Nappies in public

Status
Not open for further replies.

KuroCat

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,728
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur
Wrong to me is raping and killing. Other things as well, but just being an asshole is not one of them. If I could see I would just enjoy the freak show. Long-term it will do no damage to you seeing a guy in a diaper. To say that this guy is not wrong is far from saying that this guy isn't pathetic. He definitely is that. Why you would want to do what he does, I haven't the slightest idea. It would do absolutely nothing for me. But doesn't hurt anyone? No. It doesn't. It's only unpleasant.

Actually, the guy has a child, and he's indirectly harming the child.

As stated by a few people before me, what if he somehow passes this fetish onto his child? Or what if he's teaching his child to express himself too extremely? What happens when his child goes to middle or high school, and people find out who his father is and what his father does? He's teaching his child very awkward world views and values and potentially setting him up for failure and abuse at school, all because he wants attention for his diaper fetish.

However, it wasn't until after people had already told him that what he was doing was morally and socially wrong that we found out he had a kid or was even married. The fact is that he goes into places like McDonalds, which as you may know is a big hotspot for younger generations. He's, in a way, exposing something to children that they do not need exposed to, and I can almost promise that he's made some parents incredibly uncomfortable. Who can blame them for feeling that way? He's exposing children to a diaper fetish that he has, all because he wants attention for the thrill and fun of it. Kids do not need to be exposed to an older man's thighs and partially nude lower body, nor do they need to be exposed to the man's undergarments, and in this case, those undergarments happen to be possibly used diapers.

So now he's exposing other people's children to his acts for the fun of it, and he's setting his own kid up for failure all because he craves attention.

Society is built on the social norm, and this guy is purposely breaking it and saying "well I don't even give a damn, deal with it" all because the guy has a kink and he needs to flaunt it around to the world. People were in that McDonalds before he arrived and your argument is that they should leave? That no one has the right to be offended? I disagree wholeheartedly, people do have the right to be offended when the person offending them is purposely breaking the social norm for attention and the person doesn't even care that he's doing it. They were there first. The social norm was around before he was even born. You can't break the social norm like that, claim you don't care, and then also claim that people do not have the right to be offended because it's your business when you're purposely flaunting your fetish and kinks in front of them. If you don't want someone to get offended and think they don't have a right to do so, then keep your business where it belongs, in a place where it can't be minded (because that seems like a problem apparently): behind closed doors and in the private.

If it isn't in private, then people have a right to be offended.
If you purposely break social norms and rules and clearly state that you don't care, then people have a right to be offended.
If you're exposing your kinks and fetishes to people who don't want to see it, in a place where it does not belong, and possibly around children, then people have a right to be offended.
 

GoldDragonAurkarm

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,260
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
Actually, the guy has a child, and he's indirectly harming the child.

As stated by a few people before me, what if he somehow passes this fetish onto his child? Or what if he's teaching his child to express himself too extremely? What happens when his child goes to middle or high school, and people find out who his father is and what his father does? He's teaching his child very awkward world views and values and potentially setting him up for failure and abuse at school, all because he wants attention for his diaper fetish.
Then call Child Protective Services or whatever the Australian equivalent is.

Honestly, I think you're putting too much weight on the fetish portion. I can easily imagine why, and it seems a reasonable thought on its face. But, I think we as members of the ABDL community overlay our own thoughts onto the general public while ourselves being a bit skewed away from the norm. What I mean is, the average member of the public-a straight mostly-vanilla monogamist who intends to or did get married in a church or other religious forum despite whatever religious predilections he or she may or may not have-will not immediately think "fetishist" when confronted with the image of a diaper-clad person. Freak, weirdo, WTF, those are the conclusions the average member of the public will jump to first.

Now, I think we here would all agree his actions -are- based in fetish, but I don't believe the initial reaction of a random member of the public would be fetish.

I say all that because I think your conclusion that he's harming his child et cetera is potentially hyperbolic.

