Jump to content

  •  

  • Photo

    Ouran High School Host Club has a cgl relationship!

    anime cgl little caregiver

    • Please log in to reply
    22 replies to this topic

    #21 ᗰikᗩitᗩkᑌ 𝔴𝔬𝔩𝔣 Groot

    ᗰikᗩitᗩkᑌ 𝔴𝔬𝔩𝔣 Groot

      Wilderness

    • Banned
    • PipPipPip
    • 250 posts
    • LocationBeaverton OR

    Posted 27 September 2016 - 10:57 PM

    I've been lurking in this thread since it started, not wanting to say anything, but I feel that I must do so now. What I have to say isn't directly related to the topic, but in response to what I quoted above.

     

    DDlg at its core, and especially at its roots, is a type of BDSM. Not an addition, an extension, or especially a decoration(!), but a type that is just as real and valid as the more hardcore types, such a Master/slave. DDlg is inherently sexual, and inherently a Dom/sub (the DS in BDSM) relationship. It is literally in the name DDlg because DDlg stands for "Daddy Dom little girl", the Daddy Dom as the dominant and the little girl as the submissive. Caregiver/little is the same, it's just the gender neutral term that's easier to say or type than "DDlg, DDlb, MDlb, and MDlg" but the name doesn't make it any less of a BDSM dynamic. I want to point out this paragraph as facts because everything else below is just my opinion.

     

    All the stuff Petal is saying about not being sexual while in little space is totally fine and completely valid. When I regress to a particular age range, I'm not sexual either, nor am I anyone's sub. I went into little space at Toys R Us the other day, which happens to me almost every time, and I only wanted attention from my Daddy and to be cuddled and taken care of. (I explained this all to Zen and he understood perfectly.) While I experience times where I do really feel like a child, and therefore don't want to do certain things, that doesn't invalidate the rest of the time where I want to do those certain things and do want to be submissive. I know its common to be innocent and chaste in little space, but this is still just my experience, and I know not every little is also a middle and/or displays those aspects of their personality 24/7 like I do. My experience shapes the way I define things for myself and my relationship, but it's doesn't change the definition for anyone else.

     

    I understand that there are people who have non-sexual DDlg or CGl relationships and I completely respect their decision and their right to have it. Although, this is something that is more rare and as far as I can tell, something that has started happening more recently, as this type of relationship is slowly but surely becoming more mainstream. Not everyone's relationships have to be sexual, and not everyone's relationships have to be non-sexual, but everyone has to at least be aware that DDlg is by nature a sexual Dominant/submissive dynamic, even if that's not how they personally participate in it. Once we all have that awareness, we're more than allowed, welcomed even, to adapt it to fit own individual needs.

    You are entitled to your opinion that DDLG is all about BDSM and sex, but that does not mean that everyone has to or will accept that definition of DDLG. I don't. Being a little or a caregiver has nothing to do with either BDSM or sex in of itself. as you pointed out you go into little space at Toys R Us. 

     

    from all that I have read there simply is no right or wrong way to go about it. As for my view I see the act of being little/caregiver to be something completely different from BDSM, they may be an off shoot of it, that may be where the all of the terms have come from but in the end being little or a caregiver is just how some people are.


    <p>I don't intend to come off as rude or disrespectful so if I say something that sounds like it, please tell me and hopefully we can clear any misunderstanding up.

    #22 Petal

    Petal

      like on flowers

    • Members
    • PipPipPip
    • 88 posts
    • LocationMidwest USA

    Posted 27 September 2016 - 11:12 PM

    *sigh*

     

    I didn't mean to undermine DDLG as a BDSM subsect, I was just trying to weave a metaphor or something.  Honestly, what do I know anyway?

     

    Maybe I'm just in the wrong place.  Maybe I misunderstood something along the way...

     

    Thanks everyone.. <3 

     

    ~~



    #23 Guest_ZenDD_*

    Guest_ZenDD_*
    • Guests

    Posted 28 September 2016 - 01:00 AM

    ...but they /are/ paradigms within our adult community.

     

    Okay listen.  I get what you're saying.  DDLG is sexual, or stems from sexuality, and is an adult expression.  "Its real roots, adult psychosexuality", right?  And that even insinuating that minors can be a part of this exclusively adult idea is detrimental to the public opinion of DDLG.

     

    Which I agree with.  It's definitely detrimental.  And I think that your talk about being a Daddy as "thinking about this stuff so littles shouldn't have to" also makes a lot of sense.

