Opting Out

[Guest LOSTinDiapers]

As many might know, I'm not one to willingly push my fetish on other people. I frankly find it disgusting when I read about people being arrested for walking through parking lots wearing diapers or asking people to change them. That said, I think it would be hilarious to go through airport security while wearing a diaper under clothes and opt out of the body scanner so they have do the advanced pat down. I can just imagine the screener's eyes when they feel up my leg to my crotch and it nothing but soft bambino or abena. That would be a perfect time to cite the Americans With Disabilities Act.

For those who don't already know, November 24th is National Opt Out Day. If you are traveling by air that day, you are encouraged to exercise your rights and opt out of the naked radiation bath.

[Kari]

As many might know, I'm not one to willingly push my fetish on other people. I frankly find it disgusting when I read about people being arrested for walking through parking lots wearing diapers or asking people to change them. That said, I think it would be hilarious to go through airport security while wearing a diaper under clothes and opt out of the body scanner so they have do the advanced pat down. I can just imagine the screener's eyes when they feel up my leg to my crotch and it nothing but soft bambino or abena. That would be a perfect time to cite the Americans With Disabilities Act.

For those who don't already know, November 24th is National Opt Out Day. If you are traveling by air that day, you are encouraged to exercise your rights and opt out of the naked radiation bath.

Sometimes Guys or Gals that run around parking lots in diapers are very mentally ill.

And a small few are just "douche bags" looking for unwanted attention.

Everyone has their reasons.

But I am all for opt out day at the Airport 24/7/365.

I don't want a permanent picture of me wearing diapers.

Even though I have many on my HD and don't really care.

To me, it's a form of "Civil disobedience".

And the TSA has more than likely been trained on "dealing" with adults who wear diapers.

If they ask why I am wearing, I will tell the truth.

I feel secure in diapers when there is a line @ the lavatory.

As far as I know, that's still legal, isn't it?

[rusty pins]

Opt out is a good thing as long as the TSA still has a way to search people. Getting a pat down in a diaper sounds like it could be fun/embarresing. I do want to say that, while the TSA is a hassle and they sometimes may miss things and take a lot of flak, I'd much rather fly on a plane knowing that the other passengers and their baggage have been searched rather than losing my life to a terrorist!

[KittenAB]

Wow ... found a site that breaks down the numbers the best they can: http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-statistique-lg-2-numpage-4.html

Flight Crew are still the most danger.

[lil_baby_wet_n_squishy]

I feel bad for anyone flying on that day as it will mean long lines at the airport... TSA is a joke, and hasn't stopped any terrorist attacks at all.. Your best bet is to just not fly or if you have to to fly out of small airports were they have little or no presence.

[spark]

I've never really understood the resentment towards TSA. We do have long lines going through airport security, but in reality it is no worse than going through the court rooms. I could be wrong, but there hasn't been an hijacking, or attempted explosion of an airliner that has left from an US airport since 9-11.

As far going through the scanners in diapers, I've never heard of somebody being harrassed for it, or even the need to cite the ADA. I'm sure they see diapers on a regular basis at any major airport, and 90% of the people don't make a big deal about. The other 10% are jackasses that would be assholes regardless of what you do.

[Rockies Fan in Diapers]

I feel bad for anyone flying on that day as it will mean long lines at the airport... TSA is a joke, and hasn't stopped any terrorist attacks at all.. Your best bet is to just not fly or if you have to to fly out of small airports were they have little or no presence.

I totally agree with you Squishy especially on your comment about the TSA. My Biological Father works for the Airlines, & he told me & I believe him when he says that despite what our messed up government tries to make us believe, in reality we aren't any safer or less prone to terroist attacks today then we were before 9/11. About the Scanners what about personal privacy? Well I guess thats what we get when an a**h**e tries to blow up his underpants!

[Jen Harris]

I totally agree with you Squishy especially on your comment about the TSA. My Biological Father works for the Airlines, & he told me & I believe him when he says that despite what our messed up government tries to make us believe, in reality we aren't any safer or less prone to terroist attacks today then we were before 9/11. About the Scanners what about personal privacy? Well I guess thats what we get when an a**h**e tries to blow up his underpants!

