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

The difficult question of consent


Recommended Posts

There's nothing wrong with being attracted to scenarios like the ones described here. So long as you're not...

  • Recording or distributing content of someone without their consent
  • Consciously going out of your way to stalk/tail people, or 
  • Otherwise, doing anything to either force your fetish onto others or violate people's right to privacy

You have nothing to feel bad over.

You can't help what you're attracted to, and you don't need to feel shame getting attracted to a scenario you see in real life. That's outside of your control. What is within your control is knowing not to try and do anything bulleted above.

The user in this thread that actually posted a non-consensual photo of someone has been banned from this community. This is something we have zero-tolerance for. Fantasy is one thing, but you will not violate other people's consent or privacy here by distributing content of them without permission.

Link to post

Along the lines of what others have said, it's really a case of how much agency you have over the other person' desperation.

If it's a case of something like Your friend is at your place and wants to use the bathroom but you won't tell them where it is, that would be a case where you have agency in it and are forcing them into the situation for your own pleasure at their expense. That would 1000% fall under the non-consent category. The same goes for scenarios like not pulling into a gas station so a person can pee or secretly peeking at your friend taking a wiz in a bush when they can't get to a bathroom in time. If you have control over whether they're desperate and choose not to let them relieve themselves in a bathroom when they ask, that's not consent in any way.

If it's a case of something like You and your friend are somewhere you've never been and neither of you can work out where a bathroom is, that would be a case where you don't really have agency and aren't really forcing them into the situation. I don't really think that would be non-consensual because there's really nothing you could do in that situation to help them (unless you'e doing something like distracting them so they don't see the bathroom). This would be the same as being on a long walk/hike with no bathrooms anywhere or looking away from a person taking a leak when they ask you too.

Really, if you were doing something desperation-related to a friend in a non-consensual way, then you'd probably be able to feel that strong guilt in your mind that what your were doing is morally græy at the very least. 

 

(Small note, pee fetish or no pee feitsh I think a person is drawn to look at the squirming/desperate/peeing person by virtue of the human brain's habit to look at things in motion or sources of sound when we notice them, so I don't think looking at a desperate person is that bad of an act unless they've explicitly said not too.) 

Edited by ParadoxicEros (see edit history)
Link to post

Non consent is just wrong but however wetting/messing accidents are almost always non consensual and that’s just the fact about omo. I definitely agree here and would NEVER do anything without consent.
 

If someone has an accident it’s not ur fault unless you do anything to prevent them from a bathroom. But still I’ll feel guilty for it as I would enjoy it secretly. 

Link to post

Thanks for the responses, everyone. This has been an interesting conversation for me. It seems the general consensus is that watching, in a discreet way, doesn't really break too many rules of consent. It's only actively participating in making someone desperate that is non-consensual.

I'm not 100% sure I completely agree, but it's close enough and I'm not going to quibble if it makes me less guilty about watching the next time I see a desperate lady. 🙂

 

 

 

Link to post

I was thinking a lot about this the other week. I saw a girl -- and the word really applies here, she was probably in her early teens -- with some pretty obvious signs of extreme desperation. And she was at a bus stop. Likely quite a long time from home.

An ideal situation, for my tastes! -- Except for her age. So my heart rate went through the roof, but I wasn't sexually aroused. I felt nothing but an urge to help her. Which was impossible -- I drove past in the space of a few seconds, I didn't know her, and a guy offering a teen girl a ride is definitely "creep" territory.

Strangely, it even put me off my game for days! I couldn't fantasize desperation without thinking of her, which short-circuited my arousal.

This is definitely not always been true: in the past I would have been very turned on, at least afterwards. But I find this very reassuring, actually. I have apparently trained myself to insist on consent, at least in real people, and trained myself so well that it's not arousing unless it's consensual. So it can be done!

