Subtle Exhibition

Status
Not open for further replies.
I kind of regret using the word exhibition in the title and my definition because I think it made too many focus on the word and not the context surrounding it. From reading the opinions, I do realize I'm acting in some "form" of exhibitionism but if I can expand, here's a short list of things I'm NOT doing it for

"Jollies"
"Rocks"
Anything sexual in nature including full or partial nudity

I work as a service technician with professional clothing and a limited exposure to other people in a close area for any sustained period of time. The clothing is loose, although I'm sure by the end of the day I have a square butt should someone be inclined to look....not that I'm arching my back so that someone will.

Generally everything is concealed, no intentional leaks or pants wetting. I'm not looking for acceptance or vindication. I was just curious where the line starts and ends in the mind of the community. I guess it's more of a butterfly affect for me - similar to that it purchasing in public. Unless that too is under the umbrella of exhibitionism because I may be making others uncomfortable by buying them and that I don't *actually* need them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
intfusmil said:
I
I was just curious where the line starts and ends in the mind of the community. I guess it's more of a butterfly affect for me - similar to that it purchasing in public. Unless that too is under the umbrella of exhibitionism because I may be making others uncomfortable by buying them and that I don't *actually* need them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah but buying in public is not a thing like trying to see if you can get away with flashing a bit of diaper here and there—it's literally just a transaction and no one involved in a transaction is going to care what you're there for. It's retail.
 
Kinsy said:
ABDL is not, and will never be like LGBTQ+. You will never have to fight for your rights to get married to the people you love, to kiss your partner in public, etc... Believe it or not, kinks are a protected class in more states in the US than gay and lesbian folk. For example, in Arizona, you can not be evicted because you are into kinky sex wearing a diaper, nor can you be denied an apartment application. Hell, you can be an actual freaking pedophile, and be approved an application... however if you are gay or lesbian, you can be evicted or turned down on that fact alone.

Here is the reason why. No one gives a shit about your kinks. The only rule with kinks and fetishes is that you keep them to yourself and your partner. You live up to that social agreement, and no one will care. Us gay folk do not have that luxury. It is entirely appropriate to hold hands with your loved on in public, giving them appropriate kisses (not talking full on make out sessions here) etc... however, gay men and women have to fight, and are still fighting to be able to do that without the world freaking out, and in some cases literally trying to murder us.

And even if it is not sexual (It is not sexual for me.) it is object fetishism. IE an activity in which pleasure (does not have to be sexual) is derived from an object and its use that deviates from mainstream uses. I can see you arguing you don't have a fetish or a kink if you were not on this site. You'd wear for a practical reason, or not at all. Here, we have people who wear for practical reasons, but have learned to derive pleasure from it, and others who wear because they just freaking want to (Like me) who have no reason to be in a diaper all the time. I am a fetish girl, and I am not ashamed of that.

And I see nothing wrong with keeping it to myself. I don't go out and parade my diaper (I do attend Gay Pride parades because they help normalize the idea of gay people... even if some marchers do take it too far sometimes. I should tell you, the first DL I ever met other than myself, and my girlfriend at the time, was at a Gay Pride Parade. He was marching in his diaper. No one complained because he kept himself in and around the other fetish parts of the march (Which were clearly marked, with a buffer zone so people could choose to avoid it if they wished).



This this this this and this. People, get freaking consent before ever intentionally involving others. There is a difference between wearing a diaper, and wearing a diaper in "public."

(The "you" below is just a pronoun being used to signify a person, it is referencing no one specifically.)

When you wear a diaper, you are wearing it because you need it, or you don't, but you are treating it like a normal piece of clothing... IE paying it no more mind than you would panties, pants, shirts, etc...

When you wear in "public," you are doing it to be 'naughty.' or to get that thrill that you might be caught. This is not ok in my book, as you are using other people for your own gratification, rather it be adrenaline, or sexual. People deserve more respect than to be used in a persons fetish game.

It is pretty simple in my book. If you don't need them, and you get any kind of pleasure from people "accidentally" finding out you are in them... you probably shouldn't wear outside your house, or a munch, or other activity for you can gain consent, or consent is implied (Like Capcon, etc...)
Click to expand...

