Proposal: Incontinence Desires sub-forum rules – read BEFORE posting

[foreverdl]

On 4/20/2022 at 9:14 PM, zzyzx said:

@foreverdl

Concerning your prostate issue, I assume you have discussed this with one (or more) Urologists.

I don't know your situation, but, if it is appropriate, I highly recommend the Rezūm procdure.  Note that this might not be appropriate for your case.  If it was appropriate, I consider it a better option than the older TURP methods....

Thanks for the info, I will check into it. 

[cathdiap]

I am a strong supporter of freedom of speech and also strongly against unnecessary rules as most of them create duality. So here's my contribution.

=================================================================================

Hi, welcome to our subforum Incontinent-Desires!

Here you will find discussions between members who have incontinence desires or who are happy to be incontinent. Feel free to join our discussions, but please keep in mind that we don't have any intention to offend incontinent people. We only want to express our personal feelings and share our personal experiences regarding incontinence (desires). If you are offended by (some of) our content, this forum is most likely not for you. 

We are thankfull that DailyDiapers has offered us this subforum to speak freely about incontinence desires. Please help us keeping it the safe space that it was intended to be.

Thank you! 

=================================================================================

[Kif]

3 hours ago, cathdiap said:

Hi, welcome to our subforum Incontinent-Desires!

Here you will find discussions between members who have incontinence desires or who are happy to be incontinent. Feel free to join our discussions, but please keep in mind that we don't have any intention to offend incontinent people. We only want to express our personal feelings and share our personal experiences regarding incontinence (desires). If you are offended by (some of) our content, this forum is most likely not for you. 

We are thankfull that DailyDiapers has offered us this subforum to speak freely about incontinence desires. Please help us keeping it the safe space that it was intended to be.

Thank you! 

I see what this is going for...and it's "nice"...however in my opinion personally I'd rather have something directly worded, visually bulleted, and ultimately very clear on what the boundaries are because that is what it would take for me to feel protected in this community.

In paragraph form it's easy to miss important points and glaze over it. And as worded now, it's also vague and indirect on what exactly crosses the line; this makes the boundaries fuzzy, which both encourages pushing those boundaries and discourages defending boundaries (because there are none, or vaguely some). Overall it comes across as "nice" to me, but with little-to-no backing behind it.

In a different context, maybe this would be appropriate. Like, when starting a new community and not yet being sure what the boundaries are.

However, this isn't a new community and the boundaries have been made clear by example especially recently. Given the size of the community and recent events here it feels very out of touch and insufficient to provide the protection I personally would desire here. I felt very unsafe after the behavior of that mod and several members of the larger community on this forum, and would rather hop behind something that I feel protects me. And that ain't it.

I would love to suggest maybe part of that could be included as an introduction to seem more friendly...but in my opinion, I feel it'd come across as too soft. Being a member of this community, I already know what people think of me; I don't want rules that make others feel welcome to trample on me, I want clear boundaries that protect me from the enemies I already know. And, I can assume that if I feel safe then so will the other people in the community and that it'll be worth my while to stick around rather than feel I'm possibly joining a ghost town.

[cathdiap]

Well I think it is very important to be friendly and respectful. We are all part of the already small ABDL community, so why not behave like brothers and sisters instead of a bunch of watchdogs closely guarding our small territory. I mean are all those rules really necessary for the few occasional mishaps over the last years?

The right of free speech and respect for others' right of free speech are key here. If we all lived up to this nobody would be offensive and nobody would have to feel offended. A short introduction of what visitors of this subforum can expect to find, should then suffice.

And if someone starts bullying or taking offence for no reason I suggest we just ignore their messages. Very effective. Ignoring such a message is perhaps the strongest reply you can give. Look at what happened in my last topic. If we do react to unfriendly members we end up with a bunch of passive aggressive messages, a lot of appealing to the rules, calling for an intervention by admins. Such a waste of time and fun. 

[BrownBobby]

From the sounds of your view of that "last thread" you mention...I'm not sure you fully understand exactly the gravity of the situation that happened there. I'm all for "live and let live" for a lot of things, including the vast majority of the threads in this forum, naysayers included. But that thread...it showed a very real, ugly undercurrent that needs to be addressed. 