Link to post

Sometimes consent is kinda just known cause of who you are with. My online friends totally know that I love wetting my jeans. So when they tease me and keep me away from the bathroom they totally know I'm enjoying it. My bf isn't into wetting but he way knows I'm happy with it. So he sometimes causes me to wet cause he knows its fun for me. If it was like a stranger IRL I'd be like pretty scared and wouldn't feel comfortable at all. That would make me go through some pretty bad memories.  Online it's different cause I kinda want it or expect it if I'm on. But it's kinda the situation and who wants me to wet that makes it kewl or wrong for me. Hope this kinda makes sense.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm that type of guy that helps a girl/woman (if it's eg. friend of course) to find a bathroom if she needs it. Of course I enjoy to see her in this state and one part of me would love to see more, but I would be disgusted from myself if I would do otherwise. Of course we are talking about situation without both side consent (mostly in public).

Edited by MisterBlue (see edit history)
Link to post

This is tangentially related, but the worst part is if you have a job where you often have to deny people the bathroom and say to them "sorry, the bathroom is for customers only".

I had a job like that once, I don't get pleasure from omo in on-the-job situations. I only like omo with my spouse at home in pre-planned situations we like to have.

I once let a kid use the company washroom, who probably drank too much soda and their parent wanted to do many errands in one day, who were clearly making a scene and bothering everyone. After I let them use the washroom, my boss quickly pulled me aside and said "You let another customer use the company washroom and I'll let you sign your resignation", etc. It's a cruel world out there. It wasn't even a strict company, we don't have crazy state secrets in the washroom haha it was a very casual industry, the boss just didn't want to hire a cleaner to clean if someone messed it up.

Sometimes other jobs were much better. Like if I'm giving a tour of a college, yeah I'll show the group where the washrooms are early on, I'm extremely respectful and polite, and I've said before that students or new co-workers are the least likely to ask for the washroom because they're scared of getting kicked out or fired, even though it's a reasonable request.

My mentality with omo is that it's like "soldiers" and "civilians". Only my wife and I are soldiers who enjoy omo, so we enjoy teasing each other and having omo fun. But everyone else is a civilian and are off limits, I'll always show where the washroom is and help a friend or co-worker out.

With respect to watching random people peeing, sometimes you can't help it. I'd often be driving and my highway is very bad with hours of traffic. Often men and women would go to the side of the road to pee, but often women would especially prop themselves with their car door as a shield, but they'd be the car right in front of me and I'm driving, of course I have to watch the road. Some women are flirty and give me a wink, I try to look away to be polite, but yeah it sucks when it happens to someone in public. I think most adults here have been on the road and have seen someone take an emergency pee on the road.

Edited by John (see edit history)
Link to post
5 hours ago, Somenonymous said:

I feel like non-consent stuff can add to how hot the situation because non-consent is taboo. Illegal. And that's what makes it more exciting.

I'm not certain, but I don't think it is possible to be prosecuted for manoevreing someone into a position where they pee themselves.

I don't think that would be a nice thing to do, but the concept of consent relating to sex should not be stretched until it becomes meaningless.

Think for a moment about those haunted castle attractions. Do they ask specifically about consent before they scare some teenagers enough that they pee themselves?

Link to post

@David_E

"I'm not certain, but I don't think it is possible to be prosecuted for manoevreing someone into a position where they pee themselves.

I don't think that would be a nice thing to do, but the concept of consent relating to sex should not be stretched until it becomes meaningless."

I think that's a good point as I don't know of any place where it's actually considered a crime on the books to cause somebody to piss themselves or from keeping them from a toilet, again maybe a mean thing to do, but as far as I know it's not a crime. I mean even if you did something like that to somebody for sexual gratification it's not really the same thing as sexual assault, and I think that most people probably wouldn't see it as anything sexual in general.

Link to post
On 11/25/2021 at 4:36 PM, David_E said:

I'm not certain, but I don't think it is possible to be prosecuted for manoevreing someone into a position where they pee themselves.

