Acceptable Public Exposure?

[DprDJeff]

It's a privillege that we were able to get those rights. The rights that LuvsGirl finally acknowledged in her many posts of bias. I am on my way to post my (yes, hundreds) of other sources on Public Indecency and the legal ramifications. Again, care to show me the error in my citations?

Okay, I will explain AGAIN...

Your first citation was simply a proposal for a local ordinance from a bunch of conservative nutjobs that wanted to quash free speech. It's not a law. It's a proposal. It didn't even get voted into law. Does not apply to this thread.

Your second citation says specifically;

a An act of sexual intercourse; or <-- Intercourse has nothing to do with exposing diapers.

b An act of deviate sexual intercourse; or <-- Again, intercourse.

c A lewd exposure of the body done with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of any person; or <-- Lewd exposure of the body. Not lewd exposure of your clothing(includes diapers).

d A lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person. <-- Touching someone else in a lewd way that is unwelcome. Also, has nothing to do with exposed diapers.

Your citations are faulty. Enough said.

[Yvhuce]

Just because people do stuff doesn't make it right. There are a hell of a lot more murderers out there than there are diaper flashers. Does that mean that we should make murder legal and accept the fact that some people just like to kill other people? Should we embrace serial killers? The point of morality and law is to keep those who would harm the public at bay and to protect the rest of society from them.

In a world where people go out in public wearing their underwear, or skimpy bathing suits, or fur costumes (furries) then I say go for it. If you want to wear just a diaper and a tshirt, then do it! Let the world know you are a baby and proud of it. Wear your pin with pride.

You might need to take another look at the world. In my neck of the woods, you could get in serious trouble for doing any of those outside of the appropriate areas. Nobody's goinna bat an eye about a purdy gal in a skimpy bathing suit at the lake or the pool, but she could get arrested for walking down main street. In perty much any public setting, here, walking around in underwear is goinna get you arrested, and possibly recommended for psychiatric evaluation. Walking around here in a fur suit may either get you laughed at, beaten up, or shot by a near-sighed local, but probly wouldn't get you much more than a warning from the cops.

[DprDJeff]

You might need to take another look at the world. In my neck of the woods, you could get in serious trouble for doing any of those outside of the appropriate areas. Nobody's goinna bat an eye about a purdy gal in a skimpy bathing suit at the lake or the pool, but she could get arrested for walking down main street. In perty much any public setting, here, walking around in underwear is goinna get you arrested, and possibly recommended for psychiatric evaluation. Walking around here in a fur suit may either get you laughed at, beaten up, or shot by a near-sighed local, but probly wouldn't get you much more than a warning from the cops.

The day a pretty girl gets arrested for walking down main street in a bathing suit is the day the ACLU makes her a very rich girl...

And assuming you live in the sticks(which it sounds like you're saying), how come all those working men that show half their ass crack when they kneel down aren't serving prison sentences?

[Toddler Pampers]

Let's get back, and stick, to the subject: acceptable places to expose your diaper.

I would say a nude beach would be fine, because public nudity is really a kink, just like liking being diapered is.

'Flashing' your diaper just anywhere is not okay. It could be against the law (and even if it isn't, you may not like what it takes to prove it), and it is definitely anti-social, because 'flashing' implies doing something at somebody else's expense. You flash them to shock them, to get their attention. While there is no law against shocking people (void for vagueness), don't use completely innocent people.

You will probably shock (and piss off) the people at the nude beach, but at least they've got kink on the brain, too. Others are just (your) victims.

[diaperbrownie]

Why don't we discuss places that AREN'T obviously okay to have an exposed diaper? We all know porn shops and nude beaches are probably okay, as well as parks or woods.

How about...hmmm...university? With all types of disablities and people, diapers should be okay. I've been diapered many times to classes at university, both wet and full diapers at times. They accomodate people with special needs so it's okay. So how about public exposure at university/college? Would it be okay for a person to go to campus in a diaper (used or not) and pretend to drop a pencil or a notebook while around people, and bend down to pick it up, potentially showing off a little bit of diaper out the back to anyone watching?

I say NO. This is not okay if it's intentional. Tough I know people have probably attempted this at university in diapers. So what else?

