Rawr

Tommee - I know that a code system doesn't fully resolve the issue of people taking offence at our community or the stories in general - BUT the reason that the Girls Aloud case was dismissed was that is was thought that people weren't going to stumble across the story accidentally - and only those who were fully aware of the content would have accessed it. By instituting a code system to make people aware of the content of stories, it *might* hopefully reduce the number of people who accidentally find it and take offence. At least, with clear signposting, the author/distributor might have more of a legal leg to stand on, if it ever did escalate to that point. Rx

I disagree. Individually, there are plenty of stories on this website which include fictional minors and no sexual content; however, taken in the context of the whole site, where a large amount of the content is primarily of a sexual nature, then it becomes somewhat of a 'grey area' by association to include underage characters within the story section, in my opinion. And the suggestion that 'nobody normal reads a diaper story and associates it with sex' also falls down pretty flat in many cases, because plenty of the stories DO contain explicit references to sex or masturbation - lines like "she went to pull up my diaper, my errection was keeping her from fastening it" or "he pulled his cock through and rubbed himself to a glorious climax" are pretty hard to defend as non-sexual. Now, in both of those particular stories that I've quoted from, they make no mention of minors - however, there *are* other stories on this site that do explicitly deal with underage characters and sexual themes, which isn't personally something I'm particularly comfortable with. I do think that a code system would be an easy solution - it allows us to continue as normal, but it just gives people the opportunity to decide BEFORE clicking a link if they're going to enjoy the content of the story or not. Rx