Bad actors don't care if you're nice, or inviting, or welcoming. They come into this space with their agenda already in mind, and plan on executing it. There are not many of them, I grant you, but to claim that they should just be minimized or ignored is...idealistic, at best. 

The point of rules like this isn't to be a general purpose statement of intention, or to provide a quick explanation of what's expected. It's to give a simple, easy to understand list of actions that we don't want to see here. If everyone IS following the ideals you mention, then following those rules should be trivially easy. The very fact that I still expect others to break them (heck, some have even in the past week) shows they're necessary.

And one last thing, since I think it's the crux of why I disagree with such...optimistic...language around our rules. I can block or ignore users all day long. My block list is short, but it has been effective. But if the people I now have to block, ignore, or educate are mods and admins...there's a problem no statement of positive intent will solve on its own.

 

[cathdiap]

20 minutes ago, BrownBobby said:

I'm not sure you fully understand exactly the gravity of the situation that happened there.

Maybe you and I use different scales to measure the severity of the situation. I didn't think it was worth discussing.

24 minutes ago, BrownBobby said:

The point of rules like this isn't to be a general purpose statement of intention, or to provide a quick explanation of what's expected. It's to give a simple, easy to understand list of actions that we don't want to see here

We already had multiple site rules in place but apparently those didn't help either to prevent the bad actor from entering and participating in the thread. Why do you think that more or different rules will make any difference?

1 hour ago, BrownBobby said:

Bad actors don't care if you're nice, or inviting, or welcoming. They come into this space with their agenda already in mind, and plan on executing it. There are not many of them, I grant you, but to claim that they should just be minimized or ignored is...idealistic, at best.

Wow, this is how I would describe the infiltration of a bunch of terrorists. Where is the trust in your diapered fellow men?

33 minutes ago, BrownBobby said:

I can block or ignore users all day long. My block list is short, but it has been effective.

Maybe you feel lhe need to block members or to introduce rules to protect the space where you want to be. I don't need rules nor do I need to block members to feel safe. I just try to be kind and respectful and I simply ignore the negative energy in topics or members. Works fine for me.

Call my ideas idealistic or optimistic, that's fine. But from my perspective I think it's kinda funny to picture the members calling for law and order, whilst sitting there in their diapers in front of their computer.

 

Look, diapers and stents help me take life less seriously and I generally don't take myself too seriously either. So relax folks, enjoy the ride and just ignore the little speed bumps.

[rusty pins]

Bottom line:  Mikey's site, we are guests here at his discretion.  While we do like to debate the pro's and con's of issues, when Mikey says if you don't like or agree with the point of a particular forum, stay out, then do as he says and just stay out!

[Hannah YMS]

On 4/20/2022 at 8:22 AM, Little Christine said:

Given that this is a DESIRES subforum, it is therefore not a medical issue. Also, it is a matter of choice. Given all of that, it really belongs in Our Lifestyle Discussion and certainly should not be an Incontinence Medical subforum as it may offend many who are medically IC and live with that absent any choic, the same as I would be offended by fully-sighted persons trying to live as legally blind; and so are the vast majority of ophthamologists

Desires doesn't necessarily mean "merely want to". Many of us with "desires" to be incontinent *need* to be incontinent, by way of BID/BIID. Body Integrity Dysphoria. In this case, I'd argue that it's as much as a medical issue as gender dysphoria and transitioning is. And as a trans person, I can say that these statements are not incongruent.

On 4/20/2022 at 10:41 AM, t1507885@nwytg.net said:

The medical forum is the "inside" and we are on the "outside".
The Desire Forum may be a door, but I don't think it deserves to be a sub-forum of the Medical Forum.

I think it would like if the whole thing were renamed the General Incontinence Forum, with sub-forums within it for medical, bedwetter, and desire.
But from the perspective of the "inside", we are nothing more than incontinence wannabes. I don't think we should be told not to come inside.

