Would It Be Unlawful To Wear Only A Diaper In Public

[rosalie.bent]

2 hours ago, WBDaddy said:

Actually, if you pinned them down about it, I'd wager a great many of these "in public" AB's would confess that they get off on humiliation.

[WBDaddy]

I try not to generalize, but yeah, you're probably right.

[rosalie.bent]

1 hour ago, WBDaddy said:

I try not to generalize, but yeah, you're probably right.

Its probably an over-generalisation, but I think the vast majority are.

I admit I dont understand anyone taking such risks especially now in the digital/internet age where everyone has a camera with them and everything that goes on the internet is there forever.

[Ishigreensa]

Interesting that the ABDL set must be careful in public, but I had seen on the news a few years ago, maybe ten years?

[WBDaddy]

8 minutes ago, Ishigreensa said:

...near panties and near boxers are appearing more and more in society.

(emphasis mine, obviously)

Operative here is, if someone walked around in public wearing actual underpants and nothing else, they'd be hassled just as much as if they were wearing a diaper.

[Ishigreensa]

True, but the point is that things are getting to the point that people can go out in anything that looks just like those, and I really seen no difference!

[WBDaddy]

27 minutes ago, Ishigreensa said:

True, but the point is that things are getting to the point that people can go out in anything that looks just like those, and I really seen no difference!

[Ishigreensa]

Well, that is true.

[rosalie.bent]

2 hours ago, WBDaddy said:

I'm just saying, that's the line that seems to be drawn.

[Ishigreensa]

Rosalie.bent.

[rosalie.bent]

30 minutes ago, Ishigreensa said:

Rosalie.bent.

[Ishigreensa]

But it seems they are only wearing underwear sometimes, the kind of 'short' shorts that people wear as of late.

[rusty pins]

And I still can't understand why I go to WalMart and see some of these A-Holes walking around with their jeans buckled around their thighs with their underpants in full view!

[willnotwill]

Again it seems we have the "holier than thou defenders of the true AB world" espousing on what they think is the only acceptable behavior for ABs again.

As stated, unless you are exposing your genitals, demonstrating a sexual act, or engaging in behavior specifically designed to alarm or affront another person, there isn't much LEGAL basis against you going out in your diaper.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

The process going on is that the more radical elements of a social group become more aggressive and controlling over time. If this goes too far, it gets fed back into itself and the whole becomes isolated. An example of this was in DPF and was a letter to the newsletter entitled "The Orange Badge of Courage" about messing and the orange, permanent stain it leaves on rubber panties. The unstated premise being "if you don not mess yourself, you are not a REAL AB" (lack "courage" or authenticity). It is also in the Sissy Room "What Is the Most Daring Thing You Have Ever Done". That soon becomes a challenge and implies that you lack courage, authenticity or are not the real deal unless you do something crazy

This plays right into the hands of the opposition that we more libertarian persons faced in the late '60's and it was by rejecting this sort of thing that we finally won so long is it was kept behind closed doors or at least, within reason. So now the fanatics and crazies are proving the opposition to be factually correct

[Harumaru]

9 hours ago, rosalie.bent said:

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

What makes you tink homosexuality is socially accepted? Most of my circles are in the Real World. You would be surprised how many people lie about things to keep form getting into a hassle; it is a cottage industry. It is tolerated but not understood. And they do not flaunt it and are not really identifiable unless they wish to be and you would also be surprised to find out how despised the "idntity/pride" thing is, too, mostly for their collectivist nature as best identified by the phrase "judged by the content of their charcter and not the color of their skin [or other irrelevent characteristic]". if you doubt me, and I hope you do, what would happen if someone decided to organize a "straight pride" parade? It is as Ira Glazier, a sociologist of 40 years ago said " we are trading individual rights for group shares", and the collectivist ruling class knows how to cash in on it. If you go around in a diaper for all to see, or If I went about in one omf my dresses and tiaras, that would be plainly identifiable and that would be a different story

Those who "came out" did not make public spectacles of themselves. In fact, all such matters were tolerated as long the practitioners were discreet

[rosalie.bent]

3 hours ago, Harumaru said:

So, would you say that people who came out of the closet before homosexuality gained societal acceptance were stupid and irresponsible? That's bluntly a ridiculous way of thinking, as they would never have gotten that far if they all stayed in the closet. I do agree that it is stupid and awful behavior to flaunt your AB side through exhibitionist behavior like acting or dressing like it in public, and consequences for that are certainly well-deserved (much like any other indecent behavior in public), but simply mentioning that you are one or going on a TV show about it for informational purposes most certainly does not warrant having your source of income cut off.