 

12 hours ago, DesperateJill said:

I think that's a good point as I don't know of any place where it's actually considered a crime on the books to cause somebody to piss themselves or from keeping them from a toilet, again maybe a mean thing to do, but as far as I know it's not a crime. I mean even if you did something like that to somebody for sexual gratification it's not really the same thing as sexual assault, and I think that most people probably wouldn't see it as anything sexual in general.

Actually, forcing someone into a situation, or to do something that is against their will for your sexual gratification is pretty much the definition of sexual assault.  And sexual assault charges have been filed against people for putting women into desperate situations, trying to engineer an accident-

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cab-driver-sexual-assault-al-rawi-1.5101557

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624121/Taxi-driver-got-sexual-thrills-watching-women-trying-not-wet-arrested-giving-female-passengers-biscuits-laced-diuretics.html

Preventing someone from accessing a bathroom by physically blocking them could also fall under the category of false imprisonment.

On 11/25/2021 at 4:36 PM, David_E said:

Think for a moment about those haunted castle attractions. Do they ask specifically about consent before they scare some teenagers enough that they pee themselves?

In the case of these attractions, patrons are entering willingly, with an expectation of being frightened.  No is is forcing them into the haunted castle and everyone is on the same page as far as what they are about to experience.

If, instead of a haunted castle attraction, you were offering educational tours of a historical castle, an during the course of that tour had a paid employee intentionally terrify guests to the point that they wet themselves, then you might be facing assault charges.  The victim could argue they had not reason to expect the terrifying experience, that it was unwanted, and they felt they had no avenue of escape.  Further, if the goal of the action was specifically to make the victim wet themselves for one's personal sexual gratification, it now becomes sexual assault.

When it comes to the law, there is a matter of what a person should have a reasonable expectation of.  For example, if a person knowingly visits a nudist colony, they would have a hard time arguing that there was not expectation that they might see naked people.  Any nude person at the colony would have a difficult time being charged with any crime based on their nudity because of this reasonable expectation.  On the other hand, randomly exposing yourself to a stranger on public transportation can very much be a crime because an average person likely doesn't have a reasonable expectation of being exposed to nudity on their commute.

 

Link to post
On 11/25/2021 at 2:18 PM, Somenonymous said:

I feel like non-consent stuff can add to how hot the situation because non-consent is taboo. Illegal. And that's what makes it more exciting.

Consensual non-consent is a thing, and that's fine. So is fictional content. Plenty of people enjoy the thought of being "non-consensually" forced into scenarios. Still, it's just acting out fantasies and does require consent and the use of safewords. But if you're actually consuming real non-consensual content, you need to stop, as you're feeding and supporting both a highly unethical and illegal industry.

It's also something that, as stated above, will get you permanently banned from this community if you knowingly distribute said content here.

Also, as @TVGuy said, yes, this is very much illegal on multiple counts. He explained why perfectly down to the false imprisonment charges I was going to mention. It's also one of those scenarios in which it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not because we should all be able to agree that doing so is highly unethical and the law shouldn't be required to compel you not to be the biggest asshole on earth just to get yourself off.

Link to post
12 hours ago, Kyuu said:

Consensual non-consent is a thing, and that's fine. So is fictional content. Plenty of people enjoy the thought of being "non-consensually" forced into scenarios. Still, it's just acting out fantasies and does require consent and the use of safewords. But if you're actually consuming real non-consensual content, you need to stop, as you're feeding and supporting both a highly unethical and illegal industry.

It's also something that, as stated above, will get you permanently banned from this community if you knowingly distribute said content here.

Also, as @TVGuy said, yes, this is very much illegal on multiple counts. He explained why perfectly down to the false imprisonment charges I was going to mention. It's also one of those scenarios in which it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not because we should all be able to agree that doing so is highly unethical and the law shouldn't be required to compel you not to be the biggest asshole on earth just to get yourself off.