And we shouldn't. We should be welcomed with open arms. As I would with anyone else. Life is short, let's just live it.

[Hannah YMS]

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Kawaharu said:

IMO, that would still offend the disabled and Incontinent folks. You can write anything you want but it still would be offensive towards those who are disabled and Incontinent.

As I've heard in other forums of the internet, I've been strongly advised NOT to assume what would offend incontinent peoples, disabled peoples, or trans peoples. Far too often people want to assume what offense would offend a class of people they don't belong to and it's always wrong. Don't presume to represent any class of people unless you're actually in it. And even then, do you represent your ENTIRE community? How many incontinent people are actually rallying against those who wish to be incontinent? Only just a few, from what I can tell, including you. And that's okay. The rest probably don't care. And it works both ways. Let people be themselves. Don't be offended. It really doesn't affect you at all.

We aren't diminishing your condition. We have other issues to deal with, ones which you probably don't understand.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I  too do not assume I've been burned too many times by doing that. I am aware of what many disabled persons think, both observationally and internally and academically. I have also seen strongly worded posts from incontinet persons concerning the lack of choice and its fundamental difference from IC desires, sometimes backing me up when I urged caution about rendering oneself IC through irreversible means. Just because I came in on a flying saucer, what makes persons think it was the LAST flying saucer. the engine of my craft has LOOOOONG ago reached ambient temperature. In other words, this is not my first trip to the Miss Tiara pageant. Which would be better, to allow for some members with an attribute to be offended and not having that happen or not allowing gor it and having it happen. The first is "no harm, nofoul". the second is Murphy bait.I am legally blind, I am also very active. It does not take an Einstein to figure out that when it comes to transportation, I am over the top paranoid and OCD, having been nearly stranded a few times. In the cause of active, legally blind, that over the top'pedness is a HEALTHY reaction since we do not have point-to-point at-will transport and have seen things go majorly south in a heartbeat

The fact that there is concern fo orrense is proven by the existence of any suggestion that there ought to be specialized rules for this subforum, with which I have no basic disagreement at all

[meeko313]

rule 2 is impossibly vague, and very abusable. you nor nobody frequenting this form is anywhere near qualified to decide what's "academically rigorous". sounds a lot to me like "don't mention science, i'll vaguely say it's not rigorous because i don't like it's conclusions"
like...you pretty outright said in the rule itself that it's "unlikely" anybody will present science to you that's contrary to the goal of self-induced incontinence. just a blanket statement of bias lol. you essential want to turn this forum into a flat-earther style echo-chamber with that lol

i morally disagree with rule 4. i think if people want to do dangerous things to their body, that's their choice. and information regarding those potentially dangerous ideas should not be restricted here.

i also disagree with not showing genitals or feces. a content warning on such threads perhaps would be handy. if you don't like to see those things, don't go to the posts. if you accidently stumble on it, too bad. it's not the end of the world. you are on the incontinence forum after all lol. let people share what they like.

overall a bad suggestion that i strongly disagree with.

[oznl]

5 hours ago, meeko313 said:

rule 2 is impossibly vague, and very abusable. you nor nobody frequenting this form is anywhere near qualified to decide what's "academically rigorous". sounds a lot to me like "don't mention science, i'll vaguely say it's not rigorous because i don't like it's conclusions"
like...you pretty outright said in the rule itself that it's "unlikely" anybody will present science to you that's contrary to the goal of self-induced incontinence. just a blanket statement of bias lol. you essential want to turn this forum into a flat-earther style echo-chamber with that lol

The first version of rule 2 (that included “academically rigorous” so that’s the version you’re talking about) was not well written I agree.  There was a re-write that toned things down a bit further down that thread.  The problem of the day that rule #2 was trying to address was that there was some “whack-a-mole” style respondents who would repeatedly and reliably launch into just about any person questioning or commenting in a non-critical way about this controversial subject, generally being "offended" by the raison d'etre of the sub-forum they were posting in.  It got tedious quickly.

5 hours ago, meeko313 said:

i morally disagree with rule 4. i think if people want to do dangerous things to their body, that's their choice. and information regarding those potentially dangerous ideas should not be restricted here.

