Savage Love

Diapers and Peepers


Yes, PARK, nothing kills a cruising-park boner as efficiently as a female onlooker, coz we don't know what she's there for and it could be dangerous for us in a number of ways.

Dan is right: If you must do this, dress dude-ish enough not to be noticed, hang in the shadows... and don't get close to the guys until they're way too into it to even notice you're there.
CASH, if I'm reading you correctly, you feel "incredibly confused" because you can't figure out what sexual label to put on yourself, given your diverse interests and urges. But what's the rush? Your early 20s are the perfect time to try out different experiences to see what fits and what doesn't fit, in sex as in the workplace. Relax, enjoy the positive qualities in each new person you meet, date the people you find most attractive, have sex when it feels right, and pause to take stock whenever you've had what you consider to be a bad sexual experience, or experience the heartbreak of a longer relationship that ends on bad terms. Eventually you will start to recognize an emerging pattern in your preferences. But even then, you are not required to use any of society's labels to define yourself. The range of human sexuality spans multiple sliding scales, as Dan noted, and each of us has unique preferences that the generalized categories may or may not cover. Your openness to both genders, your primary attraction to people's souls rather than to their external equipment - those are rare gifts. Don't throw them away in search of an appropriate label.

I think you answered your own question when you suggested finding the right person and deciding from there.
I respect the logic of Dan's answer to PARK, but as a straight woman who finds the sight of two guys pleasuring each other very hot I will go ahead and scold her. It's difficult for me to accept that PARK is dumb enough to both wander around in the darker shadows of a park at night and not anticipate that her presence as an observer would be unwelcome (this is the weapons grade version of a bachelorette party in a gay bar), but accepting that PARK really is that dumb, I'd ask her to consider why gay porn on the internet in the privacy of her own home isn't good enough.

It doesn't seem like she's getting a thrill out of compromising her own safety (as she does not appear to feel unsafe). And her surprise that they ran off after spotting her suggests she's not getting off on violating their consent (admittedly a strong way for me to word it, but as Dan points out it's safe to assume that if you asked they would say, no, we don't want some strange woman watching us, please go away.) The obvious, ethical way to achieve what PARK would appear to want -- live gay sex show -- would be to put an ad on CL looking for guys who'd get off playing exhibitionist for a straight woman, but I assume that's out of the question because even PARK isn't dumb enough not to notice her own safety concerns in that scenario. So I guess that's what bothers me, that she's exploiting the vulnerability of these men in the park for her own advantage and she's not even acknowledging it.

I think PARK should give a lot more thought to what she's doing before investing in clothes that help her pass as a man in the shadows.
I'm very turned on by stupid and boring people. Do I get a Greek or Latin term to describe my sexuality too?
I would have a lot of questions if my partner said "I like to wear diapers sometimes and it is/is not sexual", mostly about logistics. "I wear diapers sometimes" isn't clear at all. Wear them under clothes, or naked except for diaper? How long are you wearing them, minutes or all day/night? Are they adult incontinence diapers like Depends or infant-styled diapers like Pampers, or cloth diapers with diaper cover? Do you urinate and/or defecate in them? If so, then what happens?? How long do you go before removing it? How does clean up of adult proportioned waste products work?
She felt bad for herself, not for them.
PARK- While SophieX @ 3 may have been a bit harsh on you she’s brought up some valid points. Chief among them is your very own safety.
But there is hope and you should use dickonomics to your advantage, while hopefully remaining respectful to men who may be interested in showing you.

Place ads in sites that cater to what you want: kinky gay and bi men. Some people here may give you some specifics.
Another thing you may consider is dating a bi guy, encouraging him to give you a show. You may even consider joining in and get some extreme close ups.
Yeah I'm with Dan. You cannot get offended by people watching what you do OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC. And a public park is not equivalent to a gay bar.
That said the guys were perfectly within their rights to take off as soon as they realized they were being perved on.
"Faulty compatible" was carried over into the weekly column, even after LW clarified that she meant "fairly compatible"??
Ah -- saw Dan's postscript. Yes, Dan, LW herself said she meant "fairly compatible". Moving on...

I think everyone should start their day with a bowl of Kellogg's Feelios. All the vitamins, minerals and empathy you'll need to deal compassionately with people. How many mass shootings could be avoided? And Donald Trump would have been laughed right off the ballot.

Sophie @3: "I'd ask her to consider why gay porn on the internet in the privacy of her own home isn't good enough." Are YOU really that dumb? Voyeurism is a kink. It's not mine, but it's easily obvious to me that there would be a different thrill in watching live people get it on in front of you than in watching porn in the privacy of one's own home. Just as the guys who are having sex in the park are experiencing a different thrill than they would inviting someone from Grindr around to their place.

