Degrees and Shades: Ethical public play?

[AngelBaby]

So I am going to post a series of questions, titled Degrees and Shades. In this series, the questions are not about black and white, but the grey areas, where we challenge the conventional ethics, and discuss it's exceptions.

First question is public play.

The conventional ethic is never involve non-consenting people, but are there grey zones, where we can go out as a little, while not imposing on others? If it is ethical to wear revealing clothing, meant to attract attention, in public, is there room for abdl style clothing? If public displays of affection are ethical for couples, what are acceptable public displays between CG and little?

[Cute_Kitten]

For a Care Giver and Little? Hmm....maybe something like CG and Little playing in their backyard, etc? Wearing normie clothes, maybe the Little has a diaper on underneath. Maybe the clothes are a little on the childish side- a Superman t-shirt or shortalls, nothing outright babyish that would make the normies passing by go "OMG is that one of those perverted diaper freaks I saw on Talk Show?"  And playing could be something like CG blows bubbles and Little chases it, or playing badmitten, or Little drawing with chalk.  Or would that be over the line?  Maybe over the line if it's at a public park? Maybe it's okay at home in their own driveway?  

[~Brian~]

@AngelBaby @Cute_Kitten

as far as I can see: the only thing that you must be careful of is when You go to a public place, and where you go when you go to a public place. a public park would be OK as far as I can tell, you just don't want to end up having someone find out that your little is wearing diapers by having them dressed like that in a public place. It'd be one thing in my opinion if someone was in a public park and there was absolutely no one around, people around, you may end up getting A few people question what is going on, if they happen to be. if you're dealing with somebody that is disabled, and the person is wearing a diaper, that would be different, because most people who see a disabled individual probably wouldn't question it if someone were a diaper.

If you go to a place where you are well surrounded by a backyard, a fence, or something that allows no one else to see what is going on behind the Fence, then you wouldn't have too many things to worry about. this is because you are doing it in your own yard, and as such no one should be wondering what you are doing in your yard. if someone cannot see what it is that you're doing in your yard, then you would be pretty well shielded against sneaky people, or stupid or snooping individuals.

As far as what you do with a little in this situation, I would think that it would depend on what you have available in the person's yard, or what you do in a public park inappropriate time periods. i've heard stories of people who go to A nursery or something like that for adults, and they end up taking them to the parks, or they may end up having their littles that visit Mommy Mommy's or Daddy's play in their own fenced in yard. what you do with a little would probably be pretty close to what you would do with a real little baby. depending on the age of the adult baby in the situation, you may want to play ball with him or her, play in a sandbox, play on the slides or whatever. I'm not sure how that would work, but I'm sure that has happened in the past, it would depend on the the adult caregiver that you're with and how they work when somebody wants to visit them and What they wanna do.

Of course what is done in public on a public park would probably be something that would or could be similar to having who acts like a kid. There's nothing that says a little kid Can't be in diapers whether they be a little kid or they be an adult kid. you just have to use your discretion when you're in public places because you don't want somebody to question what the heck you are doing, and then have a whole bunch of people snooping around Snooping around when you don't want them there. the way to do that is to make sure that you're doing it in a way that does not infringe on other people's ability to enjoy their property or enjoy the time that they are doing something in a public place.

As far as what you do with a little, you would do things that are normal little would do with their caregiver. they might play games or they might have fun, or they might have jump ropes or play ball or something like that:: it depends on individual and what they want to do, because anytime you go to a nursery or someplace where you play with an adult caregiver, i'm sure they have their forms that use, and they can Taylor your experience to what you want them to do. the idea is for the little to have fun with their Caregivers, without bringing unwanted or unneeded attention to what you're doing.

Briain

[ValentinesStuff]

My question as always is, why are we special?

 

Consider the following scenarios.

 

A male lingerie fetishist is out wearing bra and panties. His SO is constantly rubbing his back over his bra strap stimulating him. And nearby is an ABDL wearing a diaper under his pants, and his SO is constantly patting his bottom stimulating him.