However, it wasn't until after people had already told him that what he was doing was morally and socially wrong that we found out he had a kid or was even married. The fact is that he goes into places like McDonalds, which as you may know is a big hotspot for younger generations. He's, in a way, exposing something to children that they do not need exposed to, and I can almost promise that he's made some parents incredibly uncomfortable. Who can blame them for feeling that way? He's exposing children to a diaper fetish that he has, all because he wants attention for the thrill and fun of it. Kids do not need to be exposed to an older man's thighs and partially nude lower body, nor do they need to be exposed to the man's undergarments, and in this case, those undergarments happen to be possibly used diapers.
Forgive me for a moment, as I generally try to avoid dragging age into a conversation, and I in no way mean to cause offense. I wonder, though, how you would react to men's shorts of the 1970s and 1980s. The idea that men's shorts are meant to end below the knee is a recent one that's only come around about 15 years ago. I remember when my school district first revised the dress codes for students and required that boys' shorts finished no higher than four inches above the knee. That was around 1990 or 1991. I remember it was later revised to three inches above the knee, and by the time I had graduated high school (2000), it largely didn't matter as men's shorts were finishing around the knee give-or-take. Once upon a time, men's running shorts barely had legs at all, and even normal shorts showed half the thigh.

Again, perhaps it's because you've never seen the old norms, but norms change.

Society is built on the social norm, and this guy is purposely breaking it and saying "well I don't even give a damn, deal with it" all because the guy has a kink and he needs to flaunt it around to the world. People were in that McDonalds before he arrived and your argument is that they should leave? That no one has the right to be offended? I disagree wholeheartedly, people do have the right to be offended when the person offending them is purposely breaking the social norm for attention and the person doesn't even care that he's doing it. They were there first. The social norm was around before he was even born. You can't break the social norm like that, claim you don't care, and then also claim that people do not have the right to be offended because it's your business when you're purposely flaunting your fetish and kinks in front of them. If you don't want someone to get offended and think they don't have a right to do so, then keep your business where it belongs, in a place where it can't be minded (because that seems like a problem apparently): behind closed doors and in the private.

If it isn't in private, then people have a right to be offended.
If you purposely break social norms and rules and clearly state that you don't care, then people have a right to be offended.
If you're exposing your kinks and fetishes to people who don't want to see it, in a place where it does not belong, and possibly around children, then people have a right to be offended.
Of course people have the right to be offended.

People do not have the right to never be offended. If I'm walking down the street, it is entirely possible that I might come upon all manner of offensive thing. I have no right or reasonable expectation of not encountering something offensive. I find it very offensive when street preachers approach me and proselytize and try to sell me their religion, yet I have no right or reasonable expectation of never being approached by a street preacher. I find sagged pants distasteful, but I have no right or reasonable expectation of never seeing anyone wearing sagged pants.
 

KuroCat

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,728
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur
Then call Child Protective Services or whatever the Australian equivalent is.

Honestly, I think you're putting too much weight on the fetish portion. I can easily imagine why, and it seems a reasonable thought on its face. But, I think we as members of the ABDL community overlay our own thoughts onto the general public while ourselves being a bit skewed away from the norm. What I mean is, the average member of the public-a straight mostly-vanilla monogamist who intends to or did get married in a church or other religious forum despite whatever religious predilections he or she may or may not have-will not immediately think "fetishist" when confronted with the image of a diaper-clad person. Freak, weirdo, WTF, those are the conclusions the average member of the public will jump to first.

This doesn't even have anything to do anything. This has nothing to do with religion or, well, anything that you just said. What is even the point of this part? The person WILL however be fairly uncomfortable, especially if they are what you described, and that is still rude and inconsiderate, which is wrong.

Now, I think we here would all agree his actions -are- based in fetish, but I don't believe the initial reaction of a random member of the public would be fetish.

I say all that because I think your conclusion that he's harming his child et cetera is potentially hyperbolic.

Except he is purposely seeking attention by doing this, and there's no its ands or buts about that. It's 100% obvious. He's doing this for attentions and thrills.

How can you say that he is not indirectly hurting his child? When his school finds out who his father is and what his father does, how do you think the child is going to be treated because of that?

