Uh... Y'all?

[Yvhuce]

Fact 1: The AB/DL community is against pedophiles.

Fact 2: Most AB/DL stories center around teens. And the majority of these seem to be forced diapering scenarios.

Forgive me for finding this a bit odd... But I think that these stories are hurting the "we're against pedophilia" position...

Facts 1 and 2 don't seem to mix well, from a logic standpoint.

Now... I'm not trying to stir up trouble, here... Just pointing out something that the detractors could really latch onto.

[PampersPete]

I don't consider someone over 16 a child. Not that I'd fuck a 16 year old but I think you get my point. #1-We overprotect our"little babies"WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much and #2-We don't give enough credit to our"little babies"nearly enough.

[DailyDi]

Most of our members began experimenting with diapers in their teens, and thus their experiences and stories often focus on that time frame when diapers were most of interest to them. Add to them the fantasy many have of wishing they had been allowed or made to wear diapers growing up and there's where the stories come from.

Pedo's aren't into diapers, so if the story isn't about sex, it isn't pedo material.

[Bettypooh]

Fact 1: The AB/DL community is against pedophiles.

Fact 2: Most AB/DL stories center around teens. And the majority of these seem to be forced diapering scenarios.

Forgive me for finding this a bit odd... But I think that these stories are hurting the "we're against pedophilia" position...

Facts 1 and 2 don't seem to mix well, from a logic standpoint.

Now... I'm not trying to stir up trouble, here... Just pointing out something that the detractors could really latch onto.

Facts rarely change the minds of people who want to see things their way- they aren't going to believe anything they don't like hearing until it's forced on them Pedo's are found among any category of people and while we as a whole are dead-set against them, there are bound to be some hiding among us As for teens being so close to childhood that someone could 'stretch' pedophilia to them, begin by re-reading the above. Then consider this: Most people don't fully mature till some time in their thirties after they've seen a thousand times more than a teen and tried most of those things they wanted to try Maturity escapes some people altogether and gets forced on some a lot sooner than it should so when do we place an end to being "a child"? It's not an age- that's just a legal consrtuct created by society so people could be regulated and controlled by governments It's not a physical point because some are sexually mature long before they're mentally ready for it It's not a combination of the above either- a person is a child as long as they remain one and that point varies with the individual Having said all that it is our responsibility as adults and as members by choice of the ABDL community to be absolutely sure we avoid sex with children. It's far better to maintain a safe distance than it is to crash into an unexpected obstacle

Bettypooh

[timmyc]

I see your point, but also think with text, no child is hurt or exploited. Kiddy porn and pedophilia are damaging to the child and well just wrong. I think with stories many times the story is a variation on our own experiences or things maybe we wanted at any given age. I am pretty sure at least in the US written material is a protected right as long as it isn't slanderous. While Photographs and physical actions. I am sure their is a small percentage of pedos in the community. We should definitely distance our self from any known pedos.

[DprDJeff]

There is no conflict unless the pre-adults in the stories are having sex or being sexually abused. In nearly every fetish out there people write about how it started during childhood. It's not just us...

[willow]

Point of the matter is this, in most western countries possessing photos or images of anyone under 18 in anything even resembling a sexual situation, or which could be construed as able to sexually excite will get the holder locked up for a long time.

I have a big problem with the Diaper Art in the photo gallery here for this reason. Get your laptop seized at an airport and try explaining that to a judge. All it takes is one expert to state that the image probably depicts someone under 18, and it's off to hard time you go.

I don't collect photos unless I know the source and they state they have 2257 information. I don't collect stories unless they're clear on ages. I leave any chat room where a minor reveals themselves.

Inside this site we understand each other. In the real world we don't stand a chance.

[Guest YkDave]

Im with DD on this one!

As long as the story doesnt have anything to do with sexual acts against a child i dont see anything wrong with it. though the world may see it slightly differently....

If we were to hack out any story with a 'person' under 18 in it, im sure 98% of them would be gone, and for no good reason really.

I can understand the concern, but if we as a community keep thinking like this, we may as well just give up diapers and 'conform' to society and what they think is 'right'

[dave_the_baby]

if the story isn't about sex, it isn't pedo material.

I am also with DD. In my opinion, the forced-diaper stories just don't seem to work if the person is of age. For a minor, the parent has more of the power to trap the kid since he is not a legally recognized adult, thus making the story seem more realistic. If the person is of age, he may be trapped by his girlfriend or something, but it's harder to do.

#1-We overprotect our"little babies"WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much and #2-We don't give enough credit to our"little babies"nearly enough.

