So this happened near me

[NewMommA]

This is absolutely perfectly said.

I am a parent. And I do my God damn best to ensure my child NEVER learns this side of me. Let alone think about just walking out my room in the morning in a soaking wet diaper and onesie and exposing him to it.

People who are trying to say this is okay honestly worries me.

Imagine if he was in leather underwear and chains and leash and a woman in leather lingerie was walking him past the children. Because this is no different. No matter how much we wanna say this is a lifestyle. It's a kink. And exposing others to it is wrong. We have houses for a reason. We have convention like capcon for a reason. We have Folsom for a reason. We have private dungeons and fetish buildings for a reason. To keep it to ourselves

I totally agree with you.

 

[BobbiSueEllen]

THAT...is what is damaging any & all work we do to gain some sort of social recognition. We may never gain acceptance...and at this rate, we never will gain anything with immature, stupid exhibitionism like that.

Long ago, I remember hearing a radio ad for a movie called How to Make an American Quilt: Winona Ryder's character is conversing with an older woman, saying something like "I'm young! I should be out making mistakes!", to be gently rebuked with "And spending the rest of your life paying for them?"

But this is different: we ALL pay for this. We who are sensible want some sort of social acknowledgement that doesn't involve conflict; we live tactfully, we exercise discretion. And I'll say it again: that is the ADULT part of Adult Baby.

The worst I ever did was 2006, in Hinton, Alberta: Diaper Camp let out and we were hurriedly going back to Muggleville...I was in shortalls, a t-shirt, high tops & socks as we were all in line at Tim Hortons to get road-noms. Nobody could see my shortalls had a snap-crotch...or that I was in a diaper under it all. Quite grey-area...but from the outside, nothing different than some others would wear on a very warm summer day. Well...Becky at the counter did giggle a tad.

When Mark Twain coined the phrase "Better one keeps their mouth shut and thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt", I'm certain that included other forms of expression as well.

As long as we brook exhibitionism in our ranks, we can count on staying in our very own Dark Ages. Discretion is still the better part of valor, folks. Diapers, in and of themselves, hold a negative-enough public image...let's not add to it within our ranks. Or stand for it.

Sorry, but "that's enough to p*** off a nun", to quote my mom, the expressively-colorful one.

 

[hti24]

The worst I ever did was 2006, in Hinton, Alberta: Diaper Camp let out and we were hurriedly going back to Muggleville...I was in shortalls, a t-shirt, high tops & socks as we were all in line at Tim Hortons to get road-noms. Nobody could see my shortalls had a snap-crotch...or that I was in a diaper under it all. Quite grey-area...but from the outside, nothing different than some others would wear on a very warm summer day. Well...Becky at the counter did giggle a tad.

Believe this is one of the first recorded ABDL sightings in Hinton, AB!

I think it's critical - critical - that people have standards, and as part of a very unique community I think it's important that we have standards here, too. "Rearz are better than ABU" is an opinion. "It's wrong to wear a visible diaper near a children's play area" shouldn't be one.

 

[puppyinthemoon]

I mentioned this in another thread, but at best this is equivalent to walking around in your underwear in public, which most people would never consider doing and the vast majority of places wouldn't allow. Even if we assume the absolute best of intentions from this man going out in public dressed as an adult baby, it's still not an appropriate state of dress for someone in a mall.

Imagine instead that he's wearing a pair of briefs and a t-shirt. No pants, no shorts, no skirt, nothing but the shirt and underwear. Would y'all be more, similarly, or less inclined to defend him being in public near children in that case?

 

[anonnymouse]

Firstly, don't take this as an attack on you.

But how do you justify the way that man dressed and exposed himself to not only in public but also to children?

Didn't take it as a personal attack x it's all good x

If we are talking "kinkless", what has he exposed ? Just a person playing dress up. That is literally what would tell own kids. Obviously that's what makes them happy/content. Doesn't affect us, so let them be.

But if they obviously enjoying it or were obviously getting a thrill, we would shield and draw blood on whoever to avoid them.