Bruce Schneier (noted security expert) says exactly two things have improved security since 9/11 - they lock the cockpit door now, and people on airplanes know to resist. The rest (including all the checkpoint stuff) is just theater. A great example is the no-fly list. It's very easy to evade - get a ticket made up in someone's name who isn't on the list. Take that ticket, edit the name in photoshop, print up a fake copy that matches your ID. Go through the checkpoint where they will examine your ID very close but just check off your boarding pass (it could be for a flight that doesn't exist even). Then once you're through, rip up the fake one and get on the plane with the real one that doesn't match your name. Done!

Getting back to diapers - I don't like the radiation from the full body scanner, and I think a diaper would make the pat down LESS embarrassing - I mean, there's a thick layer of padding between me and the searcher. Yet another reason to be diapered on the airplane... Though when I next fly, I probably won't be - I don't want to change a diaper in an airplane bathroom, and I definitely don't want my travelling companion to be aware of me being diapered and have an awkward discussion.

I do wonder though - how do they know your thick diaper is just a diaper? How do they know it's full of absorbent polymers and not something more sinister? Especially if it's wet and a little saggy...

Well, I will say that an article I read on the subject said a guy had no problem smuggling a "beer belly" (a fake belly used, usually, for sneaking booze into stadiums) full of liquid past the checkpoint, maybe this is the same.

[sarah_ab]

remember like last week when those terrorist were mailing bombs to the usa? and one of them was pretty close to making it here.... yeah..... they aren't going to be taking domestic flights anymore, they are goiing to be coming in from other countries.....

[oznappy]

Opt out is a good thing as long as the TSA still has a way to search people. Getting a pat down in a diaper sounds like it could be fun/embarresing. I do want to say that, while the TSA is a hassle and they sometimes may miss things and take a lot of flak, I'd much rather fly on a plane knowing that the other passengers and their baggage have been searched rather than losing my life to a terrorist!

Please don;t get me started about the TSA and the US system of airport security. I fly for work all the time and all the TSA seems to do is slow the process down. Other places in the world have had better security than the US for years but still manage to keep the lines moving.

Even the concept of staff change over..anywhere else in the world it happens semmlessly..ever been at LAX when they scream stop and change shifts. You think there is a major incident..and omg don;t dare move during that period..don;t dare breathe too hard

[square_duck]

To heck with the diaper thing, I want to go through with a Polska Kilbasa tied into my undies and down my leg, and prey for a female agent for the pat down

I am sure it has probably been done already *shrug* but imagine the surprise...or disgust Hehehehe

I don't know why I posted this

[beetle99]

I'm flying that day. It's definitely going to be crazy. At first I didn't really want to be physically patted down, but I agree with the OP, it's better than getting radiation dose from the xray, with a "naked" pic of you being available to whomever is viewing it at the moment. I'll opt for a pat-down on that day. I don't really care what the TSA people have to say if they feel up my diaper down there. I have been wearing 24/7 for over a year now. If they need to do a strip search - they will come to see that there's plenty of proof that I've been wearing constantly - like the skin is a little bit "discolored" in that area compared to the other parts of my body, and also there's the lines from the diaper edges. They'll go, "Oh, sorry."

I'm not sure what I will be wearing when I get to the security lines - whether I will get to the airport late at night or early in the morning. I think I prefer late at night as it is infinitely easier and I'm not bothered by having to rest at the airport through the night. If I go at that time, it will most likely be a Tranquility ATN as I would get to the airport via the SEPTA train. For the early morning arrival - it'll be the Walgreen's Certainty. I have it all down to science.

As for flying, my first flight is 6 hours - from PHL to SEA - I'm definitely wearing the Abena X-Plus on that flight. For my second flight I will most likely wear the ATN as it's just a 3-hour flight to Anchorage.

[justagirl4fun]

I can just imagine the screener's eyes when they feel up my leg to my crotch and it nothing but soft bambino or abena. That would be a perfect time to cite the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Hate to kill your thrill here but these people have probably seen it all working security and you'll likely get not so much as a raised eyebrow for your diaper. They're professionals are are unlikely to say anything about the diaper so the Americans with Disabilities Act tirade probably won't be necessary. But hey, have fun flying diapered anyways!

