Nappy wearing Father / access to his children

[Cockblockingcowboy]

Apologies for the DM link but as we know they seem to have no problem showing the sunshine on some of these issues

Father banned from seeing his kids over his fetish for wearing nappies

And this is what happens when "kink shaming" is banned. What kind of normal parent would even think this behaviour is ok around children?

Good on the mother for taking legal action and I hope the Courts maintain it for the sake of their children

Not really no. Each person in the world has their own way to deal with stress/hardships of the daily life (be it adults or kids). If one goes to a spa/beauty salon then they do that, if one likes to go to a park to take a breather them they do just that, if one likes to lie down in bed/sofa and listen to a genre of music then they do that.

But when someone wants to wear a diaper and play like a child for a bit of time to destress they suddenly should see a therapist? Could you explain to me exactly why this is different from all the other ones mentioned above? Is it because society sees it as abnormal? Or is it because you don't like men/women doing this as a reason?

What is seen as normal in society these days has changed drastically over the years but sadly a lot of people have not been adjusting to this fact. This is for a lot of people a normal thing now. Sadly seeing ONE out of millions doing something that get's the media's attention suddenly makes the entire community look bad.

The same could be said about suicide bomber years ago. A few destroy building and kill people, and suddenly every single one is looked at with disgust. And then I ask you: what is tue difference?

@Spadon tee hee hee, you joker. You really had me for a second, I thought you were genuinely defending the honour of the adult baby community there.

Society sees it as abnormal?

Ffs if your kid is still In daytime nappies by age 4 you take them to the dr not embrace it as a lifestyle.

Its not dealing with it is it . Not if if escalates to thr point you do it all the tome and you cant see your kids as a result if fetishistic inappropriate behaviour.

I actually am though, don't think one jokes because of something so serieus at this one. Am I member, no but I do know a lot about these kinds of things.

I personally am a gamer, and hate it when my hobby gets put to shake because of ONE singular person doing something wrong or people telling " they cause violance" as we are all aware that it does apparently.

I do research on a lot of different topics, I like to know more about the world and who inhabits it. That is why I know a few things about this subject as well. Then why should I not he protecting a community that has been getting a bad rep for so long?

Yes this. A kink is something that no one else should know about; it should be kept to the bedroom.

He is confused in thinking that it is 'shaming'.

@Spadon There's a hell of a difference between playing (doing a jigsaw, playing a board game, non competitive sport for fun...) and a nappy fetish. The former is perfectly fine and adults have played in many forms for centuries. Chess, card games, paper games, adult colouring books, adults who collect and enjoy Lego... Although there are some people who find some pursuits a bit cringe, that applies to everything. These things are generally completely accepted and not stigmatised. There's plenty of room for play as an adult.

Literally none of that means forcing unwilling people to participate in a fetish is ever okay, or that a fetish should be characterised as normal. Between consenting adults in private, well, I guess that's up to them.

But a fetish is a fetish.

The same could be said about suicide bomber years ago. A few destroy building and kill people, and suddenly every single one is looked at with disgust. And then I ask you: what is tue difference?
I've been here for a very long time but this @Spadon has to be the maddest thing I've read. Are you equating adult nappy fetishists with suicide bombers as a misunderstood group we should learn to live with?

I mean, it's like if R v Brown was to happen now, and the defence was not:

"these are sexual activities taking place in private between consenting adults in which the state has no proper place interfering"

But:

"the state must create and defend a right for me to indulge in my fetish when and where I like, and others must let that happen, regardless of whether I am overriding their consent - or in the case of children, whether I am refusing to understand that children cannot consent to seeing sexual activity"

So odd how people are resistant to this.

But when someone wants to wear a diaper and play like a child for a bit of time to destress they suddenly should see a therapist?

Yes, HTH.

I've actually cone to believe that so much if this shit is so deliberately outrageous that when someone agrees to stop it then previously strange unacceptable behaviour won't appear so bad. So effectively should this man agree ro stop wearing nappies altogether the mother would be thrilled if she merely had to just deal with him being unreliable or useless in feeding them or something.

Good point. Very good point.

I wonder how long before this boundary is broken down too? Given the size of the contingent pushing for the erosion of all boundaries, and their helpful connections.

Lets hope the Australian High Court stands firm on this.

It's great when someone comes along and basically proves the points we are trying to make, in the mistaken belief they are putting us to shame. Your posts @Spadon nicely demonstrate the unpleasant arrogance of claiming men get to enforce their fetishes on women and children because they want to and they are more important than anyone else.

Your posts have probably demonstrated the absurdity and wrongness of this situation, to lurkers/readers, just as much as MNers articulate and well explained/reasoned posts. Thank you.

(Poor old disgusted has a contender for this job now!)

(I'm not including my own posts in the "MNers well reasoned posts" btw as I'm very tired today and struggling to phrase things well!)

No it was a comparison that went to an extreme but got my point across. What I mean is that when one does a thing that is bad suddenly everyone that is even a bit related gets thrown in the same bin (especially where I live...). Now suddenly one guy gets in the news and boom, everyone in the community gets talked bad about...

People should at least learn about certain groups amd communities before throwing them under the bus.

How so? You do know that approximately half of the abdl community is female right? But here we are deciding that they are all male just because of one specific article which perfectly demonstrated my point as well.

@Spadon "People should at least learn about certain groups amd communities before throwing them under the bus."

Have you forgotten a word in a previous post? Are you genuinely encouraging us to have sympathy for the suicide bomber community?

As I said No, but we should for the people from the same origin who did nothing wrong and have been negatively impacted by the bombers. Which has been the case since the first time a bombing took place. You should at least have know that.

Ah no, you phrased it perfectly well!

Spadon and Disgusted are like walking little sunlight generators. Far more inadvertently powerful than they realise, in a breathtakingly tragi-comic way.

No it was a comparison that went to an extreme but got my point across

It really didn't

No one has banned you

He does not even wesr them for sexual reasons

Sure. 🙄

Which bit of suicide bombing shouldn't be 'put in the bin' then?

Also 'boom' in the context of suicide bombing isn't really appropriate. Or was that 'humour'?

Either Spadon is a PBP who’s actually been banned, and re-regged under the name Spadonstrikesback, or Spadon is just carefully curating a narrative that this is what has happened, to further their victim status.

Spadon speaks a phenomenal amount of shite, at any rate. Anyone who can make DoM look almost reasonable by comparison is truly in a league of their own.

ONCE is enough.
He doesnt need them medically.
If thats the case then he doesnt need to wear them around his kids.
If he doesnt understand that, because of its association with fetish, whether or not he is using it for a fetishistic reason - and the judges seemed pretty obvious that it was - then he has serious failings in regarding to safeguarding, and THATS the reason he cant see the kids. because why wait until he does something more, if he cant even understand this basic principle.
There are plenty other choices for him - even assuming your defence of him as using it as a 'relaxation' is genuine - there are many MANY other relaxing things he could have chosen to do if he was feeling stressed.