Nobody is even remotely suggesting being abdl is like or the same as lgbt. What we are saying is there are similarities. And being both bisexual and abdl, I can confirm there are many similarities between the two.

Case I point, you are confusing abdl as a fetish that must have some sort of sexual reasoning behind it. Where in reality, we are just compelled to be this way as a part if who we are. And kf which sexuality can also be included. Similar (but not the same) as lgbt.
 
Slomo said:
Nobody is even remotely suggesting being abdl is like or the same as lgbt. What we are saying is there are similarities. And being both bisexual and abdl, I can confirm there are many similarities between the two.

Case I point, you are confusing abdl as a fetish that must have some sort of sexual reasoning behind it. Where in reality, we are just compelled to be this way as a part if who we are. And kf which sexuality can also be included. Similar (but not the same) as lgbt.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. I agree that diapers are not always sexual, however a fetish is not always sexual either. A Fetish is an activity or behavior in which a single item is held up as the focus of the activity. (To clarify, most behavior is centered around fulfilling a need, leading the focus of the activity to be internal, "I need food." or external, "Baby needs food.") That is what makes this a fetish, is that the focus is the diaper. It is a thin line, which is why fetishes are of such controversy in mental health research. However, the activity of wearing the diaper is the center... it isn't a need to void, or survive (excluding incontinence here.) that brings you to the diaper, it is the fact that it is a diaper that brings you to the diaper. (Incontinent individuals do muddy this water a bit as it is both a non-fetish and fetish behavior... however context then determines the fetish/not-fetish level.)

I am a full time diaper wearing individual without a medical need to do so. I do not get any sexual pleasure from it, I do it because I like diapers, and I use them because it is a diaper. That is what makes it a fetish. By the way, you can totally have fetishes for about any mundane object without sexual gratification. Many gun owners fall into this category, as do collectors or fashionistas, etc... some fetishes are just more socially acceptable than others, with sexual fetishes trending towards taboo. Because a diaper fetish is an object fetish that straddles the sexual/not sexual line, it generates some very strange responses.

Now, being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc... this is different, this falls under the hierarchy of needs, that a fetish does not. Mainly in fulfillment, which is the process of establishing a personal and public identity. Who you marry, partner with, etc... is largely influenced by your sexuality and gender identity. Here, no object or activity is being singled out as the focus of the impulse or desire. You simple are gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight, etc...

It is the constant conflating of fetish with the LGBTQ+ communities that fuels a lot of the disgust and distaste from the public towards us. The hard part is a lot of the LBTQ+ community is guilty of conflating the two, which I personally believe comes from the idea that we should except all the things we enjoy as part of our "person" and thus it becomes who we are, not what we do.

I am not a diaper girl, or diaper women, I am a lesbian who likes to wear diapers. They are not part of my person, but they are in the orbit of interests or things I do. They influence my person like any fetish would, but they are not the center of the person, nor or they part of the "person." When a fetish becomes part of the "person" that is when we have mental health issues surfacing.
 
Kinsy said:
I disagree with this. I agree that diapers are not always sexual, however a fetish is not always sexual either. A Fetish is an activity or behavior in which a single item is held up as the focus of the activity. (To clarify, most behavior is centered around fulfilling a need, leading the focus of the activity to be internal, "I need food." or external, "Baby needs food.") That is what makes this a fetish, is that the focus is the diaper. It is a thin line, which is why fetishes are of such controversy in mental health research. However, the activity of wearing the diaper is the center... it isn't a need to void, or survive (excluding incontinence here.) that brings you to the diaper, it is the fact that it is a diaper that brings you to the diaper. (Incontinent individuals do muddy this water a bit as it is both a non-fetish and fetish behavior... however context then determines the fetish/not-fetish level.)

I am a full time diaper wearing individual without a medical need to do so. I do not get any sexual pleasure from it, I do it because I like diapers, and I use them because it is a diaper. That is what makes it a fetish. By the way, you can totally have fetishes for about any mundane object without sexual gratification. Many gun owners fall into this category, as do collectors or fashionistas, etc... some fetishes are just more socially acceptable than others, with sexual fetishes trending towards taboo. Because a diaper fetish is an object fetish that straddles the sexual/not sexual line, it generates some very strange responses.