[fideliuscharm]

Compared to other countries our freedoms are most definitely a privilege. Again, LuvsGirl cannot explain the bountiful bias in her posts. Also, my citations are correct. Care to show me the error? I most definitely have hundreds of other sources and articles. Would you like me to go there?

Your citations while 'correct' in so much as you've cited actual events/documents, are not RELEVANT.

you made the blanket statement that it is crime. With no respect to intent etc.

The proof to support your position would be a docket/case # showing someone having been convicted of indecent exposure for having a diaper visible in public.

I'm sure there are several out there. of those that exist - how many of them have a clear intent of indecency.

You can rail on and on about the law all you like. but there is a caveat - one - federal law is only applicable in YOUR country and while a lot of laws are similar - perhaps you should only speak to your jurisdiction.

Two - local (state laws) vary significantly.

Three, there is crime, and then there is crime. the example you cited if It WAS relevant, which it isnt, is on the order of a MUNICIPAL bylaw. so what.

You've railed on about luvsgirl's bias, but your own inability to recognize the bias you are presenting is ironic and compromises any credibility you might have brought to the discussion.

[bignappybo]

What about a simple case of a t-shirt riseing uo and exposing the top of a diaper,it is not as if this is exposing your diaper on purpose is it.

It can happen and the wearer might not even know the top of the diaper is exposed,everday you can go to any street road or shopping mall,and you will see both females and males who have there underwear on show.

But i have yet to hear of anyone facing court because they had there underwear on show,and i honestly dont think that we ever will see anyone in court for that.

[D_Rainger]

Why would anyone want to force themselves or their credo on anyone else? What ever happened to "Love thy neighbor"? Or "Do unto others"? Practice your fetish in private where it belongs. If you must go public, why don't you do like the naturists and have special places set aside for it? Otherwise, keep your diapers under cover.

-DR

[timmyc]

nudists are not necessarily kinksters either, I think it could be just as shocking at a nude beach. Fully clothed with minimal exposure will be far less intrusive

[beachxbunni123]

Your citations while 'correct' in so much as you've cited actual events/documents, are not RELEVANT.

you made the blanket statement that it is crime. With no respect to intent etc.

The proof to support your position would be a docket/case # showing someone having been convicted of indecent exposure for having a diaper visible in public.

I'm sure there are several out there. of those that exist - how many of them have a clear intent of indecency.

You can rail on and on about the law all you like. but there is a caveat - one - federal law is only applicable in YOUR country and while a lot of laws are similar - perhaps you should only speak to your jurisdiction.

Two - local (state laws) vary significantly.

Three, there is crime, and then there is crime. the example you cited if It WAS relevant, which it isnt, is on the order of a MUNICIPAL bylaw. so what.

You've railed on about luvsgirl's bias, but your own inability to recognize the bias you are presenting is ironic and compromises any credibility you might have brought to the discussion.

My citations are correct because they are showing how our society views inappropriate behavior (PUBLIC INDECENCY). There is no bias in my statements. Again, LuvsGirl will not comment on her bountiful bias.

For the'criminal diaper flashers'... Wear a diaper and you WILL get reported and face consequences. The question lies in that what makes them want to disturb public? They will end up being branded as the ever so hilarious 'Diapered Loons'that want to stir things up, trouble the public, and disgust innocent others.. which I doubt is what you want the ABDL community to have that reputation.

[DprDJeff]

My citations are correct because they are showing how our society views inappropriate behavior (PUBLIC INDECENCY). There is no bias in my statements. Again, LuvsGirl will not comment on her bountiful bias.

They don't show that at all. All they show is that someone that knows how to propose a local ordinance can write a draft and submit it. It doesn't show that everyone, or even a sizable sample of people feel the same way.

For the'criminal diaper flashers'... Wear a diaper and you WILL get reported and face consequences. The question lies in that what makes them want to disturb public? They will end up being branded as the ever so hilarious 'Diapered Loons'that want to stir things up, trouble the public, and disgust innocent others.. which I doubt is what you want the ABDL community to have that reputation.

There is a HUGE difference between flashing your diaper and 'accidental' exposure. If someone were to walk up to a group of women, drop their pants and flash their diaper at them, then it would definitely be a case of public indecency.

