Leilin

This is legit, and those aren't diapers. O_O

You could always try being a considerate room/housemate and not exposing somebody who would be happier not knowing to your fetish. Just an idea...

Lightning: FL is all about what subgroup you join. The larger ABDL group is run primarily for and by HNGs. If you join the TNG group you might have some better luck. Other than that, be glad. You just describe what us girls go through on every other ABDL site ever.

I patently disagree with that assessment. What on earth gave you that idea?

Uh. An honorary title from nearly 20 years ago makes him LESS the titular head than the guy who actually has the not honorary title right now. And Rush is asked to speak despite the fact that he makes the party look bad. Any questions? The fact that you are painting these situations as equal makes you a party hack. You are ignoring major facts to paint completely nonparallel situations as parallel, which directly means you are willing to let Republicans get away with more, which makes you a hack. You have yet to point out any gross errors. Thus far, not a single one of your posts has stood up to facts.

Honestly, I'm not sure I can name one. Most descend and just don't come back. Fetlife is "clean," but that's specifically because it is fissioned and the HNGs can find their own board, whereas the rest of us who want to avoid them like the plague can be elsewhere where they can't annoy us or perv on us.

This may be complex for you, but disagreeing with your actions is not trolling. I have no desire to even speak with you beyond this. I am aware that you and I simply do not see eye to eye and should not have brought your actions back up, and for that I apologize, however, that does not mean that in any way I support or condone them, as I find them to incredibly foolish and self-centered. This is, however, my opinion and I do not claim to be supported anybody else in that opinion, as it is the responsibility of each of us to speak for ourselves. Not sure how you think I'm on here 24/7. I'd love to have that luxury but I tend to be working around ten hours a day. I confess that I sometimes post during my lunch, though. I honestly think your actions on this forum speak for themselves, and that some people will see you as I do and some will not, Brett. Obviously, there are people on the extremes on both sides. I also have no intention to cease speaking out when people do this because, in my opinion, each and every one of you who go on television to out your baby side, whether you intend to or not, reflects poorly on us. This is not because you in yourselves are negative. This is because the people making the material had no intention to give you a chance to be positive in the first place. The major error on your part, which is an error you have not made, Brett, is in the repetition of an action which so recently yielded such awful backlash and results and the expectation that the results will somehow be better, despite evidence. It's the exact same kind of blinders that people put on when they cry out that every freak or fart joke in crass cartoon X is somehow mainstreaming us, and it's a pathetic kind of willing blindness to reality and the world around us. I will defend to the last your right to say what you say, Brett, or, hell, to go on TV, but that does not mean that I will not speak out against your actions in equal measure, as is my equal right.

Diaperspace is one example of a common culprit.

I'm not talking down to you. I am genuinely trying to figure out why you are reading what people are saying and then leaping to the opposite conclusion. I haven't insulted you even once, other than the implication that you might be trolling, which you have supported in your most recent posts. You, on the other hand, have insulted me, personally, several times. In a forum, some people agree with the course of actions that others take. Some people disagree. I do not judge Stanley on his actions. I simply disagree with them. I judge Brett (thanks for reminding me of your name by posting!) because of the exact same self-importance and persecution complex which he just portrayed for us, not for his appearance on Dr. Phil, which, while negative, he had no real control over, other than that selfsame action of doing it in the first place which I disagree with. The difference is that when I say I disagree, you fly off the handle and proclaim that I disagree with him out of some self-hatred, rather than my own opinion that his actions were poorly thought and unhelpful, not to mention service to basically display a majority of what is wrong with the ABDL community for the world to see (again, personal opinion, and nothing more). You see, it's not that hard. I can like somebody, or dislike somebody, and feel the opposite about an action that they may take. It's something people do.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to public opinion. Just what was required for this community to be defensible, which it is currently not, in my eyes. One might say that it's not feasible, but pockets of the ABDL community have done just that. Of course no community is perfect in that standard, but the ABDL community stands out as one which is pretty much unwilling to make any effort at all on the whole. There ARE places where being an HNG or spouting outright bigotry in the ABDL world is openly listed as intolerable and against the rules. Does it makes those small pockets smaller than they might otherwise be? Yup, but it sure as hell makes them nice places to be. The best thing that can happen for "public opinion," in my opinion, is for certain individuals to decide that their bedroom practices are not everybody else in the world's business. However, that's their choice to make, so I have no illusions of a situation other than one which has gullible individual after gullible individual going on television, assuming they can be "better" or make a difference in a better way than the last gullible individual. Which immediately paints you as somebody interested enough in the topic to have researched community standards and norms to anybody who's paying attention and can exhibit even a modicum of reasoning skills. No, thanks.You have fun with that but I have no desire to be outed.