Forgive me for a moment, as I generally try to avoid dragging age into a conversation, and I in no way mean to cause offense. I wonder, though, how you would react to men's shorts of the 1970s and 1980s. The idea that men's shorts are meant to end below the knee is a recent one that's only come around about 15 years ago. I remember when my school district first revised the dress codes for students and required that boys' shorts finished no higher than four inches above the knee. That was around 1990 or 1991. I remember it was later revised to three inches above the knee, and by the time I had graduated high school (2000), it largely didn't matter as men's shorts were finishing around the knee give-or-take. Once upon a time, men's running shorts barely had legs at all, and even normal shorts showed half the thigh.

How many times do I have to tell you that the context, location and situation of it matters? How many times must I repeat that same thing? Go read my other posts, PLEASE. And actually read them. I very clearly state various situations in which apparel that show the lower body are appropriate.

People do not have the right to never be offended. If I'm walking down the street, it is entirely possible that I might come upon all manner of offensive thing. I have no right or reasonable expectation of not encountering something offensive. I find it very offensive when street preachers approach me and proselytize and try to sell me their religion, yet I have no right or reasonable expectation of never being approached by a street preacher. I find sagged pants distasteful, but I have no right or reasonable expectation of never seeing anyone wearing sagged pants.

YES, people DO have the right to be offended if a middle aged man is showing their undergarments in a public location around possible children. YES, they have a right to be offended if the person is purposely going out of their way to defile the social norm and flaunt that they are wearing a toilet around their waist. Sagging pants in, say, a formal location is a perfectly viable reason to get upset and offended.
 
Last edited:

koda42

Est. Contributor
Messages
281
Role
  1. Carer
Again, perhaps it's because you've never seen the old norms, but norms change.

Yes, sometimes norms change for good, sometimes not.
If the norm is going to be wearing diapers without pants and using them for their intented purpose. I'm going to say it's notreally for the best.

Lots of time has freedom been said in the way that OP should be able to act as freely as he wants. In France, we're quite fond of the declaration of the Rights of Man and the citizen and, in it, there is this :
"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights"
Funny, to see that in french, the used word is not "injures", it's "nuire", you seem to have no equivalent in english except for harm/damage, but it comes from the word "nuisance" which means being a bother.

And, according to MY opinion, seeing a grown-up man in just a (potentially used) diaper is kinda a big bother to me.

In the western world, we don't care about someone's thighs.
In fact, in France, some local authorities, mostly during the summer, created a decree that forbid to wear swimwear in urban area (cities, downtown, in shops, etc.) and you have to pay a fine of 38€ or worse if it's considered shocking (like visible genitals). This decree falls under the "respect of human dignity, decency, morality and protection of the youth".
 

GoldDragonAurkarm

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,260
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
This doesn't even have anything to do anything. This has nothing to do with religion or, well, anything that you just said. What is even the point of this part? The person WILL however be fairly uncomfortable, especially if they are what you described, and that is still rude and inconsiderate, which is wrong.

Except he is purposely seeking attention by doing this, and there's no its ands or buts about that. It's 100% obvious. He's doing this for attentions and thrills.

How can you say that he is not indirectly hurting his child? When his school finds out who his father is and what his father does, how do you think the child is going to be treated because of that?
You missed the point. You were going on about the OP teaching his kid the fetish and expressing himself extremely, conclusions that I think are a bit hyperbolic. I offered a take on the average person to support my statement that I think ABDLs focus much more on fetishes than most people and then presume everyone else focuses on fetishes as much as we do.

How many times do I have to tell you that the context, location and situation of it matters? How many times must I repeat that same thing? Go read my other posts, PLEASE. And actually read them. I very clearly state various situations in which apparel that show the lower body are appropriate.
When you stop going on about someone's thighs showing, I'll stop going after you for it. You're trying to introduce some sort of subtext into a situation where it doesn't exist and isn't needed. You seem to be fixated on the fact that his thighs were showing. You've mentioned his thighs in several posts now. Outside of Saudi Arabia, I think you are the one person out there so offended by someone's thighs. They're thighs. They're about as remarkable as upper arms. There is nothing inherently offensive, sexual, or apparently interesting about them. There is no context or situational dependence here in the western world regarding thighs. They are wholly unremarkable except for those that marvel at the biomechanical workings of the human body.

I specifically mentioned changing norms regarding the length of men's shorts because you've fixated on the fact that his thighs were showing in a family restaurant, yet not so long ago thighs showing in public places was the norm. Hell, women's thighs showing in public places is not only still the norm, but women's shorts have actually gotten shorter over the past 15 years.