I appreciate the concern, but I have never watched or spread any videos or clips involving non-consent

Link to post
15 hours ago, TVGuy said:

 

Actually, forcing someone into a situation, or to do something that is against their will for your sexual gratification is pretty much the definition of sexual assault.  And sexual assault charges have been filed against people for putting women into desperate situations, trying to engineer an accident-

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cab-driver-sexual-assault-al-rawi-1.5101557

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624121/Taxi-driver-got-sexual-thrills-watching-women-trying-not-wet-arrested-giving-female-passengers-biscuits-laced-diuretics.html

Well in the first case, th driver surrupticiously fed the woman diuretics - which is a fairly dangerous thing to do because this can result in a sudden loss in blood pressure.

In the second case, "Bassam Al-Rawi was arrested after police found a woman unconscious and naked in the back seat of his cab in Halifax's south end in May 2015. The complainant's identity is protected by a publication ban."

Again I would say that suggests the case was more serious than you suggest.

Look, the point is that ultimately what is illegal blurs into something unpleasant but not illegal. I am sure some men get turned on by walking across a beach with women sunbathing - particularly if it happens to be a nudist beach - but what is society to do about it.

However IMHO blurring the meaning of words like rape or "without concent" does nothing whatsoever to protect women.

Link to post
9 hours ago, David_E said:

However IMHO blurring the meaning of words like rape or "without concent" does nothing whatsoever to protect women.

I strongly disagree. I think recognizing that there are more ways a person can sexually violate someone than "man forcibly inserts penis into vagina" (the strictest definition of "rape," which for some people is the only version of sexual assault they will recognize, despite that it means only people with penises can be rapists and non-vaginal rape is not included in the definition) benefits everybody, actually. There are a lot of predatory behaviors that can leave people feeling violated that fall short of legal definitions, and I think acknowledging that and trying to be more respectful of boundaries would make the world a safer place.

There are a lot of women, such as in South Korea, who don't even feel safe to use public bathrooms due to the prevalence of peepcams. Given women typically have to use the bathroom more often than men, what effect does it have on their lives when they can't even safely go to the bathroom for fear of violation? Because someone recording or watching you do your business, without your consent and for sexual purposes, is absolutely sexual violation.

I also think there's a vast difference between the example of a man getting turned on by women in swimsuits (or by seeing a woman desperate to pee by coincidence or unavoidable circumstances), compared to trying to put someone in a situation where they pee themselves (non-consensually) for your pleasure. In the first, it's an involuntary physiological response to something he saw. If he takes it further in an intentional and non-consensual way, such as by harassing them or taking creepshots, that's a problem. Whether it's illegal or not, it's wrong. Just like it may not be illegal for one coworker to verbally bully another (unless it's on the basis of a protected characteristic by law), but just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it's okay.

I suspect that for many men, it's hard to understand what women live with as far as violation and fear of assault, so I can kind of understand why it might seem like, "Well, as long as she doesn't know I'm going to get off on having seen her desperate, making her wait a little longer doesn't seem like a big deal." Because many men haven't experienced it, and for those who have, it's usually more of an isolated situation in that they aren't usually likely to experience it just taking a walk or picking up groceries. I don't know how to explain it, except to share a little of what many women experience. Many of us take precautions every day to avoid being raped, ranging from where we park our cars to avoiding going out after dark or avoiding being certain places (outdoor areas that are too secluded, gas stations, bus stops, etc.). We don't even think about it, it's almost instinct, because we've been told over and over again since childhood that we could easily be abducted, raped, and/or killed. By age 13, almost 3/4ths of girls have been harassed (it doesn't say what definition was used for "harassment," but I hope we can all agree an adult saying anything sexual to a 13 year old or younger kid or commenting on her body is very wrong), and by adulthood it's easily over 90% (that's accounting for the fact that some of their "99%" finding may have been due to self-sampling). Things like that give us constant reminders that wherever we go, there's a risk of sexual violence. Actual statistics on sexual assault can be difficult to gauge due to differing definitions across studies, but RAINN says that 1 in 6 women has experienced actual or attempted rape, and the CDC says that 1 in 4 girls experiences sexual abuse during childhood (likely defined more broadly than rape, such as including molestation)... so many of us have also experienced more overt forms of sexual violation on top of the day-to-day incidents of harassment and hostile environments many of us experience. I think if a man can imagine himself in that situation, it might help him understand why these things are a big deal.

