Others in diapers

Owls

Est. Contributor
Messages
43
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Sissy
  4. Little
Ok so super random question. Is watching other people "girls" pee/poo in diapers (no nudity) considered porn? No self stim involved. My buddy and I are have an ongoing debate on this one. Curious on others opinions.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: NappiedTruckDriver
“Depends” on whether you ask a Democrat or a Republican.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: littledub1955 and Zeke
I would say just wetting or messing diapers isn't considered porn. I think the porn line is crossed when it involves diaper masterbation and diaper sex.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: littledub1955, Edgewater and Jed51
I wouldn't say it was porn because like @Nowididit said it kind of doesn't fit the explicit behaviors related to porn. That being said regardless of your debate this form of people watching still feels like it crosses a line that shouldn't be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: littledub1955 and NappiedTruckDriver
I only see one porn definition that includes obscene which this could be considered as. Some stretch the meaning to suggest anything that is
designed to get a rise or reaction out of people. If the watcher is using the image to "get off", I suppose it would be considered pornographic from the watchers point of view.
 
If it's something intended to cause sexual arousal, then it's probably porn.

That said, I don't really understand getting hung up on definitions. Whatever you decide to call the thing doesn't change the nature of the thing. Just do whatever you enjoy doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NabePup
I think it depends on the viewers perspective on the video/image in question, If you find it arousing or if it was made with the intention of being arousing then it's porn.

Vice versa if it's not intended to arouse or it doesn't have that effect on you then you may consider it something else, The flip side of this though is why would anyone video or take pictures of themselves using a diaper and then pass those on to other people if not for intentional arousal.
 
Back to the SCOTUS definition of porn..."you know it when you see it" !
 
  • Like
Reactions: littledub1955
I don't know. Dictionary definitions seem to disagree on this one.

The Cambridge definiton, for example, seems to say it is only porn if it is both sexual and has no artistic value:

 
Hard to say, it's certainly a somewhat grey area for sure. I'd say context is ultimately the deciding factor, just my opinion.

If someone is aroused by and watching those sort of videos with the intent of getting sexual stimulation/gratification from them, I'm not saying that makes them porn necessarily, but they're at least being used as porn.
 
NabePup said:
Hard to say, it's certainly a somewhat grey area for sure. I'd say context is ultimately the deciding factor, just my opinion.

If someone is aroused by and watching those sort of videos with the intent of getting sexual stimulation/gratification from them, I'm not saying that makes them porn necessarily, but they're at least being used as porn.
Personally, I think porn has graphic depictions of sex in a way that is not primarily intended to be art, although it may be artistic in some ways.

Would non-graphic views of sex and/or fetishes be more like erotica? I don't know. I have difficulty assigning the label "porn" to something that does not show genitalia. Fetish content, certainly but maybe not porn. Or maybe soft-core?
 
Back
Top