Acceptable Public Exposure?

[DprDJeff]

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

You can't? Wow, why are all those people in prison then?!? You fail again. It's clear your grasp of US law was obtained from television at this point.

[diaperbrownie]

There is, in essence, a difference between "proving" and "convincing". Our legal system is not based on truth (unfortunately) but on how well one side of the court is persuasive to the jury pool. It is not a prosecutor's job to seek the truth, but to convince those men and women that HIS facts are more persuasive than the defense, and vice versa. This system is what we call the adversarial system. It's not a matter of right and wrong, but of efficacy of speech and factual persuasion.

So one cannot "prove" in court on inference alone. However, one can "convince" on inference alone. The two main types of evidence admissible in court are direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is always tangible: it can be seen, touched, heard, etc etc, and is evidence that links A to B directly. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that allows the jury, or layperson, to make an independent conclusion (here, inference) as to whether or not A is linked to B, or C etc etc. A jury can be shown circumstantial and inferential evidence, and a defendant successfully prosecuted based on the proffered evidence.

A question of "why are all these persons in our prisons" is an extremely vague question with many underpinnings and requires further insight to even begin to answer. In the case here, in this thread, one CAN successfully prosecute or defend a case on inference alone.

Therefore, a person can make a statement without actually MAKING the statement. 90% of human speech is non-verbal. You don't even have to speak to actually infer something you are thinking.

[Yvhuce]

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?

Around here, a purdy gal walking down main street in a skimpy bikini is going to cause multiple public disturbances and possibly even a few car wrecks. Main Street is where all of the businesses are, and where all of the general day-to-day family-type stuff tends to happen in town. As such, the town generally has an expectancy for most anything that goes on there to be "G-rated". Conversely, she could get away with it at the park, because that's where the pool is. But I wouldn't advise anyone to try using a similar logic for wearing a diaper in the open there...

And the guys tend not to be jailed because they're the ones whose taxes fund the jails and prisons in the first place. Plus, they don't get to complain about being heckled (it's fairly common practice to yell "Say no to crack!" at them). It does depend on who's around, though... One could be jailed for indecent exposure if they happened to traumatize a bus load kids, or was constantly doing it around someone who really didn't like it. The long and sort of it is that it's so prevelant that most people dismiss it as a part of life. Now, if they were actually walking around in their underwear, or intentionally mooning people, they could get arrested on the spot.

[BriGuy]

Holy hell you folks have wasted a lot of gray matter on this subject! Anyone feel better or vindicated? Did you win your argument? Do you feel good now. *shakes head* sheesh it doesn't take much to get y'all in an uproar.

[tcc]

While I agree, BriGuy, it's been fun to watch the continued debate end up in a discussion of "legality".

I think even you stated before, the whole issue boils down to INTENT.

Accidental exposure is just that, and it is probably agreed that accidental exposure brings more embarassment than thrill to the exposer. And, I'd bet, in a majority of cases, they'd be very apologetic for offending anybody. And, the amount of exposure would most likely be very limited. I'm sure, laws or no laws, of any kind, that true accidental, unintended exposure, would be disregarded and forgotten.

I would hope that in a contrived "accidental exposure" situation, that it would be short, even if it were a thrill to the exposer, or with whatever other contrivance was included. I agree with Jeff that it might be a very fine line to walk to pull it off, and have Readymade be able to truly enjoy the experience. Maybe SHE should weigh in to edify us to THAT side of things, to see what it would take to be a satisfactory "humiliation". Would it ruin the surprise? Um, she'd never know WHEN Jeff was going to put her into the situation, and might allow it to be even more elaborate, but risk even less offensiveness to others. Might have been an aspect we've all been missing operating from just one point of view...

[curiositykilledthecat]

Here's a novel idea, if you are shy about your fetish then keep it private, if you're an exhibitionist, good for you. for the rest of us who just go about our day, if it happens, all good if not, all the better.

[DprDJeff]

While I agree, BriGuy, it's been fun to watch the continued debate end up in a discussion of "legality".

I think even you stated before, the whole issue boils down to INTENT.

Accidental exposure is just that, and it is probably agreed that accidental exposure brings more embarassment than thrill to the exposer. And, I'd bet, in a majority of cases, they'd be very apologetic for offending anybody. And, the amount of exposure would most likely be very limited. I'm sure, laws or no laws, of any kind, that true accidental, unintended exposure, would be disregarded and forgotten.

I would hope that in a contrived "accidental exposure" situation, that it would be short, even if it were a thrill to the exposer, or with whatever other contrivance was included. I agree with Jeff that it might be a very fine line to walk to pull it off, and have Readymade be able to truly enjoy the experience. Maybe SHE should weigh in to edify us to THAT side of things, to see what it would take to be a satisfactory "humiliation". Would it ruin the surprise? Um, she'd never know WHEN Jeff was going to put her into the situation, and might allow it to be even more elaborate, but risk even less offensiveness to others. Might have been an aspect we've all been missing operating from just one point of view...

The thing is, she's not in it for the thrill. She is just truly submissive and enjoys the headspace from being made to do things she normally would never do. She is mortified when it happens, but the headspace lingers. This is why I like the idea of short skirts or short pants. Shopping at the grocery store and I tell her to grab something from the bottom shelf. She will do whatever it takes to hide the diapers, which really puts her into the submissive headspace.

Also, Readymade? No relation. lol

[LuvsGurl]

I believe this entire argument has boiled down to one thing, intent.

From a legal standpoint, the lovely thing about intent is that it's vague and very difficult to determine. This is the gray area of the law where attorneys make most of their money.