I appreciate @Kyuu taking a strong stance on this to help keep the community safe and respectful.

Edited by likeyourspell
formatting (see edit history)
Link to post
19 hours ago, likeyourspell said:

I strongly disagree. I think recognizing that there are more ways a person can sexually violate someone than "man forcibly inserts penis into vagina" (the strictest definition of "rape," which for some people is the only version of sexual assault they will recognize, despite that it means only people with penises can be rapists and non-vaginal rape is not included in the definition) benefits everybody, actually. There are a lot of predatory behaviors that can leave people feeling violated that fall short of legal definitions, and I think acknowledging that and trying to be more respectful of boundaries would make the world a safer place.

There are a lot of women, such as in South Korea, who don't even feel safe to use public bathrooms due to the prevalence of peepcams. Given women typically have to use the bathroom more often than men, what effect does it have on their lives when they can't even safely go to the bathroom for fear of violation? Because someone recording or watching you do your business, without your consent and for sexual purposes, is absolutely sexual violation.

I also think there's a vast difference between the example of a man getting turned on by women in swimsuits (or by seeing a woman desperate to pee by coincidence or unavoidable circumstances), compared to trying to put someone in a situation where they pee themselves (non-consensually) for your pleasure. In the first, it's an involuntary physiological response to something he saw. If he takes it further in an intentional and non-consensual way, such as by harassing them or taking creepshots, that's a problem. Whether it's illegal or not, it's wrong. Just like it may not be illegal for one coworker to verbally bully another (unless it's on the basis of a protected characteristic by law), but just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it's okay.

I suspect that for many men, it's hard to understand what women live with as far as violation and fear of assault, so I can kind of understand why it might seem like, "Well, as long as she doesn't know I'm going to get off on having seen her desperate, making her wait a little longer doesn't seem like a big deal." Because many men haven't experienced it, and for those who have, it's usually more of an isolated situation in that they aren't usually likely to experience it just taking a walk or picking up groceries. I don't know how to explain it, except to share a little of what many women experience. Many of us take precautions every day to avoid being raped, ranging from where we park our cars to avoiding going out after dark or avoiding being certain places (outdoor areas that are too secluded, gas stations, bus stops, etc.). We don't even think about it, it's almost instinct, because we've been told over and over again since childhood that we could easily be abducted, raped, and/or killed. By age 13, almost 3/4ths of girls have been harassed (it doesn't say what definition was used for "harassment," but I hope we can all agree an adult saying anything sexual to a 13 year old or younger kid or commenting on her body is very wrong), and by adulthood it's easily over 90% (that's accounting for the fact that some of their "99%" finding may have been due to self-sampling). Things like that give us constant reminders that wherever we go, there's a risk of sexual violence. Actual statistics on sexual assault can be difficult to gauge due to differing definitions across studies, but RAINN says that 1 in 6 women has experienced actual or attempted rape, and the CDC says that 1 in 4 girls experiences sexual abuse during childhood (likely defined more broadly than rape, such as including molestation)... so many of us have also experienced more overt forms of sexual violation on top of the day-to-day incidents of harassment and hostile environments many of us experience. I think if a man can imagine himself in that situation, it might help him understand why these things are a big deal.

I appreciate @Kyuu taking a strong stance on this to help keep the community safe and respectful.

I am not condoning any of the things you describe. I just think there is a danger in endlessly blurring definitions, and there is a great danger of accidnetally condemning men who have not done anything wrong.

I mean a man simply cannot rape a woman and not know what he has done, but a man might refuse to stop his car (say) for a woman to pee for a host of reasons - and only he knows precisely what those reasons were. Omo is probably not even recognised as a sexually arousing act by some men.

