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

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Sign Up

To The Topic Of Public Wetting


Recommended Posts

Honestly, I've done it a lot, but never bother to tell all my stories. I wear light colored pants a lot, and I always make sure to try to avoid getting it onto the floor when doing it purposely. I normally just sit on a chair or bench in the mall, and look like I'm focused on something on my laptop, when really I'm focused on letting out two seconds spurts to create a visible spot about the size of a large plate, then when I think I've done enough to avoid the floor, I stand up and let the rest go down my legs, then continue like nothing happens. For what I've seen most people will give a chuckle and a smirk 70% of the time, 20% people will come up to me and ask if I've noticed, and the 8% will actually come up and talk about it for a while, and 2% have actually asked to join me in my shopping, and during it the pee their pants too (This is actually how I met one of my really good friends.)

Just don't be a jerk and get it on the floor, and your fine by me.

Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

TV Guy, you quite simply fail to understand this scenario, let it go. Go film girls who just need your money. I'm sorry, but you just fail to get this concept.

There have been numerous threads regarding public pants wetting, in particular "intentional" pants wetting. People discuss the moral and ethical aspects, what is ok and what is not ok, and although op

Well, I suspect my opinion on this will likely be unpopular, but it is my feeling that a person should be able to consent before they are utilized for another's sexual gratification.   In this ca

My apologies if misspelled someone's name. Also, yes, I know its long. Sorry for ranting.

ILikeBeingBad2 - Kudos for being kind and thoughtful in that situation. I find your username delightfully ironic given your "good" actions.

Aqua Vitae & WritingIsSexy - I agree that as a society we should aim to cooperate and come to a solution that is acceptable to as many people as possible. While it is true that there is no solution that will satisfy everybody, it is (most probably) true that a solution that satisfies most people can be achieved. In fact, I would argue that the solution we have arrived at now IS in fact a solution that satisfies most people. At least, from a legal and ethical standpoint.

Dark Wolf - You bring up an excellent point. This brings up the distinct disconnect between the current laws/rules/regulations and societal expectations. In this regard, I am actually of the opinion that the laws/rules/regulations have it right and that public opinion is too extreme.

Specifically, the rules and regulations in the state I live in are that public urination while not illegal is technically punishable with arrest and misdemeanor charges. However, the reason these rules are in place is not to punish people who really cannot make it to a restroom due to unfortunate events, but to prevent vandalism and public nuisances. If someone happened to be caught short and ducked into an alleyway, hid beside a building, or even just wet themselves in public, I highly doubt an officer or guard would arrest or charge someone. They might check on them, but I highly doubt that they would punish them.

What the rules and regulations are there for are for the people who try to urinate on public monuments or literally pull down their pants in the middle of a sidewalk or street. The first is because it is vandalism of something of public importance. For example, spray painting a cool mural on the underside of a bridge is  considered much less impactful, disrespectful, and inappropriate than disturbing a public sculpture. This also has to do with the severity of the vandalism. Usually, urinating on a public sculpture, important building, or private property is meant as show of distaste/disrespect for the designer, the person it represents, or the owner. This is why it is punishable as opposed to just wetting one's pants in public which can be construed as an unfortunate accident. The latter actually has to do with public decency rules regarding undressing in public more so than the actual act of wetting one's self in public.

What this illustrates is that the law is not there to punish people for having accidents, but to punish people who are doing so in a destructive manner.

This brings up the disconnect with societal expectations and the point that Dark Wolf makes. As the story from ILikeBeingBad2 shows, people for some reason view any kind of sign that someone wet themselves as a sign that the person is revolting and, to an extent, clearly inferior. This causes great deals of hurt and embarrassment for the people who can't make it to a restroom.

And this is a problem. Most people if told someone couldn't make it to a restroom would probably feel sympathetic and not begrudge them the accident. However, these feelings of empathy also cause them to cringe at others misfortune when looking at someone with obvious signs of having wet themselves. They are not cringing because they view the person that wet themselves as a bad person, but because they feel the embarrassment and dismay that person must have felt not making it in time. This is also what causes people to subconsciously move away as they reflexively distance themselves from the situation.

