Talking about diaper RP with a younger audience

Status
Not open for further replies.
First, ok I double checked the online definitions for love (for what so very little there is on this subject) Yup, love is not sexual in nature. Next argument.

Second, I never said I advocate in including children with ABDL content. I did say I find it wrong to discriminate against age though. Big difference. And yes, abdl being non sexual by nature, it would be completely legal. No need for a lawyer to verify something so incredibly simple to understand here.

Let me say this again. What I have been saying is interacting with children- in general- is not wrong nor illegal. I have even clarified this interaction is obviously to be free of any sexually explicit material. How more clear can I get than that. Why so many here are dead set on thinking otherwise is just plain misguided in fear mongering. Sorry, but it is.
 
Slomo said:
First, ok I double checked the online definitions for love (for what so very little there is on this subject) Yup, love is not sexual in nature. Next argument.

Well, that's wrong. Love comes in many forms. One form of love is explicitly sexual.

Slomo said:
Second, I never said I advocate in including children with ABDL content. I did say I find it wrong to discriminate against age though. Big difference.

So... you are willing to discriminate on age by not involving children in ABDL content... even though you think it's wrong to discriminate on age...?

Slomo said:
And yes, abdl being non sexual by nature, it would be completely legal. No need for a lawyer to verify something so incredibly simple to understand here.

The problem is that ABDL can be sexual.

Slomo said:
I have even clarified this interaction is obviously to be free of any sexually explicit material.

So you are willing to discriminate based on age...?

I still think that avoiding any kinky roleplay with minors would be a VERY good idea.
 
Slomo said:
First, ok I double checked the online definitions for love (for what so very little there is on this subject) Yup, love is not sexual in nature. Next argument.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/love
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/love
There are several instances where the word is sexual in nature. The fact you double checked, and somehow missed this, is mind boggling. In fact, I am finding it quite difficult to even find a dictionary that doesn't mention it being sexual in at least some form depending on how it's used.

What dictionary did you even use? Even when you type "Define:love" in google, even the google definition mentions it being sexual in nature, again depending on how the word is used. It's very important to understand many words have different definitions depending on how you are using it. Basically, context is important.

Second, I never said I advocate in including children with ABDL content. I did say I find it wrong to discriminate against age though. Big difference. And yes, abdl being non sexual by nature, it would be completely legal. No need for a lawyer to verify something so incredibly simple to understand here.
AB/DL is sexual in many cases. I really don't know how you can continue to argue about this when you literally have people who are AB/DL and it's sexual for them. I can't understand, how you continue to argue about this ... when the proof is right in front of your face. You can't say it's non sexual when there is a large part of the community that it IS sexual for them.

Clearly it's not as simple as you seem to think. Not even remotely close. Also ... age discrimination has to be done. If you find it wrong to discriminate on age, then do you consdier it wrong to have sex with a minor? Because that require age discrimination. If you felt age discrimination is wrong, then to you ... not haveing sex with minors based on age is also wrong. I don't even think you realize what it is you are saying.

Let me say this again. What I have been saying is interacting with children- in general- is not wrong nor illegal. I have even clarified this interaction is obviously to be free of any sexually explicit material. How more clear can I get than that. Why so many here are dead set on thinking otherwise is just plain misguided in fear mongering. Sorry, but it is.
The issue is because you are WRONG. It is sexual in nature whether you like it or not. It's sexual in nature for a ton of people here. So how do you suppose a cop is going to know your creepy ass roleplay with a child is sexual or not when for a lot of people that type of roleplay IS sexual?

x.x I really am having so much difficulty with the fact, you don't seem to understand this.
 
My advice, never initiate rp, and stick to rp with adults if you are going to.
 
MarchinBunny said:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/love
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/love
There are several instances where the word is sexual in nature. The fact you double checked, and somehow missed this, is mind boggling. In fact, I am finding it quite difficult to even find a dictionary that doesn't mention it being sexual in at least some form depending on how it's used.

What dictionary did you even use? Even when you type "Define:love" in google, even the google definition mentions it being sexual in nature, again depending on how the word is used. It's very important to understand many words have different definitions depending on how you are using it. Basically, context is important.


AB/DL is sexual in many cases. I really don't know how you can continue to argue about this when you literally have people who are AB/DL and it's sexual for them. I can't understand, how you continue to argue about this ... when the proof is right in front of your face. You can't say it's non sexual when there is a large part of the community that it IS sexual for them.

Clearly it's not as simple as you seem to think. Not even remotely close. Also ... age discrimination has to be done. If you find it wrong to discriminate on age, then do you consdier it wrong to have sex with a minor? Because that require age discrimination. If you felt age discrimination is wrong, then to you ... not haveing sex with minors based on age is also wrong. I don't even think you realize what it is you are saying.


The issue is because you are WRONG. It is sexual in nature whether you like it or not. It's sexual in nature for a ton of people here. So how do you suppose a cop is going to know your creepy ass roleplay with a child is sexual or not when for a lot of people that type of roleplay IS sexual?

x.x I really am having so much difficulty with the fact, you don't seem to understand this.

Ah, I see where your confusion is. Did you know only the first listed definion explanation is the correct one. Other ones listed after it are not commonly.used, or are older listings no longer used at all (fetish meaning magic worship is a good example here). And once again, the key difference you don't seem to be picking up on is whether or not it is BASED on sexuality. I've clarified plenty of times that obviously it does include sex.

And IF I though a 17 year old was mature and experienced enough to make an informed and rational decision to have sex- and was in a position well enough to live with and support any reprucidion from it- then yes I absolutely do believe thry should have that choice.

Of course, being 40 myself I wouldn't even want to have sex with a 30 year old, let alone under 18. And a good key point for you to take on this last bit, is choosing not to do something yourself does not even closely mean you discriminate against it. Case in point, are you a lesbian and if not then by your own argument you must be a homophobe. I doubt it though.
 
Slomo said:
Ah, I see where your confusion is. Did you know only the first listed definion explanation is the correct one. Other ones listed after it are not commonly.used, or are older listings no longer used at all (fetish meaning magic worship is a good example here). And once again, the key difference you don't seem to be picking up on is whether or not it is BASED on sexuality. I've clarified plenty of times that obviously it does include sex.
Honestly, I can't believe you think only the first one is correct. That isn't how you use a dictionary Slomo.
First of all, who decides whether the definition is no longer relevant or correct? Why is it still in the dictionary if it is no longer correct. Why do I still hear love being used commonly in the ways you seem to suggest is not commonly used? Did you ever consider it's used more commonly in different areas of the world?

I am sorry, but the saying "To make love" is used very commonly even today, and it specifically means sex and is sexual in nature.

And IF I though a 17 year old was mature and experienced enough to make an informed and rational decision to have sex- and was in a position well enough to live with and support any reprucidion from it- then yes I absolutely do believe thry should have that choice.
Then how do you decide they are mature and experienced enough? Who decides that? If you make exceptions there, then can you not do the same with an 8-year-old? At what age and at what point is it ok? Where is the line exactly?

And a good key point for you to take on this last bit, is choosing not to do something yourself does not even closely mean you discriminate against it. Case in point, are you a lesbian and if not then by your own argument you must be a homophobe. I doubt it though.

I am honestly so confused on what you mean by this last bit.
 
rennecfox said:
My advice, never initiate rp, and stick to rp with adults if you are going to.

Good advice, and actually I never RP myself. I prefer to stay grounded in reality, and work to make that reality more acceptable for everyone. Of course,.that doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to themselves.
 
Not sure how many times I could say no to this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top