Acceptable Public Exposure?

[aleyxsis]

Wow so many questions not enough answers lol i wear more and more!!. Diapers under a panty girdle with baggy jeans no one seems to notice !.But it is because i don't want anyone to notice to me that is a thrill enough just saying !! and i do agree things are getting way !!!!!!!!to politaclly correct ! .Sorry people but wearing diapers for fun will it ever be accepted ?? me thinks not (lets all just get along ) yours truly (the thread killer ally lol)

[BriGuy]

WARNING: This post contains graphic descriptions of torture.

1. Alarm clock ringing in the morning

2. The IRS

3. Gas pumps

4. High school drivers (college drivers, too)

5. Weather reports (local ones for us, that is)

6. The Post Office

7. The Department of Motor Vehicles

8. Bad American Idol auditions

9. Microsoft

Oh, I can't go on. The horror of it all. Makes me want to pull the covers over my head and go back to sleep.

I would like to amend number 5. and replace it with, any "other" drivers... This on accounts that all the "other" people are always bad drivers! lol

[Leilin]

Wow, what a thread. It seems that I missed all the fun.

I personally like Brownie's idea of sussing out a list of good and "not good" places to wear diapers. For example, if I were the type (and I'm totally not! I'm WAY too shy for that stuff) and a fetishist/exhibitionist (I'm not, but I respect you guys. Sex and showing off just aren't my thing), I'd want to make sure that wherever it gets done, children aren't there. Period. So this means no parks of the sort that have play structures, malls, shopping centers, etc. However parks of the wilderness sort, more secluded beaches, forests, etc should be great.

[curiositykilledthecat]

Pretty much oin board with anywhere children are, you don't. I wear in public on occasion however I am by no means an exhibitionist. I have more respect for my fellow human than that.(not sure why, but still)

[justagirl4fun]

I'm of the thought that diapers, being a kind of underwear, should be kept covered in any and all situations when it is considered proper to keep one's underwear covered. Sure, we've all bent over or reached up to grab something and had a bit of our underwear peek out the top of our pants...I personally don't find that offensive (except in extreme cases, like girls wearing ultra low rise hip hugger jeans flashing their thongs), so having a little bit of a diaper sticking out of your pants is not really a big deal as long as you make a reasonable attempt to keep it covered (like wearing properly fitted pants and avoiding shirts that are too short). Personally I think it's gross when girls wear skirts so short that their asscheeks are hanging out...so to me, having a diaper sag below the hem of a skirt = not cool. But hey, I'm not the fashion police so don't let me stop you from your exhibitionist fun...

[Baby Brian]

I'd have to agree with so many here. Openly showing your diaper in public is immoral and, if it's not, should be illegal. Showing ones diaper is much more lude than wearing a speedo (or thong for women) at the beach or park, or wearing runners shorts (and sports bras for women) across town. We must make sure our bodies are completely covered up at all times (burka any one?). Society is to blame too, allowing a child to run around in public with nothing but a diaper and tee shirt should be illegal too, but so many are age discriminating by allowing them to do it but not teens or adults. Even though a diaper covers more, and the padding obscures the pubic area more than a teen's pants around their thighs, it should be frowned upon even more so than their borderline exposure.

This is about morality so please, everyone; let's make sure we confuse and blur the line of showing ones diaper off with indecent exposure. Granted you're not actually exposing your self by showing off your diaper, nor does it necessarily have to do anything with sex, but there has to be a way to lump self conscious people who are secure with who they are and how they look with pedophiles, indecent exposures, and general law breakers. There just has to because if I think it's wrong then it absolutely must be. I don't care if we live in America where our freedom of expression is guaranteed. I don't care if you have to split hares to say it's all ready illegal in a hand full of places. And I don't care if people all ready do it at parties, conventions, marathons, and *especially* Halloween. Openly showing your diaper in public is wrong because we are right.

(unless.... could that have been sarcasm?)

[WallaWalla]

Look at all of the cowards wanting to drag the rest of us down into their little pit of paranoid insecurity.

[justagirl4fun]

Aww but its SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CUUUUUUUUUUUUTE!!!!