I guess that most users of this site are based in the US - where I think that your writings/publications are probably more protected under the banner of 'free speech'. But in the UK at least (and a few other countries), there's a certain push towards vetting the kind of material that people are allowed to access legally - both photographic and fantasy imagery. Let me just give you what I understand to be the current UK legal perspective, and where we *might* be heading. I'll start by giving you the background to some recent developments on related issues - which might not at first seem connected to the OP's problem, but I'll get there eventually, honest! Recently, as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the UK government made possession of 'extreme' pornography illegal. This material essentially involves images of BDSM activities where there's apparently serious risk of harm, or pictures/video which show or appear to show people engaged in necrophilia or bestiality AND where the images are created solely or primarily for sexual gratification. Previously in the UK, whilst it wasn't strictly legal to own that kind of material, the way the old laws worked was to target the publishers of such material, rather than the private possessors (which involved prosecuting the publisher under the Obscene Publications Act). This is a big change, because in the instances of images that 'appear to show' someone involved in a harmful situation, it may be perfectly legal for consenting adults to stage such a situation (for example, a staged hanging scene as part of BDSM play), but it is no longer legal to posess such an image. Now obviously, there's a huge difference between BDSM/necro/animal porn (and I'm not trying to draw any kind of direct comparison with AB/DL sites here) and the kind of images that are published on websites such as DD. However, what this new law indicates is that the government have changed stances on 'offensive' pornographic material, in that they're legislating against the posession of material, rather than just the publication of such images. So, what does that mean in practice? Well, I'd wager that an average jury might deem some of the photographs on diaper fetish websites to be 'obscene' - particularly any dealing with bodily functions (whether explicit or implied). But this is a very grey legal area - at the moment, there's nothing in UK law to prevent posession of this kind of material. However, it's probably illegal in the UK to publish/distribute such content, as set out by the Obscene Publications Act. But if the government pass a law similar to the 'extreme pornography' legislation, but instead relating to 'general' obscene content produced for sexual gratification, then it may at some point in the future become an offence to simply posses DL images; even if they depict consenting adults using adult products. Furthermore, the government are currently debating another piece of legislation that would make it illegal to posses even cartoon images produced for sexual gratification, where the age of the person in the drawing is possibly under the age of 18. Clearly this is an effort to stop paedophiles from getting their rocks off over pictures of children - something I agree should be made illegal - but the problem is that the law is currently too broad, and will potentially cover a wide range of material, such as some of the 'diaper art' images on ABDL sites: in cases where it wasn't clear the age of the person depicted, it would be up to a jury to decide if it's illegal to posess. And it's not just the UK where this is an issue: recently, in Australia, a man was convicted of child porn charges because he had some cartoon images of Simpsons characters engaging in sexual activities. Clearly, none of the Simpsons children came to harm through the images - and I would also imagine that the images were designed to be amusing rather than arousing! Regardless, this guy has been convicted, and it may well set a president for material that depicts fictional underage characters in sexual situations. I'm pretty sure that if this bill becomes law, there are some 'diaper art' images that might fall foul of it, because the ages of the characters depicted might be questionable. But, of course, that's not relevant yet, and in any case, the OP's point was regarding text-based material, rather than just the general legalities of possessing 'diaper porn'. But what these two pieces of legislation/proposed legislation show is a general trend towards prosecuting people for *possession* rather than simply publication of materials that the government deem to be offensive. But how does that relate to text stories? Well the UK government recently attempted to prosecute a man who wrote and published an online story that involved kidnapping, raping and murdering the members of a pop group. Now, as that article states, the case was dismissed - but it does show that the UK government still has an active interest in censoring 'obscene publications'. Again, the content of this story in particular bears no relevance to ABDL stories - but I do feel that many ABDL stories might classify as 'obscene' material, depending on your definition (and if the new legislation alters the definitions significantly to something like 'repulsive or disgusting material created for the purposes of sexual arousal, then a good percentage of ABDL text material may well fall under that definition). Couple the government's interest in prosecuting someone who has published purely text-based obscenity with the trend towards criminalising possession of such material, rather than just publication of it, and legislation that has been widely criticised as too broad in it's remit; it does suggest that there may well be a time when downloading ABDL content may become an offence. To quote another article from TheRegister: "There are two further concerns. At the consultation for the Extreme Porn law, one Police Force – Kent – argued also for the criminalisation of written material. It is clear that the government has an appetite for this form of censorship. So it is not unthinkable that adult censorship will progress to cartoon material as well. Or even literature." So, in conclusion, whilst most of this legislation is designed to protect children, and kerb the activities and dangerous fantasy worlds of paedophiles, it's very possible that ABDL material might fall under some of the definitions of 'obscene' material that the government wishes to censor. It's a shame, because whilst I do think that we should make every effort to protect children from paedophiles, it seems as though consenting adults involved in non-paedophilic behaviour might find their liberties restricted because of hastily rushed through legislation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So, there's a mini essay there on the state of UK censorship legislation. I've rambled a bit in places, and it might not be totally coherent or entirely relevant, but I think you should get the picture. Well done if you managed to read it all and didn't get *totally* bored. But I do have a suggestion that I think would keep people happy. Would it be possible, DailyDi, to mark (or have authors mark) stories with a clearer overview of what's in them, preferably as part of the title or sub-title viewable on the forums list? For example, someone may not want to read/access any stories on this site that contain minors. At the moment, however, it's difficult to ascertain the content of a story before it's been clicked on. Clearly, some peolpe believe that stories of a sexual/fetish nature should NOT include any minor characters; but that's just one viewpoint (one I happen to agree with), and it's not something that I think should be forced onto others - especially as a large number of the ABDL community do not view all the stories as sexual in nature. It's my own personal choice to avoid any story involving minors, and one that others (maybe the OP) might also want to make. Several other story sites have a 'code' that they use to quickly identify the themes of each story, so the viewer can tell (at a glance) what the content is before they access the story, and therefore avoid anything that they personally find distasteful. Would it be possible to institute such a system here? Rx