     

    Now here's the problem:

     

    1.) It's admirable to stick up for the community, especially one so closely watched and often misunderstood.  It's admirable to ensure we aren't misinterpreted more than we need to be, and I love and appreciate your work on that.  But it's naive to say that this paradigm is ours and ours alone.  Sure it might not help us in the long run, but I think giving out "helpful misinformation" is probably worse than "unhelpful information".  The fact of the matter is, psychologically - speaking as a psychologist - not a whole lot changes between 17 years and 364 days old and 18 years old.  You don't magically get the ability to make rational, mature decisions overnight.  We don't limit our involvement with minors because the day you turn 18 you can make decisions responsibly, but because the /law/ says you are now responsible for those decisions.  There's nothing wrong with using paradigms from childhood, like caregiving.  Hell, even sex in and of itself is a paradigm from puberty - which is more like 12-14 years old!  We use that too.  It's okay to take things that minors had first and use them as adults.  Yes, we adapt those paradigms to fit our age, our legal responsibility, and our lifestyle, but it doesn't make it "new".  It makes it "altered".  So when we see things like caregiving or sex with minors in TV shows (hey, teenage sitcoms always had sex before 18 years old!) we can relate and empathize with feelings we still have today.  In no way does this condone the involvement of a minor in our community, but it's not arrogantly stating that we built this entire concept on our own.  Which brings me to part two.

     

    2.) I know you think that the DDLG stuff comes from BDSM and sex and that's the root of it all.  I don't think that's true.  But even if it was, people still feel those feelings as teenagers.  People still want to be dominant or submissive in the bedroom at sixteen and some people want to be tied up or tie people up - I know I did!  It's a concept that is legally tied to adulthood because of what I said about laws and responsibility and drawing a line, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in minors.  Again, turning 18 doesn't magically change your psychology.  You're confusing psychology with social convention.  The best example I have of this is a scene in Lie to Me, where Cal asks a twenty year old boy if he finds a picture of a seventeen year old girl attractive.  And he says no, and Cal says "well you're lying, but you should be".  And he goes on to talk about how we will perceive visual stimuli as attractive or unattractive without psychology's intervention - that it's a biological need to reproduce, and arousal sort of just happens.  But it's society that tells us no.  And we say no, even believe "no", when biological responses say something completely different.  And that's /GOOD/.  Because society keeps us in check.  They drew an artificial line for us that says "this is okay, this is not okay", when in reality there are adults into their 20s who can't represent "adult psychology" and children at 15 who can.  But that's not measurable, so we have an artificial line.  And we BELIEVE in that line because IT IS NECESSARY.  It's not a psychology thing: it's just following rules.  (Btw, the Dom/Sub rule-following paradigm is from childhood.)  The point of this paragraph was to say, we as a community shouldn't be saying "DDLG DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH KIDS" because we don't take paradigms from growing up, but because, well, frankly, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KIDS!  Children are not involved.  Minors are not involved.  Can a fifteen year old be a little?  Sure!  I was, ten years ago.  But we will have NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, because that's the rule.  Not because of psychology, but because we respect the line society drew, because we want to protect minors as much as the next person.  That's the message we should be sending.

     

    3.) Lastly, I think you're wrong about DDLG always being rooted in sexuality.  I think you're absolutely on point that, for some people, the DDLG lifestyle is an extension of BDSM play!  That the whole Dom/Sub fits very well with the CG/L stuff.  It's like dressing my teddy bear as Alice from Alice in Wonderland.  CGL is a great decoration for BDSM.  It can give it more life, more flair, more passion, more purpose, more anything!  And that's great for those people.  But that's not everyone.  My little side is completely removed from sexual stuff.  I still like sex, I like sexual things, I even use little stuff /for/ sex too embarrass me.  But little space?  There's nothing sexual there for me.  My little stuff derives entirely from my longing to act freely and silly, knowing someone will watch over my actions to make sure I stay safe.  I never "obey" or "get punished" in little space.  I play.  I have fun.  I'm actually really bossy! XD  And all I ever want from my CG is to say no when I'm about to do something stupid, and to give me attention when I'm feeling lonely.  I understand I am probably in the minority, but I exist.  And I know others exist like me.  I've felt this way since I was nine years old, and it hasn't changed since hitting puberty, since becoming an adult.  I'm not saying you're wrong, Zen, about DDLG and sexuality - honestly, you're probably more right than I am.  But anything in an absolute vacuum is going to be wrong one way or another.  And honestly, when you talk about how it's all rooted in sexuality and how minors can't be little?  I get really upset.  Because my little side is really the last open, innocent, honest thing about me, and it makes me doubt it.  And that's not fair.

     

    ...I did it again. >_< Sorry for the rant.

     

    Um.

     

    Point: Zen, you're right about this community needing protecting and sheltering because the world is full of idiots.  But sometimes things aren't always black and white, and using misinformation for that defense can be worse than not defending us at all.  And if that doesn't make sense, think about it this way: you pride yourself on the good you're doing for the community, and we love that you are there to be a shield for us littles.  But look at all the people who feel the need to defend ourselves to you?  Obviously we aren't getting the protection we need.  Maybe you could fix that?

     

    Okay.  I am thoroughly exhausted.  Sorry if I offended anybody. ;_;  Honestly and truly, I didn't mean to..

     

    ~Petal like on flowers

     

    This is all getting more convoluted as we go. So I'll digress with this last post.