The asscheeks, or the saggy diaper?

[Toddler Pampers]

Look at all of the cowards wanting to drag the rest of us down into their little pit of paranoid insecurity.

I've not looked at this topic for weeks, and am surprised it's still going, a huge fight between the 'individualists' and the 'sheep', or so they say.

I say, Consider what you're doing. If exposing your diaper is equivalent to being naked on a nude beach, it's not your problem that somebody is offended. But if exposing your diaper involves taking advantage of somebody, i.e., you're doing it on purpose to get attention, that's wrong.

It's simply the golden rule, not that other rule that many people have replaced it with: fine to do whatever you can get away with.

[Baby Brian]

I say, Consider what you're doing. If exposing your diaper is equivalent to being naked on a nude beach, it's not your problem that somebody is offended. But if exposing your diaper involves taking advantage of somebody, i.e., you're doing it on purpose to get attention, that's wrong.

I've got to agree. If you're out enjoying you day as anyone else would be then why should it matter if they see you in a diaper. On the other hand, if you're going to specific areas to "accidentally" get caught then that's just wrong.

[diaperbrownie]

I still think it's okay for a diaper to be exposed if it's not intentional or for sexual gratification. If a person is wearing a full diaper and bends down to pick something up and a litttle diaper peeks out to the person behind you, it's okay.

[incontinente]

There are so many closed-minded and overly judgmental guys around here that they end up making the open-minded ones give up on sharing their ideas, experiences and interests.

[Diapered Dave]

1 hour ago, incontinente said:

There are so many closed-minded and overly judgmental guys around here that they end up making the open-minded ones give up on sharing their ideas, experiences and interests.

Well, considering that you're replying to a topic that has been dead (No postings) for 13 years, the odds are that many of them are not even here anymore.  

[incontinente]

51 minutes ago, Diapered Dave said:

Well, considering that you're replying to a topic that has been dead (No postings) for 13 years, the odds are that many of them are not even here anymore.  

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

[Kawaharu]

On 3/7/2024 at 12:28 AM, incontinente said:

There are so many closed-minded and overly judgmental guys around here that they end up making the open-minded ones give up on sharing their ideas, experiences and interests.

So many people on here are closed minded and very judgmental. They hate new ideas and new prospective here. Like for example, people on here still want to keep diapers as a fetish and kink but increasingly incontinent folks are trying to normalize incontinence and diapers.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

There is no acceptable public exposure. Once you start, it becomes a slippery slope that quickly descends into exhibitionism and in fact, has exhibitionism built in, with the thrill monster demanding more and more overt action, ultimately ending in the standing healine MAN AREESTED WEARING ONLY DIAPER. What makes it wrong and a subject of police action are these. There are many, if not most, ABDL who understand the private nature of this asin the old anti-drunk driving campaign "Your lifestyle is your business, but if you take it on the road, it becomes everybody's business", and wish to live in peace with the rest of the world and exhibitionists give us all a bad reputation along the lines of "Oh, yeah; ABDL's. Aren't they the ones that go 'round sticking their diapers in everyone's face?". I do not and I do NOT want to be associated with those who do. Given the tenor of the times, this could have legal or metnal health ramifications Then there is the issue of being in the area of real children. Finally there is they issue of being a flasher with diapers being considered undergarments. The best way to not have to deal with all of this is not to start. We are a tiny minority who had to fight for what we got so let us not throw it away by being dumb. Who ever thought Roe V Wade would go down? But it did

[Kawaharu]

7 minutes ago, Little BabyDoll Christine said:

There is no acceptable public exposure. Once you start, it becomes a slippery slope that quickly descends into exhibitionism and in face, has exhibitionism built in, with the thrill monster demanding more and more overt action, ultimately ending in the standing healine MAN AREESTED WEARING ONLY DIAPER. What makes it wrong and a subject of police action are these. There are many, if not most, ABDL who understand the private nature of this asin the old anti-drunk driving campaign "Your lifestyle is your business, but if you take it on the road, it becomes everybody's business", and wish to live in peace with the rest of the world and exhibitionists give us all a bad reputation along the lines of "Oh, yeah; ABDL's. Aren't they the ones that go 'round sticking their diapers in everyone's face?". I do not and I do NOT want to be associated with those who do. Given the tenor of the times, this could have legal or metnal health ramifications Then there is the issue of being in the area of real children. Finally there is they issue of being a flasher with diapers being considered undergarments. The best way to not have to deal with all of this is not to start. We are a tiny minority who had to fight for what we got so let us not throw it away by being dumb. Who ever thought Roe V Wade would go down? But it did