I have spent a little time on INCEL forums that are populated by heterosexual men who have had little or no sexual experience. Some of them have an exaggerated sense of the danger that they will be accused of sexual harrassment completely accidentally! I joined one of these forums in the hope of helping one or two of them to become more normal and enjoy romance for the first time because I myself encountered intense shyness as a young man, which made me hugely nervous around any woman I actually fancied. Fortunately in my case the problem did not last. Blurring the definition of crimes like this, does no service to a bunch of men who may never manage to start a relationship in their entire lives - (one man on that forum is over 60, and heterosexual, yet he has never had a sexual relationship with anyone).

Sexuality is a difficult and complicated issue, and an intense focus on justice for one group of people will inevitably result in some injustice to some other wholly innocent people, just as an intense focus on justice for men would result in a lot of suffering of innocent women. There needs to be a balance.

 

Link to post

Involving others.

I have been reading the comments on two topics now for a week or two, The difficult question of Consent, (General) and, What’s the Appeal of Humiliation (Experiences) and, against my first inclination, have decided to add my opinion: please note that it is only my opinion.

Two important points I should like to make clear. One, I would be completely against involving any unwitting or unwilling person in my enjoyment of the wet scene. It’s a bit like the protocol for personal jokes ‘belittling’ the other person – if they don’t think it’s funny then it isn’t ! Two, and subject to the limitations of number one above, I fear that some members here seem (for the best of reasons) to be pushing towards the ‘politically correct’ stance on this whereby an increasing number of ‘unpleasantries’ must be ‘hidden’ so as not to offend others. With these two points as a background I would like to contribute to the general discussion.

Wetting in public has such an appeal for so many of us that it is clearly a favourite. So what exactly is wetting in public? I have had this thought for some time, you see lots of uploads titled ‘public wetting’ or ‘wetting in public’ Etc. only to find that they are wetting in a public place but with no one around, or in a public park say where the nearest ‘general public’ is away in the distance. Now I have no wish to criticize the efforts of anyone posting here or elsewhere, it takes a lot of courage to wet yourself outside of your own home, I know from personal experience! Whereas wetting in a busy street for example or in a bus queue takes a lot more courage. The reasons why this particular theme of wetting is so appealing has been discussed here before but how much it involves others is what we are considering and the two extremes are, one, standing outside a movie theatre in broad daylight as the crowd is exiting the theatre and wetting yourself profusely in white denim jeans with a puddle forming at your feet and two, wetting yourself at your garden gate late at night when there is no one around. The first includes as much exhibitionism as wetting and involves dozens of unwitting people while the second example is only just a wetting in a public place because of being outside the gate instead of inside and involves no member of the public at all. As an aside, I know which one I would prefer to see! The very expression ‘wetting in public’ assumes an element of being seen by a member or members of the public, or at least a risk thereof. This risk, this thrill is the essence of the enjoyment of public wetting. If the public were never involved, however peripherally, there would be no such thing as public wetting. So the fundamental point here, lest we recant from the practice altogether, is to determine what level of involvement of others is acceptable to us but more importantly, to them. Pertinent too is why do we like ‘public wetting’? My opinion Is that it is a way of seeking acceptance of our desire to wet. We want to be ‘discovered’, preferably by someone not known to is at first. Most people crave acceptance by society because this confirms that they are ‘normal’ so when we are performing a somewhat abnormal act we crave acceptance of our slight abnormality. Ultimately we want to be able to wet ourselves in a public setting without criticism or censure – we would then be ‘normal’, accepted.  Until that point we must be satisfied with videos of others doing it while we build up (over time) the courage to be bold enough to enjoy it ourselves for real.

Of interest at this juncture is the Japanese public wetting market, quite a proportion of their wetting videos are shot in open public settings. I believe this is because humiliation in itself is a greater taboo there and to be avoided at all costs. The women starring in these videos are attractive to Japanese men because of this very humiliation.