Despite the "good" feelings of these people, the overall outcome is decidedly negative. Because the person sees everyone else staring at them, studiously avoiding looking at them, cringing at them, and avoiding them, the person feels as if society is abandoning and rejecting them. As naturally social creatures, most humans feel disheartened, dismayed, and even depressed at the feelings of rejection and abandonment.

It is my guess that this problem with society is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Urine is considered unclean (since it obviously contains waste expelled from the human body). Thus, it is obviously disruptive to society for it to be everywhere. This is why various techniques were developed to deal with the mess in a relatively clean way, from holes in the ground to chamber pots to toilets. The point being that people used toilets because it was cleaner than not doing so. Even things like snot are dealt with in a clean way by using kleenex, handkerchiefs, clothing, and even hands, arms etc. Most people frown upon people who blow their nose using the bare hands and often times clothing as being disgusting and unclean. This is exactly the reason behind some of those people who look upon someone who didn't make it to a restroom with disgust.

Once the benefits of restrooms were made obvious to society, it became the expectation that everyone would use them. Parents teach their children that the restroom is the only correct place to, well, use the restroom. To an extent this is right. To a lot of people, finishing potty training is like a rite of passage. The idea that not needing a diaper is part of what makes them mature and a natural part of the growing up cycle.

However, this has the effect of ostracizing those that require products to deal with their inability to fully control their toilet usage habits. Most people get over it and become used to the idea of using incontinence products to live normally. For others however, the reality is incredibly traumatizing and they can't help but feel deficient because they are different from most people's idea of normality.

It from this idea of normality that stems the problem of hurt and embarrassment felt by people who don't make it to a restroom in time. By failing to make it, they can feel not normal, deficient, an idea that is only reinforced by the reactions of those around them. I can ruin their lives. Some people never recover on a physical level and go on to develop urge incontinence.

Thus, my opinion is the following:

1) The laws and regulations regarding public urination are fine since they are designed to prevent public nuisances, not people who really cannot make it to a restroom.

2) The public expectation of other people using the restroom is fine since it is a net positive for society on the whole.

3) The actual problem is the negative stigma and backlash that follows someone being caught in an unfortunate situation not allowing them to reach a restroom in time. This stems not from the legal standpoint (1) or the ethical standpoint (2) but rather than since people aren't familiar with the occurrence, they often default to behaviors that have destructive consequences. This applies to the person who actually wet in addition to the people who react to them. I think of this as the societal standpoint.

4) Once the legal, ethical, and societal standpoint reach the point at which each brings the maximum benefit to society as a whole, then the problem can be considered solved.

As I am a firm believer than 1, 2, 3, and therefore 4 all have definable values at which they provide maximum benefit to society, I reject the "gray area" argument that states that these values can never be defined. There are many different variables that go into a wetting, everything from the clothing worn to the amount excreted to the location, public presence, etc. However, these are all still definable variables. By taking the average of public opinion, the true average can still be found even if it is impractical to do so. However, an approximating average can be estimated based on people's legal, ethical, and societal opinions and reactions to various situations.

 

Therefore, my opinion on Intentional Public Wetting is as many others stated previously:

If you are doing it in a manner that is destructive/disruptive, don't do it.

A simple statement, but with a some implications:

For example - Purposefully peeing yourself in a crowded park surrounded by people should not be done.

For example - Peeing off the side of a bridge when there is no one around except for people that know you are going to and can opt out is perfectly acceptable. (This, of course, does not just assume there is no one on the bridge but also no one around or below the bridge.)

 

None of this is, or is meant to be, definitive. It is also important to remember that on the spectrum of society as a whole vs individual, this writing focusing entirely on society as a whole is a value choice based entirely on my opinion.

Then again, I'm kind of person who believes that pseudosocialism in a benevolent monarchy is the ideal form of government so who am I to talk? 

If you actually made it this far, thank you for reading! I hope you found it interesting, enjoyable, and/or enlightening. Have a great day.

 

Edited by Unbeknownst
Clarifications (see edit history)
Link to post
2 hours ago, Unbeknownst said:

However, these feelings of empathy also cause them to cringe at others misfortune when looking at someone with obvious signs of having wet themselves. They are not cringing because they view the person that wet themselves as a bad person, but because they feel the embarrassment and dismay that person must have felt not making it in time. This is also what causes people to subconsciously move away as they reflexively distance themselves from the situation.