Maybe you should look at what's being taught in schools these days. What they are teaching that is acceptable these days. Even what legislators are pushing for in this country? Look at states and cities where they are not going after people for certain crimes.

[Babypants]

5 minutes ago, Kawaharu said:

Maybe you should look at what's being taught in schools these days. What they are teaching that is acceptable these days. Even what legislators are pushing for in this country? Look at states and cities where they are not going after people for certain crimes.

I would be very cautious here.  What might be acceptable in San Francisco could get you beaten to death in over 98% of the counties in this country.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

40 minutes ago, Kawaharu said:

Maybe you should look at what's being taught in schools these days. What they are teaching that is acceptable these days. Even what legislators are pushing for in this country? Look at states and cities where they are not going after people for certain crimes.

I already know that. It justifies nothing. There is the issue, by flashing or other exposure, of forcing your kink on the unwilling; i.e. non-consenting, adult or children. I follow the standards set by DPF; do not involve the unwilling or minors, as reasonable. Remember, it started to go south for DPF when they includied letters from minors in the newsletter even though they did not identify the authers of said letters. And look at the kefuffle we got into with some of the diaper companies because they used images of children on the package of their product to make the package look realistic about a dozen years ago. And who can forget "[that site]"? Jack Texeira didn't think he'd get in hot water for publishing classified material on the 'net. Do not start what somebody else can finish. And the best way to figure that out is if what you are contemplating has "self-absorbed douche move" written all over it

[Kawaharu]

1 hour ago, Little BabyDoll Christine said:

I already know that. It justifies nothing. There is the issue, by flashing or other exposure, of forcing your kink on the unwilling; i.e. non-consenting, adult or children. I follow the standards set by DPF; do not involve the unwilling or minors, as reasonable. Remember, it started to go south for DPF when they includied letters from minors in the newsletter even though they did not identify the authers of said letters. And look at the kefuffle we got into with some of the diaper companies because they used images of children on the package of their product to make the package look realistic about a dozen years ago. And who can forget "[that site]"? Jack Texeira didn't think he'd get in hot water for publishing classified material on the 'net. Do not start what somebody else can finish. And the best way to figure that out is if what you are contemplating has "self-absorbed douche move" written all over it

But then again, times have changed, and have you seen what's being taught in school and shown to kids these days like Drag Queen story hour? Teachers teaching kids LGBTQ lifestyle and even teachers showing off their kink to their kids. 

Here's an example. https://www.radar.gaysagainstgroomers.com/

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

3 minutes ago, Kawaharu said:

But then again, times have changed, and have you seen what's being taught in school and shown to kids these days like Drag Queen story hour? Teachers teaching kids LGBTQ lifestyle and even teachers showing off their kink to their kids. 

Here's an example. https://www.radar.gaysagainstgroomers.com/

Historical determinism ("Times have changed") does not make anything right or wrong. If we sought to legitimize ourselves 55 years ago by saying that we will only appeal to consenting adults, what makes it all right now to force out kink on non-consenting adults? Nothing, it is just being a self-abosorbed douchebag, just as it would have then and will a millennium from how. Well, exhibitionism is forcing your thing on the non-consenting "Times have changed" is no excuse for trying to con people into believing that 2+2=5. Why repeat about what is being shown oor taught in schools? That does not make anything right or wrong, either. The two are not related. If they showed people jumping off the bridge singing HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN, would that make it a good idea? What is taught or shown stands or falls on its own merits, just like everything else. Judge a thing by what IT is, not by what something else is. All that ever does is make a big ball of knotted up string in your head that paralyzes your brain, making it, and you ineffective