[dl_ashlee]

Mostly they are probably worried about what they are feeling might be dangerous. I highly doubt anyone who has gone through wearing a diaper has been stripped searched without a cause for suspicion that it might be hiding something. I think the most they would do is use one of their wand things, pat you done good enough to tell you aren't hiding anything and then maybe use one of their chemical wipe things that detects chemicals that could be dangerous.

Though most likely you will be patted down, asked what you have under you clothes and once they know it isn't anything dangerous be on your marry way. They have much more to worry about and are trying to get everyone through asap that a person wearing a diaper is the least of their worries.

[dl_ashlee]

And now it gets even worse, apparently now they have to run their hands around the inside of your waistband. So now everyone will probably see your diaper sticking up when you get patted down.

[underwhere]

Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I understand the need for security, but I also think most of what we have now is profiteering and fear mongering. There are some companies (and the people who run those companies) making a lot of money by selling products which can create the perception of safety.

It is also interesting to note that in this climate of fear, we are told not to trust anybody, and to hold everybody under the same guise of suspicions. Locally, the public transit system here in Boston a couple of years ago launched a "See something? Say something!" campaign, the stated intent of which is to have all passengers and employees aware of their surroundings, and to report "anything suspicious" they see happening to the authorities.

How do we define "suspicious"? What may be normal for somebody else (a Muslim wearing a head covering, for example) will always be perceived as an attempt to "hide something" by those of us not familiar with their religious practices and looking simply at what we can see and passing judgment on that. And yet, religious freedom is one of the staples on which the United States was founded upon.

Israel, which has had security considerations since its very inception as a modern state, seems to do this task much better, and at much lower cost, and with a higher degree of sophistication than we do here in the USA. When the real concern is safety, and not money for so-called security companies or government agencies, you get a much better result, and typically spend a lot less money in the process.

[dl_ashlee]

Yup, totally agree. I really think we need to go back to metal detectors/bag scanners, but along with what most other places do is train people to ask questions and gauge peoples responses, which more accurately finds people acting suspicious rather then all the theatre being put on by TSA.

[Marcuss]

ok so the scanners are there and nothing we say will stop it. So here is a question. Does anyone think they will catch a terrorist with the scanners ever? Personally i dont.

[AbriForm]

ok so the scanners are there and nothing we say will stop it. So here is a question. Does anyone think they will catch a terrorist with the scanners ever? Personally i dont.

Part of the point is to deter. Before the scanners, someone could stuff their underpants full of non-metalic explosives and walk through the metal detectors.

Same story when the shoe bomber (Richard Reed) packed his shoes full of non-metalic explosives. Walked right through the metal detector. That's why metal detectors don't work anymore.

So the terrorists started to pack explosives in their underpants. Now they can't, because they risk being patted down or body scanned.

Also, the concern about being in an air disaster is not the issue. The concern is an airplane blowing up over a major population area, and tons of burning metal falling on the people and buildings below. Or a couple of twin towers...

Sorry folks, we can't go back to just metal detectors. They catch guns, they don't catch PETN explosives.

[KittenAB]

Part of the point is to deter. Before the scanners, someone could stuff their underpants full of non-metalic explosives and walk through the metal detectors.

Same story when the shoe bomber (Richard Reed) packed his shoes full of non-metalic explosives. Walked right through the metal detector. That's why metal detectors don't work anymore.

So the terrorists started to pack explosives in their underpants. Now they can't, because they risk being patted down or body scanned.

Also, the concern about being in an air disaster is not the issue. The concern is an airplane blowing up over a major population area, and tons of burning metal falling on the people and buildings below. Or a couple of twin towers...

Sorry folks, we can't go back to just metal detectors. They catch guns, they don't catch PETN explosives.

Sadly with terrorists deterrents simply do not work, nor do you need to take anything onto a plane to hijack it really, much less crash it. All the tools are there already, you just need to be sneaky. This isn't about security, it's about an excuse to charge more by feeding on the fears of passengers. I'm so glad I don't fly, it's just not worth what you pay for without the "extra security" as it is, this new stuff will only increase the ticket prices because they can use the "well you wanted more security so you have to pay for it" excuse now.