I agree. I disagree with an adult f-cking them, but then expecting the teens not to indulge in their impulses when they hit puberty? Those feelings are there strongly. (Mine weren't, because I was raised to think those natural desires were evil)

Almost all sexual content in the media is for those who are legally of age. This includes porn sites, Rated-R movies, etc.

This leaves two options:

1. Break some rules- access the forbidden media
2. Do it with those who share your feelings

"Those who share your feelings" are of course, those who are your age- your peers at school, who are every bit as immature and stupid as you are. They ignore adults because adults demand the Teens not to indulge in those feelings. Thus, they will inevitably do what their genetic code is programmed to do- indulge.

So either you wait 4 years to actually enjoy sexual feelings, or you break rules. Realistically, most everyone will choose the second. It's human nature.

[sarah_ab]

i'd say the bigger issue we may want to be addressing is people's who profile pictures depict infants, toddlers, and young children in diapers, even if the face is not showing, a groin shot of a baby with a diaper on... on an over 18 site only... may also give the wrong impression, and since pictures are the FIRST thing people see when they come here.. maybe that should be changed first?

i dunno just me.. if i come to site about adults wearing diapers, and these adults are claiming they are not pedophiles, yet when i look at profiles i see pictures of babies in diapers, i dont think i'm going to believe they aren't pedophiles.

i think people who just come here and are curious, are not going to take a lot of time to read the stories at first...

[Rawr]

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

[Yvhuce]

Remember... I'm not saying that the stories = pedophile content. I'm saying that they can be seen as such by people who don't understand the nature of the people who write them. Perception doesn't always jive with fact.

I do like the idea of a coding system. All it would really need would be the code letters put into the first part of the sub-title thingy. It really would be nice to know what we're goinna find if we click on a story topic. After all, we can't unread stories... And what some like, others may find repulsive.

[ultrapampers]

i'd say the bigger issue we may want to be addressing is people's who profile pictures depict infants, toddlers, and young children in diapers...

Sarah, do you have an issue with my avatar?

[dave_the_baby]

i'd say the bigger issue we may want to be addressing is people's who profile pictures depict infants, toddlers, and young children in diapers

Ok, THAT I agree with completely. Oh, wait- does that include the anime pictures?

[BabyLex]

Rawr makes an excellent point. Please be aware that AB/DLs are everywhere in the world and the US standard of:

18/21 yo = adult

18- yo = innocent, unaware, helpless, victim child

isn't a standard that shared by many other countries in the world. Bear in mind that the age of consent in many countries is younger than in the USA.

--Lex

[superdiaperbaby]

Remember... I'm not saying that the stories = pedophile content. I'm saying that they can be seen as such by people who don't understand the nature of the people who write them. Perception doesn't always jive with fact.

I do like the idea of a coding system. All it would really need would be the code letters put into the first part of the sub-title thingy. It really would be nice to know what we're goinna find if we click on a story topic. After all, we can't unread stories... And what some like, others may find repulsive.

This thread gives some insight into some of us perceive ourselves and not how others perceive us and it is scary. Think about it. If you never knew about abdl and read a story about a kid who was a bedwetter who was forced to wear diapers you would not see it as sexual. A normal person would see it as maybe psychological abuse but not sexual. If you never knew about abdl and read a story about a preteen wanting to wear diapers and wet them you would think that the story is weird, but not sexual.

What I am saying is, because we are sexual in diapers we assume that stories involving minors in diapers are sexualizing children even though from an outside perspective it does not. Maybe those who read stories of kids in diapers are really confused and feel guilty for tieing the two together. I agree it is best to stay away from them just so we don't get confused.

SDB

[dave_the_baby]

This thread gives some insight into some of us perceive ourselves and not how others perceive us and it is scary. Think about it. If you never knew about abdl and read a story about a kid who was a bedwetter who was forced to wear diapers you would not see it as sexual. A normal person would see it as maybe psychological abuse but not sexual. If you never knew about abdl and read a story about a preteen wanting to wear diapers and wet them you would think that the story is weird, but not sexual.

Excellent point. Nobody else would associate these stories with sex. Nobody else would be turned on by it.

Put those stories anywhere else on the internet, nobody would think that. Put those stories on here, anyone would think that. Then again, they see the site that says "Daily Diapers," the stories won't make a difference at all.

[Yvhuce]

This thread gives some insight into some of us perceive ourselves and not how others perceive us and it is scary. Think about it. If you never knew about abdl and read a story about a kid who was a bedwetter who was forced to wear diapers you would not see it as sexual. A normal person would see it as maybe psychological abuse but not sexual. If you never knew about abdl and read a story about a preteen wanting to wear diapers and wet them you would think that the story is weird, but not sexual.