Good lord, don't drink eye drops! I hope that was someone trying to be 'hillarious'... 'Eye drops' can contain wide range of different chemicals, depending on the type/what they're for - but they all have one thing in common: they're supposed to go in your eyes, not in your stomach! If you drink eye drops, you could well be drinking anything from parasympathomimetic drugs like miocarpine/pilocarpine to antihistamines, beta blockers and who knows what else. So, unless you want to risk making yourself seriously ill - don't abuse medicines; even ones that seem as incongruous as eye drops. Rx

some great (and very creative) tips there! I especially like the envelope and receipts one! I often (even now) find myself pretending to check a message stored on my phone, or a scrap of paper, before I pick a pack up. It's how I managed to buy my first pack, and I guess it's become a subconscious thing ever since Just to answer to everyone who's saying things like "why do you need to do this?" and "can't you just buy them?" - i think that for some people, it IS embarrasing and difficult. Maybe it's not for you guys, but everyone is different. At the end of the day, you're right - nobody really gives a damn. But there can be a psychological fear that people might be watching you, or that they think you're a pervert. And however irrational that is, little tips like these might help a few people out, and make it a bit easier for them to buy at the store.

This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. True story.

personally, i'd say i'm a DL only, but some elements of the look/design of the diaper are important to me: i like disposable tape-up diapers over pull ups, i prefer plain white, plastic covers are better than that fabric stuff and standing leak guards are a definite must-have. but i have no desire to act like a child aside from diapers, and im not fussed about childish designs or pictures like you get on pampers and huggies these days. so i class myself as a DL only but when all is said and done, there's no hard & fast definition about what exactly defines an AB or DL, or an ABDL... so whatever people feel comfortable describing themselves as,then surely that's up to them? Rx

i'll admit that I've not read the whole thread in depth... but... in answer (partially) to the OPs question: Posting photographs of a child on this kind of site is almost certainly illegal [at least from a technical standpoint,though this does vary from state to state]. why is that? unless you have the signed permission of the person in the photograph, then you have invaded their right to privacy by posting that photo here. and with the kind of material about which this site is concerned [which the majority of people would consider, rightly or wrongly, 'objectionable'], then the person in the photo would have a good case to sue you for posting it. of course, in the case of a child, they can't give permission, and it's their parent who would have to consent to their image being portrayed here. and i doubt many parents would willingly put their childs photo up on this site. a non-photographic picture [i.e. a drawing] is probably safe,under US freedom of expression laws - though it's possible that different countries would have differing stances on the matter [like with the 'extreme pornography' laws in the UK, even 'depictions' of certain acts, whether real or staged, are going to be illegal to posess... but that's another matter altogether]. but that's just my interpretation of the law, i'm not a lawyer or anything like that, but i'm certain that you're on shaky ground by posting pictures of children on a site that features sexual content [whether or not the content is sexual to YOU isn't important,you'd have a hard time proving that infront of a jury!]. of course I can't speak for the owner of the site - it's his choice and he can enforce his rules however he wants. Rx

Take an anti-diarrhoea drug? Visit the doctor? Adopt a more healthy diet? You know, faecal incontinence isn't a normal part of everyday life - it's a sign that something is wrong! So most people don't really have to 'deal' with it Speak for yourself pal! Not to offend you, but you really have no idea about everyone else's toilet habits. It's one of those things that you don't really discuss with anyone (unless you're a kinky bunch like us lot), so you never really know if you're doing it 'different' to other people*. Even if you're very open with your SO/spouse, that's only one other person. It's perfectly possible to get acceptably clean using toilet paper alone. If it weren't, then most people would choose to do otherwise (which they don't - compare the amount of 'dry' paper on sale compared to the number of 'wet' types for adults the next time you're at the store). On the other hand, there's clearly a market for people who feel that they can get cleaner with wipes, otherwise those products wouldn't exist. But to say "you're not clean with dry toilet paper" is a bit overkill, in my opinion Rx * - On which note, I sometimes wonder if I do it differently to other people. Sometimes I stand to do it... infact, I didn't really even consider that you could wipe your ass sat down until I was into my late teens. Does that make me weird??!