 

[anonnymouse]

I mentioned this in another thread, but at best this is equivalent to walking around in your underwear in public, which most people would never consider doing and the vast majority of places wouldn't allow. Even if we assume the absolute best of intentions from this man going out in public dressed as an adult baby, it's still not an appropriate state of dress for someone in a mall.

Imagine instead that he's wearing a pair of briefs and a t-shirt. No pants, no shorts, no skirt, nothing but the shirt and underwear. Would y'all be more, similarly, or less inclined to defend him being in public near children in that case?

Yes.

Genuinely.


In the same situation of no confirmed suspicion of kink then yes. Underwear and shirt would be the same opinion personally.

 

[NewMommA]

Didn't take it as a personal attack x it's all good x

If we are talking "kinkless", what has he exposed ? Just a person playing dress up.

Why would a grown man dress up as a baby if it's not a kink?
That doesn't make sense to me.

I want to know your thought process on that.

 

[anonnymouse]

Why does it have to be a kink ?

To suggest everyone who dresses alt (in whatever form) is only for sexual gratification is extreme. Sure it's probably in the majority, but there those into babyification that are non sexual in their aims. Personally wonder if that is what's happening in this situation. Again not saying it is. Or is not. Am questioning. Always fully prepared that our opinion could be wrong. Stranger things have happened that been wrong one or twice.

BTW really enjoying the genuine exchange of points of view. Appreciate the effort.

 

[NewMommA]

Why does it have to be a kink ?

To suggest everyone who dresses alt (in whatever form) is only for sexual gratification is extreme. Sure it's probably in the majority, but there those into babyification that are non sexual in their aims. Personally wonder if that is what's happening in this situation. Again not saying it is. Or is not. Am questioning. Always fully prepared that our opinion could be wrong. Stranger things have happened that been wrong one or twice.

BTW really enjoying the genuine exchange of points of view. Appreciate the effort.

Let's assume for a second it's non sexual.

Do you think it's okay for an adult to dress up in an onesie and diaper and roam around in public? Especially near children, in front of children?

Sorry but I strongly disagree with you. In my opinion, there's no justification why an adult would need to dress that way in public.


And nobody just wants to dress up as a baby without any reason.
If it's non sexual, then there wouldn't be any reason to do what he did.

Even if it's a comfort thing, he could have worn those under normal clothes.

 

[BobbiSueEllen]

Why does it have to be a kink ?

To suggest everyone who dresses alt (in whatever form) is only for sexual gratification is extreme. Sure it's probably in the majority, but there those into babyification that are non sexual in their aims. Personally wonder if that is what's happening in this situation. Again not saying it is. Or is not. Am questioning. Always fully prepared that our opinion could be wrong. Stranger things have happened that been wrong one or twice.

BTW really enjoying the genuine exchange of points of view. Appreciate the effort.

It angers me to no end how the so-called 'psychiatric community' calls this a 'fetish', says its 'sexually-based', the cheap Freudians. Given half a chance, I'd choke Freud myself for his blind ignorance...and his disciple-zealots who hoist him as a god.

On another track, I'm still self-debating to what degree this could tie in with autism, being that there are loads of fellow auties here (myself included)...and I'm sure the so-called 'psychistric community' wouldn't care Whit One about it because the Freudian philosophy is sex-obsessed (and/or mother-obsessed, who knows anymore). And, in our society, "sex sells". Makes the Fraud--er, Freud shrinks great money for their German-cars-and-champagne-fetish tastes, anyway. The implied premise of the TV show Frasier is not very far off.

Just because diapers cover genitalia and even "tickle" somewhat doesn't make AB/DL sexual. It's no more or less sexual than the cars we buy, our houses, jobs, climbs to stature. Funny how a diaper gains more sex-status in a shrink's eyes than a Porsche. I don't do it for the sex...that's merely a minor coincidence. Diapers & big baby things soothe me, reconnect me...are a big part of any joy I experience in this Muggle-filled dystopia. And are far less harmful than what Muggles commonly do to one another every day.

