Abi

I have a stammer, rather than a stutter. Not a bad one, but it can be a problem at times.

Hi MotherFaith. I'm an "older little". About 6 is my favourite age. I work in London, too, but couldn't live there. I'm not a city girl at all. Have you found that retro clothing place at the top end of Drury Lane? I think you might like it ...

Ooops ... I tried to go to chat before I saw this. It told me to try again, so I did ... 9 hours and counting. Must be some error!!

I like your set diagram, diapersalways, but I think it's actually a little more complicated. You need two intersecting circles - one is "DL" and the other is "little"; and the intersection between the two is "AB" - i.e. people who are both "little" and diaper lovers. But there are diaper lovers who are not AB (in the DL circle, but outside the intersection); and there are those of us who are "little" but not DL (in the "little" circle, but outside the intersection). I can't draw the diagram on da pooter, though - I don't know how cos I'm only little. So you'll have to draw that ...

Oh dear ... everything that I said was solved ... it's back to how it was.

Di - yes, I WAS getting kicked while active!

Features that I've noticed and not liked:- room - if you clicked to see someone's profile it opened a new tab, so you could keep the chat room open at the same time. Here it takes you out of the chat room to see the profile. Any chance of a reversion to getting a new tab? Every so often without warning or explanation it logs you out. The first you know is you try to post something and it doesn't send. But it takes you a while to realize that cos sometimes there's a time lag anyway. So you go through all the faff of logging back in ... and when you get back in you've lost all your whispered conversations and cannot retrieve them. Similarly, if you switch from one chat room to the other, when you come back you've lost all your whispered conversations

Pangaea - thanks for those thoughtful observations. It's not hacking I fear, though (and yes, I did set up a specific e-mail address for accessing these sort of things that I don't use for anything else). It's what happens if a false safeguarding allegation is made. It goes something like this. (1) You arrive at school in the morning. You get called into the head teacher's office and get told that an allegation has been made and you are suspended until further notice. You must leave the school premises immediately. (2) You return home, and find that while you have been having an interview with the head teacher, the police have visited your home with a search warrant. They have already broken the door down, uplifted ALL of the electronic devices in your house, and imaged them. They do this very quickly, to make sure that if you have the means to remote wipe them, by the time you know you need to do so it is already too late. (3) They go through the imaged devices at leisure; and if they find any trace of deviant sites they say "Aha! She's a sexual deviant ... look, we can prove it! So these allegations look as though they may well be true!" (4) You then find yourself arrested and answering questions under caution, trying to explain the difference between paraphilic infantilism and paedophilia, to somebody who's IQ is rock bottom but whose triumphalism is sky high, and for them the mere fact that what you're doing

Elfy - yes, I know there are ways around it for people who understand their IT and know what they're doing. But I don't and I don't. So I couldn't be sure that I would be keeping my browsing record "clean". I have been subject to false accusations before, and both times they had an absolutely devastating impact on my mental health even though I knew that there was absolutely nothing that could possibly implicate me in any way. I fear now, though, if the false accusation were "not safe to be trusted to work with children" and those making the accusation could say "And when we imaged her computer, guess what we found? She regularly accesses a sexual deviancy site with thousands

It is with a very heavy heart that I write this ... but I have to tell you that my days here are numbered. As some of you know I am planning a new career in teaching. I have been reading some accounts of what happens to teachers when false safeguarding allegations are made against them ... and lets face it, nobody is immune from false allegations. Some of them have been arrested, and had their computers taken and analysed. In view of the new laws coming in to ban sexual deviancy sites which include things such as BDSM, urolagnia and "role play involving playing people of different ages", I am afraid I simply cannot afford to have a computer in my house with a browsing record which includes sites involved with such things. My current computer has a browsing record of visits to sites involving all of those things. If a false safeguarding allegation were to be made against me, and my computer were to be analysed and those links found, I would find myself arguing against false adverse

This is true, Elfy - but trying to get people to defend US when they're not under attack, because it's plain as the nose on your face that they will be next, ain't easy. I saw it before, 10 years ago, when we tried to mobilise the shooting and fishing people to come to the defence

Me is SIX ... not too old at all :P

Can I come for a sleepover??? :D

N gauge is cool. REALLY cute :D

Are girls allowed? Or is it boys only??

Elfy is right - not hypocritical at all. Elfy's role on this site is to ensure the rules are observed (rules that are in place for very good reasons). We all of us have to live within the rules that society imposes on us ... and in a voluntary association like this site, we abide by the rules of the voluntary association. The issue here is one stage removed. It is an issue of what the rules of our society should be. There is a proposal to change them in an intolerant way which will make sites like this impossible to operate within the law. What Elfy is saying is that we need to go and talk to our representatives on the law-making body, the people who have the power to change the rules whether we like it or not, and persuade them that this particular rule change is uncalled for, unnecessary, unworkable, intolerant, misconceived ... insert your own objection here. My own MP is, unfortunately, Nadine Dorries, and I don't think I'll get much of a hearing there ...

Hi Newbies. I'm an LG too ... but too big to wear diapees. Me very proud of my proper big girl panties.

Hi Angela. Very interesting topic. I have no memory of being in nappies or of toilet training. I remember being conscious of the whole wetting issue when I was 3 or 4, and of playing games with toy cars in which the cars' drivers had accidents of the "wetting" kind rather than the crashing kind. Whether that was originally prompted by my overhearing and misunderstanding a comment about somebody having had an accident in their car, I cannot say. But it was a feature of my games with toy cars right up until I stopped playing with toy cars altogether. I remember being fascinated by other children having accidents, and being ever so proud of the fact that unlike lots of my classmates I had NEVER wet my knickers at school ... right up to the day when, aged nearly 7, I did finally have an accident at school. I was EVER so upset about that ... because I was wearing my "best knickers" when it happened, too. I was nowhere near as reliable about being dry at night as I was about being dry during the day. I had lots of wet beds when I was little. I was finally dry by the time I was 8 ... except for one very embarrassing final wet bed, when we were on holiday and I was sharing a hotel room with my older brother, when I was 11.

Oh Elfy ... you're so ... what's the word I'm looking for???

I'm a "little" ... 5 - 8 years is my normal age regression age, with a marked preference for about 6. I'm not AB and I'm not DL. "Little Abi" wears big girl knickers, not diapers. Sometimes has accidents, too

It seems to me that this is a classic example of the problem of "derivative laws". What is the ACTUAL "wrongdoing" that they are trying to prevent? Well, let's see ... it's, um, assault, rape, sexual assault, voyeurism, and ... hey ... ya know what?? There are already laws against ALL of these things in all civilized countries already. So they've got a whole lot of laws, prohibiting these acts ... and then they come along and say "oh look ... we've just identified a situation in which there is an opportunity to commit these offences ... that cannot be allowed, can it? Quick, we'd better pass a derivative law, to prevent these opportunities for law-breaking arising." But here's the paradox. If you believe that laws are effective to deter people from offending, then there's no need for the derivative law, because the primary laws are already in place to prevent the offending, whether or not the opportunity for doing so is allowed to arise. But if you don't believe that laws are effective to deter people from offending, then what do you suppose is the point of passing the derivative laws? Put it another way ... which do you think is the correct approach to take? (a) If somebody commits an offence of assault, rape, sexual assault or voyeurism, they should be prosecuted (and, if convicted, punished) ... but if they do not then they are no criminal and should be allowed to get on with their lives? Or (b) It should be a criminal offence, for which somebody may be prosecuted (and, if convicted, punished)