willnotwill Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Police responded to check on a subject "playing with himself" in the street wearing only underwear, boots and a jacket. Police located a teen-aged boy wearing a diaper. The boy admitted that he was wearing the diaper for sexual gratification. Police released him to a guardian and will send a referral to the Washington County Juvenile Department. http://www.oregonlive.com/forest-grove/index.ssf/2014/01/forest_grove_police_log_teen_i.html Link to comment
BabyGizmo Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 There is a big difference between Being in diapers in public, and Masterbating in public. The Diaper has nothing to do with the charges, They only said it because it made the story interesting. Link to comment
willnotwill Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 I was referring to performing sexual acts in public. 1 Link to comment
Zander Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Hello. I usually don't post here but here is what we know about that story. Be reasonable here, the kid was wearing nothing but a diaper "boots and a jacket" and admitted it was for sexual gratification. This isn't just about them being in a diaper, its about them being indecent. Link to comment
Craisler Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 So, is it indecent for that guy in NY to go out wearing nothing but his "Fruit of the Loom" briefs, boots, and a cowboy hat while playing a guitar in public? I've never heard of him being arrested. Link to comment
Zander Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 So, is it indecent for that guy in NY to go out wearing nothing but his "Fruit of the Loom" briefs, boots, and a cowboy hat while playing a guitar in public? I've never heard of him being arrested. Link to comment
BabyJune Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Must be part of that "penal" code they're always talking about...or maybe he was charged with assaulting a friendly weapon. The diaper was just a cover-up. Link to comment
Joanne_chan Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Don't know the specifics of this so I won't comment on that but just a few observations. In public spaces we do not walk around showing our underwear off Link to comment
man-of-pride Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Don't know the specifics of this so I won't comment on that but just a few observations. In public spaces we do not walk around showing our underwear off Link to comment
TBlazer Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Oh cmon, if youre walking around with nothing on over your diaper, somethings wrong with that head of yours, at least in the eyes of the public. Voyeurism may be nothing new, but for most parts of the country its unnacceptable. My question is, why do you want to defend this teens behavior? Move to San Francisco is shoving your fetish in other peoples faces is your thing, otherwise expect this kind of response from police. Because that is exactly what youre doing. And no, a bikini is not a fetish item-it is meant to be worn in public. A diaper is not. Link to comment
willnotwill Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 The diaper is one issue. Link to comment
man-of-pride Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 The diaper is one issue. Link to comment
DailyDi Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Interesting town. From the same article: Link to comment
Nat Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 What? is it now illegal to hug a child? What of it's your own child or a friend's child or someone you know? Or was someone an idiot? Link to comment
man-of-pride Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 What? is it now illegal to hug a child? What of it's your own child or a friend's child or someone you know? Or was someone an idiot? Link to comment
WBDaddy Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Interesting town. From the same article: Link to comment
kevindhca Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 A rush to judgment without all the facts is always a big mistake. That's why we have courts. What we see on the surface is rarely the whole story. The lynch mobs often used speculative information, and punished the wrong person(s). Link to comment
man-of-pride Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 A rush to judgment without all the facts is always a big mistake. That's why we have courts. What we see on the surface is rarely the whole story. The lynch mobs often used speculative information, and punished the wrong person(s). Link to comment
man-of-pride Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Proof, not anything that would stand up in a court of law Link to comment
NateSean Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Sounds to me like a town full of fucking busybodies. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now