What I am saying is, because we are sexual in diapers we assume that stories involving minors in diapers are sexualizing children even though from an outside perspective it does not. Maybe those who read stories of kids in diapers are really confused and feel guilty for tieing the two together. I agree it is best to stay away from them just so we don't get confused.

SDB

Excellent point. Nobody else would associate these stories with sex. Nobody else would be turned on by it.

Put those stories anywhere else on the internet, nobody would think that. Put those stories on here, anyone would think that. Then again, they see the site that says "Daily Diapers," the stories won't make a difference at all.

Right. But if someone like my folks (who tend to associate the whole ABDL thing with pedophilia anyway) was to happen upon these stories, they'd feel that the stories validated their preconceptions.

[Bettypooh]

.... Perception doesn't always jive with fact....

That says it all concisely but still leaves the issue of a judge or juries perception as open as a 24 hour convience store The only cure to such ignorance is education but you can't educate those who don't wish to be educated, or to admit to a truth which they don't like Best to play it safe unless you really want to see the legal and penal systems from the inside out

Bettypooh

[sarah_ab]

Excellent point. Nobody else would associate these stories with sex. Nobody else would be turned on by it.

Put those stories anywhere else on the internet, nobody would think that. Put those stories on here, anyone would think that. Then again, they see the site that says "Daily Diapers," the stories won't make a difference at all.

but the point is these stories are NOT anywhere else on the internet, and for someone to get to these stories they must first go thru the main page which states this is an over 18 website, which implies it has adult content.

also, although other countries feel that at 16 someone is of legal age, this website is run out of the USA which means it must abide by the rules and regluations of this country.

in regards to if i have a problem with a particular avatar, i believe any avatar that has pictures of under 18 year old people on it should not be allowed on a website that is for only those over 18. Most of the people who have these pictures i do not believe mean anything wrong at all, simply they like diapers and baby things and this shows it.

However, remember, its not about what we think, its about what the police who patrol the internet think when they click "yes i am 18" on the main page, and therefore enter a site identifying itself as 18 and older, and then see adults posting pics of infants in diapers.

imagine going to a page about adults who like to fuck animals and saw a picture of a 5 year old on a horse, next to a person's name who is discussing how watching horses runs makes them so turned on, wouldn't it be a bit inapropriate to have a 5 year old next to that persons name riding that animal. Someone may believe it implied they wanted to see kids get fucked my animals, or that kids and animals together turned them on.

Those of us in this community may not believe it is that at all, but this thread was talking about those who were outside the community and their impressions.

[curiositykilledthecat]

Aside from being kids, legally and developmentally, teens are just too damn stupid to find attractive. What the hell would I want a 16 or 17 year old girl for? I never understood the concept, hell i rather be bought by an attractive cougar first and i don't like that idea either. As for the "stories" I don't read em.

[Rawr]

Excellent point. Nobody else would associate these stories with sex. Nobody else would be turned on by it.

Put those stories anywhere else on the internet, nobody would think that. Put those stories on here, anyone would think that.

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

[Repaid1]

Sarah, do you have an issue with my avatar?

Naw Ultra, I think that was directed at mine..

[tommee]

As much as a story coding system would be a good idea amongst ourselves, it still doesn't solve the problem of someone who is actively looking for something with which to confirm their prejudices that AB/DL = Paedophile. AB/DL stories are such an incredibly grey area, it may be impossible to ever say with certainty what constitutes legal and illegal. The fact that a story about a teenager who is made to wear goodnights can be read as either a commonplace anecdote or raunchy fiction shows that our fetish or lifestyle or whatever you want to call it, has it's foundations in this grey area. In fact, aren't all fetishes based on this aspect, finding something sexual that not everyone does? We just need to try and make sure that this something else is as innocent as possible.

The case of the British guy who was tried for writing a Girls aloud fan-fic shows that this is something the law is willing to use against us. The fact that a judge threw the case out of court is reassuring, and shows that the law isn't completely willing to go breaking down peoples bedroom doors. Luckily for us. This legislation is written in awfully vague terms, and I think is intended to show concerned mothers that the government is doing something about the "horrors of the internet". One important thing to remember is that the story was found, not as a result of a police investigation, but of a newspaper, The tabloid Daily Star

The fact remains that we are an easy target if someone really wanted to come after us. I don't know what to suggest. I can only hope that we can keep our heads down and our noses as clean as possible, until society is liberal enough to deal with this fully.

[beachxbunni123]

I agree with this. It isn't right to have these stories if the characters ages are below 18. Sexually getting off on stories about characters that are below age 18 can be considered ilegal.