YES, people DO have the right to be offended if a middle aged man is showing their undergarments in a public location around possible children. YES, they have a right to be offended if the person is purposely going out of their way to defile the social norm and flaunt that they are wearing a toilet around their waist. Sagging pants in, say, a formal location is a perfectly viable reason to get upset and offended.
Why are you arguing with me on this point when we agree? Of course people have the right to be offended. I do not know how I can state that any more clearly than I already have. If I omit any more words from the statement, "People have the right to be offended," I begin to butcher the language. There is no more fat to cut; that sentence is as simple as I am capable of making it.

What I also said is that people do not have a right to never be offended, a statement I followed with explanation by way of analogy. Since I apparently was not sufficiently clear in my explanation, let me try again.

We've agreed that people have the right to be offended. This means that if a person sees something disagreeable, they can rightfully take offense.

The opposite of that would be if people did not have the right to be offended. That would mean that one would have to just lump it when they encountered something offensive. This is, if not impossible, impracticable. If someone walked up to me and called me a bunch of nasty things, I might be offended. It's an emotional reaction and therefore is, to a certain degree, uncontrollable. How I acted upon that emotional reaction would be entirely within my control, but the reaction itself is much less so.

Now that we've established that people have the right to be offended and that it is an emotional reaction, we can move on.

A right to never be offended would involve having an existence entirely free of things that you find offensive. For this right to be respected, no one could ever say anything that would offend you. No one could ever wear anything that would offend you. No one could ever take any action that would offend you. No one could ever have or produce an odor that offended you. No one could express a political stance that offended you.

And what offends you does not necessarily offend the next person. Obviously sagged pants do not bother those that wear sagged pants, or they wouldn't do it. Some people find the idea of gun control offensive, others think the lack of gun control offensive. KKK members find the idea that African-Americans are equal to whites offensive, while pretty much the entire rest of society finds the KKK offensive. Of course, those are all just examples.

It is impossible to never be offended. Hence, no one has the right to be or reasonable expectation of never being offended.

If we were to try to afford a right to never be offended, by way of the legal system, whose standard for offense would we use? Gay people find it offensive that we are not allowed to marry our partners, while religious conservatives find gay people's existence offensive. For a long long time our legal system has made sure religious conservatives were not offended by gay marriages, but gay people like me have been continually offended. Obviously I don't have a right to never be offended. We as a society have allowed the KKK to express their messages that many people find offensive, so most members of society obviously have no right to never be offended.

Again, whose standards do we use if we try to eliminate all sources of offense?
 

KuroCat

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,728
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur
When you stop going on about someone's thighs showing, I'll stop going after you for it.

How on Earth is it possible for you to continue to miss the point so vastly? How? HOW? It is not about the thighs! I have said this a thousand million billion times!

You're trying to introduce some sort of subtext into a situation where it doesn't exist and isn't needed. You seem to be fixated on the fact that his thighs were showing.

Stop replying to me until you actually read my posts. Do me a big favor. Read Luca's post, it explains everything I said and much nicer than I've said it. He didn't type all of that out there for people to ignore. It is the perfect comment to this thread. I'm really just tired of having to repeat myself over and over.

You've mentioned his thighs in several posts now. Outside of Saudi Arabia, I think you are the one person out there so offended by someone's thighs. They're thighs. They're about as remarkable as upper arms. There is nothing inherently offensive, sexual, or apparently interesting about them. There is no context or situational dependence here in the western world regarding thighs. They are wholly unremarkable except for those that marvel at the biomechanical workings of the human body.

You're so wrong on this one that I can't even think up a suitable reply to tell you how far off you are.

I specifically mentioned changing norms regarding the length of men's shorts because you've fixated on the fact that his thighs were showing in a family restaurant, yet not so long ago thighs showing in public places was the norm. Hell, women's thighs showing in public places is not only still the norm, but women's shorts have actually gotten shorter over the past 15 years.

And I specifically mentioned that the context, situation and location all matter. Read that fucking post. This is about diapers in a McDonalds, showing visibly without pants, on a grown, middle-aged man. Speedos on a beach setting make sense and is appropriate. Speedos at a McDonalds, when no beach is around, is not. 60's and 70's close in, hey, the 60's and 70's make sense, and is perfectly okay. Times have changed since then, as have social norms, as have people's comfort level to certain things.