I do like the advertise-on-CL suggestion. Or maybe webcamming with willing (bi?) guys. CMD's suggestions are good too, and there are submissive straight men who are into "forced bi". Of course none of this will help if PARK's turn-on is watching men who don't know they're being watched, but we can't know this from her letter.
@3 A park is not a gay bar. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you're going to get off in public, you don't get to choose who watches you.
I would say that people who have sex in public places, like a park (or in line for the Jungle Cruise at Disneyland) more or less want to, and at least a little bit get off on, having people watch them. That would be the public part of having sex in public. But I suppose that June Cleaver with binoculars would be more likely to be the morals police than a kinky gal looking for a thrill, so I'd take off too. Risky business all around, though. Dark, secluded park plus thrill-seeking woman has a higher than average chance of ending badly (which, is probably part of the thrill.) At least go well armed with mace, but don't be surprised when you are assaulted – you're probably not the only one out there hunting for sexual kicks. This falls into the category of "nature weeding out the stupid."
Ms Fan - Close but a miss? Mr Kellogg was notoriously sex-negative; weren't Corn Flakes supposed to stop masturbation or something?
Like many men, I enjoy watching people who are enjoying having sex. I would feel like I was intruding on someone's private space, however, if I was doing it live.
Now having said that, my daughter-in-law is very much like PARK. She wants to go to public places and sequester herself in an unobtrusive corner and people-watch. The more people the better and the more diverse crowd the better. She studied psychology in college and part of me feels that maybe she is still "Studying" the human race and vicariously enjoying any drama she finds. For her a sexual situation or even better a police intervention is very exciting. Different strokes etc.
Her interest reminds me of a kink that an old friend revealed to me once. This was a woman with whom I had a short-term fling decades ago. WE were together at a business function getting caught up on our lives and agreed to meet later that night for a nightcap.
When we met there was a part of me that thought maybe she was going to suggest we start up the affair again. I mentioned that very thing and her response was;.. "No she was happy to have left that in the past." I admit to a little disappointment, but hung in there.
We kept "talking shop"and gossiping about other people we knew in our industry, and then there was a pause.
Suddenly she changed the subject and asked me directly: "You are the only person I can ask this question of. Has anyone ever asked you to masturbate in front of them?"
I was shocked and answered in the negative. I was surprised and embarrassed, and followed up with "Do you know someone who is into that?" She said that yes she knew someone who was into that. I changed the subject and it never came up again.
Now I understand that this is in fact a kink. Now 20 years later, I doubt anyone wants me to do that for them, but the event still sticks out in my memory.
@3/SophieX: "I'd ask her to consider why gay porn on the internet in the privacy of her own home isn't good enough." As @10/BiDanFan noted in a word: "voyeurism." There is also probably something in the raw, sexual, and unscripted nature of these public acts which PARK finds deeply erotic.

As for your point that PARK is committing a "consent violation," in New York, I think most kinky people would probably tell you that if you're doing your thing in any public space you have to be very discrete so as to be effectively unobservable or you're the one committing a consent violation, as members of the public have not consented to seeing you get sexual or kinky. Giving a blow job in a public park, known for public sex, doesn't count as being discrete.
@4: Onanist.
PARK revisited
I admit I have some sympathy. Women who confess to liking gay porn make me feel slightly less guilty for consuming the lesbian equivalent. And women who like watching fascinate me, as show and tell was always a favorite of mine.

I suspect that PARK is a novice based on her lack of attention to some huge safety concerns, as well as the need to learn the difference between porn and real world. Her disrespect to the guys she was watching in the park seems to be coming from that disconnection.
Venn @ 13
The Quakers started serving oatmeal as breakfast food, assuming it makes the boys in the boarding school slightly less horny.
I don't really see how these two guys doing it in a park, particularly one that was apparently marked off specially for gay sexual activities, means they expect or want to be watched? Isn't it a dating cliche that a couple goes out in public, then finds somewhere reasonably private to start making out? PARK doesn't say where she saw this particular couple, but perhaps she came upon them in a secluded area, where they had hoped to have a little privacy. That's how I pictured it, anyways - she wouldn't have had so much trouble finding someone to watch if people were doing it out in the open all over the park, otherwise.

She didn't really say she has voyeuristic tendencies either (though she certainly displays them), just that "I love watching man-on-man sex." My first thought was the same as @3/Sophie X's: "apparently PARK doesn't know about gay porn or yaoi, someone should introduce her to that world so she can watch all the man sex she wants in the comfort and privacy of her own home and without perving on guys just trying to safely enjoy a night out."
@13 - yep, Kellogg's corn flakes AND graham crackers were meant to make people less horny. The idea was that bland foods (graham crackers weren't originally sugary or cinnamon-y) were less likely to inflame passion and make people masturbate less. There's even a movie based on Kellogg's eccentric health treatments called The Road to Wellville.
@ 18 - I suspect it's more cluelessness than disrespect. These guys being out in public, it's easy to think that they want to be watched, or at least don't mind it. She merely failed to put herself in their shoes: if the exhibitionist aspect of public sex is strong in certain individuals (I know it is in my case), many men go to these places because it's a quick and easy way to get gay sex without the wife knowing (to give one possibility). So, on top of the safety aspect that I mentioned earlier. many of them won't want to be observed by passers-by, particularly if they're women.

