume he has some developmental issues. One of my kids wore a pull-up at night until age 8 and he didn't have any other issues, so this wouldn't concern me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS is pushing 3.5 and still not potty trained. He is the only one in his preschool class still in diapers.

Yes, it is a parental failing and nothing more. We really screwed up on this in not training him earlier. Now that he is 3 years and 4 months, he is simply defiant and has no problem walking around in wet pants.

Do you actually put him in DIAPERS and not pull ups? I'm so confused about people using those terms interchangeably here.

Honestly they serve the same purpose. If they crap in either one someone else has to change them. I don't understand why you think they are so fundamentally different.

That being said, my son was like the PP's above. At 3.5 I did a three day potty training camp. It worked like a charm. He just wasn't a kid who could sit on the potty for 10 minutes every day and figure out that's what he needed to do. But in 3 days he was fully potty trained.

Because I taught my child that pull ups were like undies, so they were for accidents and naps/nighttime only. I guess other people use them differently and I didn't realize it.

Sometimes they just don't work that way. I know DS treated pull-ups no different than diapers, so we were not going anywhere with them. Cotton undies or commando is what did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Americans are generally the last in the world to potty train LOL All the kids I knew overseas were trained by 1.5 like clockwork. The fact that we waited till 2.5 horrified everybody.

Methinks by 3 it's high time. Our PK3 requires children to be fully trained.

Non- American.

This is bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:3 for daytime.

Agree. We have five children. Some were easier to potty train than others, but none were in diapers at three. That's just ridiculous.