I think that without really thinking through all the implications, abusing a drug in this manner might possibly lead to a nasty outcome. And how much do you want to explain to your friends/family why you were admitted to hospital, whilst wearing a diaper, having had an adverse reaction to Novocaine? (If this is your fantasy, I recommend that you get help!). Novocaine is not a topical anaesthetic, and ingesting it internally may have untold consequences - as someone has pointed out, when you ingest a drug in the colon, it will be absorbed into the bloodstream very rapidly. As you probably don't know the correct dosages, you'll risk putting in too much and overdosing; or you could have an allergic reaction and go into anaphylactic shock; or because of the loss of sensation, you could strain yourself and perforate your colon (trust me, this will not be fun). In all, I'd steer well clear. There are less dangerous methods of making yourself mess your diaper (suppositories etc). I recommend you look into these alternatives before you abuse controlled substances.

subtract the I, the L, the A and another L to get "LOGIC"

^ His mother was a hamster and his father smelled of elderberries!

Well, not to bring politics into this - but I think that it's a generalisation that we're 'losing self restraint' or that the country is going to the dogs. I mean, despite what Daily Mail reading taxi drivers will tell you, some parts of our country have the lowest violent crime levels we've ever experienced. Policing is up, more crimes are being solved, more people are facing justice. So I don't think that Britain is losing all self restraint - I mean, it's been the same every generation: before we all decided that Chavs were going to be the end of our civilised country, it was the ravers and their illegal parties. Before the ravers came the punks, or the fascist skinheads, beating up old ladies and terrorising neighbourhoods. Before the skinheads and the punks, it was the mods and the rockers fighting with each other on the streets. Before the mods and the rockers, it was the teddy boys who carried knives and went around in gangs... and that's taking us waaaay back. See what I mean? I know what you mean about Americans being more polite; but I think that's probably a generalisation again. I mean, sure, the people you meet in the restaurants and hotels etc etc give you much better service - but go and hang out for a while in Compton or the Bronx, or many other 'less visited' areas of the US, and I bet you'd soon change your tune!

I agree about the Japanese, and I think Edokat's explanation is spot on - but I think you're WAY off with the British! As you say, we're still quite a repressed nation in terms of sexuality - as the old saying goes "No sex please, we're British!". I think that leads to a bit of a subculture, yeah, but as far as I'm aware, it's no more accepted here than it is in the USA. For example, think how many people here describe themselves as AB/DL or DL... If it were more accepted, or it was more well known here than in the US, surely we'd all be ABNLs (adult baby/NAPPY lovers)! Also, sorry to go a bit off topic but... I don't want to piss on your bonfire (or should that be $hit on your bonfire!?) - but that's not actually true. The word is derived from the Germanic "Schite" and the Old English "Scite"/"Scitan", both of which mean 'dung'. These words were around in the 13th century... many, many centuries before the American Civil War. The modern spelling has been located in writing from the mid 17th century, meaning that the story about 19th century shipping is (pun intended) bullsh*t Here's an interesting Snopes page about the myth.

I'm not bothering to read this whole thread, because I know how these arguments go. It's all cyclical. So here's what I have to say - take it or leave it: Can't we all PLEASE just get along nicely? Let's accept that there are some people who like other people to know they're wearing diapers. They're very welcome to go about showing off their diapers if that's what they want to do. That's their right to freedom of action. And let's also accept that there are a lot of people who DON'T like other people, in general, to know they're wearing diapers. They're entitled not to flaunt their diaper wearing to people, and nobody should call them names or think less of them because they don't go around telling everyone. Differences are what make life worth living. Why can't we, as a community, accept that there are differences and just get on with it? That's all I have to say.