Venn @13: Well, if you're going to ruin what I thought was Dan's quite clever turn of phrase with pedantry and facts, "Feelios" is clearly a pun on "Cheerios" ... and Cheerios are made not by Kellogg's, but Nestle. But we all know how evil Nestle is. Great, now I'm put off breakfast :)

Undead @17: *winnah*

CMD @18: The idea of straight men looking at "lesbian" porn always stoked my ire. Mainly because I resented the men for getting to enjoy the girl-on-girl activities I myself was missing out on. I'm not a porn fan, but once I mentally asked myself, if I was going to watch porn, would I rather watch male/female porn or male/male porn, and it wasn't even a question: Male/male, because it's more taboo. At that moment a light bulb went on, and I never again held looking at "lesbian" porn against men.

Jina @20: PARK wrote to Dan. Therefore, she has the internet. Therefore, she knows gay porn exists. Come on, people!
@20/Gina: "I don't really see how these two guys doing it in a park, particularly one that was apparently marked off specially for gay sexual activities, means they expect or want to be watched?" What community in the U.S. specially marks off spaces in public parks for sexual activities? I think public sex is generally frowned upon in all jurisdictions. So while they may not have wanted to be seen, I'm not sure that they can have any reasonable expectation of privacy in a public park. I think the best they can hope for is finding a quiet spot and engaging with each other in a discrete manner so as not to attract any unwanted attention.

"Isn't it a dating cliche that a couple goes out in public, then finds somewhere reasonably private to start making out?" Yes, but these men aren't going into a park to make out, they're cruising the park and engaging in oral sex.
I'm honestly surprised that one could operate a brick and mortar business for diaper enthusiasts. Is there that much local business?

I'm fascinated to know about their day to day revenue.
@ 25 - I suppose their "local" market is the whole Chicago area. I doubt anyone who lives in Mount Prospect goes to that store, but for all the other diaper enthusiasts from other parts of the region, it's the best place to go without being found out.
BiDanFan @10 "Of course none of this will help if PARK's turn-on is watching men who don't know they're being watched, but we can't know this from her letter."

Exactly. Which is why I suggested she give more thought to precisely what it is she's looking to get out of this situation. Of course I know what voyeurism is. So does Dan. Interesting how he doesn't use the term in his answer even though his answer assumes that's what she's looking for and he not only tells her how to accomplish it he explains how the public park setting distinguishes her from voyeurs who get off secretly filming women in changing rooms or toilets.

Voyeurism, particularly the kind that prioritizes secrecy, is not an easy kink to practice in an ethical fashion. If that's what she wants, she should be honest with herself that that is what she is doing.

If what she truly wants is a live gay sex show, there are better ways to get it than crashing a gay cruising spot. That is highly discourteous behavior. Like I said in my initial response, I respect Dan's logic about how they're doing it in public, she's just as free to do her thing in the same space. But just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. I realize most people don't approve of cruising spots, even less so in the age of hookup apps, so they don't care about the feelings of the men in the park, but I do. I think they should be left alone. By cops and by pervy straight women.
@17: Hebrew BURN! :P
@ 27 - "I think they should be left alone. By cops and by pervy straight women"

I beg to differ. I once had great sex in a public park with the hot Italian bearish cop who had been sent there to arrest gays!
Undead @25: My guess is that they're also doing an awful lot of online sales.

Sophie @27: Ah, thanks for clarifying. So "why can't she just watch porn then" was rhetorical.

Marilynsue @29: True, if not particularly relevant. Certain slimy straight men go to gay clubs in order to prey on presumed-straight women after they've had a few drinks and the gay male friends they went with have found partners for the evening.
@5 In addition to your username being my favorite dinosaur, those are all good questions to ask of any self reporting ABDL. We tend to have very particular tastes when it comes to our preferences and asking those questions in a sincere and loving way would go a long way (for me, at least) toward fostering even more trust.