That's exactly how I'd feel if I ever witnessed anything like that firsthand.

Link to post
Just now, The Dark Wolf said:

If only people didn't have to feel so ashamed when it happened... but they always will as long as the world is taught that pee is evil. Though of course if not for that, the fetish wouldn't exist, but still. I know if I wet myself in front of anyone I'd never get over it.

Now that just the problem ain't it? Pee is not inherently evil, nor is it necessarily actually considered evil by the populous at large.

In fact most people I know would actually feel sorry/sympathetic for the person. The negative stigma and consequences are more of a psychological thing really than a "people are taught that pee is evil" thing. As far as I am aware, no one is taught that "pee is evil", but rather that they "should use a toilet to take care of business".

I'm not quite sure where the two got correlated, but there is a distinction and the distinction is quite important. One I agree with and one I feel is ridiculously extreme.

Link to post

Maybe I exaggerated a bit, but it is considered NSFW content that can't be seen in some shows (though somehow the edited version of Dragon Ball got away with leaving in Bulma wetting herself) or shown in "safe" pictures, which serves to make people more ashamed of having an accident. Plus, it took me years and years to embrace my fetish(es) because I thought it was inherently offensive. (Though I can't remember who told me that because most of my friends and family find it funny)

Link to post

In regards to

4 hours ago, The Dark Wolf said:

Maybe I exaggerated a bit, but it is considered NSFW content that can't be seen in some shows (though somehow the edited version of Dragon Ball got away with leaving in Bulma wetting herself) or shown in "safe" pictures, which serves to make people more ashamed of having an accident. Plus, it took me years and years to embrace my fetish(es) because I thought it was inherently offensive. (Though I can't remember who told me that because most of my friends and family find it funny)

I feel part of it just has to do with not wanting to gross out audiences. Poop and vomit also tend to stay out of camera view in a lot of media, giving us tropes like the vomit discretion shot. Being a private bathroom activity, usually when its depicted its from a behind view or obscured otherwise. That or they substitute with clever imagery like Bender shitting actual bricks in Futurama. Even Bulma technically peed sparkles from the way they animated it, and by doing so they probably saved that bit from the cutting floor because some people guessed she could've been crying (no really) or they just used the loophole that they didn't show urine, just sparkles. In fact I found out about the scene in question because TV Tome pointed out what the sparkles were meant to be. And since most media that does depict urine does so without showing the source, in finality it's probably a combo of being a private matter involving liquid squirting from a private place that keeps urination a mild taboo.

Link to post

Still, I have a feeling if they made it out to be more of a "try to avoid it when you can (unless of course you want to do it for fun in a way that doesn't constitute vandalism) but it's no big deal if you do" (similar to, say, spilling your drink), instead of making it out to be an extremely shameful act, people wouldn't be so ashamed of it or ridiculed for it. Again, if it did the fetish might not exist, but people might still have fun with it.

Link to post

My thoughts on this topic are a bit unconventional, I guess. I'm not a practising public wetter, but I wish I could be as brave as some people are on here. 
What I like about public wetting is obviously the humiliation part, even though I'm heavily afraid of it (this fact can be linked to what has been said by someone about the relation between fetish and phobias). It was weird to hear about victims here. It seems to me that the real victims are those who put themselves in a position where they are judged negatively by the spectators. And you'd say, of course: "it's their own decision to put themselves in that position". But this observation doesn't change the fact that this particular fetish takes advantage of the opinion directed by the common sense on those who have accidents in public. If people were too permissive on this topic, perhaps some people wouldn't find that so exciting. Considering this, I wouldn't talk about public wetters as they were executioner of some savage crime to the damage of some "victims". I see them as if they are playing a sensitizing role in other people's lives, showing them that sometimes a very suppressed aspect of our bodily functions can emerge in an overpowering way and win our best intentions to appear as a civilised animal. Like a hurricane can remind us how small we are compared to the natural events of our earth. Well, it's a bit too philosophical, but it's my personal view on this matter.