I understand you perfectly. The problem is that you are willfully ignoring what people are saying and choosing to assume that they mean the opposite of what they are actually saying. Since you are saying I'm somehow disliking Stanley's actions out of some silly self-hatred, rather than disagreeing with them on principle, I'm rather obligated to defend myself and point out that you're pulling these silly conclusions out of thin air. Again, why exactly are you saying these things? It's one thing to disagree, and perfectly respectable. You are, in fact, turning this into an ad hominem attack, saying that rather than disagreeing with Stanley's actions, it must be some character flaw of our own that prevents us from praising him for his actions. If this is just some elaborate troll, which I'm getting the feeling it is, I'm perfectly willing to consign your posts to the same dustbin of idiocy that I've consigned RDBs to. I don't have time for trolls. You've actually proven time and time again that, while you may see the words on the page, you aren't reading what people are saying. Otherwise, you wouldn't be choosing to assume the opposite.

You missed the point. Nobody said they were ashamed of themselves due to him. Nobody even said they were ashamed of him. Again, perhaps you should try ACTUALLY READING WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING before leaping to conclusions. Your problem is that you're ignoring everything people are saying and making a rather odd assumption because... well I have no idea why. Instead of making an ASSUMPTION, why don't you bother to read what people are actually saying. After all, when you make an ASSUMPTION, you make an ASS out of U... and Mption, as the great Mr. Jackson once said.

(Citation please)

... is an awful tactic if you want to present yourself as somebody who hasn't researched Littles, as it implies that you have prior knowledge to the conversation, or really like talking about things you know nothing about. Either way, it is a poor tactic. A Little or an idiot. And, to make it clear, I have no responsibility or wish to defend Adult Babies/DLs in general. Until this community cleans its act up, ejects ALL of the HNGs, sends a clear message that misogyny is intolerable, clearly condemns any and all acts involving children, clearly condemns those who would force their fetish on others, and starts to realize that a fetish isn't an excuse to make an ass of one's self, it is simply not worth defending. And it has done none of the above. (To be clear, by "this community," I mean the ABDL community as a whole, not DD in specific)

You're the only person who has used that word thus far, because he is not the titular head of the Republican party (that would be Reince Priebus) and he is a person who has spoken for the party, both as mouthpiece and as rally-head, on myriad occasions. The fact remains that your parallel is improper due to the simple fact that Schultz doesn't have nearly as much pull with the DNC, as is evidenced both the fact that he is not offered the same accolades by them. The sooner you admit that, the sooner your "unaffiliated" stance becomes something other than a bland platitude of neutrality trying to disguise a truly partisan mentality. Your false equivocation makes you as much of a partisan as hacks like RDB in your own way because you simply refuse to acknowledge that a Republican can be worse than a particular left-leaning individual, despite clear and empirical evidence of their actions.

Usually I provide a qualified statement: "I'm all for what a person does behind closed doors, whether or not it's my thing, but that person was an idiot if they were looking for some acceptance for their fetish on national television." I have no responsibility or desire to defend those people. Period.

