Do we have the right to wear?

[Nat]

Apparently wearing diapers isn't a right. Do you think it's a right or is it a privilege? 

[Dprczyone]

The government doesn't regulate it so I'm guessing it's a right. Probably a first amendment issue but what do I know. Never been to law school. As long as we don't have to pay a fee to the local or state or federal people I think we're good.

[BabyLock]

By whose authority edict referendum LAW is it determined that there is a right to wear !!!

Wear-em if you need to - don't wear-em even if you need to - it is your VERY own personal business.

You must face the consequences making bad decisions for NOT wearing - right or wrong !

[DiaperboyEddie12]

I believe that there is no right or wrong answer to this question.  It all depends on what you or others think about diapers.

Now when I first told my mother about my diapers and I like to wear them she told me that it is not right to wear them.  As I am a grown man and does not need diapers.  But for the DL or AB people out there yes it is right to be wearing a diaper.  It is a physiological issue or feeling that goes along with wearing diapers.  There is nothing wrong with it so there should be no one ever saying or voting no on this poll.

But I am not judging another if someone wants to vote no then they have the right to do so.

 

For me it is a privilege as I am not able to afford them on a constant basis so privilege it is.  But I do have the right to do so as I am 47 years of age and I choose my own underwear.

[Warmwetandcozy]

The way I see it is that anything that isn't prohibited by LAW is my RIGHT to do I personally don't flaunt my diapers or try to start trouble that being said if anyone choses to challenge me I will inform them that I'm not breaking any laws and I'm not going to change just because they don't like it and that if they still have a problem they can shove it up their arse

I don't care if I offend them they shouldn't be up in my business

Bottom line

I am going to do whatever I want as long as its legal and the rest of the world can curse me or hail me as they please and I really don't care which 

[Andrew51]

Anybody can wear anything, as long as you are decent when they wear it, like keep your diapers discreet, nobody needs to know, but just like “plumbers crack” if someone “happens” to see it, so be it.


Sent from my phone using Tapatalk

[Alex Bridges]

I’d be more impressed by someone who could make a convincing argument that we don’t have a right to wear.

And do note that “a right” and something being “right or wrong” are two different concepts.

[rusty pins]

It's what you do when wearing that may cause a problem.  This is an extreme example, but think of this.  Do you have a right to walk around with a crowbar in your hand?  Sure!  Do you have the right to hit someone over the head with that crowbar?  NO!  Depending on what you are doing while walking around with the crowbar might cause people to shy away from you, call someone or be questioned by a cop.  If you are in the yard of a house being torn down holding the crowbar with other workers around, no one is likely to question you.  If you are sneaking through someone's back yard at night with the crowbar or walking down the street swinging it over your head and yelling at people, you most likely will have a long talk with a police officer.

[Brudda Voodu]

If you believe an organization such as the federal government has the authority to issue or repeal your rights, then just anything could be a right or a privilege.  A question I would ask is, where do our rights come from?  

[DiaperboyEddie12]

1 hour ago, Author_Alex said:

I’d be more impressed by someone who could make a convincing argument that we don’t have a right to wear.

And do note that “a right” and something being “right or wrong” are two different concepts.

I like that one good example

1 hour ago, rusty pins said:

It's what you do when wearing that may cause a problem.  This is an extreme example, but think of this.  Do you have a right to walk around with a crowbar in your hand?  Sure!  Do you have the right to hit someone over the head with that crowbar?  NO!  Depending on what you are doing while walking around with the crowbar might cause people to shy away from you, call someone or be questioned by a cop.  If you are in the yard of a house being torn down holding the crowbar with other workers around, no one is likely to question you.  If you are sneaking through someone's back yard at night with the crowbar or walking down the street swinging it over your head and yelling at people, you most likely will have a long talk with a police officer.

Rusty I really love reading your comments.

[willnotwill]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Alex Bridges]

In a prior life, I co-taught a political philosophy course.

Philosophers distinguish between two types of rights: natural rights, which you are born with and are inalienable, and legal rights, which are rights recognized or granted by governments. 