Another opinion expressed here is the ethical problem: "can the intentions make a person guilty?" I'd say no, if the intentions are not concretized in action. But in the case of a public wetter there's some action going on. So, what we should ask ourselves is: "is faking an accident the equivalent of a true accident?" If we look at it with the eyes of a stranger, of someone who doesn't imagine there's a fetish about it, this person would simply consider that as a true accident, unless the wetter hasn't done it in a provocative way. In the case of a successful pretended accident, the spectator is not aware of the implications of what happened and for some of you this is unfair. I can understand your point, but there's no harm in this particular case. What you're complaining about is the fact that the wetter is "abusing" of someone's presence or attention. It's true, if the wetter is targeting someone, but the same argument cannot be told about a simple public wetting where there's no one interacting actively with the wetter. I think it's important to state all these differences. 
"You have to give the choice to look away" I read here. Well, this is something no one really decides. If someone starts wetting in front of you, wouldn't it be a so exceptional event that you can't ignore? Can I decide to not be looked, on the other hand? It'd be so useful for someone who wet themselves unwillingly in front of others. But it's not possible, they have to suffer others' judging because it's not something they can handle. So, every tentative to regulate or control others' thoughts is futile. You can take all the precautions you want, you'll never be able to appear as you want to be looked. Our ethics will not influence the embarrassing situation we are involved in. We will be subjected to the dominant ethics on this matter, which is almost nonexistent (because, as I said before, it's an occulted matter: bodily functions are gross when they are real, visible in front of us, better not talk about this possibility). This dominant ethics could state that if someone really can't hold themselves, everything can happen, in every moment, in every place. You don't know when it's going to happen, it's a perpetual fear. Everyone is secretly afraid of having accidents and seeing someone else having one could be cathartic. In a way you'd think: "luckily it didn't happen to me". That is what common people think, let's not force our imagination into thinking that other people may know we've done it on purpose. It's the same when we're afraid that someone may guess that we're wearing a diaper, even if it's not that thick. Probably it's the last thought which is gonna pass through the mind of an average guy who's looking at your big butt, since the thought of a diaper is far away from his usual thoughts. 

A final note: dominant ethics is intended different from moral, or at least derived from the last one. Ethics is about what we should do in some cases, it's the recipe of our rightful actions. Moral is about what is permitted and what is not. Morality is a lot developed in society, of course, since the birth of civilisation, it's the preamble to civilisation. And it is contained in the teachings our parents provide us. The rule that we have to pee in the toilet is part of the morals. How I should act in case of an accident is not described in the code of morals, because it's not even expected, it's not contemplated. Ethics, on the other hand, is a general behavior we must follow and it adapts to every case. Ethics is personal and that's why everyone will act differently if witnessing an accident. Though, a consent on this matter is given by the emotions we usually feel when we are witnesses of an accident. Empathy, fun, disgust, and so on. When morals intervene on how we have to sense this event, it will modify our behavior and that's why there's a dominant ethics on this subject, even if it's very ambiguous. 

We are a lot more blocked by our fear than by the certainty of what other people will do towards us. And fear arises exactly because we don't know what's going to happen, how people will react. Maybe this is something that public wetters like to discover at their own expenses. 

Link to post
55 minutes ago, crazycatgirl3 said:

Wow this is an intense topic. I dont do public wetting but i dont believe in involving people in your fetish without their consent.

I don't feel think you are getting someone else involved in your fetish unless its ruining their property or you are trying to be as close to them as possible while doing it. As I said, just don't ruin the floor, and don't try to drag others in on purpose, and your fine.

Link to post

I have in my collection a video of a woman smearing poop all over herself and masturbating in it. IRL, I saw woman walking along a street. She had the same long, slender legs as the pooper, and the same huge breasts and the same dark hair. The pooper's face was pixellated, and this woman was wearing large sunglasses, but if they're not the same person I'll be astonished. The woman in the street  was wearing dark blue skin-tight jeans with some light patches which could be the way the light is shining on her jeans. The darker patch on her inside thigh could just be a shadow. She walks along a fairly busy path. A man ignores her until she's passed him. Then he turns to look after her. Has he smelt something? Is she the pooper in my collection, and is she the ultimate public wetter? I'd post a video, but it could identify me.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...