Now here's the kicker, terrorists are no longer as interested in using planes anyway, remember when it was primarily car bombs? They changed to planes as the primary method because people got wise to the car bombs, once the general populace becomes wise to their method they change it, they have to in order to keep getting away with it. They'll wait until all eyes are on the planes long enough then surprise us with something new, possible crashing satellites into major cities, or cargo ships. The problem is the over reaction of the people actually fuels them, the more scared you become the more they win. The original reason for "the US does not negotiate with terrorists" policy in the first place was because that's what the terrorists want, they want our attention and nothing more, killing people is just the most effective method of doing this. Now if the news showed puppies and charity work more often than catastrophes the terrorists would find a new method of getting attention and no longer be terrorists, they be charitists or some other word.

The run down is this: Terrorists want your attention and for you to be afraid of them, businesses don't care (they have no reason to) about this so they also feed on that fear in order to set their own prices. The solution is to stop using these business services so they see it doesn't work, but since that won't happen because most people are too involved in fighting or endorsing the businesses this cycle will continue until terrorists finally grow bored of the monotony they have created. The irony is that most of the ME terrorists are fighting capitalism yet by their own acts actually help it. LOL

[jeremy12312]

Sorry folks, we can't go back to just metal detectors. They catch guns, they don't catch PETN explosives.

And the scanners and patdowns won't catch a condom full of PETN up someone's ass.

If someone is hell bent on blowing up a plane, they're going to go to any length to get it done. As the adage goes, locks only keep non-criminals honest.

[sarah_ab]

did anyone miss the whole, no body is trying to sneak on a plane with explosives any more memo? they are just mailing them now.

[AbriForm]

And the scanners and patdowns won't catch a condom full of PETN up someone's ass.

If someone is hell bent on blowing up a plane, they're going to go to any length to get it done. As the adage goes, locks only keep non-criminals honest.

The amount of PETN that could be secreted up someone's rectum is considered not enough to take down an airplane. It might make a large explosion, but would be unlikely to do enough damage to down an aircraft. Also, if you did insert enough to do that, the individual would be in considerable pain (it does take a lot of this stuff to do damage)... and that would subject them to additional screening.

Others have talked about the cargo, and that's a completely different issue. But yes, this is to deter, and the insinuation that deterrents don't work is simply incorrect. You can sneak a gun past an x-ray scanner if you really want to. Terrorists would prefer to pack explosives, because, until now... there hasn't been any way to detect that. Less risk, more chance of reward.

Make no mistake, I don't like any of this screening myself. But, I don't see a better solution... other than reducing the screening protocol and replacing it with profiling. And people apparently don't like profiling in America.

[KittenAB]

The amount of PETN that could be secreted up someone's rectum is considered not enough to take down an airplane. It might make a large explosion, but would be unlikely to do enough damage to down an aircraft. Also, if you did insert enough to do that, the individual would be in considerable pain (it does take a lot of this stuff to do damage)... and that would subject them to additional screening.

Others have talked about the cargo, and that's a completely different issue. But yes, this is to deter, and the insinuation that deterrents don't work is simply incorrect. You can sneak a gun past an x-ray scanner if you really want to. Terrorists would prefer to pack explosives, because, until now... there hasn't been any way to detect that. Less risk, more chance of reward.

Make no mistake, I don't like any of this screening myself. But, I don't see a better solution... other than reducing the screening protocol and replacing it with profiling. And people apparently don't like profiling in America.

o.O Reward? You don't know much about terrorists then, the reward is to make you scared, that's it, as long as you are afraid of them they win.

[AbriForm]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Terrorism is going to have changes on how we live our lives. That doesn't mean we're trading freedom for security. You can always drive from point A to B, take a bus, take a train, etc. I personally have no problem with choosing between a body scan and a pat down. Do I like the choice? No, but, it's better than saying "let's all walk through with no checks at all."

Vigilance has presented us with a problem, and the solution isn't perfect. There is no perfect solution here. Please don't shoot the messenger for demonstrating that.

Israel pats down people too. A lot. In ways you might cry foul with in about five seconds. Only problem is, the manner in which they do it over there, would result in a gazillion lawsuits if the U.S. government tried it over here.