But the shrinks judge. They label. Rather hypocritical of them. They can keep their Freudian fraud...maybe I'm just Jung at heart. No blaming Mommy there!

Suddenly, even Gestalt seems rather "Tena-ble" now. So, let 'em get it wrong...and Diaper Up and be happy!

 

[NewMommA]

It angers me to no end how the so-called 'psychiatric community' calls this a 'fetish', says its 'sexually-based', the cheap Freudians. Given half a chance, I'd choke Freud myself for his blind ignorance...and his disciple-zealots who hoist him as a god.

On another track, I'm still self-debating to what degree this could tie in with autism, being that there are loads of fellow auties here (myself included)...and I'm sure the so-called 'psychistric community' wouldn't care Whit One about it because the Freudian philosophy is sex-obsessed (and/or mother-obsessed, who knows anymore). And, in our society, "sex sells". Makes the Fraud--er, Freud shrinks great money for their German-cars-and-champagne-fetish tastes, anyway. The implied premise of the TV show Frasier is not very far off.

Just because diapers cover genitalia and even "tickle" somewhat doesn't make AB/DL sexual. It's no more or less sexual than the cars we buy, our houses, jobs, climbs to stature. Funny how a diaper gains more sex-status in a shrink's eyes than a Porsche. I don't do it for the sex...that's merely a minor coincidence. Diapers & big baby things soothe me, reconnect me...are a big part of any joy I experience in this Muggle-filled dystopia. And are far less harmful than what Muggles commonly do to one another every day.

But the shrinks judge. They label. Rather hypocritical of them. They can keep their Freudian fraud...maybe I'm just Jung at heart. No blaming Mommy there!

Suddenly, even Gestalt seems rather "Tena-ble" now. So, let 'em get it wrong...and Diaper Up and be happy!

I'm sorry if I was offensive to you.

Being an AB or DL can be non sexual.
Of course it can be.
I baby my little guy but that aspect of my life has nothing to do with sexual desires.

I was making the point that being out and about wearing nothing but an onesie and diaper, is most probably a kink. And is probably not non sexual.

 

[anonnymouse]

Suddenly, even Gestalt seems rather "Tena-ble" now.

Gosh.

Not come across many who subscribe to Gestalt principles ...

 

[BobbiSueEllen]

Gosh.

Not come across many who subscribe to Gestalt principles ...

Ummm...ya missed the pun, LOL! 'Tena-ble'...

I love the sound of the Gestalt philosophy...that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". There is yet a chance to investigate into the other concepts of this Gestalt. I'm not getting any Jung-er, LOL!

 

[Labrador]

Yeah, that’s a problem. I would be so embarrassed if I were him. I know about confidence and loving your own skin but…what!? I do wear in public under my clothes on days off sometimes, and I am always making sure the top of the diaper is folded over. I’ve always seen it as my thing, and if I wear or wet or whatnot, no one should be any the wiser. And as far as I know, they aren’t.

But the intrusive thought that I can’t get rid of is this…. There are plenty of things that in the past would have gotten someone arrested—holding hands with the wrong person, wearing a bikini, etc. Now both of those things are acceptable socially. So…. I agree wholeheartedly that this is unprofessional, but is that just because this hasn’t become normalized yet.
Please don’t break out the pitchforks and torches! I agree with you 100%! I don’t like this either, but I can’t help but notice how many things you see on the street today would have drawn the same ire fifty years ago.

 

[anonnymouse]

Na we got the pun. It just wasn't punny.

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

This person is adult enough to remember his shoes, but not his pants? This isn't anything cognitive. It's just giving the middle finger to kids, deliberate KINK, exposure, and also flipping off the way decent people behave.

Yes, I called a spade a spade, nailed It, too. People who are trying to be comfortable in their own skin, don't go this far. They put pants on, and my British pals, I mean trousers. That's all he had to do. Pants on, paci in pocket, done. The shirt part of the onesie is questionable, given that children are around, but can at least be gotten away with.

There's also the adult with paci drug connection to worry about. MDMA makes users grind their teeth.