Posted by Lloyd on December 21, 1998 at 15:03
In Reply to: Re: Wetting Fascination posted by dejay on December 21, 1998 at 09:14
Well, I have to agree with you, dejay. I can see how people relate wetting with infantile, or uncontrolled behaviour, but this has nothing to do with what we see in wetting. It is for this reason that WetSet categorically denies that there is any connection with children or babies - there isn't, at least not where we are concerned. For us, a woman wetting her pants is an adult act, sometimes unfortunate, as in the case of a true accident, but even these times are generally (notice I said 'generally') avoidable, if the woman wishes to take appropriate precautions and recognise the limitations of her body; so this accounts for the majority of accidents, but there are also many cases of women simply holding it for the pleasure of the pressure, risk of wetting, and eventual loss of control, all avoidable in truth, but for the actual wish to run the risk of catastrophe.
For me, however, and I know for quite a number of others on this board and elsewhere, the real thrill of wetting is the deliberate wanton act of peeing, quite unnecessarily, while still wearing pants, knickers, panties, shorts, jeans, swimsuits, bikinis, in short whatever the dirty girl happens to be wearing at the time. The use of the word 'dirty', here is deliberate, and I think accurate and germaine to this discussion, because it underpins the fact that as children (there's that word again) we are taught that peeing one's pants is dirty; even if it's an accident, it is said that you are lazy for being so dirty, but if it's deliberate, then that's not only dirty, it's downright sick. It's my opinion that these people are actually correct in a way - it IS dirty, but then there are many who say that sex is dirty. I grant that it's probably considered a different sort of dirty, but for us, it's also a different sort of nice, and it's that combination that does it for us. There is no connection with infantile or uncontrolled behaviour here!
As far as differences in interest in this from country to country are concerned, I can't see any reason to use subjective data to prove there are differences at all. The fact that different standards exist, from almost completely open pissing in Europe, to fanatical covering of genitals in Japan, only serves to prove that people will get around whatever regulations exist to fulfil their needs. You want pissing in Europe, you get it, no questions asked. You want it in Japan, sure you can have it, but it has to be in pants, because Japan doesn't abide genitals. There are also differences in the treatment of people who pee their pants. In Europe, it's assumed that it's a wanton sexual act, but in Japan, it's almost always portrayed as an accident and the hapless victim is chastised for it. Different societies have different slants on the same thing, but the same thing still exists. The more taboo it is, the more likely some people will be drawn to it, but there will always be those for whom the simple fact of peeing pants, in itself is an erotic act.
I sometimes wonder why it is that people repeatedly try to infer (or simply outright state) that pants-peeing has to be linked to some other sort of unrelated problem - is it because for these people, it needs some sort of validation? I personally think this whole idea is incorrect. There is no need for validation or any link with any other act - pants-wetting is fun in and of itself, whether you are into doing it, watching it, talking about it. Peeing doesn't in itself seem to have any form of validation - it's accepted as a type of sexuality or sexual response and release, albeit somewhat obscure and maligned in the general community. I think this difference is the key. Because pants-peeing is not really accepted, it has its detractors and its proponents, but there doesn't seem to be anyone in between - you either love it or hate it (if you know about it!)
Hope I've made some sense.