Natural rights can also be legal rights, but as we all know, there are plenty of places in the world where governments do not recognize people’s natural rights. Some governments often exists to strip a person of their natural rights, while other governments exist to protect them, but all governments curtail them to a degree.

I’ve personally always considered legal rights to be relevant only insofar as they provide protection of one’s natural rights, or not, but I don’t think of my rights as being primarily a function of government. They’re a function of my humanity.

So where do natural rights come from? God, if you prefer, or nature, or they’re simply a part of one’s humanity or birthright, or they’re a social construct we’ve all agreed on for evolutionary reasons, like the right to live and the right to reproduce. Rights don’t even have to come from anywhere: they can just be, a postulate.

So that being said, there is no enumerated legal right to wear that I’m aware of; there are legal rights under some governments that imply a legal right, like the 10th amendment that WillNotWill cited.

But more importantly, I believe wearing is a natural right. If it were made illegal, it would remain a natural right. That’s what it means for a right to be inalienable. 

I could come up with arguments as to why it is a natural right (I get to put on my body what I want to), but I find it’s a much appropriate approach when discussing rights to put the onus on the person looking to curtail rights.

In other words, let he who would cast the first stone come up with a damn good reason to be throwing rocks at people, because I don’t need to justify why I shouldn’t be pelted with stones: I just shouldn’t be.

[oznl]

I reject the premise of the question.  I would be fascinated to hear a cogent argument as to who should confer such a "privilege" and the criteria by which they should confer it. 

I'm a bit of a libertarian myself.

Still, I live in Australia, an over-governed nanny-state where nearly every aspect of our lives is regulated by an all-knowing bureaucracy.  If any jurisdiction was to start issuing "diaper licenses" I reckon you'd see it here first.  I'd live somewhere else but it's got some other upsides.

[Bettypooh]

All I can speak of is the US, and while there has been no direct Court ruling I can find, the tone of the other clothing rulings is such that wearing diapers is in itself legal- there are several rulings to base that on where it was found that essentially you can wear whatever clothing you wish as long as it does not directly infringe on the rights of any named protected class of citizens or abrogate laws of common decency. The only questionable part would be whether a diaper is considered to be underwear and whether a communities standards on lewdness regarding underwear exposure would extend to diapers. There are various rulings allowing underwear exposure which in general allow it partially but not fully- those distinctions are made at State and local levels and so far the Federal government has only remanded cases back to States with only Constitutional points noted instead of the actual case question itself.

So a diaper under clothing would almost certainly be legal, even if partially exposed, thus wearing it is a right up to that point. It is only the level of exposure, or perhaps whether it is defined as underwear, which might be questionable. It's not a subject and Court wants to deal with but if it were, I'm quite certain that it would be deemed as legal much as we handle it here on this website: No visible 'scat' by intent and nothing implying anything illegal or immoral regarding minors.

More than a legal point, this is a point of mostly social acceptance, and in that how a place's laws might be allowed to follow the wishes of that society in general. Being that there are those who medically need diapers there could not ever be a total forbidding of them anywhere, but there could be some controls regarding their use, exposure, and disposal. Should I ever win the lottery I will personally force the question through the Courts to a high enough level that everyone would be allowed the reasonable open wearing of diapers should they wish to because I feel that it's time to get past this and every other form of discrimination based on assumption

Bettypooh

[DiaperboyEddie12]

@Bettypooh when ever I read you comments I get a certain feeling of joy.  It's like well thought out.  

Just as @rusty pins both of you I enjoy reading your comments.  Most of the time I have to do a 2 part read as it's so long but I love reading them.

[willnotwill]

You don't have to necessarily impact a "protected" class.    Things like smoking, public intoxication, yelling movie in a crowded firehouse, etc... don't really impact a "protected class" just society as a whole.

[rosalie.bent]

On 7/9/2019 at 6:23 PM, oznl said:

I reject the premise of the question.  I would be fascinated to hear a cogent argument as to who should confer such a "privilege" and the criteria by which they should confer it. 

I'm a bit of a libertarian myself.