@25 There is actually a similar location right here in Everett, WA. Although it is more of a warehouse/fulfillment center, they have staff on site and allow transactions. The Tykables situation is a bit different, in that they're positioning themselves as a "store." although it's really the same kind of setup as the one in Everett, i.e., by appointment only, frosted windows, etc.
@32/35: Makes perfect sense that it'd tie into online sales. I'm probably also picturing a larger shop versus a strip mall office with a large warehouse and tiny showroom.
Er, 31/32.
I'd also like to add a couple of comments about the coverage of the Mt. Prospect story. Local nooz reporters referred to adults with a "baby fetish" and this has our community (rightly, I reckon) on the defensive. Our thing has nothing to do with actual babies as fetish objects or as part of our play IN ANY WAY. There's a reason we're called "ADULT babies."
@23 - you'd be surprised how sheltered people can be, even with the Internet. I know, I was one of them! I once knew a transgender person who didn't even realize transgenderism was a thing well into adulthood. After a lifetime of hiding it from everyone, that person thought that they were the only person in the entire world who felt like they were born the wrong gender, didn't even know that there was a word for it, and was astounded when they found out about transgender communities on the Internet.

@24 - from the letter: "A local park in Seattle often hosts gay men engaging in sexual activities." "Hosting" implies to me that it's an activity that's scheduled, sanctioned, and marked off for particular activities, the way hosting a party means that showing up at that person's house and expecting a party won't be a surprise to that person. Did I just read the letter wrong? I guess, in retrospect, PARK meant that a particular park is just generally known for gay people having sex there?

And please, let's not be naive and act like "making out" never leads to sex, both in private and public. Doesn't really matter if it's a random hook-up or a couple out for some excitement either (nor do we know which one it was), still doesn't mean that people making out and/or having sex in public are okay with being peeped at.
CASH - I also sometimes feel that sex is strange and icky. Usually it's when I'm over-intellectualizing it, because I'm not feeling emotionally connected to my partner, or because something else is wrong (for me) and I'm not paying enough attention. When I do feel connected, sex is amazing and flows just right without any icky feelings at all, despite still having the same messy, human, strange biological aspects. I recommend that you focus on the person, not the act(s), and it may follow more naturally.
@30 Congrats, Ricardo, but I suspect your partner was off duty.
@37 “Is sex dirty? Only when it's being done right.” – Woody Allen
@17 Ha. Ha. Ha.
Undead @ 17
Chi_type @ 28 is right. Onan was a minor biblical character who was forced to marry his dead brother’s wife and their children were supposed to inherit the family plot or whatever.
He pulled out every night and took matters into his own hands.
The big G, being loving and merciful and all that jazz, killed him violently.

His name became a verb describing masturbation, and is still used in Hebrew till this very day.
DK @ 39
Apparently Woody was very much in love with this line. As far as I recall it appears in at least two of his movies , "Take the Money and Run" and "Zelig." In both it is almost an identical scene: he's at the therapist and asked if sex is dirty...
Masturbation is also a repeating favorite of his.
I'm really curious what the ratio of men to women is in the diaper fetish world. If I recall correctly, Dan has only gotten letters from men who are into this particular activity. I wonder why that is...
@42: Except the sin that Onan committed wasn't masturbating per se, so much as wasting his sperm. If he also had sex with his/his dead brother's wife and impregnated her successfully, I suspect the bible would be totally cool with him masturbating to his heart's content. Even if he's supposed to satisfy his wife by biblical injunction, he would probably not have pissed God off if he chose to masturbate additionally. Kind of like Filippa's defense in Bococcio's "Tale of Filippa," from The Decameron: as long as you fulfilled your marital obligation, it's no one's business what you do with the leftovers.

This is not to acknowledge that for more than a century, "Onanism" has been a euphemism for (male) masturbation, which was--and still is to a tiny minority of fundamentalists--considered to be sinful and must be discouraged, which was one of Kellog's main interests. Other ways to discourage boys from becoming "Onanists" was to circumcise them and to make them sleep with their hands always kept above the bedcovers. Like that ever worked.

People be crazy . . .
@ 38 - The whole point of the anecdote is that he actually was on duty. I wouldn't be telling it otherwise.

His superiors just didn't realize who it was that they were sending to entrap the gays, I suppose.
@46 Did he arrest you after the sex, Ricardo? Did he arrest anyone else? Vice doesn't send undercover officers to entrap men at cruising spots alone. If your guy was out of sight long enough for you two to have great sex, his backup would've been worried about him and come to check on him. Maybe he really was a cop, maybe he really had participated in stings at that location before, but the odds that he was actually on duty and assigned to run a sting at that location when you two hooked up are far longer than the odds that he was acting out a fantasy. Regardless, I'm glad you enjoyed the sex.

P.S. Santa Claus and Czech Hunter aren't real.
I was @ 45
Yes, you are right; Onan’s biggest offense was violating some family inheritance guidelines.

As for sleeping with hands kept over the blanket: John Waters has some good stories about a piece of cloth used to tie boys’ hands in Catholic summer camps. Maybe our Catholic friends can give us more details.
As for me, circumcision was never a deterrent.
@28: Hey, the Septuagint was a thing!!!
@ 47 - I think I have a lot more experience in cruising parks (and avoiding the cops there) than you do.