Don't imply something I am not saying. That is intellectually dishonest. I am referring to diapers and only to diapers. If I want to talk about gays I will refer to them specifically.

2 hours ago, Christine Daryleanne said:

What makes you tink homosexuality is socially accepted? Most of my circles are in the Real World. You would be surprised how many people lie about things to keep form getting into a hassle; it is a cottage industry. It is tolerated but not understood. And they do not flaunt it and are not really identifiable unless they wish to be and you would also be surprised to find out how despised the "idntity/pride" thing is, too, mostly for their collectivist nature as best identified by the phrase "judged by the content of their charcter and not the color of their skin [or other irrelevent characteristic]". if you doubt me, and I hope you do, what would happen if someone decided to organize a "straight pride" parade? It is as Ira Glazier, a sociologist of 40 years ago said " we are trading individual rights for group shares", and the collectivist ruling class knows how to cash in on it. If you go around in a diaper for all to see, or If I went about in one omf my dresses and tiaras, that would be plainly identifiable and that would be a different story

Those who "came out" did not make public spectacles of themselves. In fact, all such matters were tolerated as long the practitioners were discreet

You have a good point. I would say that in large swathes of the western world, homosexuality is tolerated rather than accepted. Not that there is anything wrong with that. We do need to allow people to have opinions and personal values. As with ABs, we will never be accepted because there is no need to use to be 'accepted'. Tolerance is all we will ever get and that is more than enough because... just as gays do not have gay sex in public, ABDLs do not wear diapers in open public either.

[waynecook52]

10 hours ago, rusty pins said:

And I still can't understand why I go to WalMart and see some of these A-Holes walking around with their jeans buckled around their thighs with their underpants in full view!

[rusty pins]

13 hours ago, waynecook52 said:

Well Rusty a few years ag I was sitting waiting for the buss and this guy was running from the cops.He had his pants down to his butt and kept falling down.The cop was just walking fast and laughing the whole time.Kid got to the point and just said the heck with it and layed down in the center of the street.Thought the cop was going to fall down laughing.

Serves the little bastard right!

Ok.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

This hearkens back to the old arguments of 1973-5 about "what is pornography", in the end it was left to local authorities acting on "community standards" with the antagonisms that arise therein. The more open communities consider themselves superior by virtue of being "enlightened" and those that are not so open as inferior "Yahoos" and the less open ones consider themselves superior because they are "morally upright" or "in touch with the real world" and the others as inferior by virtue of being "anything goes" or "without decent standards of behavior" or "effete snobs"

[Dubious]

Same laws apply to both babies and adults, but usually babies get a pass cause they so cute, even when nude..

If you want to go out in just a diaper, might as well put on a short skirt then, then you are not breaking any laws and is not indecent

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

44 minutes ago, Dubious said:

Same laws apply to both babies and adults, but usually babies get a pass cause they so cute, even when nude..

If you want to go out in just a diaper, might as well put on a short skirt then, then you are not breaking any laws and is not indecent

While it may be true with the law it was not all right with people. For most of my life, a baby in just it's diaper or diaper and rubber panties drew comments. like "she lets here baby run around in just a diaper" which has an implication that she is "a pig". I also do not know how a nude baby would be greeted in public by the law these days. In 1961, a news report about a toddler found outside very late an night stressed that it was found in "just a diaper and blue rubber pants" as if that made it more scandalous than it was being out at that late hour

Save yourself some grief and just do not do it. No good can come of it unless you like to be the subject of the standing head, "Man found wandering around in just a diaper". Do you REALLY want to "be that guy"?

The fact that this discussion is in its fourth page makes me queasy. DPF would have disposed of it in a paragraph

[Diapered Jason]

2 hours ago, Christine Daryleanne said:

The fact that this discussion is in its fourth page makes me queasy. DPF would have disposed of it in a paragraph

I know right. It's like they are asking the police to come and explain it to them. Why they are talking about how real babies are treated is beyond me, but it is completely irrelevant.

[Dubious]

Nothing is irrelevant

If they want people to laugh at them and even risk getting beat up...