     

    You're right, there is nothing wrong with using childhood as a paradigm. That isn't my argument at all. My concern is using children as a paradigm. That's a distinct, semantic difference within social construct, psychology, and the law as well. Childhood is a concept; a state of mind, a state of being. Children are people. I'm not sure why that point is being missed here. My point isn't to protect you adult littles with my views, it's first and foremost to protect minors from a world they believe they understand but are incapable of understanding because this is for adults. Secondly, my viewpoint is to protect DDlg/CGl from the scrutiny of those outside of the community, who are all well intended in their critique. My point is being missed entirely, but that's just something i'll have to accept. Now it's being misunderstood as a strictly sexual issue. BDSM does not necessarily involve "sex", but it is a very simple fact that DDlg is based in a branch of D/s. Saying that D/s "fits well" in CGl is completely backwards in it's historical context, but there is nothing i can do as an old adherent of BDSM to convince any newcomers of that, apparently. And that's something else i'll just have to accept. It's a normal part of the life of a subculture for it to become absorbed into the mainstream, get misunderstood, and evolve into something entirely new, but please remember that that doesn't change it's historical inception.

     

    If the history and roots of DDlg and CGl are unknnown to many, as appears to be the case, and there is no interest in knowing it, I can do nothing about that. Maybe the name DDlg can give a clue to that history when one considers what the second "D" stands for. The name CGl, for those who don't know, is not a "sexuality-free" name for DDlg, it's a non-gender-specific alternative, because the term MDlb (Mommy Dom little boy) and other such acronyms were having to be created to encompass everyone involved. It doesn't mean that it's a "BDSM-free" version of the lifestyle. I understand that not all adherents of DDlg/CGl involve sexuality in their practice, but one should know that those that don't are actually the exception, not the rule. 

     

    All of this talk of sex has to be cleared up, too. I think that when the above posters find themselves "defending" non-sexuality within this lifestyle, they are talking about actions like intercourse and other genital-oriented, orthodox sexual practices. It's important to stress here, that "sex," especially in the fetish-oriented world, in which it has already been established that DDlg/CGl is a sub-sect of, "sex" can be very different things. To some people, just getting tied up is sex. To some people, squishing worms with their feet is sex. So to be clear, I don't presume to give a set definition of what sex is, except for to say that it is best not to be practiced by children. By the perspective held by many here, because the Ouran High School example doesn't involve sex, it's ok to call it CGl and allow minors to learn that CGl can be for them because it doesn't have to be sexual. By that same token, one can show depictions of children tied up in Shibari rope bondage, explain to them that this is BDSM, and that it's ok for them to practice because it doesn't involve "sex". But to me, that would be avoiding the adult psychology behind bondage, just as defending the casual posting of high school kids in a "CGL" relationship would be to avoid the adult psychology behind CGl. I think it makes no sense to take the adulthood out of being a little. The adulthood is what makes it special in the first place. It's the whole point of being a little -- to manifest child-like attributes within the adult psychology. I'm surprised this isn't understood more, but I promise i won't stress it further.

     

    Also, this idea of explaining to me that not everything is black and white is, again, missing the point. Of course not everything is black and white, especially in the BDSM world, of which i've been a part of in different forms for the better part of two decades. Of course it's a complex issue to determine the exact point of a psychology changing from child to adult. And that's precisely why we shouldn't flirt with those lines in a public forum such as this one; for the sake of erring on the side of the safety of the underaged who can very easily navigate themselves to this forum, and throughout it. Therefore, when it comes to the issue of involving children, or doing things that can attract children, there should most definitely be black and white. This forum, for example, is black and white on that issue: 18 and over are welcome, under 18 is a no. That's black and white. It's not realistic to believe there never has to be black and white. Don't confuse what i'm saying to mean i believe in black and white concepts for the DDlg/BDSM community. I've been saying from the beginning, in my numerous points throughout numerous topics here, that there is no single, proper interpretation of what DDlg/CGl, or any lifestyle concept for that matter, is (it's factual history notwithstanding). However, as responsible adults, we shouldn't be gray when it comes to utilizing depictions of our community that could be misconstrued by minors and people outside of, and even within, our community to condone pedophilic tendencies.

     

    But if some people can't or aren't interesting in comprehending that, or don't agree with that, that's something I'll just have to live with. Not everyone chooses to want to understand or care that we in subcultures represent each other to the outside world. Some people are not concerned with the perceptions they enforce, consciously or subconsciously, to children and society. Your points are all valid.  I've said my peace. Thanks so much for the discussion guys, I really enjoyed it. I appreciate the participation and passion. Here's a Werther's original for all of you. Now get off my lawn, you kids! :heart:


    Edited by ZenDD, 28 September 2016 - 09:48 AM.

    • tamsinkitten and LoralieHaze like this





    Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: anime, cgl, little, caregiver

    0 user(s) are reading this topic

    0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users