Actually I quite agree with at least part of your statement.  Bodily autonomy is an important principle to me.  The reason for banning “howtos” for such content is for the legal protection of the forum.  The back-story here were some posts (rightfully redacted by moderators) that provided detailed information about performing bodily procedures on others that would be completely illegal in most jurisdictions.

5 hours ago, meeko313 said:

overall a bad suggestion that i strongly disagree with.

Noted.  I think this ship largely sailed some time ago.  There were some organizational changes made that quietened things down a lot.  In any case, nothing happened with respect to these proposed rules.

[DiapergirlWB]

27 minutes ago, Dee Cee said:

I am IC, not buy choice , but it’s something I had to deal with , and at first , hated it , I almost ended myself over such a thing , I AM A MAN ! And this just can’t be happening to me , and since I couldn’t just wish it away , the FACT THAT I HAD TO DEAL WITH , was either except it as , fact , and deal with it ! And after many times , of wetting myself , or having a poop in my diaper , I excepted it and over not a real long time, I found myself comfortable, with it then slowly , I warmed up to it , and then I liked the feel of it , and now , I just love it ?, and history has shown that , some people who were faced with a situation , that maybe didn’t want or agree with became some of the strongest advisories, for it , right ? Just think , god gives you lemons , you piss yer pants , what’s not to like ??????

I don't know who hurt you but leave me the hell out of your trauma K thanks bye

[spark]

6 hours ago, Dee Cee said:

I thought about what you posted , then I went back and read every , damn one , where did I tick you off ? I for No fuckin rules , this a kink site , where people can swap stories , and such ! And if you don’t like what I or anybody else has said , just get off the site ! I didn’t call you out , specifically . Nor did I mention you ! So A. nobody hurt me . B. I am IC , and 3. I NEVER DRAGED YOU INTO MY TRAMA , you read something , that perhaps , you didn’t like or or offended you ! TUFF SHIT ! ! ! Keep all that “huff and puff” shit , to yerself ! And take a hike , to a bed and breakfast post ! But don’t infringe , on my right to speak, freely , got it ! So ???????☠️☠️☠️

I couldn't figure out what put DiapergirlWB so off, and it seems out of character.  It definitely didn't need to be said, because you didn't harm anybody with your personal story.   I'm sorry you went through that, but applaud you for sticking up for yourself.

[babykeiff]

There is a lot of sentiment on both sides to this topic 'Incontinent Desires', and both seem to be  valid. i.e. those who are incontinent may be offended with another wanting to be incontinent AND those who wish to be incontinent may be offended with another telling them they as sick / disturbed etc. for wanting to be incontinent.

We can extend that to non diaper wearers feeling offended that some chose to wear diapers, immaterial to a fact that diaper wearers need to wear same for some reason or another.

We can chose to add rules and laws etc to attempt to restrict this, but all it will do is curtail free speech, something that, from personal experience on this site, is welcomed.

This site IS controversial, as is each sub-forum due to the topics it discusses, however, adding more rules will eventually kill the site, which to most here, is not what is wanted.

This sub-forum and site IS moderated, which should be enough. There is a key information here - which applies worldwide:-

Free choice is ultimate and only exists when you respect others and their free choice.

This all means that you can disagree with opinions, but have to respect people to have that opinion, and that includes items that you think might offend you. If you don't respect opinion, you ultimately remove your own ability to have one. All rules do is curtail opinion and free choice.

Democracy = elected people make and enforce rules that majority agree where individual persons free choice is reduced if it infringes on anothers.

Dictatorship = one persons make and enforce rules. Free choice may be removed at the whim of the dictator.

Communism = all property is community owned and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. Individual free choice is celebrated.

This site belongs to one person. As such, there are certain freedoms being allowed - which include free choice combined with respecting others. The addition of moderators changes this from a dictatorship to a partial democracy (as no moderator was elected). The ability given to us to post what we wish, using common sense as not to offend another, makes this communist.