Why are you arguing with me on this point when we agree? Of course people have the right to be offended. I do not know how I can state that any more clearly than I already have. If I omit any more words from the statement, "People have the right to be offended," I begin to butcher the language. There is no more fat to cut; that sentence is as simple as I am capable of making it.

Yep, you're right, my apologies. I misread.
 

GoldDragonAurkarm

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,260
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
How on Earth is it possible for you to continue to miss the point so vastly? How? HOW? It is not about the thighs! I have said this a thousand million billion times!
You brought them up. You were disgusted by their being exposed. Obviously there is something about thighs for you or you wouldn't have railed against his thighs being exposed. I realize you mentioned that the edge of the diaper was near his junk and that there was only a bit of plastic between his junk and the outside world. But, since you acknowledge that he was covered, the fact that you also in the same freakout went on about his thigh being exposed, it became curious.

Stop replying to me until you actually read my posts. Do me a big favor. Read Luca's post, it explains everything I said and much nicer than I've said it. He didn't type all of that out there for people to ignore. It is the perfect comment to this thread. I'm really just tired of having to repeat myself over and over.

Yep, you're right, my apologies. I misread.
Since it took several tries of saying the same thing to get you to the point where you recognized it, I think I should ask you to take your own advice.

You're so wrong on this one that I can't even think up a suitable reply to tell you how far off you are.
So which part of that was so far off that you cannot come up with a reply? Is it the part about you being offended by thighs? Is it the part about thighs being inoffensive? Or, do you mean to suggest that thighs are in fact as sexual as genitalia and thus warrant the same legal response (i.e. they must be covered in public)?

If it's about you not in fact being offended by thighs, perhaps you should stop going on about the fact that the OP's were visible in a McDonald's. If it's about you finding exposed thighs offensive, well, I don't know how to help you. Perhaps you can explain why thighs are so offensive? Oh, wait, "it's not about the thighs," even though you mentioned them several times, we've all established that the OP's junk was in no way visible, and we established in the thread with the poll that the OP's actions did not fall into a recognized definition in indecent exposure. If you think thighs are as sexual as genitalia, well, I'm sure we can come up with a name for that if anyone else ever agrees.

And I specifically mentioned that the context, situation and location all matter. Read that fucking post. This is about diapers in a McDonalds, showing visibly without pants, on a grown, middle-aged man. Speedos on a beach setting make sense and is appropriate. Speedos at a McDonalds, when no beach is around, is not. 60's and 70's close in, hey, the 60's and 70's make sense, and is perfectly okay. Times have changed since then, as have social norms, as have people's comfort level to certain things.
I read his post. He goes on about wearing a suit to a wedding instead of exposed diapers and how that's somehow a double standard. It's a ridiculous point, since we're not talking about weddings here. I addressed it earlier, and I'll add to it that weddings, court, funerals, job interviews, and other sorts of defined situations have widely recognized dress codes that, for most people, are effectively costumes or affectations because they do not reflect ordinary situations or ordinary behavior. You yourself, in bold, pointed out that we're talking about exposed diapers in a McDonald's. You're trying to appeal to some situational context, but I've never heard of any dress code for patronizing McDonald's (aside from No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service). All manner of people can go to McDonald's in all manner of dress and do so all the time. A businessperson in a suit and tie, a working-class slob in stained cargo shorts and a muscle shirt, kids in sweaty sports uniforms that just finished a game; these people are all welcome at McDonald's at any time. They need no invitation, and they need not conform to a specific dress code to attend. Once they are there, McDonald's does not become a private setting, and new random people can also show up for Big Macs attired as they care to be.

Conversely, random members of the public cannot simply enter a courtroom at any time. Even if they are there as members of the gallery for a proceeding, they can face penalties for inappropriate dress or otherwise disrespecting the court. Random members of the public are not invited to weddings, and wearing inappropriate attire is a direct insult to those getting married. Wearing an exposed diaper or a diaper with jeans and a t-shirt over it or even just jeans and a t-shirt are all insulting to those for whom the event is being held and those hosting the event. Random members of the public cannot simply enter a company and start working. One has to be invited to work for the company, and once invited one must dress according to the company's policy or face disciplinary action.

