Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

FallingDusk

Soaked Member
  • Posts

    471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

FallingDusk last won the day on September 5 2017

FallingDusk had the most liked content!

About FallingDusk

  • Rank
    Soggy

Personal Information

  • My pronouns are..
    he/him

My Kinks

  • I'm into..
    Bathroom Control
    Bedwetting
    Diapers
    Cuddling
    Master / Pet
    Messing
    Pleasure control

Recent Profile Visitors

9,694 profile views

FallingDusk's Achievements

  1. Yeah, I don't think there's much of any difference. As always too, the differences from "human to human" are far greater than the differences in the average between groups of people. In other words, many women can hold more than many men, and many men can hold more than many women. There's a large range of values and everyone, regardless of gender, falls randomly along that scale. Any individual anecdotes from one person noticing they have a larger or smaller bladder than those around them are not good ways to make general assumptions about the whole population. If you pick any two random people out of the world, one man and one woman, it's very nearly just a total coinflip between which can hold more/longer.
  2. Just to be clear, I addressed this too - it would only "have" to be retroactive if the supreme court was the institution to implement it. (which they should not be, because of many reasons). This is a task for congress instead, and congress has the power and means to carve out all kinds of exceptions, details, and other nuances - including things like how old a building needs to be to be grandfathered in, whether size/occupancy of the building plays a role, and further exceptions for historical status or other things which could be reasonable. I only said that just the "supreme court" would be unable to carve out such detailed exceptions. And that's because it's not their job, and they do not have the authority/purpose for creating new laws. Those "dozens of laws that grandfather in older and historical buildings" which you're referring to have /all/ came through congressional institutions instead. (At the City, County, State, or Federal levels). None were initially created by courts.
  3. I'd definitely support this. Ideally without those emotes affecting the user's public stats though. (I thought emotes-received was a public stat, I don't remember where or if it's worked into something else like the rep system still). Though it's not a big deal \o/
  4. To be fair, ideally supreme court justices should be ruling off of what is constitutional/legal, not off of "what would benefit me personally the most when I go back home". I for one did not approve of some recent self-serving rulings which were not so grounded in the constitution/law. And I also do not wish for other judges to start ruling in self-serving ways just because it would also align with my views.... because I'm not a hypocrite. However, "citizens" in general should /vote/ for what benefits them the most though. I'd agree that "single-issue voting" is the damnest thing to happen to the populace. People vote against a dozen of their own interests, because they've been convinced that "this one other issue is more important". There's just a difference when you're looking at appointed officials with a duty to make decisions following certain rules. As for the thread answer: I believe it's pretty unlikely that the supreme court would institute any form of "potty parity" - especially if you're specifically referring to the version of potty parity which is trying for special treatment, not equal treatment, (more money/space spent on women's restrooms than men's, in order to achieve the similar line waiting times). Excesively-egregious differences (like a place having 20 toilets for men but 1 for women" would be reasonable to rule against, but such examples are likely already illegal under building codes which DO require a certain number of bathrooms/toilets for publicly accessed buildings of high occupancy. I would understand and support it if the movement were going through congress, but functionally the supreme court is (ideally, and usually) supposed to avoid "ruling from the bench" - which is: "ruling on things not strongly supported by the constitution/law in a way which would effectively create new-law which /should/ have been made through congress instead". A ruling instantiating "potty parity" would drastically affect nearly every building in the country, because the ruling would have to be retro active. To sue you have to have standing, you'd have to sue an existing place without parity, and claim that they should be forced to implement parity (or pay for the unequal inconvenience they've created). The court finding against such a hypothetical location would effectively be saying that all places (or at least all places constructed after a certain date - which again, if this date is arbitrary and not grounded in another legal document, is yet another reason the court wouldn't have grounds to make such a decision) would have to retroactively be forced to rebuild their facilities. Such wide ranging financial burdens across the entire country are a factor the supreme court uses when making judgements. And would be a barrier that would normally mean they have to not implement a "new law" and would instead leave it to congress to do so with more nuance. (by grandfathering in existing places, and putting requirements based on building size / occupancy amount - all of which would need to be settled in exact quantities for legal purposes, and exact quantities like that are not things the supreme court is supposed to be making decisions about on their own (and instead should be instructed by existing laws, created by the rest of the government). In reality if this were to become law: This is the kind of movement that would be most likely started at the state, or even city/county level. First with some private building owners taking up the torch and voluntarily implementing it in their stadiums/concert-halls/theaters. And urging others to do the same. Until a state legislature feels there's enough support to make it a state law, and enough states do it for the federal legislature to do the same. And almost none would apply retroactively (expect perhaps to the largest venues within the state, which would only be a handful of locations). I don't know if I think this is likely... I think I could see it happening at the state level, it's the federal part where I'm not so confident. It sounds like the kind of thing I'd expect to hear about some European countries implementing in the not too distant future (or perhaps, already have?). I am certain that if any state or federal legislature implemented it, the courts would have zero grounds to strike it down (unless there was any technical/legal issue if such a law failed to grandfather in older buildings maybe). Another alternative: which I believe could gain more support in some areas would be making uni-sex bathrooms more common. This could easily be applied retroactively by just making both male and female restrooms non-gendered. No construction required. Lines would always be equal everywhere. This has the side benefit of solving a number of other issues around transgender / non-binary bathrooms too. A further compromise would be to have male, female, and unisex bathrooms available at all locations, with unisex being the largest, and a smaller space still provided for the other two bathrooms to continue to accompany people who take issue