Posted by Zorro on July 04, 2007 at 17:41 [209.74.60.221]
In Reply to: I'd think about this one. posted by Outrider on July 04, 2007 at 09:25
Outrider,
The subject of this posting is of something that you see. I may not have made that clear in the title. If I were to lengthen the title, it would read:
"A Breath-Taking Sight, yet a basic sight."
It's something I'm seeing, something I'm looking at. The point of this posting is not to weight the differences of importance between a BabyGirl and What She's Wearing/How She's Acting.
I'm remarking about how adorable she looks in a diaper, how being in that diaper may make her feel, and how much I love the sight of a diaper on a girl.
It's a very simple, sweet idea. She's a wonderful sight to behold. It doesn't mean that I place value over her appearance as opposed to her. Perhaps if this were the only posting I ever made on this message board. Perhaps if I posted once and was never heard from again, then maybe, just maybe, it might make sense to say that I am fixated on the objects and not on the girl.
This is the 11th or 12th posting I've put on this message board. In past messages, I've put up lengthy paragraphs about the relationship and bond that is formed between two AB-minded people as well as what the baby and caregiver get from the experience and give to the other from the experiences.
How dare you make the implication that when a girl lays on a changing table in front of me, I use that moment to "GET MY ROCKS OFF"!!!! That's insulting!! Where in this posting ... this posting about how cute I think a girl looks in a disposable diaper ... do you find any evidence to support the statement that a girl's diaper change "GETS MY ROCKS OFF"?!?!?!?
And are you also implying that I have some sort of issues with self-absortion because I think a girl's behind looks cute in a diaper?
How does finding the sight of a diapered girl make me more self-important than the girl who's diaper I'm changing and whom I'm taking care of?
Outrider, I am an extremely patient and understanding individual. I am very open to hearing opposing opinions to my own. If you want further clarification on what I meant in this posting, I'd be glad to have a feature-length conversation with you about it, BUT ...
DON'T YOU EVER DERIVE MEANINGS FROM WHAT I POST THAT MAKE ME SOUND LIKE MY INTEREST IN INFANTILISM IS SEXUAL, SELFISH, OR INDECENT!!!!!
And don't you find it rather interesting, Outrider, that a girl posted a reply to this message, and her message basically said "Yep. I know what you mean. I love the way a diaper feels, and the way it makes me feel"?
I will defend my honor, my writings, and my ethics at all times.
I don't care how troubled you made yourself by inserting your own meanings into my work ... so much so to the point that you were "really,really struggling with this one." You crossed a line you should not have.
And to respond to your subject heading, No ... I will not be "thinking about this one". I all ready have thought about it. I'm the one who wrote it!!! I understand it perfectly, and so does the girl who replied to it!!
(Though I'm having a little trouble doing it right now), I'll respect your replies to my postings, so long as you are capable of posting respectful replies.
Don't you ever cross this line again.
Zorro
Email: zorroabdaddy@yahoo.com
Home Page : Zorro's Lair