So what is an acceptable level of involvement? Clearly, cornering a young woman and then wetting yourself in front of her alone would be a clear case of sexual harassment in lots of countries. Individual ‘targets’ are therefore out in my opinion leading to the conclusion that more people makes for a better situation. Mingling with people in a fairly busy high street and slowly wetting as you walk along is totally different. Deliberately drawing attention to yourself would be in some ways ‘involving’ onlookers whereas if they see by chance they have the opportunity to ignore or look away. They are then hardly ‘involved’, more just casual observers of what they might consider one of life’s unpleasantries or accidents.

I am old enough to remember the time before homosexuality was openly acknowledged and any display of it was seriously frowned upon. My grandmother would watch such a guy with suspicion and, holding a small handkerchief to her mouth to ‘hide’ her words, would mutter, ‘he’s a Will-Jill you know’. I hardly need to describe to you the current scene where homosexuals of all kinds are accepted almost anywhere, and not too soon. The point is that, in general, the homosexual community has been patient but persistent and also tolerant of general opinion showing by their conduct that they believe they have a place in society equal to anyone else. They certainly did not ‘hide their light under a bushel’ as it were and completely capitulate to political correctness and the ethos of not offending anyone at all. Neither should we!

 

Stay wet'n'happy

 

Roger.                        

Link to post

Similarly to what others have said, I can see what you're saying about this having the potential to veer into non-consensual territory, but I think that is defined more by behavior than by arousal. 

If someone is desperate to pee and I am turned on by it, and that's all that's going on, that to me is not non-consensual, imo. I can understand the guilty feelings associated with it though, as I would probably feel that way as well. 

However, if I were to try to sabotage their efforts to hold, or otherwise got involved in the desperation, then that would be non-consensual, imo. 

I think that there is something to be said about the taboo of the enjoyment of an adult wetting oneself as being a part of the kink for a lot of people. Unless it is due to incontinence or some other medical issue, generally, the expectation is that adults "don't" and "shouldn't" wet their pants so an accident breaks that societal expectation. It's a lack of control. Additionally, in terms of enjoying it, pee is something people are supposed to get rid of and an accident sort of keeps around a bit longer in the form of stained clothing. The build up and release of pee can feel almost euphoric to some with the sensations and accompanying facial expressions and emitted sounds sometimes resembling that of an orgasm. 

Link to post

I guess I am fortunate. Though accidents are cute, I am really only interested in mixing it up with adult, unattached women with whom I have discussed the fetish and who agree to wet their pants deliberately as part of our sexual games. I really won't deal with anything else. Yes, it can be hard to talk to someone about this fetish and I have gone as long as fifteen years before I came into a situation of absolute trust where I could talk to a woman about it again, but the sheer magic of knowing that she likes it and I like it and we did what we did freely and consciously is just marvelous. Now, in my older years, I have two somewhat younger female friends with whom I can talk about it, and they do it because they want to, and you have no idea how deeply I appreciate them.

Link to post

@likeyourspell

"I suspect that for many men, it's hard to understand what women live with as far as violation and fear of assault, so I can kind of understand why it might seem like, "Well, as long as she doesn't know I'm going to get off on having seen her desperate, making her wait a little longer doesn't seem like a big deal." Because many men haven't experienced it, and for those who have, it's usually more of an isolated situation in that they aren't usually likely to experience it just taking a walk or picking up groceries."

My mom used to obsessively watch Court TV all the time and was always watching the latest rapes and murder trials and whatnot so I think that I grew up with this feeling that if I weren't careful I was going to end up raped and murdered in a ditch somewhere. I don't think that that has anything to do with my modern-day agoraphobia, that has to do more with dependency since I don't really go places by myself usually and don't really go anyplace dangerous, but I do think it's something that men don't worry about in general compared to women, even though these things do occasionally happen to men as well.


In regards to desperation though I guess I hadn't thought of it as a violation in the same way as actually seeing someone taking advantage of a desperate situation as being a sexual violation although I suppose now that I think about it more it kind of does make sense especially when I think of my own experiences.