Still, I live in Australia, an over-governed nanny-state where nearly every aspect of our lives is regulated by an all-knowing bureaucracy.  If any jurisdiction was to start issuing "diaper licenses" I reckon you'd see it here first.  I'd live somewhere else but it's got some other upsides.

Just like you, I reject the premise of the question. Firstly and as always, it assumes the USA as if other countries do not exist so please posters, try and think outside your own country for a change! Secondly, the idea that it is a 'right' is ridiculous. Is it a 'right' for a man to wear panties or a woman to wear men's clothing? 

We hear a great deal about 'rights' these days and precious little about responsibilities. If you wear diapers (or panties) you have a responsibility to keep it private in public.

Is it a right?  maybe but only a 'right' not a 'Right', if you get the difference.

On 7/12/2019 at 2:15 AM, Bettypooh said:

All I can speak of is the US, and while there has been no direct Court ruling I can find, the tone of the other clothing rulings is such that wearing diapers is in itself legal- there are several rulings to base that on where it was found that essentially you can wear whatever clothing you wish as long as it does not directly infringe on the rights of any named protected class of citizens or abrogate laws of common decency. The only questionable part would be whether a diaper is considered to be underwear and whether a communities standards on lewdness regarding underwear exposure would extend to diapers. There are various rulings allowing underwear exposure which in general allow it partially but not fully- those distinctions are made at State and local levels and so far the Federal government has only remanded cases back to States with only Constitutional points noted instead of the actual case question itself.

So a diaper under clothing would almost certainly be legal, even if partially exposed, thus wearing it is a right up to that point. It is only the level of exposure, or perhaps whether it is defined as underwear, which might be questionable. It's not a subject and Court wants to deal with but if it were, I'm quite certain that it would be deemed as legal much as we handle it here on this website: No visible 'scat' by intent and nothing implying anything illegal or immoral regarding minors.

More than a legal point, this is a point of mostly social acceptance, and in that how a place's laws might be allowed to follow the wishes of that society in general. Being that there are those who medically need diapers there could not ever be a total forbidding of them anywhere, but there could be some controls regarding their use, exposure, and disposal. Should I ever win the lottery I will personally force the question through the Courts to a high enough level that everyone would be allowed the reasonable open wearing of diapers should they wish to because I feel that it's time to get past this and every other form of discrimination based on assumption

Bettypooh

You'd spend a GREAT deal of money, suffer enormous invasion of privacy and then lose, thus creating a precedent we could all do without,

[BabyJune]

You have the right to do anything as long as it is in private and doesn't violate anyone else's rights. As soon as you expose other people to something that they find objectionable, then the story changes. I wear diapers IN PRIVATE. I won't expose anyone to my fetish or expect them to understand and accept it. If no one knows about it, then where is the big deal?

[MegaChar]

Ooooohh my not this again.

I saw how you tore apart adisc.org with this question.

Don't get cocky now.

[rusty pins]

Confucius say, "Man who go around with hands in pockets feel cocky"

[Alex Bridges]

The more I read the original post and the legalistic responses, the more it strikes me  how hard it is to defend rights when people so badly misunderstand what a right is.

[Alex Bridges]

On 7/15/2019 at 2:44 AM, rosalie.bent said:

Is it a right?  maybe but only a 'right' not a 'Right', if you get the difference

I don’t get the difference.

 

On 7/15/2019 at 2:44 AM, rosalie.bent said:

Is it a 'right' for a man to wear panties or a woman to wear men's clothing? 

Yes, it is. It is what philosophers call a natural right. Such rights are so called because we are born with them. Some people believe such rights are granted by god, others people believe such rights are part of our human nature, and thus everyone has them because they are human. Natural rights are sometimes the same as legal right (also called real rights) and sometimes not depending on the government. If you were born in North Korea, your natural rights would remain your natural rights even if exercising them was punishable by death.