Is either couple right or wrong?

 

The same lingerie fetishist is wearing pants that reveal his VPL (visible panty line) and the ABDL is wearing pants that make his diaper bulge obvious.

Again is either right or wrong?

 

Third both are wearing thin white clothes that while covering their respective underwear, it is visible through the thin material.

Again right or wrong?

 

Note that the last two are common tropes in TG fiction, and real life. I don't ever remember seeing any sort of big  discussions about crossdressers exposing their kink in public play.

 

Lastly are any of the following doing anything wrong or even illegal?

1) A woman wearing a dress and heels, with moderate makeup?

2) A man wearing the same dress and heels, the dress is cut and sewn to fit his male body.

3) A man wearing the same dress and heels, although he is wearing breast form and padding to give him a female figure. Similar makeup to the first girl, and his own natural long feminely styled hair.

4) A woman wearing the same dress and heels as the first, but she is heavily made up, wearing a wig of a different hair color, length and style of her natural hair, pads giving her a greatly enhanced bust and bottom. This would effectively make her unrecognizable.

5) A man made up to be as close to twin as #4 as possible.

6) A man in a suit.

7) A woman in the same suit, wearing makeup and a feminine hairstyle.

? A woman in the same suit, but with her breasts bound, padding to eliminate her hips, a man's hair cut, no makeup, bushy eyebrows.

[Alyeskabird]

This is a bit more complex than folks might consider. First off, mostly whats getting people is whats termed public indecency laws. They are super flaky and  folks have been trying to get them taken off the books for ages, and even if there are non on the books, they still consider it working as if if still there. The big rule to follow is that your undies must be covered. Legaly speaking, wearing a diaper under your pants, no matter how tight your pants are, is not important, and totaly legal. Even if your wearing thin white pants that let you see yep, thats a diaper. Same with the bra and panty guy, under clothes, fine, even if the clothing is thin and one can tell whats on underneath. Legaly speaking, most everywhere, thats legal. But, and here is the kicker, thoes idiotic public indecenacy laws, wich basicly means, that a woman with a in inch long mini skirt, showing off her pubic hair for all the world see over her g string, can call the cops on you cause she thinks your indecent cause she saw a peek of plastic when you bent over to pick something up off the ground. Does not matter that shes basicly nude, she called the cops first.

You have to remember, depending on where you are, it is indecent for a guy to not have a shirt of some sort of, t-shirt counts, or a woman to go around without a shirt, yet, a sports bra can count, again depending on the area.

Legaly speaking, the gender apropriateness of the clothing you are wearing should not matter, no matter how well, or how poorly you carry it off. There are actualy a number of places where people do go around dressed up in ABDL setup, all the way in some cases. Heck, there was even an eppasode on some show about one guy living as a toddler girl, including him going into town now and again for shopping and stuff. His wife's bigist complaint, washing the diapers. Just as there are plenty of guys running around dressed in 'female' clothing, and a bunch of women running around in male clothing. Most of thoes do not get complaint for the simple reason that most people do not notice. Seriously, how many of you look at a woman, and try and see if she needs to shave again, or if shes got an adams apple thats larger than normal for a woman, or look at a man and notice that hes not got an adams apple, or that hes not got that little buldge at the front of his pants? That sorta thing fades and is hidden in the background noise. Its when you do something that shows out, aka, dressing up as a little girl and going shopping, thats when you start to get noticed, and the assholes start screaming there hate of anything outside of what they claim to be the norm. Does not matter that they might have the exact same outfit hidden under lock and key at home, all they care is they get a chance to attack others. Sometimes you are lucky and an area does not have someone that cares about that sort of thing, and it quickly enough fades into the background.

Heck, there have been cases of bikers being arrested on public indecency laws cause they where wearing chaps, and thats obvious some sick bit if fetish gear right there!