Let's say you do go out with her in a thick diaper and short skirt and she does things that may expose the diaper to passers by. Some people may see that as an intent to arouse/shock/disgust/etc. However it would be easy for her to maintain that she has a legitimate need for protection and merely made a poor choice of attire when going out. Her intent was simply to go shopping.

Truth be told, odds are that you are probably going to be ignored by 99% of people you encounter. However, should an issue arise from someone seeing the diaper, getting offended and calling security she can simply feign innocence and at the very worst you may be asked to leave the premises.

This isn't going to turn into some giant legal fiasco. So how about we just let the issue drop folks?

[curiositykilledthecat]

The majority of the vanilla world doesn't care we wear. the biggest ones who make a spectacle out of it are other paranoid abdls.

[BriGuy]

And curiosity killed the cat hit the nail on the head!!

[beachxbunni123]

Let's say you do go out with her in a thick diaper and short skirt and she does things that may expose the diaper to passers by. Some people may see that as an intent to arouse/shock/disgust/etc. However it would be easy for her to maintain that she has a legitimate need for protection and merely made a poor choice of attire when going out. Her intent was simply to go shopping.

Lieing is never a good thing to do.

Truth be told, odds are that you are probably going to be ignored by 99% of people you encounter.

Truth, as you now just stated, is better than the lie that is suggested in your post.

[LuvsGurl]

Lieing is never a good thing to do.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[fideliuscharm]

obvious troll is obvious - stop feeding obvious troll, and it will wither and fade away.

Gasoline doesnt make a good fire supressant...

[beachxbunni123]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

^ By the way, that scripture is John 8:7 regarding the attitude of the Pharisees.

Let's see what scripture says about lying...

Do not lie. Do not deceive one another. (Leviticus 19:11)

Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue lasts only a moment. (Proverbs 12:19)

The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful. (Proverbs 12:22)

Again, lying is never a good thing. Truth is so important. Have a good day friend .

[BriGuy]

Are you fucking kidding me? Now you're quoting Scripture at each other??

[waynecook52]

And curiosity killed the cat hit the nail on the head!!

my thoughts allso

[happyindprs]

Take her to a movie so when she is sitting down her diaper might stick out of her jeans a bit. How about a baseball game some nice warm night. People might notice her wearing there as well and there is always Six Flags or other theme park. I have heard that some people that ride roller coasters wear protection just for that purpose. Riding a bike would make it obvious she was diapered as would climbing a rock wall.

I have a friend that used to drive big rigs. He has all sort of stories about the things he has seen while driving across America. This might be the perfect place to expose her diapers to them. I could just imagine what the chatter on the CB might sound like!

[bbgirlmichelle]

One thing you may want to check on about Kinkfest is their policy on diapers. Up here in Vancouver they don't allow diapers in the dungeon (no, I'm not sure how that policy would change for an incontinent person). I just checked the Kinkfest website and the only close mention is that they prohibit Scat and Watersports play which means different things to different people in the kink community. Best thing to do would be to fire an email off to the event organizers and ask.

One cool think I saw on the site though is they are doing an age play workshop presented by Arli And Now We Are Six! The Joys of Age Play. Arli is a cool person, I once saw her set up a little tea party in the middle of one of Vancouver's dungeons and they had a blast. I've never seen her workshop, but I can speak highly of her.

*hugs*

Michelle

[curiositykilledthecat]

lol, how did scriptures get thrown into the mix? Talk about jumping the shark? I mean I'm a believer and learned so I could throw scriptures around too, however they are out of place here. Unless you find a passage that says, though shalt be vanilla and only wear thy underoos, what does it have to do with the topic at hand?

[LuvsGurl]

The kink/dungeon parties I've been to also have a no watersports/scat policy, however diapers are allowed. I checked with the DM at orientation before the first party and it was explained to me that the no watersports/scat rule was in effect simply because the DMs didn't want to deal with cleaning up the mess. Diapers are perfectly acceptable b/c they keep the mess contained.

[diaperbrownie]

I was at the bookstore last night picking up a copy of Plato's Symposium and had an exposure moment. I had already had two other books in my hand and reached to grab Plato when a book slipped out my arm. I bent to pick it up and my shirt slid up. I felt a breeze and knew my diaper was peeking out and sure enough it was. There was another guy in the philosophy aisle. I know he saw my diaper. He didn't say anything, but had a weird wtf face on and left immediately. It made me sad. No one will accept my diapers.

[bbgirlmichelle]

The kink/dungeon parties I've been to also have a no watersports/scat policy, however diapers are allowed. I checked with the DM at orientation before the first party and it was explained to me that the no watersports/scat rule was in effect simply because the DMs didn't want to deal with cleaning up the mess. Diapers are perfectly acceptable b/c they keep the mess contained.

Their reasoning for the no diaper rule here is they don't want the smell in the dungeon if someone messes themselves, so they say.

[LuvsGurl]

Sounds to me like someone has a bias against ABDL. A lot of people preach "All kinks accepted." but some don't practice it.

[BriGuy]

I wouldn't want someone running around my dungeon in a shitty diaper, its unhygienic, and it smells. A dungeon is a place where people share equipment and such so cleanliness is important. Diapers aren't always that clean. Leaks happen and I wouldn't want to expose myself to another persons waste unwillingly.

You folks need to get over youre thoughts that there is bias towards the Abdl community. There isn't, so get over yourselves. No one really cares.

[LuvsGurl]

Only an absolute creeper would even consider messing themselves at a dungeon party.

Remember, creepers don't go to parties... only the (relatively) well adjusted folks do, and we know what behavior is reasonable and what isn't.

I've seen blood, spit and cum at parties, what is a little pee going to hurt, especially if it is contained.