 

To @Bettypooh‘s point, In the US, wearing is a legal right by implication of the 10th amendment. Wearing is, arguably, protected as a right under the 1st (as expression) and 4th amendments (right to privacy) as well. There is US case law that has thrown out laws that have attempted to criminalize the wearing of certain garments. As to public exposure, US law is vague, and it would come down to whether a court saw exposed wearing as violating community standards. That subjective interpretation is what makes wearing a swimsuit in public legal and completely exposed underwear legally indecent. It’s what makes your underwear peeking out legal and your pants hanging so low that you are “sagging” illegally indecent in certain jurisdictions and wearing pants that reveal your thing or a top that shows your bra legal. It’s what makes changing a baby on a park bench legal and changing an adult on a park bench a sex crime.

If anyone here doesn’t think wearing is a natural or legal right, I’d be very interested in hearing the reasoning.

[rosalie.bent]

33 minutes ago, Author_Alex said:

I don’t get the difference.

 

Yes, it is. It is what philosophers call a natural right. Such rights are so called because we are born with them. Some people believe such rights are granted by god, others people believe such rights are part of our human nature, and thus everyone has them because they are human. Natural rights are sometimes the same as legal right (also called real rights) and sometimes not depending on the government.

You dont get the difference between a 'right' and a 'Right'?  It is an indication of relative importance.  The right to free speech is a Right. 

[Idzy]

I'd like to say that this is the most absurd discussion i've ever heard, however the US judicial system's penchant for handing down harsh custodial sentences for minor drug offenses committed by ethnic minorities also seems to also fly in the face of logic and reason.

Like @oznl, I'm also subject to the idiotocracy that is the Australian federal, state and local governments (regardless of which major party forms government) it keeps getting bigger and bigger, to the point where you require a paid permit to do just about anything,. Furthermore also like @oznl I'm a social and economic (to a point) libertarian.

In New Zealand the disposal of nappies (diapers) is prohibited in general waste, and they must be disposed of in designated bins which charge a fee. This is an environmental protection initiative, and personally, I wouldn't feel as though my rights were being infringed upon if i was charged a few bucks to dispose of what amounts to dense petroleum based plastic, covered in bio-hazardous material). It's not the best thing for the planet and if the extra money goes into some form of recycling or better environmental management of the extra waste I produce, then I think it's my civic duty to pay for the remediation of the damage that my use of Adult Diapers causes the planet, subsequent generations and to the broader community.

In terms of whether or not I have a right to wear and use them, I require them due to a medical condition, but also enjoy them, however there are many environmentally damaging things that people are legally allowed to choose to do (e.g. drag racing) and plenty of things that may offend some members of the population (e.g. tattoos) which fall into the category of compromise, and peoples free choice as to who they associate with and where they chose to spend their time.

Birds of a feather flock together, it's true.

There are always places renowned for drug dealing, there are places renowned for $14 espresso coffees and $40 eggs Benedict, and there are places renowned for people wearing identical overpriced vintage clothing (particularly plaid) and have a collective aversion to shaving, in an effort to express their individuality and unique style. If you don't like these places, you probably just don't go there.

If there happened to be a place where open diaper wearing became particularly popular, I strongly feel as though it would fall into the category of "places you either really want to frequent or really don't." Even if classified as underwear, nobody prosecuted certain politicians for wearing (NSFW) nothing but speedos in full public view at the beach (and broadcast on national TV). And if late middle aged men wearing those are not more offensive to the eye, and potentially damaging to a child's psyche than adult diapers, I'll buy a desert island, a few cases of adult nappies and several barrels of rum and live out my few remaining days in true freedom.

[SoakedinTexas]

It is neither a right or a privilege. It is a personal choice. This goes to free will, you are able to wear whatever you want. There may be a ban here or there where you may wear certain items but that then goes to the right of the establishment or place that has banned certain items of wear. So if you are living at home and your parents have banned you from wearing diapers at the house, then there is no "right" or "privilege"  that allows you to go against the "house rules" that the owners of the house have established. If you want to have your own choice as to when you can wear diapers then you get to a place in your life to have a place or area that it is your choice and then wear all you want. In fact if you want to go as far as getting your own place and making rules that anyone that stays the night at your place must wear diapers to bed or they do not get to stay then you can do that, because it is your place. 

My two cents.