Apologies if this is 'off topic', but that's how conversations go in the real world. Don't you just love going off on a tangent? Mooglelove - My understanding of the current DSM / ICD criteria for self-harm is that it is not a disorder by itself. Instead, those kind of behaviours are only ever a complication or symptom of some other affective disorder (depression, bi-polar affective disorder, body dysmorphic disorder, borderline personality disorder, etc). But because sexual paraphilias are classified as a disorder in and of themselves, it's quite possible that a certain behaviour may fall under the classification of BOTH self-injury AND a paraphilia (especially as the diagnostic classifications for 'self-injury' are very non-specific). So if a person is NOT diagnosed as suffering from any underlying affective disorders, but DOES fulfil the diagnostic criteria for having a sexual paraphilia relating to self-harming behaviours (i.e. self-harm is their sole source of sexual satisfaction for a period of more than six months and it interferes with their ability to form conventional relationships or distresses them) then one can conclude that as a result of their paraphilia, the person IS self-harming (and quite probably 'enjoying' the behaviours at the time, regardless of their feelings about what they've done later). Regardless of this, however, you must agree that this has turned into a discussion of semantics and not sentiments. The point of the original analogy was that what might seem acceptable to ONE person to do in public might well upset or distress a great deal of other people. As such I think it's prudent to err on the side of caution, and keep some of our behaviours private rather than risk offending other people. lynniehyde - Do people who don't smoke in the street have 'something to hide', if they choose to smoke at home instead? Do they not 'accept themselves' as smokers? Are they in denial about their love of cigarettes? How will smokers ever be accepted by the majority if they don't go out and force it on other people?!!!?! If anyone else has a problem with being near a smoker, that's their problem, right, not the smokers! Or, and I might be wrong here, maybe they just choose not to do it in public because they know that it might annoy or upset other people? Doesn't that seem sensible?

Simple business - supply and demand. The ABDL market is very limited, so there's very limited demand. Because of that, BD have to charge more per DVD to make the same kind of profit margin. Add to this the fact that because they're one of the only suppliers, they can basically choose to charge whatever they want, knowing that there's little competition out there for people to turn to. Sorry I can't help you out with getting hold of any of those videos though, sadly I can't say I own any of them!

Undoubtedly, that is the case for a large number of self harmers. But I'm 100% certain that some people enjoy what would be classed as 'self harm', whether it's as part of a fetish or otherwise; for example, people into the more extreme forms of BDSM and body modification (the kinds of things you might read about in BMEzine). As you say, we could get into a long debate on this somewhat off topic subject; however, you're incorrect to suggest that I have my facts wrong; I feel you're generalizing from the particular here. Back on topic... "Why don't I care? Cause it has NO impact on my life at all what-so-ever! I don't HAVE to stand around at look at it, there's an entire PLANET of places for me to go if I don't like it." That kind of sentiment seems really narrow minded and arrogant to me. To me, it says "I'm going to do what I want and I don't care about you". Here's an analogy, smoking in public places. I'm so glad that we've finally banned that in the UK. I think that people should be allowed to make their own decisions about what they do with their bodies (as long as they don't hurt other people); and if that means smoking, then of course people should be allowed to do that in their own homes. HOWEVER, I also think that us non-smokers shouldn't have to put up with what a lot of people consider to be a disgusting habit. Before the ban was brought in, lots of people said things like 'I want the right to be able to smoke in the pub. If you don't like smoking, then don't come to this bar'. So people's options were to either go to a different bar, or to just put up with the smoke. However, that's restricting one group's liberties for the liberty of another minority group. By banning smoking in public places, we're not stopping anyone from enjoying cigarettes; but we ARE protecting other people from a pastime they might find objectionable whilst protecting the majorities right to go where they want to. Do you see how this correlates to acting like a baby etc in public? Let's go back to the example of a man dressing like a sissy baby in a mall. You say 'if you don't like it, don't come here' - but the majority of people aren't going to be comfortable with it. So they're forced to go to a different mall (or just put up with it). Neither of which is a satisfactory outcome. People should be free to go about their business unfettered by other people's habits that they find objectionable; be it smoking, be it listening to music too loud on public transport, be it spitting in the street, or be it dressing and acting like an 18 month old. I don't do any of these things because other people might find them annoying or upseting, and I was raised to have respect for other people. Why can't we just do our own thing in private, where we won't upset anyone, but use some common decency (not to mention common sense) when we're in public?

"We need to organize!" Er... organise what, exactly? I've never really seen a 'big deal' or divide between ABs, DLs, AB/DLs, or even Babyfur/Diaperfurs... I think everyone's getting on pretty well, no?

Tried ebay?