Like I think before I had my job where I had to hold it all day long I probably would have agreed that maybe making somebody wait a little bit longer was no big deal because up until then it had been innocent fun that I had been enjoying from a distance, but when you are in that actual situation being desperate is a very vulnerable state, and somebody delaying you getting to a bathroom for their own amusement is more of a violation than it might seem. Again if you had not been on the receiving end of that it can seem like harmless fun teasing somebody into a situation where they are going to experience a little more desperation, but if you don't want to have an accident or something like that trying to get a person to wait a little bit longer is a violation of their desire not to be humiliated in public like that.


I can think back to a few times when I was desperate at my job and I was communicating with people in chat or through private messages or other things like that and I think that that's what sort of put things in perspective. On the one hand I could understand where they are coming from where they are cheering over every little delay that I experience to me getting relief, but then what I think I had a hard time getting across to some of them is that I was seriously seriously in need of a bathroom and every little delay for me was a cause of great anxiety whereas for them it was just more of a form of excitement and anticipation. Again I wouldn't say that that's any type of sexual assault comparable to rape or anything like that, but I suppose now that I look at it in context it is a situation where people are prolonging my discomfort as a way of getting off sexually. Again they weren't the ones responsible for keeping me away from a bathroom, but I can understand how they could be technically taking advantage of the situation.


And when I actually was in that situation and was around others, such as coworkers or members of the public who noticed me desperate, most of whom I was convinced didn't find my situation sexually arousing, at the same time I did find myself thinking were any of them really enjoying my situation or would any of them actually try to prolong my situation as a way of humiliating me to get off. It was something I hadn't seriously worried about or considered before but that I had started to consider in that situation so I do kind of get where people are coming from.


Again I still would agree that keeping somebody from a bathroom is not quite the same as sexually assaulting them in the same sense that rape is, but it is technically a violation of some kind if they do not want to be kept from the bathroom, and that's true even if they find the situation arousing.

 

@petitewonder

"Similarly to what others have said, I can see what you're saying about this having the potential to veer into non-consensual territory, but I think that is defined more by behavior than by arousal. 

If someone is desperate to pee and I am turned on by it, and that's all that's going on, that to me is not non-consensual, imo. I can understand the guilty feelings associated with it though, as I would probably feel that way as well. 

However, if I were to try to sabotage their efforts to hold, or otherwise got involved in the desperation, then that would be non-consensual, imo."

I think this is ultimately what it comes down to is that consent is defined entirely by behavior. Arousal is something that is strictly involuntary and you can't choose what turns you on. That's where I can almost feel sympathy for pedophiles because they did not choose to be aroused by children, so to me simply being aroused by that is not necessarily in and of itself a wrongful act, even if I would find it disgusting, it's ultimately if they act on those feelings that it fears into nonconsent and criminal behavior. Again the same way fantasizing about murdering your boss doesn't make one a murderer, simply being aroused by a sick or socially disapproved of situation or a situation that somebody doesn't want doesn't make you a perpetrator of that act.


Feelings of guilt are understandable when you are getting off on somebody's discomfort, which is basically the fundamental basis of a desperation fetish. I think that's one of the conflicts of this fetish as you can really separated from the fact that you are enjoying somebody's discomfort and humiliation and awkwardness at the situation, which is why I don't blame anyone for and say enjoying my situation where I was desperate all day at work.


Even in my own case as much as I hated being in that situation and desperately would do anything to get out of that situation and relieve myself as soon as possible, I couldn't deny that I was being aroused by the situation. I didn't want to necessarily be aroused by the situation but it was nonetheless arousing even if it was not a situation that I willingly put myself in, which is why would not criticize others for enjoying my situation even if it was driving me crazy and infuriating me.


Ultimately it comes down to actions once again. I would not be mad at a person for enjoying or getting aroused at seeing me in a state of desperation, even agonizing desperation and physical pain that was driving me out of my mind, but if they actively tried to prolong it that would be a problem because they are now a perpetrator of my discomfort and prolonging my suffering for their own amusement which is not something that I would consent to.

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...