To each their own.

[Guest]

Hello hello  

 

I have been on this forum for quite a while now, and I absolutely love the amount of information available on here.  I think it is awesome to see so many people sharing the same interest and helping each other out. 

 

However, I have also noticed that often, members tend to make what works for them an absolute truth. Now, I understand that we are supposed to share opinions, information and experiences, but what works for one might not work for somebody else.

That is why I think everyone should keep in mind that what they do/like/believe in is completely valid, but that it does not have to be everybody else's cup of tea. 

 

When I see posts saying things such as "switches cannot be proper doms" or "you can't be a little if you are not a sub", it really bothers me. 

What is awesome with the CG/L community (and any BDSM community in general), is that it comes in all shapes and colours, and that there is no right or wrong. 

Also, when people are given less credibility because they are a bit younger than others, and because "since you're 18/19, you're not an adult yet, therefore you don't know what you really want", it is just as wrong. (Here, I am talking about people of age, don't get me wrong) 

Some will be 18, responsible and sensible when others will be 25 and still immature. 

 

So my point here is to remind a few that we all are consenting adults sharing a common interest, and that we should all be respectful and keep our minds open. 

 

 

[Guest]

I think people sometimes forget that everyone is different and using generalizations about someone's age is a bit silly if you don't know that person personally.

 

I had to "grow up" at a very young age, and have had tons of adult stuggles in my 24 (soon to be 25 years. ) But I understand there are people who have delt with more than I have ever have that are younger than I am.

 

I see a little of the other side you mentioned above, to a point. But as I said you can't make a generalization about someone based on their age when you don't know their story. Saying everyone that is 18/19 is still living at home is kind of silly,(not sure if that's what they meant but that's how it came off to me and a few others it seems) especially when I know people in their 30s-40s that live with their parents for financial support. (Nothing wrong with that at all) , but again genarailzation is silly about something like that.

 

 

Ddlg is not set in stone. Do what makes you happy, and don't let people get under your skin. Sticks and stones.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Arya

[Guest ZenDD]

I could be wrong, but i can't help but feel some of this might be aimed at a post I responded to from an 18 year old little asking how others new they were little. If i'm mistaken, please forgive me, but i'd like to address some of your comments.

 

Age is definitely irrelevant regarding DDlg/CGl; for all BDSM as a matter of fact. The only age relevant is that of legal adult age. In my last post, I referenced an 18 year old who may or may not be an "adult". The context of that age, not the age itself, is the actual issue. There are definitely 18 year-old adults and there are most definitely 40 year-olds who are not. The real issue should be defining what an adult is. Not just a legal adult, but a psychological adult. Of course, anyone 18 or over can engage in a CGl relationship, but if that person is not a psychological adult, then age regression is impossible. One has to reach a destination before being able to travel back to a previous point in the trip. In my post, I referenced this person's age within context of their additional information, which included memories of childhood and observations from her parents, in order to legitimize, if you will, her "littleness." To me, this is a clear indication of not quite being an adult. Again, I even i identified what my personal definition of adult would be, which was basically simplified to "someone who pays their own bills." In other words: makes their own rules for living, responsible for themselves; someone who doesn't have a "guardian" doing those things, legal or not.

 

Yes, DDlg/CGl is open to interpretation, but what is not open to interpretation is the basic concept that it describes a D/s dynamic within a relationship. No bones about it; it's in the very name of DDlg: Daddy Dom, little girl. It utilizes the word Dom to indicate D/s, and utilizes the roles of two people to indicate a relationship. Again, if someone wants to call themselves a little, or a Daddy, or a Dom, or a sub, that's perfectly fine. But identifying with only one of those words does not an adherent of DDlg make you. It's the unique combination of some of those words that dictate whether someone is actually into DDlg.