Wal-Mart is similarly situated to McDonald's, in that it is a public place that does not require any invitation or dress code (beyond No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service) to shop there. Anyone can shop there anytime during business hours attired however they like. There is a reason that People of Walmart exists.
 

KuroCat

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,728
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur

Wow. Just wow.

I hate to do this, and I would love to do nothing more than to take your argument, bake it into a neat cake, and write the point I keep making a million times over and smack you with it until you understand, but I'm just going to call it quits. This is ridiculous. This is like trying to talk common sense into a lunatic. It's like trying to tell a wasp that irrationally stinging people is wrong. I can't do this. You have missed literally every single point I have made this entire thread.

The first few posts, you compared my disgust at a grown man wearing diapers in a public place, visibly, to blaming a rape victim for their clothes. All you tried to do was shock value, and when I called you out on that bullshit, you finally stopped. I'm glad you stopped replying to those first posts, because it tells me a whole lot about the entirety of the argument. Lo and behold, you didn't stop for long. Now you're back with a new gimmick: missing the point of literally every thing I have said this entire time and misreading (or refusing to read) the entirety of my posts. I should have just stopped replying to you after the rape victim comparison. I should have known the road arguing with you would take me.

This is absurd. This is completely ridiculous. I can't fathom how you've done it, and I can't even come up with a suitable reply to you anymore because, christ, there just is none. I'm done. I'm done with the thread.

Reply to someone else. There are more than enough people for you to reply to in here, find one of them to try and do.. whatever the hell it is you're doing. Maybe they can talk to you in a way that I couldn't, in which you'll understand their points.
 

GoldDragonAurkarm

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,260
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
Wow. Just wow.

I hate to do this, and I would love to do nothing more than to take your argument, bake it into a neat cake, and write the point I keep making a million times over and smack you with it until you understand, but I'm just going to call it quits. This is ridiculous. This is like trying to talk common sense into a lunatic. It's like trying to tell a wasp that irrationally stinging people is wrong. I can't do this. You have missed literally every single point I have made this entire thread.

The first few posts, you compared my disgust at a grown man wearing diapers in a public place, visibly, to blaming a rape victim for their clothes. All you tried to do was shock value, and when I called you out on that bullshit, you finally stopped. I'm glad you stopped replying to those first posts, because it tells me a whole lot about the entirety of the argument. Lo and behold, you didn't stop for long. Now you're back with a new gimmick: missing the point of literally every thing I have said this entire time and misreading (or refusing to read) the entirety of my posts. I should have just stopped replying to you after the rape victim comparison. I should have known the road arguing with you would take me.

This is absurd. This is completely ridiculous. I can't fathom how you've done it, and I can't even come up with a suitable reply to you anymore because, christ, there just is none. I'm done. I'm done with the thread.
I've read every word you've written, and I've especially noticed the ones you haven't. I've tried to get you to explain why you feel wearing exposed diapers in public is so offensive that it should be prohibited, and you've dodged over and over. I've tried to get you to explain what standard we should use for making societal/legal choices regarding clothing and the correct level of exposure, and you've refused. All you've done is say over and over that I don't get it, while in the meantime it took me three posts to make you understand that we agreed on various points. As I continue to try getting you to answer questions, you throw up your hands. Since you're one of the few in this thread that has stated that there should be some sort of active prohibition, I figured sure you'd love an opportunity to explain it.

I mean, if the reasoning behind your desire for prohibition of exposed diapers in public does not extend beyond "I think it's offensive," then just say so. If you have a structured and consistent reasoning and a proposal as to what such a prohibition should look like, how it's structured, under what circumstances it would apply, to what garments it would apply, and the like, then come on, out with it!

And if you're not feeling game anymore, well, thanks for playing, anyway. It's been fun, and you've helped me kill what would have otherwise been a rather boring afternoon.
 