The patrol car was there, the bored partner was sitting in it, the guy had his badge in his back pocket and the whistle they used to call the partner around his neck. He also wore the dark blue shorts and light blue t-shirt they always had on their stings. Quite a setup to act out a fantasy.

Besides, that cruising spot was huge and it could easily take someone up to an hour to go all the way up and back down in order to catch people in the act. The partner wouldn't have started worrying until after quite a while.

Now if you're going to keep talking of things you know very little about, please don't talk to me. As far as I'm concerned, you're as credible as Santa Claus.
JibeHo @44 - There've been some self-selected surveys of diaper enthusiasts that came up with a male/female ratio of about 9 to 1. In recent years it's been getting more and more obvious that this was to some extent an artifact of selection bias; quite a lot of women are into diapers but aren't into joining clubs and websites about it (they tend to get harassed by horny geeks immediately). Anecdotally, it seems to be growing more popular among younger women lately - I know easily a dozen 20-something women who like diapers, but only a few in their 40s.

Based on people I know personally, I'd say there are a lot of women into ageplay, but most prefer a "play age" of 5 to 10. If you go to ageplay parties you'll find lots of women coloring and holding teddy bears and wearing princess dresses, but relatively few will be diapered. If you got ten women ageplayers together, you might find only one or two who liked diapers, whereas it would probably be a majority of male ageplayers. (N.B.: not all diaper fetishists identify as ageplayers at all.)
Of course, there are tons and tons of straight guys into CFNM (Clothed Female, Naked Male) who would love to get naked for PARK in whatever scenario she wants, whether it's hard core domination with whips and chains, or soft core domination where they clean her toilet, or more casual like a cocktail party where they happen to be the only ones naked.

But if her heart is set on seeing two gay guys having sex, while many gay exhibitionists would prefer to perform in front of other men, there are absolutely some who don't mind if a woman watches and some even who might get a particular thrill out of the idea. For a gay exhibitionist, there's something more verboten about someone seeing you nude who wouldn't normally see you in a locker room.

But for their safety and yours, checking them out in crushing areas of parks may not be the best idea. I'd recommend posting something on Fetlife, Craigslist, or any number of other fetishy places. Surely you'll find gay or bi guys interested in the novelty of showing off, and no deception or disguises necessary (unless disguises are part of the prearranged fun).
@29 - Ugh, that's awful, and sadly not surprising. A gay dance club I used to frequent in San Francisco started to attract some straight guys who came in to hit on the straight girls who came in to dance with their gay friends and get away from the straight guys who were constantly hitting on them. Possibly the same one. :-(
PARK needs better advice:

Find a couple of gay or bi guys to get it on with who are enthusiastically consenting to being watched by you.

That's what my wife did. ;)
@30: I have to wonder if his superiors and peers ever caught on to *why* he was so enthusiastic about staking out the gay parks. ;)
@ 55 - He must have given them the whole "Why me!?!" routine to throw them off.
abdlthrowaway@32 Enfant@51 What are ABDL and/or age play enthusiasts looking for in their partners? Are they turned on by play partners in diapers too, or do they prefer their partners to be specifically adult and interact with them the way an adult would with a baby? Are there diaper enthusiasts who don't like diapers on themselves and are really into the adult babies, and are they still called diaper enthusiasts? If there were an age play party at a public park, would perving on them from the parking lot be ok or nah?
@50 "The patrol car was there, the bored partner was sitting in it, the guy had his badge in his back pocket and the whistle they used to call the partner around his neck. He also wore the dark blue shorts and light blue t-shirt they always had on their stings. Quite a setup to act out a fantasy."

I'm sorry, I assumed your story occurred at some point in the past 30 years. In modern times, cops sent to arrest men in cruising spots do not arrive in marked squad cars, wearing a uniform and a handy whistle around their neck.
DIAPERS letter appeared as a daily last week.…
Enfant has some more information there, and LW also showed up
Ankylosaurus @57:
Regarding what ageplayers are looking for in their partners, I can pretty much sum up the answer as "yes". People are different. Any and all of the above will apply to someone somewhere. (For me personally, having my partner in diapers isn't my thing; what I like is to be kept in them by a dominant "mommy" figure. Sometimes I role play as an actual child, other times it's more about humiliation, and other times just kind of an identity thing -- being a person who wears diapers is just weirdly awesome for me by itself. It's complicated and hard to explain. Other people are into other things.)

Yes, there are people who specifically kink for the mommy/daddy role, or who just really like putting their partners in diapers without playing any associated role at all. "Diaper enthusiasts" is just a term I used when I was posting earlier, it's not a standard term in the ageplay community.

I've never heard of anyone holding an ageplay party at a public park (a munch, maybe, but not the kind of party where people dress up and scare the muggles). Are you asking if it's okay to go to a play party and be a spectator? Sure, I imagine so... I guess it'd be up to the host.