The problem ends up that allmost all of this ends up being subject to the viewpoint of whatever cop happens to be around. Some cops have no problem making things up to nail someone to the wall, others, even if they find something personaly distastefull, still follow the law. Some cases, its just because some idiot called in and made a complaint, no matter how nonsease the complaint is, they still have to do something about it, and arresting someone is a lot less stressfull to them than telling a karen that they are wrong.

 

As for the 7 questions, in the US, all of thoes are legal, and to be honest, most would be glazed over and never even noticed. The one trying to make a serious attempt to look pretty has probably a higher amount of interest, as most guys like looking at pretty girls. Yah sexist as hell, but is how it is.

[oznl]

4 hours ago, ValentinesStuff said:

My question as always is, why are we special?

We are special because our behaviors challenge a number of deeply held, societal taboos.  Some of those challenges are legitimate, others not really challenges rather than regrettable misunderstanding given the adjacency of juvenile behaviour to this realm.

11 hours ago, AngelBaby said:

The conventional ethic is never involve non-consenting people, but are there grey zones, where we can go out as a little, while not imposing on others? If it is ethical to wear revealing clothing, meant to attract attention, in public, is there room for abdl style clothing? If public displays of affection are ethical for couples, what are acceptable public displays between CG and little?

Yes.  I agree.  It’s NEVER ok to conscript Joe Public to be a player in your kink scene.  To do so is effectively an unwanted sexual advance and these days, that’s called harassment.   I think a useful yardstick here is reflecting on our own objectives.  If we are looking for the reactions of others or for humiliation, I think those should be red flags here.

Does that leave us any wriggle room for AB outdoors?  Well yes.  People as far as possible should be allowed to be themselves.

Diapers under your grown-up clothes?  Go nuts.

Out with your "Mummy" or "Daddy" (if ageplay is your thing)?  It's really nobody else's business.

A too-big bum or a Winnie-the-Pooh t-shirt?  Er, go for it but stay away from creating a “scene”.

A nappy sticking out over the top of your shorts?  Consider your motivations here.  If that happens as an inadvertent outcome of being diapered then that’s life.  If the objective is to expose it to bystanders, you're running a scene.

Just nappies , plastic pants, a dummy, bonnet and nothing else?  If you can somehow convince me you’re NOT running a public kink scene here (that can be true: consider Heidi Lynn), then there’s a further nuance there between what we CAN do and what we SHOULD do.  Whilst I would NOT for an instant suggest that one thusly attired should be arrested or anything, the “Jerry Springer” experience hurts and further marginalises the ABDL community as a whole.  I’d beg those outdoors types to consider others and possibly moderate their behaviour.  Throw on some track-suit pants?

Outside of clothing, I also think we need to accept that there are sanitary considerations around diapers that require us to use our diapers responsibly and as far as possible, discretely in public.  Leaving pee puddles on the park bench is NOT ok in my book.  Nor is walking into Walmart and loudly-and-deliberately filling your diaper in aisle 3 before having a long comfortable sit-in.

None of this means that we can't quietly be "us".  We just need to stay inside usual ethical and legal swim lanes and hopefully, not bring the community into (further) disrepute.

Those are my thoughts.  They may not align with others or even be correct (if there IS a "correct" for this kind of thing) but you asked ?

 

 

[ValentinesStuff]

Of@Alyeskabird Here's the text of my State's indecent exposure law.

Quote

Sec. 11-30. Public indecency.     (a) Any person of the age of 17 years and upwards who performs any of the following acts in a public place commits a public indecency:         (1) An act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct; or         (2) A lewd exposure of the body done with intent to

arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of the person.

Breast-feeding of infants is not an act of public indecency.     (b) "Public place" for purposes of this Section means any place where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by others.

 

So If I am not doing it for sexual arousal, then it doesn't qualify as indecent exposure. And as any body parts are covered it really doesn't qualify.

Now they may try other crimes, but it certainly isn't Indecent Exposure.