Someone in a grocery store that bends down to get something off the bottom shelf and the top of their diaper pokes out above the waistband of their pants? Intentional or not, the vast majority of the population would dismiss it and ignore it. It's no worse than plumber's crack and a lot less gross.

At this point, I'm just going to assume you are trolling. This will be my last reply to your posts.

[beachxbunni123]

They don't show that at all. All they show is that someone that knows how to propose a local ordinance can write a draft and submit it. It doesn't show that everyone, or even a sizable sample of people feel the same way.

There is a HUGE difference between flashing your diaper and 'accidental' exposure. If someone were to walk up to a group of women, drop their pants and flash their diaper at them, then it would definitely be a case of public indecency.

Someone in a grocery store that bends down to get something off the bottom shelf and the top of their diaper pokes out above the waistband of their pants? Intentional or not, the vast majority of the population would dismiss it and ignore it. It's no worse than plumber's crack and a lot less gross.At this point, I'm just going to assume you are trolling. This will be my last reply to your posts.

> Yes, my citations show that the public does care about what people are wearing and are disturbed if any underclothing is shown (underwear, diapers, nudity, etc). If one wants to walk down the street in a diaper go for it, hopefully that person won't get caught by authorities and give ABDL bad news coverage.

This topic hasn't been about 'accidental exposures' which you bring up as a tangent. The 'debate' in this topic has been about the intentional ‘diaper flashers’ out in public. Now you give a digression on the very different topic of accidental exposure when accidents were not what this topic was about as you, began the topic (without the recent digression on accidential exposures) , and stated for yourself,:

So here's the deal. My girl has this fantasy of being publically exposed in diapers. There are a couple of options that I intend to follow through with for her. One being a local porn shop that often has fetish dressed people. The other being Kinkfest next month in Portland, OR.

You were intentionally (NOT accidentally) seeking for public exposure for your girlfriend…never once mentioned anything about accidential exposures in your topic post. Along with LuvsGirl, it appears that a bit of bias lies in your statements.

>In response to the digression of a new topic on accidential exposure, of course that’s okay if it is an accident! Accidents happen to everyone and there’s no penalty against accidents. I hope you have a good day .

[fideliuscharm]

> Yes, my citations shows that the public does care about what people are wearing and are disturbed if any underclothing is shown (underwear, diapers, nudity, etc). If one wants to walk down the street in a diaper go for it, hopefully that person won't get caught by authorities and give ABDL bad news coverage.

No, actually you're uninformed, your citation is actually a common means for municipalities to harras gang members. it gives the local Law enforcement the opportunity to photograph/print the person and get them in the system.

Furthermore - EVERYONE has bias at some level, claiming you have none makes obvious troll more obvious.

[DprDJeff]

This topic hasn't been about 'accidental exposures' which you bring up as a tangent. The 'debate' in this topic has been about the intentional ‘diaper flashers’ out in public. Now you give a digression on the very different topic of accidental exposure when accidents were not what this topic was about as you, began the topic (without the recent digression on accidential exposures) , and stated for yourself,:

You were intentionally (NOT accidentally) seeking for public exposure for your girlfriend…never once mentioned anything about accidential exposures in your topic post. Along with LuvsGirl, it appears that a bit of bias lies in your statements.

I was going to leave this thread to die, but beachxbunni123 felt the need to message me directly with this...

Once again, you missed the entire point. The point is for intentional exposure, but in such a way that anyone witnessing it would assume it was accidental exposure. Unless they share the fetish themselves, it is HIGHLY unlikely they would assume anything other than accidental.

[Saschadzg]

I actually saw an older woman at a local beach wearing a diaper under her granny swimsuit. For her it was obviously medical, so nobody said a word or even really took a second look. That's a lot different than a 110lb women that looks like she belongs on a swimsuit calendar wearing a diaper at the beach. lol

There are young disabled people, too!

[rusty pins]

What about a simple case of a t-shirt riseing uo and exposing the top of a diaper,it is not as if this is exposing your diaper on purpose is it.

It can happen and the wearer might not even know the top of the diaper is exposed,everday you can go to any street road or shopping mall,and you will see both females and males who have there underwear on show.

But i have yet to hear of anyone facing court because they had there underwear on show,and i honestly dont think that we ever will see anyone in court for that.