Now, being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc... this is different, this falls under the hierarchy of needs, that a fetish does not. Mainly in fulfillment, which is the process of establishing a personal and public identity. Who you marry, partner with, etc... is largely influenced by your sexuality and gender identity. Here, no object or activity is being singled out as the focus of the impulse or desire. You simple are gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight, etc...

It is the constant conflating of fetish with the LGBTQ+ communities that fuels a lot of the disgust and distaste from the public towards us. The hard part is a lot of the LBTQ+ community is guilty of conflating the two, which I personally believe comes from the idea that we should except all the things we enjoy as part of our "person" and thus it becomes who we are, not what we do.

I am not a diaper girl, or diaper women, I am a lesbian who likes to wear diapers. They are not part of my person, but they are in the orbit of interests or things I do. They influence my person like any fetish would, but they are not the center of the person, nor or they part of the "person." When a fetish becomes part of the "person" that is when we have mental health issues surfacing.
Click to expand...

The rest of the world disagrees with you then.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetish
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fetish&amp=true
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fetish

What you are describing does not meet the definiton of a fetish in the least. It is much more in line with a compusion, or even a form of love. Either way, it is- as you say- more in fulfilment with your personal identity (or otherwise described as a part of who you are.)
 
Maxx said:
Is it REALLY different, or is it rationalising your particular flavor of kink? That's a pretty common thing, really. Model railroading can be an all encompassing thing for some people, and they find all kinds of ways to justify the time, effort and treasure they put into it. Some people feel that way about their sports endeavors. "It's who I am" but yours is real, everyone else's is pretense.
Click to expand...

Sexuality is NOT a Fetish. To say that homosexuality is a fetish is to say that heterosexuality is a fetish, which flies in the face of the very definitions I have used, and the ones proposed in the post before yours.

I am sorry that you think someone being gay is a kink, but the implication you make when you suggest that is that we would be straight if we were normal people.

As for the dictionary definitions: One, the Merriam covers the definition I gave above under definition B. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, and the Oxford does not...

So I will agree that there is debate on what a Fetish is. However, what is the argument that a diaper is not a Fetish? I have provided one that argues for it being a fetish, you have only told "nope, you're wrong."

How am I wrong? Show me the data that demonstrates that wearing a diaper with out medical need is not object fetishism.
 
Kinsy, I absolutely agree sexuality is not a fetish. You seem to misunderstand that all fetishes are sexual though. (like how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares). Ergo, why I pointed out that diaper love can include sexuality, but is not a fetish.

The definitions I gave you ARE all reliable. Look at them again. Merriam webster gives word history. The first definition is the currently used one. The definitions after that are what the word used to mean, -and no longer apply-. You seem to have missed that point.

The urban dictionary is also very relavent. It is written by the common lay person, and up/down voted by other common lay people. It (and wiki for the same reason) is a perfect means of capturing how a word is being commonly used.

And with oxford, you already admit it doesn't even include your own definition use.

You struck out o all three. And those were literally just the first three web search hits that came up. You can try and argue it all you want, but the term fetish has already been defined for us all. There is no debate on that any more than debating the sky is blue.

And as I've already said. A psychological need IS a medical need. Without even getting into what type of need that is, you have only to look as far as the American Psychological Association's home page.
 
@Kinsy

I have been into abdl since I have adult memory.

Long before any 'adult' needs.

It is an emotional thing for me.

Just because it it a 'sex' / 'kink' thing for others, does not make it for everyone.

I have my own sex / kink interests but they are not abdl.

Just because I am a gay man does not mean I can speak other gay men.

Perhaps we could benefit from talking from our own personal stories, as opposed to trying to speak for others?

There are many varied narratives around our shared interest on this site.

Lets allow them to be shared, while allowing others to share views that might not be our own.
 
