Diaper love pics on hard drive, is it against the law?

Just like in the news that alot of people have been arrested for having a ton of pornography pics on their hard drive, could a person be arrested for having tons of diaperlover pics on their hard drive? These days you can't get away with anything,considering everyone's internet usage and surfing hobbies are being monitored by everyone.

You'd need a lawyer in any specific country to find out for sure. Preferably not after you have already been talking to persons in uniforms!

In most western countries, having pornography/erotica of adults on your own computer is your own business, regardless of what they are wearing.

Photos of kids? You are a criminal, and frankly, disgusting.

Photos of someone who you think is probably over 18? See above para. Esp if age of majority is 21 where you live.

(I was involved in a running fight with persons on another board who asserted that collecting and looking at pictures of kids in diapers was totally cool. In their view, it was cool because they were dressed, not naked. I hold the view that looking at pictures of kids, clothed or whatever, for a sexual thrill is pedophilia.)

Photos on an employer owned computer? The employers business, and you are likely in deep shit if caught.

DL photos by their nature tend to set the authoritarian and religious types to wondering if what you are really interested in is kids. Would I cross an international border with a laptop loaded with DL photos? Nope. Who needs to carry out a real time experiment on the attitudes of the authorities at that border crossing on that day? And the fine points of the law of the country you are entering?

It's all basically common sense, in my opinion.

Now the next question - Does animation pics are illegal as there are many that depict child-like adults being depicted in childish fashion. Could that be considered as "kiddie-porn"

:😃 Good question. That would more than likely depend on who the prosicuter was. I think if you have to wonder if it is, then someone could twist it to be. If it's picks of children, dressed or not, you are in trouble and in my mind discusting. Getting off on picks of children is not only against the law it's repulsive to most people. Only my opinion but, me enjoying diapers and sucking a passi is a whole lot different than someone getting off on pictures of children or, God forbid getting off on the real thing. If that's your thing then you should see a shrink cause you got a real problem. Sorry don't mean to offend but that's the way I feel and that's the way most people would. :😃 Sorry I'll get off my high horse now.

Prosection arguement: So, you are into diaper? And into seeing adults in diapers, then you must be into little kids.

Anyone else see a flaw with that? if not check this one out.

Counter arguement: Let me ask you this, Are you into Adults in swimwear, underwear, lingerie, or naked? Yes?, Well then are you into looking a little kids in swimwear, underwear lingerie or naked as well?

Prosecuter responce: They arent the same thing

Counter responce: Neither is being an abdl.

Never heard of anyone being charged for having 'too much porn' on their computer....

Heard of all kinds of people getting nailed for child porn, illegal distribution of porn, ect...

As long as you dont have any 'illegal diaper pictures (under age pics is your biggest concern!), your gravy

Heard of all kinds of people getting nailed for child porn, illegal distribution of porn, ect.

I can only theorise this however my belief is that the alleged offender may be charged with containing kiddie porn when in fact it may be ABDL photos.

At this point the media then sensationalise the issue by publishing it as kiddie porn (they are simply reflecting what the police publicly claimed) and when tested in court it is then thrown out.

From this point the media is totally quiet hoping that this blows over but the alleged offender is left damaged beyond repair after the public already knows him.

[quote author=concrete]

I can only theorise this however my belief is that the alleged offender may be charged with containing kiddie porn when in fact it may be ABDL photos.[/quote]

I pay attention to what the press says the issue is in criminal cases. I have little faith in the press's ability to report accurately, but I track it anyway. I have seen many reports of legal action over actual child pornography, but have never seen anything to do with legal hassles over adult AB/DL pictures.

Have you heard anything specific about harassment of AB/DL persons such as you describe? Or is your post solely based on theory, as you suggest?

I doubt DL is a crime of any sorts.

Whoa there Tomb43,

Please note that I was simply speaking my thoughts. :'(

There was one article I remembered approximately a year ago (I won't provide source) where a man was charged with "kiddie porn" and had a fixation with nappies. The court proceedings went through and according to another article by the same media outlet that the man was given a suspended sentence (was convicted and given a jail time but judge decided not to).

Now no law where I reside will give an offender a suspended sentence for kiddie porn. My belief that the offender was charged with something else and given a suspended sentence as a misnomer however the kiddie porn was thrown out. My question would be their definition of kiddie porn as that is open to interpretation.

My belief is that the newspaper outlet didn't have a problem in stepping up the wording in order to sensationalise to obtain more readers. This also confirms the belief that the misconception with mainstream people is that they tend to link ABDL with paedophilia.

Remember Jerry Springer? The whole episode ridiculed an AB for his beliefs (private beliefs) where the final 3-minutes of the show provided the balance like spitting at a burning house to bring down the fires.

No offense meant - previous post was not trying to get your goat.

Thanks for the info. I see what you mean.

I have to agree with the "it depends" view.

The "black letter" US law allows almost anything if the subject is actually over 18.

That being said 15 year old boy in Phoenix was prosecuted last year because he took a copy of Playboy to school to show his friends!

THe actual charges were "child porn posession" and "sexual abuse of a minor" (his friends who saw the magazine)

The prosecutor is a friend of mine and she quit over that and several similar abuses.

Sadly the county attorney who was responsible got re-elected last November as was our infamous "Sheriff Joe" :-(

In this case the judge had the sense to throw the whole thing out - he felt that 20 years in jail was simply absurd for this "crime"! His actual comment was wondering why it even went beyond a detention.

Bottom line is that there are influential people out there who will happily prosecute anyone they can for having anything that THEY consider porn!

This is called "being tough on crime".

Very true Karen Palen?? I guess that was what I was trying to say in my weird way. It depends on who is saying it's porn or kiddie porn. Some people can twist anything into being illegal if they put the right spin on it. Lawers are good at that. That is what they get payed to do. 😁

The square community would love to make everything illegal. If the subjects are obviously adults, the (american) thought police just think its weird.

But i thought that if the diapers that it cover up the female/ male genitals and show that it would not be considered child pornautograph

It would probably depend on the content of those pictures. Basically, what is taking place in those diaper files. Also, if the person in the pictures is of age would be a factor as well. As with everything in life, do it in moderation and you should be fine.