I agree and have said that exposure out the top of your jeans in back if your shirt rides up is something a lot of people can't avoid. I think, at least as I understood the OP, is that his GF wants public exposure in just her diaper as a way of getting her jollies. That's not cool and compleatly different from accidental exposure if your shirt rides up.

[LuvsGurl]

[sarah_ab]

hahaha you guys have made my lunch so much more entertaining

[beachxbunni123]

I was going to leave this thread to die, but beachxbunni123 felt the need to message me directly with this...

Once again, you missed the entire point. The point is for intentional exposure, but in such a way that anyone witnessing it would assume it was accidental exposure. Unless they share the fetish themselves, it is HIGHLY unlikely they would assume anything other than accidental.

Unfortunately for you, it seems that you have missed the point since you did not mention that anyone would be "assuming it was accidental exposure" in your topic post. Have a good day .

[DprDJeff]

Unfortunately for you, it seems that you have missed the point since you did not mention that anyone would be "assuming it was accidental exposure" in your topic post. Have a good day .

Unfortunately for me? Maybe you should re-read your own posts. The argument started with you and your peers claiming that even if it looks accidental, intentionally showing diaper is a criminal offense. You were wrong and now you're desperately trying to save face by splitting hairs. Take it like a grown up... YOU WERE WRONG.

[beachxbunni123]

Unfortunately for me? Maybe you should re-read your own posts. The argument started with you and your peers claiming that even if it looks accidental, intentionally showing diaper is a criminal offense. You were wrong and now you're desperately trying to save face by splitting hairs. Take it like a grown up... YOU WERE WRONG.

False. I did not say anything about it being a crime if it appears accidental. Do you have any quotes of mine that you can verify your claim with? (No, because you made a false claim.) As a matter of fact, I even stated there was nothing wrong with accidents,

You were intentionally (NOT accidentally) seeking for public exposure for your girlfriend…never once mentioned anything about accidential exposures in your topic post. Along with LuvsGirl, it appears that a bit of bias lies in your statements.

>In response to the digression of accidential exposure, of course that’s okay if it is an accident! Accidents happen to everyone and there’s no penalty against accidents. I hope you have a good day .

It appears you are the one that is in need of growing up. Again, have a good day .

[DprDJeff]

False. I did not say anything about it being a crime if it appears accidental. Do you have any quotes of mine that you can verify your claim with? (No, because you made a false claim.) As a matter of fact, I even stated there was nothing wrong with accidents,

You didn't specify either way, so your comment was interpreted as a broad statement. You simply said exposing your diapers to the general public was illegal, which it is not. You did not say only intentional exposure. In fact, you responded directly to other posts detailing that it was exposure designed to appear accidental.

The Legal definition of a Public Disturbance:

Activities which may constitute a public disurbance include:

Loud noise; or

Offensive language addressed in a face-to-face manner to a specific individual and uttered under circumstances which are likely to produce an immediate violent response from a reasonable recipient; or

Threatening to commit a felonious act against any person under circumstances which are likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that such threat may be carried out; or

Fighting; or

Creating a noxious and offensive odor;

Being in a public place or on private property of another without consent and purposely causes inconvenience to another person or persons by unreasonably and physically obstructing:

Vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or

The free ingress or egress to or from a public or private place

Simply walking around in a diaper does not constitute a public disturbance, which is clearly defined by legal standards. So, intentional, accidental or outright exposure is not defined as illegal anywhere in the United States. And in a country so proud of it's diversity, perhaps you are the one that should find another country that is conservative enough for your standards.

In my opinion, you are either incompetent or grossly misinformed.

P.S. Still waiting for those hundreds of citations. Oh wait! They don't exist.

[beachxbunni123]

You didn't specify either way, so your comment was interpreted as a broad statement.

While you may have interpreted that, I never made that statement and that settles it. Therefore once again, your claim is false. For the third time, have a good day .

[DprDJeff]

While you may have interpreted that, I never made that statement and that settles it. Therefore once again, your claim is false. For the third time, have a good day .

You made the statement by inference... Nice failure on grasp of the English language.

[beachxbunni123]

You made the statement by inference... Nice failure on grasp of the English language.

You can't prove a case in court based on inference . Sorry Charlie. Good day !