Last edited:
People, especially men, tend to become sexually aroused by specific 'objects' that vary with the individual - breasts, butts, penises, diapers, legs, hair, faces, voice, etc., etc.. We used to, and still do to some extent, divide these objects into two categories: normal and abnormal. "Normal" means it fits in with our beliefs about nature or god's will. "Abnormal" desires, when applied to sexual desires for objects outside the usual range, were called fetishes and considered to be a mental defect. Personally, I see them as pretty much the same in nature, just different in social acceptance.

Since we can't agree on the meaning of the F-word we should probably stop using it.
 
Drifter said:
Since we can't agree on the meaning of the F-word we should probably stop using it.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with this! Either it's a normal compulsory part of us, or it's an abnormal sexual hobby we choose to engage in.
 
My interest in diapers is extremely strong, but I have never had any sexual feelings or urges when wearing/using or thinking about wearing/using. Just the opposite. In addition to it’s intented use, diaper brings relaxation, calmness and security. Diaper protects from unwanted sexual touch(I haven’t been raped but still kind of fear a bit, particularly when going to sleep).
Adult baby stuff is all about total relaxation, innocence, being little again and feeling good. Just the thought of adding something sexual to it feels terribly wrong. I go young, and young people don’t even know what sex is. I didn’t know about sex or menses etc. until I was about 11-12 and they were taught at school. That was good. I was allowed to be as child as possible for as long as possible.
Some days I’m male, some days female, some days gay, some days asexual, some days straight, but very rarely sexual.
I don’t think these are F-things, not for me. But in case of someone else, if sex were added to diapers or AB, those might be. Sexual orientation just doesn’t feel like some F-thing, since it’s a lot more than sex. I think F-word means only sex stuff+object/thing. I don’t like thinking of myself as a F-ist since I find sexual stuff most often a bit yucky.
 
At the end of this day, this thread is titled "Subtle Exhibition," Exhibition in this context is a completely sexual thing. Disagreement over the word Fetish does not change what I have been trying to say:

Exhibition without consent is wrong. One should even take it a step further, and rather you consider your diaper wearing a fetish, kink, or not, you not voluntarily force acceptance of it on others through the use of public display. It is freaking underwear. Why are we even talking about exposing it?
 
Kinsy said:
At the end of this day, this thread is titled "Subtle Exhibition," Exhibition in this context is a completely sexual thing. Disagreement over the word Fetish does not change what I have been trying to say:

Exhibition without consent is wrong. One should even take it a step further, and rather you consider your diaper wearing a fetish, kink, or not, you not voluntarily force acceptance of it on others through the use of public display. It is freaking underwear. Why are we even talking about exposing it?
Click to expand...
I'm glad someone finally decided to address the actual subject matter instead of going way off it. However, I expressed this in a post above, I wish I wouldn't have said "exhibition" in the original post as I gave everyone the wrong idea. I look at it more as staged acts of getting caught and even if I don't do that I often wonder if people would know I'm wearing. Speculation through text is the thing that kills forums and opinions of other people. I can promise it's not sexual by definition for me. Perhaps I like the shame or embarrassment of it all. It's not common practice. I wear normal clothes and am neither trying to flaunt or mask crinkliness. I have hung the diaper down lower than it should in a changing stall but even still - the act of me doing that vs. the likelihood of it actually happening from someone who wears is really about the same. As I expressed in above posts, I'm not looking for vindication either. I understand the pros and cons to them, I just wanted to know how it was viewed and used the wrong word to express it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Some people get pleasure out of harmless exhibitionism. I see nothing wrong with that. Children and adults alike used to laugh at "streakers". I don't recall any reports of children's heads exploding from that. Disorderly conduct laws are enough to keep exhibitionists from overdoing it.
 
Drifter said:
Some people get pleasure out of harmless exhibitionism. I see nothing wrong with that. Children and adults alike used to laugh at "streakers". I don't recall any reports of children's heads exploding from that. Disorderly conduct laws are enough to keep exhibitionists from overdoing it.
Click to expand...

Where the heck did you get idea from? I have never once heard of any child who got any kind of enjoyment from a streaker, or from anyone who willfully exposed themselves to kids for that matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top