![[DD] Boards & Chat](https://www.dailydiapers.com/board/uploads/monthly_2021_11/DDweb-02.png.0c06f38ea7c6e581d61ce22dffdea106.png)
 |
Sissy Room
637 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 12.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 70 views
-
- 7 replies
- 413 views
-
- 6 replies
- 405 views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 5 replies
- 285 views
-
- 3 replies
- 402 views
-
- 13 replies
- 854 views
-
- 22 replies
- 12.9k views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 5 replies
- 810 views
-
- 215 replies
- 46.6k views
-
- 7 replies
- 664 views
-
- 1 reply
- 377 views
-
- 12 replies
- 953 views
-
- 2 replies
- 317 views
-
- 12 replies
- 3.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 322 views
-
- 13 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 21 replies
- 7.4k views
-
- 8 replies
- 4.1k views
-
- 18 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 3 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 26 replies
- 9.8k views
-
Current Donation Goals
-
April BillsRaised $370 of $400 target
-
General FundRaised $10
-
-
-
-
Posts
-
By Cute_Kitten · Posted
Flame + all natural gas= a great way to blow up the house. Metaphorically or literally. 😂 -
.thumb.jpg.3e8dd241d2253a9d2e51a4f9ceb8d2c2.jpg)
In hindsight, after having spent some time reading through this more, I think the intention of the amendment is clearly targeting the 'barely legal' genre of pornography; not ABDL or age play. I still stand by my previous post though that this country is suppressing kink/fetish and wider sexual content, as well as risking our privacy, under the flawed pretext of protecting children and women. ANYWAY, the law is referring to the proposed Amendment 300A of the Protection of Children Act 1978. Amendment 300A says this: And for context, section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 says this: The language used ("appears to be or is implied to be a child") is concerning since that could be interpreted to encompass age play. However, the lead member of Amendment 300A (Baroness Bertin) basically specifies in a House of Lords debate that it's not supposed to cover ABDLs: -
By Little Sherri · Posted
I would imagine you'd be a good candidate, @Reddy, based on where you are already. You have a better grasp of the implications, than most. Part of me is intrigued by the idea of the #1 surgery, but not the #2. I'm already in diapers fulltime, anyway, and I already have to wear them at night - 7 years of peeing whenever you feel like it, while sleeping, will do that. But my daytime continence is pretty solid - my cruising range has declined, of course, because I pee every thirty minutes or so, but I seem to have a willful bladder - other people's "untraining" experiences do not apply to me. However, my wife would have me shot, if I dropped $25 K in order to achieve something that I already, essentially have - a runway to wear diapers fulltime. But it would be cool to not think about peeing ever again, although that isn't exactly the guaranteed experience, in any case - some people who do the #1 procedure end up with a sort of intermittent incontinence, from what I've read. -
By mushy bottom · Posted
Haven't we all! They aren't called man eaters for nothing. -
.thumb.png.e76412a12890a4f63d9fa4c4165cb1cc.png)
-
-