If you're interested in researching the topic further, the Big Little Podcast ( is a pretty good resource. (Disclosure, I'm interviewed in one of the episodes.)
Mr Ricardo - Well, I suppose it was nice for you, though in a way it's a sad story. You got off because you attracted him, but I'm going to feel for all the people he arrested because they didn't attract him and to keep up his quota.
@ 59 - Yes, you have been everywhere and know absolutely everything there is to know about cruising parks, police procedures for sting operations and the laws that regulate them. In every single country on the planet. Of course you have.

Now go to bed, sweetie, it's past your bedtime. Let the adults talk.

@ 62 - For many reasons (most importantly the fact that at that precise moment and place, such operations were rare, a judge having put serious limits to what the police could do), I seriously doubt this guy ever arrested anyone. He was just glad he was getting paid to get laid.

Sometimes an anecdote doesn't have a downside, you know?

That was a hard won share Ricardo.
Kevin @53: That phenomenon is not club-specific. Nor even country-specific. Was seriously disappointed, the last time I went to a mixed gay club, and the only attention I got was from misguided straight dudes.

Ricardo @56: It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it. I'm just glad that particular cop was spending his time doing something more productive than arresting pot smokers.
Mr Ricardo - I'll hope that's true; that makes the story much better. I've known people from areas where entrapment was an accepted or even an encouraged routine


Ms Fan - Don't quit your day job.
@ 65 - Why waste your time arresting pot smokers when you can spend it shooting people of colour dead? Sorry, my sarcasm got the better of me. And I don't wish to imply that particular cop killed anyone out of prejudice. A few of his colleagues did, though.

@ 66 - And so it was in that jurisdiction until about two years before that anecdote (mid 90s), when it was determined by the courts that actual entrapment violated the rights of the entraped and provoked them into committing a crime they wouldn't have otherwise done (my bad for using the verb entrap earlier). Stings after that merely became half-hearted answers to citizen complaints, and the police could only send an observer to find evidence of wrongdoing. Their presence also had to be somewhat obvious so they wouldn't be accused of entrapment, I believe, hence the patrol car nearby, the whistle (in order to have another cop confirm the accusations of the first) and the easy to spot (although unidentified) blue shorts and shirt.
Continuing from 67 - But now that I've given all the details, it kind of makes the story less fun.
Not at all Ricardo. It's a great story. Bear policeman and whistle. A nice green and bushy park. Illicit danger. It's all there.
@69, re: @ 68, yeah it's fun for us. PS, I was never skeptical.
Ricardo- You certainly give away way too many details. SophieX can repeat them now and claim to be an expert.
As an old fat woman who has had a couple of kids, I gotta say my response to someone who feels safe when wearing diapers is that this is not about sex, but about incontinence.

And that would account for his reticence, his reluctance to have her be part of this. He dribbles, he's uncomfortable about it, and sometimes he would like to feel that there is no chance of there being any evidence.
Y'all are a bunch of fools if you don't understand how Ricardo's follow-up statements demonstrate that he was being misleading with his initial comment.

@30 "I once had great sex in a public park with the hot Italian bearish cop who had been sent there to arrest gays! "

@63 "For many reasons (most importantly the fact that at that precise moment and place, such operations were rare, a judge having put serious limits to what the police could do), I seriously doubt this guy ever arrested anyone. "

@68 "Continuing from 67 - But now that I've given all the details, it kind of makes the story less fun. "

So, yeah, that whole part where Ricardo makes it sound like he was soooo hot the cop sent to arrest him had sex with him instead, that was bullshit. I didn't need to be an expert on law enforcement practices across the world to smell bullshit and tease out the truth.

SophieX- Call me a fool but I have a hard time connecting the contradicting dots. Besides, did YOU ever watch "Montenegro?"
SophieX, just let it go. I feel that nobody but you cares.

vennominon, I don't understand "don't give up your day job" to BiDanFan. I am curious!
@73. Sophie. wtf? Ricardo was sharing one of his life experiences. If the other thousand(s) odd are anywhere as much fun, I hope he shares a lot more.
Ms Quilting - Her post struck me as a slightly distasteful joke; that's all.
@ 71 - Thanks for the laugh.

Now she says that I was misleading, but it appears that she's the only one who was misled... Maybe she still needs a few years to hone her reading skills. And her logic, which is rather faulty as you pointed out @ 74.
Gay man here. When I was younger I used to do the parks a lot. Felt an odd mix of guilt, thrill, was completely hot, wandering through the bushes looking for the right guy(s).

A woman showing up to watch would most definitely NOT be something we ever wanted. Complete turn off. I would have buckled up and walked the other way, too.
"SophieX, just let it go. I feel that nobody but you cares."