[Alyeskabird]

I should point out, in some places in the states, technicly, breast feeding an infant is still considered to be indecent if done in public. Something to be considered as well,  again, a lot of that is still considered and based on the view of someone else. AKA you can be acused of indecency just because you showed you face, if someone else thinks its indecent. Yah I know, stupid, and most places no longer follow that really, but, if you look at the wording of the law you quoted, notice how loose the wording is. To some people, holding hands, in there view, can be considered sexual conduct.

[ValentinesStuff]

2 hours ago, Alyeskabird said:

I should point out, in some places in the states, technicly, breast feeding an infant is still considered to be indecent if done in public. Something to be considered as well,  again, a lot of that is still considered and based on the view of someone else. AKA you can be acused of indecency just because you showed you face, if someone else thinks its indecent. Yah I know, stupid, and most places no longer follow that really, but, if you look at the wording of the law you quoted, notice how loose the wording is. To some people, holding hands, in there view, can be considered sexual conduct.

But it is not a random citizens opinion that matters. First it would be a police officers, then the courts. 

 

While I haven't looked up Texas' laws, I found this article interesting.

https://www.ketk.com/news/local-news/report-man-in-diaper-and-surgical-mask-seen-running-from-tyler-backyard/amp/

With this quote especially interesting.

Quote

When the sheriff’s office ran the suspects license plate, it was determined he was a resident of Whitehouse. The Whitehouse Police Department advised the sheriff’s office they have had many cases involving this suspect wearing a diaper and walking around peoples houses or in the woods.

 

Whitehouse PD also said in most of the incidents involving the suspect there were juvenile females in the area and, to date, they have been unable to charge this suspect with a crime, according to a police report. Whitehouse PD has not yet responded to request for further comment.

 

[jeremy12312]

1 hour ago, ValentinesStuff said:

First it would be a police officers, then the courts. 

And there's the rub.  The police don't always have the finest nuance of the law at hand, so they cast a wide net, arrest/detain first, and ask questions later.  If you're ok with the possibility of going down to the station and dealing with all the processing, knowing that it'll be tossed out (hopefully) by the DA, then have at it.

[ValentinesStuff]

2 hours ago, jeremy12312 said:

And there's the rub.  The police don't always have the finest nuance of the law at hand, so they cast a wide net, arrest/detain first, and ask questions later.  If you're ok with the possibility of going down to the station and dealing with all the processing, knowing that it'll be tossed out (hopefully) by the DA, then have at it.

I'm not advocating running around in just a diaper, only discussing the legality of doing it. There are certainly other things that you could be charged with.

[60's Style]

This is a great topic. I wonder about this a lot. Diapers under normal adult clothes, as people have said here, invariably go without notice. Even if a close observer might be able to see you're wearing diapers, I've never had anyone stare, or even glance, at my bulgy crotch or rear end. But I like to wear more juvenile or androgynous or feminine style clothing outside sometimes as well.

If I'm wearing a sailor shirt and my stretchy jersey shorts with regular socks and sneakers, I would think, at the most, if anyone noticed, they might think, "sporty," or "sailor wannabe." Again, an observer might be able to detect the diapers if they really scrutinized, but nothing overt. If I wore Mary Janes and frilly socks with the same outfit, I guess it might attract attention and be considered by this community to be somewhat over the line. Knee socks and Crocs might fall somewhere in between, looking like you might be on your way to a soccer game, or, you might be a little.

I guess the point of this is, the variations are small, yet the impact on perceptions can be very different.

[DiaperedJoe]

On 11/27/2022 at 1:56 PM, 60's Style said:

This is a great topic. I wonder about this a lot. Diapers under normal adult clothes, as people have said here, invariably go without notice. Even if a close observer might be able to see you're wearing diapers, I've never had anyone stare, or even glance, at my bulgy crotch or rear end.

Exactly.

While ABDL diapers are designed for bulk and absorbency, even then under most clothes they aren't detectable.  Common commercial diapers are designed largely for stealth.

You're probably around people every day who are diapered, and never realize it.

It would take an extraordinary lack of caution and discretion to be outed as wearing a diaper in typical everyday life in the modern day.