As in you seem to be under the silly impression that a person can just turn a fetish off if they don't like the action of other other people in that fetish. You also seem to think that somehow people who are littles but don't like sharing it should somehow rethink their little nature just because a few people continue to represent us (whether they intend to or not) in a bad light. Again, you seem to be commenting on this without having actually read any of the numerous threads there have been on this subject. Please let me know if your intention is just to throw out demeaning quips and not to address the meat of this topic so I can stop bothering to read your posts.

Then you have no functional idea why people disagree with him and don't seem to be aware of how fetishes actually work. This has nothing to do with being comfortable sharing the fetish or not. Most people also are mostly not making a "big deal" out of it any more than you are making a "big deal" out of disagreeing with me. It's a forum post, not a formal protest.

Feel free to read the thread, and the countless other threads on this topic. He MAKES it our business by making it public, just like he makes it everybody else's, and that is precisely the problem, as it is with everybody else who feels it's their responsibility to expose everybody to their fetish. This isn't some people misunderstanding Stanley's business. You can agree or disagree on his course of action, but it is a state of fact that he is purposely exposing whoever watches that train wreck to ABDL nature, as is every other person who does this, and that makes it literally and undeniably NOT just their business.

Most of us don't make a habit of forcing knowledge of what we do in the bedroom on others. You seem to be misunderstanding what is and what isn't the business of the world and what is and isn't part of being a little.

That may have been his intention, Dailydi, but the larger public forms stereotypes with what they have. If we got to choose which stereotypes were applied to us, it wouldn't matter who went on TV.

Firstly, Riley is not a guy. Secondly, many, if not most, of us support neither of them. Personally, I openly support neither of their decisions to do this, and especially not what'sisname's. The self-centered guy who went on Doctor Phil (a conclusion that almost everybody who read every one of his attention-whorish, persecution complex-ridden posts in this very forum predicted). However, the fact that they went on TV, as much as I think that was an egregious mistake, is not how I judge their character. I don't know Stanley, so I judge him not at all, other than disagreeing with this decision to attempt to somehow represent us over and over when he is, at best, an inaccurate representation of the community as a whole and heavily self-destructive in that representation. Riley has always struck me as nice as well spoken, but I do not agree with her decision to do this in any way, especially not twice. The other guy, whose name escapes me and doesn't strike me as worth research, is something of an idiot. This has panned out from his very actions on this forum. He is living in a fantasy world and has a rather silly sense of self-importance that just makes him rather hard to talk to without facepalming. Again, this was all BEFORE he went on TV and made an ass of himself. The TV decision is an awful decision, no matter who makes it, because TV is there to get ratings. Ratings do not come from showing ABDLs as normal people. They come from the freakshow. It's simply sad and pathetic how many people have deluded themselves into thinking that the way that ABDLs are the butt of repeated freak jokes and freakshows on television that are there pretty much solely for purposes of schadenfreude is somehow mainstreaming us, rather than just making is the funny animal in the cage to laugh at.

http://mediamatters....tv/201003220049 I read your drivel out of sheer curiosity to see if you've changed in the last two weeks, RDB. Your cognitive dissonance is equally as silly as ever. And your overuse of the word "Marxist" begins to dilute its already non-meaning when you use it to describe everybody who's black, gay, liberal, or has more than a third-grade education. Limbaugh is a Republican. This is why he has spoken on several occasions for the RNC. You are not entitled to your own facts, no matter how often you decide to plug your ears and ignore the real ones. Shultz, on the other hand, has spoken for the DNC how many times? Oh, right. Zero. Keep trying to create a parallel where there is none and your allergy to facts keeps getting more and more obvious. Back to ignore with you, little useless bigot. I'll check on you in another two weeks or so.

Rush is perceived as being the voice of the party... by the party, and that is the big difference between him and Maher. You won't see Maher speaking for the DNC anytime soon. Rush has for the RNC on several occasions.

I actually wasn't. This is why I specified that the costs are what they are without insurance, even government provided insurance.