This means that for this site to continue, we have to respect each other even if we feel morally offended and disagree with them. Otherwise, there is no reason for this site to exist.

[babykeiff]

Second Point:-

Some people enjoy wetting and/or messing in diapers / their pants / clothes etc... and sitting in it and enjoying the feeling.

Q. What is so wrong about that?

Everyone in the world (bar the odd few that were trained using elimination communication) has spent time in a wet and/or messy diaper / pants / clothes etc and enjoyed the feeling. Babies natually giggle in a wet/messy diaper unless it is causing discomfort. All these people are doing is reliving what they did when they were not toilet trained.

Q. Is that not one of the actions of regressing?

Some people here wish to be surprised when they find the diaper that they are wearing is wet and/or messy and wish they could be pre toilet trained age where the world did not harass them for doing so. Since time travel does not exist, these people attempt to recreate the scenario in their own mind etc.

Q. Again what is wrong with that?

We all daydream and wish for the idealistic scenario. It is our free choice to do so since it effects nobody else except ourselves. That is one of the benifits of growing up - the ability to make decisions OR to regress and give another the power of decisions for us with their consent - i.e. when to feed us, what to dress us in, when to change our diapers, when to put us to bed, when to wake us up etc. Wearing and using diapers means we release control of whether the diaper is wet and/or messy, and since we given control of if/when to change us, the state of our diaper is not our concern as it is for a pre-toilet trained child. A babies opinion is usually ignored, and its career makes the decision if/when to change its diaper and if to put the child into a diaper or not. The consequenses of the careers choice for not putting a diaper on a baby is usually wet / mess everywhere else - as the baby will wet / mess at the whim of its body. Since the baby does not know what a toilet is and/or how to use same, it will void whenever it needs to on/in whatever it is. The baby does not deal with the consequenses, it is its career who does. Thus, it is the career that deals with the consequenses of not putting a diaper on the baby even if the baby doesn't want to wear a diaper. Parents worldwide have came into a crib in the morning to find that their little darling has removed their diaper during the night with the usual result - poop and pee everywhere. We can derive that this little darling made the decision to remove its diaper.

As adults, we can work out the reason to put a baby in a diaper. As adults, we make the decisions in the best interest of the little darling. As adults, we train this little darling about the toilet and how to use same. This training creates an idea in our heads that diapers, and using same are only for babies. It was the person that trained us that gave us that thinking, and the person that trained them that gave them that thinking. As a result, since generations of people are toilet trained with the child like thinking that diapers are only for babies, this creates a misconcieved idea that only babies use diapers.

For some, it is not until they are over the age of consent that they find out that their child belief of only babies use diapers is incorrect. Other people never find this out, and tend to be dismissive when they discover that another adult is wearing and using diapers OR that another adult wants to wear / use diapers with/without an obvious visible need. One can see the same dismissive / disrespectfull attidude when someone(a) parks in a handicap zone. People(b) around the person(a) who parked there is looking for visible validation that the person(a) is actually handicapped according to their(b) percieved rules. Most people do not have the skills / knowledge to make that decision, so in simple terms, these people are publizising their own ignorance and intollarance, who, if same rules were applied to them that they are applying to another, they would be the first to object on the basis of infringing their freedom.

Offence, as others have stated, is not quantifiable, only affect the offended person, and based on their perceptions of idealist views and misinformation, not reality. In simple terms, offense is emotion based, and therefore, personal and should be kept private. There are commedians who make a living by using offence as comedy. Comedy is offensive. There are few jokes that do not play on one or more stereotypical ideas. Does that make comedy wrong, and if so, since it is offensive to someone / something, should we remove it? There is the concept of political correctness to try and address what offends, but worldwide, many have realised how restrictive that would be.

Conclusion:

It is not a question of what rule should be enforced. It is a question of should rules be enforced at all? Each new rule restricts choice. To what level should restrictions be put, AND when/where does it stop. There will NEVER be enough rules for some people.

[Kaliborio]

As a transgender woman I will admit to a degree of grim amusement that you've basically had to reinvent trans community etiquette from scratch but for diapers