Nothingnobodynothing

Est. Contributor
Messages
221
Role
  1. Adult Baby
I actually have a few times! To classes, hanging out with friends, etc. just store-bought pull-ups though. I have a black onesie I use as an undershirt to cover it up just in case my shirt rides up! It's honestly not bad, or even that exhilarating, I find that I end up forgetting about it after an hour or so. I haven't worn out in public in a while, though! I'd say go for it if you're interested, no one really pays attention.
 

EPO1

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,522
Role
  1. Incontinent
  2. Other
I actually have a few times! To classes, hanging out with friends, etc. just store-bought pull-ups though. I have a black onesie I use as an undershirt to cover it up just in case my shirt rides up! It's honestly not bad, or even that exhilarating, I find that I end up forgetting about it after an hour or so. I haven't worn out in public in a while, though! I'd say go for it if you're interested, no one really pays attention.

BabyKayla - the thread wasn't about wearing diapers in public UNDER your clothes - but actually nothing BUT DIAPERS. (so everyone sees your diapers...)

Which I (and a lot of others here) deme to be something rather despicable to do in public.
 
Last edited:

babyboyuk

Est. Contributor
Messages
117
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
Ok finally ive cought up with the thread.
Now, I live in a sea side town, the most easterly point in Britain in fact, and our mcds is situated in the town centre perhaps a 4/5 min walk from the beach. We get all sorts here and nothing exists about no shoes shirt, no service. If that existed mcds would have no custom in the summer. And yes I have seen a guy in just a nappy enjoying his chicken sandwich meal, didnt stare long enough nor look to see if it had been used but the reaction was the same as it is on here. Myself, I was not offended but it sure is something I wouldn't do. The 2 times I wore in public I was fully clothed with the longest coat I have, once to town and the other to grab a pizza from Domino's.
I get the idea behind the 'thighs' thing, but what next? Cant show the upper leg due to its proximity to the thighs?
Sorry just had to say it :) it was funny reading that bit.
 

KuroCat

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,728
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur
I get the idea behind the 'thighs' thing, but what next? Cant show the upper leg due to its proximity to the thighs?
Sorry just had to say it :) it was funny reading that bit.

I know it sounds funny, but the point is that the thighs are the area around your hip and close to your groin. People seem to have this idea that I mean right above the knee, when I mean what some people apparently refer to as the upper-thighs. Reading now, I can understand that people have a different idea for exactly what area that covers, which I should have clarified a long time ago. To me, thighs start at where the pockets of pants are, which is an uncomfortable area for the public to be forced to see, especially where children may be.

I can understand the confusion, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't also include the area around the hips when they read "thighs." I figured it was obvious, but I guess not. I should have clarified.
 

JazzBaby

Just Another Diapered Brony
Est. Contributor
Messages
786
Age
29
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
  5. Sissy
  6. Little
Going out in a diaper under clothes I have done, but going out in only a diaper... No and I never will because I care what others think about me. It is disrespectful.
 
Last edited:

EPO1

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,522
Role
  1. Incontinent
  2. Other
Anyone else notice that Pilchers has abandoned this thread?

well probably hiding somewhere in a dark corner and being angry that he didn't find the appreciation for his actions here.
 

Coyote_Howl

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,119
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Carer
well probably hiding somewhere in a dark corner and being angry that he didn't find the appreciation for his actions here.

That or found another site that thinks doing such is awesome.
 

ClandestineWing

Gomamon Supreme(ly diapered)
Est. Contributor
Messages
1,385
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
Anyone else notice that Pilchers has abandoned this thread?

Probably for the better. I'm not really a proponent of driving people away, but some people just can't be reasoned with.
 

giantguy99

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,275
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Sissy
  4. Incontinent
  5. Carer
Well i'm going to say that yes I do wear in public but always under clothes. It did occur to me to try to mow my lawn in my own backyard with just a diaper and T-shirt on and just ignore the neighbors though. I think I might try that this summer.
 

playaplayful

Est. Contributor
Messages
32
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Little
do you mean wearing in plain sight? If so, no not at all. Nor do I agree with that. I believe as adults we still have to respect other people when out in society and cannot do things like that the same as actual babies can. It isn't illegal, but I believe it is disrespectful to people who may not want to be a part of it.

I do wear in public often, but under my clothes and very very well hidden under them. A fellow DL would probably be able to tell (as I can usually tell with other people) but the general public wouldn't know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top