 

One can't go into a baseball player forum and claim to be a baseball player solely based on the fact that they like bats and gloves. Go ahead, like bats and gloves all you want, be the world's greatest collector even, but that still doesn't make you a baseball player: it makes you a baseball equipment collector. And there's nothing wrong with being that. There is no need to call yourself a baseball player in order to "legitimize" your interest in baseball bats and gloves. There are too many ball and glove collectors here who don't play baseball who like to claim they are players. They don't do it because they're a-holes, they do it because they're mistaken about what playing baseball actually is. Baseball has a history, and you can throw a football tackle into the game if you wish, use a hockey puck instead of a baseball, and you can play it on a tennis court, too, but then realize that it isn't baseball anymore. Come up with a different name. Don't rewrite the history of what baseball is and tell it's players that they don't have a right to define baseball.

 

BDSM is very open to all non-normative lifestyles. But that doesn't mean that the BDSM community isn't staunch in it's defense of semantics, terminology, depiction, and representation. The BDSM community is open to all participants, but in general is not appreciative of participation in pretense, or with a lack of conviction or knowledge. The BDSM community is generally pretty insistent on being respected, and is very accepting of those who at very least attempt self-education and apply that knowledge regarding clarity of concept, and protocol. This may sound odd to those outside of it, but BDSM communities have traditions. They are always open to new traditions, too, but that doesn't mean the old ones are dismissed and disposed of. Thanks for the debate.

[Bam Bam]

I could be wrong, but i can't help but feel some of this might be aimed at a post I responded to from an 18 year old little asking how others new they were little. If i'm mistaken, please forgive me, but i'd like to address some of your comments.

 

Age is definitely irrelevant regarding DDlg/CGl; for all BDSM as a matter of fact. The only age relevant is that of legal adult age. In my last post, I referenced an 18 year old who may or may not be an "adult". The context of that age, not the age itself, is the actual issue. There are definitely 18 year-old adults and there are most definitely 40 year-olds who are not. The real issue should be defining what an adult is. Not just a legal adult, but a psychological adult. Of course, anyone 18 or over can engage in a CGl relationship, but if that person is not a psychological adult, then age regression is impossible. One has to reach a destination before being able to travel back to a previous point in the trip. In my post, I referenced this person's age within context of their additional information, which included memories of childhood and observations from her parents, in order to legitimize, if you will, her "littleness." To me, this is a clear indication of not quite being an adult. Again, I even i identified what my personal definition of adult would be, which was basically simplified to "someone who pays their own bills." In other words: makes their own rules for living, responsible for themselves; someone who doesn't have a "guardian" doing those things, legal or not.

 

Yes, DDlg/CGl is open to interpretation, but what is not open to interpretation is the basic concept that it describes a D/s dynamic within a relationship. No bones about it; it's in the very name of DDlg: Daddy Dom, little girl. It utilizes the word Dom to indicate D/s, and utilizes the roles of two people to indicate a relationship. Again, if someone wants to call themselves a little, or a Daddy, or a Dom, or a sub, that's perfectly fine. But identifying with only one of those words does not an adherent of DDlg make you. It's the unique combination of some of those words that dictate whether someone is actually into DDlg.

 

One can't go into a baseball player forum and claim to be a baseball player solely based on the fact that they like bats and gloves. Go ahead, like bats and gloves all you want, be the world's greatest collector even, but that still doesn't make you a baseball player: it makes you a baseball equipment collector. And there's nothing wrong with being that. There is no need to call yourself a baseball player in order to "legitimize" your interest in baseball bats and gloves. There are too many ball and glove collectors here who don't play baseball who like to claim they are players. They don't do it because they're a-holes, they do it because they're mistaken about what playing baseball actually is. Baseball has a history, and you can throw a football tackle into the game if you wish, use a hockey puck instead of a baseball, and you can play it on a tennis court, too, but then realize that it isn't baseball anymore. Come up with a different name. Don't rewrite the history of what baseball is and tell it's players that they don't have a right to define baseball.