I've been reading Dan since the Hey Faggot days, and this comment section off and on for, I dunno, ten years now? As long as it's been around. And I'm not sure I'll ever fully resign myself to how majestically credulous the regular commenters are.

If The Stranger wants to insert a box that one has to check certifying that you believe other commenters care before you post your comment, then I'll respect that. But until that day, I'll post whatever I want. You're free to think negative things about me, I'm free to think negative things about you.
Busy @75: Right on both counts. SophieX, Ricardo had a topical, titillating story. Why couldn't you just enjoy the vicarious experience like the rest of us? Where did your drive to discredit him come from? This ship of fools was having a lot more fun before you piped up with your unwelcome "expertise" on matters that had nothing to do with you. The point was not "how hot Ricardo was," but that some clever queer cop had managed to turn an assignment most would find unpalatable to his advantage. Geddit?

And I'm glad I'm not the only one who was either thick enough to not get what Venn meant about my day job. Venn -- If I'm going to make a joke, you'll know it.

Bad news in both our countries (Lava, I hope Australia has been nice and peaceful lately) has made us all tetchy, it seems. I hope you all have happy weekend plans to take your minds off it.
Oops, delete the word "either". Venn, what was distasteful? I really WOULD prefer that cops spend their on-duty time having sex than arresting pot smokers who aren't harming anyone.
Or shooting unarmed black kids, or laughing off domestic violence victims, or hassling young kids whose only crime is to have multicoloured hair. Here we are getting back into the downers...
Magically Credulous... Oh, I like that. Thanks Sophie.
Ms Fan - Oh; your reference to the job made me take your meaning to be a joke that somebody had to have the main purpose of arresting gays. (At least I gave you enough credit to assume it to be a joke; a similar remark by, say, Ms Marcel I'd have taken to be serious.)

As for your intended meaning, I don't know that it's entirely fair of you to attach "who aren't harming anyone" in a subsequent post. (I'm pot-neutral, though I accept that almost everyone else here is strongly pot-positive.) Perhaps you thought it an automatically implied attachment. It's the sort of statement that at first seems on a slam-dunk level of easy agreement, but, considering all the ramifications, I'm not so sure. We may not like that portion of an officer's duty, but the full meaning of a system that could still function if its practitioners had sex while on the clock isn't all strawberries and cream.

Now #84 would have been a better original comparison, as having sex on duty, while something the police are not supposed to do, is at least not harmful, while the other things they are not supposed to do that you list certainly are. But that's a separate consideration, not part and parcel with something that is part of duty, even if a distasteful part.

Now I've started considering whether the Lawrence-v-Texas arrest would have been better if, instead of arresting the couple, the police had joined in. It's rather an interesting exercise, and I thank you for starting me in that direction.
My experience has been that people who have an underlying urge toward some kink and who don't fully recognize it yet often make weird newbie mistakes while exploring, that later (with luck) will be amusing to them, if the mistakes aren't too damaging. So voyeurs may do some weird sneaking around; exhibitionists may do some inappropriate, possibly illegal, exhibiting; both crossing lines of consent until they figure out how to get their kink satisfied in easier and more ethical ways. The PARK LW seems to be in that early stage. I would recommend finding other venues where a watcher would be less likely to be unwelcome and where the viewing would be better lit. 1) bathhouses (why does Dan not mention these? Maybe he's just not familiar enough?) the one I've been to has some more public-ish areas, the theater, the hot tub area, where people might have sex and not care who is watching. 2) cruising beaches (daytime, better lighting) 3) mixed gender kink parties (many people enjoy having respectful audience to their scenes) and even 4) gay male bars if/when they have events that are more mixed gender welcoming. I am pretty sure I've seen guys having sex in all these kinds of settings over the years.... Could not swear to it since I am not much of a watcher myself.
I am a little disturbed by the advice to try to present more of a male silhouette to fit in with the cruising environment. I understand it... Many gay guys would not mind being observed by a discreet male watcher but would be bothered by a female...but I don't understand why it would be ethical to fool them like that. Especially with all the ruckus about the nonexistent trend of men dressing up like women to get into private women's spaces. Advising a woman to take on a more masculine appearance to get into men's private spaces just seems... off. Better to find ways of getting that itch scratched without violating anyone's privacy or consent. And if the kink is the violation itself...find a way to work on that issue, with therapy or something, and keep the kink expression to fantasy or porn.
@ 58 - A classic. I particularly like it when he says there wasn't a thing he could do about it.

In the "how the hell did that happen" category, I also quite enjoyed their story about the guy who wondered what he'd inserted up his ass the night before: a fridge or a washing machine.

@ 69, 70 - Glad you both enjoyed it, then. And although I consider skepticism a quality, I'm afraid I have zero imagination (unlike one commenter here), so my stories are always true. I'm boring that way. I even find it hard to change names and places in order to 'protect the innocents' (which is why I don't mention them at all).