"Get real. If you're offended, don't look." Fair enough if it's something you do in your own time, on your own property; but that argument just doesn't hold when you're out in public. I think the parallel with normal vanilla sex was the best analogy anyone could come up with. I don't find sex disturbing, I don't think it's dirty or wrong, and I don't think that people who have sex are sick or perverted. In fact, having sex is one of the most amazing things we can do as human beings, imho. And to choose to have sex (or not!) is a lifestyle choice just as much as anything else. But you'd sure as hell get locked up if you went around fucking in public! You'd get done for just being naked, even though that's the most natural way we can all be! The point is that just as I respect your right do do as you want, I think you should also have the common decency for other people, to respect the fact that they might not want to see you dressed or acting as a baby. And yes, shooting kids is infinitely worse than enjoying your fetish/lifestyle choice in public; but then again, what's worse, shooting kids or stiffing a restaurant? Shooting kids, right? So that makes it morally acceptable to walk out of restaurants and not pay? When you get arrested, you can just use the defense of 'I wasn't shooting kids, so it MUST be acceptable, right!'.... (Oh I do love a good debate!)

Great topic! This is certainly something I've thought about a lot before. I'm by no means a professional psychologist, but I have obtained a number of psychology qualifications, and I find it interesting to examine this (and other) fetish(es) from various psychological perspectives. You’ve basically described the behaviourist approach to fetishism. Essentially behaviourism states that all our learning is the result of stimulus and response conditioning; and it’s very feasible that as children, we learned to associate the feeling of a diaper change with positive and happy feelings, or even the sensual feeling of a wet or messy diaper as being a pleasurable one, and those conditioned responses now manifest themselves in this particular fetishist manner. For anyone who's interested, I’ve written up a brief overview of an alternative academic view (from the psychodynamic/Freudian perspective) on how paraphillias/fetishes are formed and how that might relate specifically to DLs. I hope that some of you find this interesting! First of all, it’s important to note that as a paraphillia, ‘fetishism’ is technically classified as a sexual dysfunction, as detailed in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (the ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM). Those are basically the books that doctors use to determine if someone can be classed as having a particular mental condition. However, to medically qualify as a “paraphillic fetish

I also agree with most of the sentiment expressed here; i.e. be sensible about the whole thing, and have respect and courtesy for other people. If you want to wear a diaper out in public, I don't see the harm in that, unless you're specifically drawing attention to the fact that you're wearing, trying to get a reaction out of people. Trying to make people notice crosses the line, imho. I think that kind of attitude (society can 'blow itself') is pretty narrow-minded and doesn't show a great deal of thought towards other people's feelings. You might not have a problem with seeing a fully grown man dressed or acting as a toddler/baby, but I know a lot of the general public would do. And the fact that it's a 'lifestyle choice' as opposed to a fetish doesn't really make a great deal of difference. To John Doe in the street, he might not understand the true motivation behind it and it could come across as creepy or perverted. Let's put it into another context. Imagine I was a serious self-harmer and I enjoyed cutting myself, taking precautions to ensure that I didn't cause any lasting damage (other than scarring and temporary bleeding). Imagine it was part of my lifestyle choice; I choose to do it because it's what makes me who I am... Now, you probably couldn't stop me from indulging in this kind of activity whilst I'm at home - but would you have a problem if I started doing it in a restaurant whilst you were trying to enjoy your meal? I expect most people would, and therefore it's impolite to enforce that upon other people. I know that's not a perfect analogy, because the two things are very disparate (I just saw a program about self-harmers, that's probably why I chose it). But regardless, I hope you can understand where I'm coming from when I say that even as a 'lifestyle' choice, what you find acceptable might not be considered acceptable to other people. And I think that in those kind of situations, we should err on the side of caution. "Now the world don't move to the beat of just one drum...."

I guess he means that he's been on a diet/working out and he's lost enough weight that he now takes a smaller diaper than he used to - which is great! Like how most people might say they've gone down a jeans size or a dress size or whatever, I can see why you can't tell many people though!

Sorry, can't help you there, but shouldn't this be in the meeting place forum? I think you might have a better chance of a response there.