with shared bathrooms and want more privacy. (And on the topic of voting against self interest: I'd support both of those last suggestions in spite of my personal understanding that women's restrooms are typically the ones which get described as more likely to be less clean, and this could negatively impact my public restroom experiences. Not all voting against self interest is illogical. In fact, I'd wager it very rarely is.) The poll: There's a misunderstanding here. Maybe in public opinion a defeat at the supreme court would kill interest in potty parity movement if people are overreactive as this vote suggests? But the reality is that the court not ruling to implement potty parity would not make it unconsitutional, and should not kill the movement. It would just be (correctly) leaving the issue for legislatures to decide (at the state and federal levels). The same as happened now, with the court overturning Roe v Wade. The ruling has done nothing to prevent the federal congress from passing an amendment (with 2/3rds majority) to make abortion access a protected right nationally. It has only ended the court-implemented freedoms, returning the issue to the states until the federal congress does something about it. (Which realistically, may not happen for a very long time in our current political climate). The fourth option for the poll should be "It would be unsupported by the court, left open for cities, counties, states, and the federal government, to create laws on instead". "Constitutionally Protected, or Constitutionally Forbidden" is pretty much never a question the supreme court looks at. Instead, the Supreme Court is practically always deciding between "Constitutionally protected, or left up to the states/federal congress to protect/forbid" OR instead deciding between "Constitutionally forbidden, or left up to the states/federal congress to protect/forbid". Not both.
  5. Skirts are fantastic, but I'm also a huge fan of athletic/athleisure type clothes. In general though, my favorite part about Omorashi is the variety. I like mixing it up and involving all sorts of outfits and scenarios, so while I have some I prefer a bit more, I certainly wouldn't want content to be all (or even half) of that type.
  6. Okay, it won't be aloud, but what about quietly?
  7. The first three options seem almost the same as the second three... just reworded? Either way I skipped because I don't quite think my answer fits in: I have no preference, but more so because I like variety than because I don't care. "Why not both occasionally?".
  8. I have a couple of friends who I've noticed will always be the first to go and will go more often than others. It's never been something I "enjoy" in an omorashi sense, I just find it a bit funny, like an inside joke that I only notice because of my interests. It's one of those things I just expect now, but I don't find myself really wondering about when anyone else would have to go.
  9. I feel like I've seen a few JAVs where they start cleaning up their puddles in the video, like half of then that happen in doors? I'm not an expert though and I'm not able to think of a specific one at the moment. If no one else finds an answer I'll take a look when I get time later tonight
  10. "Requests"? Not so likely. "Commissions"? Almost certainly. Artists put a lot of time and effort into making quality art, in addition to all the time and effort spent already in practicing and learning. They almost all will accept paid commissions if you're looking to hire an artist to fulfill some of your ideas. But I wouldn't expect to find one who will take free requests - especially multiple of them, and especially for a difficult art style that really does require a quality artist. There's plenty of artists here though, thankfully! I hope you find one you're happy with I know @Biku usually has open commissions and can do some fairly realistic art and really good art. Rolo and Rune are another two artists on the community Discord server here who take commissions and also do some realism art if you want to check out others. (I don't know their forum handles... if they have one, otherwise I'd ping them as well) @LivingInfinite does a lot of realism art too, but I don't think he takes commissions/requests often, you're free to check though! And of course SilverSnake beat me here already with their own commission offers! There's tons of other options too, I wish I was more caught up on the art community still, I feel bad leaving out other well deserving mentions who I'm certain I'll remember in the next day or two.
  11. Kinks aren't things you share with friends and family generally. What you and your significant-other do in the bedroom is private. If you share it with people who you meet online in circumstances where both of you are expecting to share such a connection it can make sense (that's what this site is for!), but just going around and telling random people on social media or in a game or something about your fetish would be weird AF. Coming out at gay/bi/straight/trans/etc is not the same as revealing what you get off to, don't treat it like something you need to reveal. Genuinely the only person who's business it is would be a significant other (anyone you're intimate with). It's just socially-deaf to try and bring it up to almost anyone else usually.
  12. People come in all sorts, I know there's another member here who writes about a similar trait for their SO, and I've heard of it in the past. As a general rule of thumb though, yeah, people fall on a huge scale from one end to the other, and everywhere in between. The ways in which people display their need, as well as how much they display it (or how much they don't~) varies greatly. It may also be worth noting that some people can take a while for their bladder to fill up, but then will go from 0 to 100 quite quickly, where as others feel a pressure much earlier. It's the difference between having a high capacity before your bladder feels full, vs having a high the bladder strength to keep from losing it even after your bladder feels full. This may play a bit into how some people react, but there's definitely some who are just really good at hiding that they need to go too. I'd tend to assume though that there probably are signs that she needs to go, just not as pronounced as you're used to thinking of. Maybe slower more careful movements, or a little more distracted mentally, subtle things that can be hard to pick up on at first? She may not even be aware of the changes so much. I personally really enjoy the process of learning to pick up on the subtlest of clues about these things~~ And especially on learning how to judge a given person's unique signs for the purpose of being able to better guide a hold~ The fact that this process of learning can take so long is only a bonus to me ^^
  13. There was definitely some good threads where people had interesting discussions and learning opportunities back when it was a thing. But I'm not eager to see it's return, it also definitely housed some of the worst threads this site had seen. It was definitely more than a few who ruined a good thing for all.
  14. I don't have anything I only use for wetting - I do have clothes that I've discovered were rather nice to wet in. Either because of how the fabric felt or more usually because of how well it shows with color. I tend to choose those to wet in more often than I choose my other clothes, but as long as it all gets washed well afterwards I have no qualms wearing it again for more normal purposes still.
×
×
  • Create New...