@ 82 - "The point was not "how hot Ricardo was," but that some clever queer cop had managed to turn an assignment most would find unpalatable to his advantage"

Thanks, Bi. I don't think I could have explained it any clearer. I do wonder where she got the idea that I was implying I'm so hot; I'm the textbook definition of average looking!
Venn @86: Ah, got it. No, the "dirty job" I was talking about was having gay sex. No, nobody's gotta arrest people for having sex, even in public. Just give them a warning and ask them to move on, at most.
I would, in fact, draw a line between pot smokers who aren't harming anyone and pot smokers who are, for instance by driving while intoxicated. Just smoking weed can get you arrested (in states/countries where it's still illegal), which any thinking person would find ridiculous, particularly given that drinkers are orders of magnitude more likely to cause fights, damage property, etc. But I don't want to go off on that tangent. And I didn't want to make the comparison about what bad cops do, but more about what even benign cops are expected to do. It was Ricardo who brought the even darker comparison in @67. So much for trying to keep things light... *sigh*

Squidgie @87: A public park where sex is nominally off limits is not "men's private space." A bathhouse most certainly would be. Honestly, I think if someone were going to get their voyeur on, perving at people having sex where they're not even supposed to be in the first place is a good no-harm-no-foul solution.
For CASH, I wish Dan had repeated his past advice to "wait, date, and masturbate." It's great for those just figuring out their sexuality or for those going through some kind of transition later in life. And just as catchy as GGG, DTMFA, or fuck first.
@ 89 - Sorry about that. Tough week at work (by which I mean too much work, not anything bad). I'll try to keep my negativity in check.
@PARK: Reverse the genders. If a straight guy was leering at women in a lesbian bar, how would they react? (I go to LGBT bars and clubs from time to time, and I mind my fucking manners.)
If you're not willing to try the Craigslist route, check out the Folsom Street Fair, plenty of exhibitionists there. Or visit the UK and check out their "dogging" scene, though that's pretty much heterosexual, as I understand it.

@SophieX: Really? You've been reading since Hey Faggot? So have I, funny I haven't noticed you around before. You sure you didn't just binge-read the Savage Love archives last week? Sure seems suspicious to me, you sanctimonious jackass.
@93: Or a straight guy at a softball game, or a U-Haul rental office, or whatever the lesbian equivalent of a park is. Funny that it's hard to come up with one.
I'm not defending PARK, and understand why her presence would be unwelcome, but for some voyeurs, part of the thill is in seeing something they're aren't really supposed to be seeing. The spying might be part of the turn on. Yes, I know it's a public park, but the people the lw's watching or trying to watch are trying to be somewhat hidden and discreet, no?
@ 93 - One thing I've noticed throughout my lifetime is that people who are quick to accuse others of lying are the worst liars themselves.
@ 87 - Dan has expressed his dislike of bathhouses in the past, and he generally acts as if they weren't (a pivotal) part of the gay scene.

I personally think they're great, but I haven't been to any that allowed women in.
Chase @94: Lesbians aren't inclined to have sex in semi-public because they know they'll get male gawkers, who, for a woman, aren't just annoying but potentially dangerous.

Nocute @95: Indeed. And the flip side is, PARK may have assumed that because these guys are having sex in semi-public, on some level they want to be seen; that the possibility of voyeurs is the reason they're not in a men's bathroom stall or a cheap motel. She may be wrong about most of them, and she's definitely wrong about the gender of the observers they're secretly hoping to draw; but it's not an unreasonable assumption.
@98: Yeah, I was bring ironic. It's not an equivalent situation, but most gay men probably aren't too interested in female attention.
I know women who used to go to sex parties full of gay men - but this was in SF back before AIDS.
Have tuned out a bit this week Fan, re news. Haven't heard of any big tragic news here. Peace and goodwill to all. And the wish my daughter's baby would get moving and get born.
Nocte @ 95
BDF @ 98
With all due respect to kinks they have to remain within the legal system and practiced with willing partners, in simulated situations or not.
Not saying this isn’t your position, just want to make a point that the same laws and attitudes that prohibit people who like showing from imposing themselves on others should be applied to intentional onlookers as well.
PARK, just like most others, will have to make some compromises.

@45 nocutename, great post, articulates exactly my feelings on the subject.

Also, there's a simple solution to tightly-tucked bedsheets with hands outside: hump the sheets to orgasm.
@102: Oh CBD, I wasn't suggesting that PARK should keep on spying on people. I just meant that I think part of what she likes is seeing something she's not supposed to be seeing. Maybe.

I think that porn is a poor substitute for watching real humans who are turned on by each other have sex right in front of you. Again, I'm not saying PARK should not change the way she gets her thrill, just that a solution is not as easy as saying, go watch more gay porn."