 

BDSM is very open to all non-normative lifestyles. But that doesn't mean that the BDSM community isn't staunch in it's defense of semantics, terminology, depiction, and representation. The BDSM community is open to all participants, but in general is not appreciative of participation in pretense, or with a lack of conviction or knowledge. The BDSM community is generally pretty insistent on being respected, and is very accepting of those who at very least attempt self-education and apply that knowledge regarding clarity of concept, and protocol. This may sound odd to those outside of it, but BDSM communities have traditions. They are always open to new traditions, too, but that doesn't mean the old ones are dismissed and disposed of. Thanks for the debate.

Can you please point me out to this rule book? I understand that DD/LG means DaddyDom/LittleGirl but that doesn't exclude CG/L. A lot of people come to this forum not only for DD/LG. I've seen Masters/Slaves, MD/LBS, MD/LG, DD/LB, ABDL the list could go on and on. For what ImABoo has stated, it's about the people who think they know it all, the ones who believe their way is the only way. If you believe your foot fits the shoe, then I guess it does..

Edited December 31, 2016 by Guest

[Guest ZenDD]

Can you please point me out to this rule book? I understand that DD/LG means DaddyDom/LittleGirl but that doesn't exclude CG/L. A lot of people come to this forum not only for DD/LG. I've seen Masters/Slaves, MD/LBS, MD/LG, DD/LB, ABDL the list could go on and on. For what ImABoo has stated, it's about the people who think they know it all, the ones who believe their way is the only way. If you believe your foot fits the shoe, then I guess it does..

 

If you have ever read any of my posts, then you would know i never exclude CG/l or any other type of dynamic. Please don't make accusations about my stance without research. Secondly, I'm not pointing out a rule book, i'm pointing out the "book" of tradition and common knowledge and practice, which, like it or not, exists in BDSM.

 

Not sure which "rules" you're talking about, because you're not being specific. But maybe it's the definition of "regression"? The concept of DDlg? I'm not sure how you think I'm making all of these "rules" and concepts up, but these definitions are all in dictionaries, writings on psychology, and within the numerous writings on BDSM. There is always room for evolution and interpretation, but that that doesn't negate that there is a general consensus! There seem to be many here who aren't aware of that general consensus and tradition regarding what the general BDSM, D/s, M/s, DDlg/CGl concepts and their terminology mean. I am simply reminding everyone, especially newbies, of that fact. I, personally, am not making this stuff up, I'm reminding people that it exists, it is there, look for it, read about it, be informed, from multiple applications, from multiple sources within cultural, social and scientific study.

 

I'm not sure why pointing out that there are existing definitions of concepts and that those norms are great starting points, and that those norms and traditions should be respected, is bad. I'm not saying those norms and traditions should never change or be interpreted differently, but if someone's been popping and locking for 40 years and some new kid walks in and says they're popping and locking and had never seen the original moves, and the old timer says, "no, actually popping and locking goes like this, but you're style is rad, too, " then that should be respected, not dissed.

 

I'm not dissing anyone's moves. I'm just saying know your history. Too many people here don't. And I get it, I'm being viewed as the old timer telling people to get off the lawn, but in all actuality I don't mind if people play on the lawn. I just want those who play on it to know that lots of people took time and care to get that lawn to be fun to play on, and to respect that.

[Guest Ginger]

I'm definitely one for doing whatever suits you. Whatever floats your boat and makes you happy! But I do have to agree with a bit of what Zen is saying. There is a foundation to what CGL is and it's BDSM. Some things just can't be changed. But it's how you choose to interpret certain aspects that allow you to make the relationship yours.

[Guest]

My post was not aimed at anyone in particular, it was a reaction to some of the things I saw ^^ 

 

You talked about regression and I agree with you when you say that " One has to reach a destination before being able to travel back to a previous point in the trip". But on that post, which was rather short, we only had a small perspective on that person's behaviour, so I think it is a bit much to question one's littleness based on such a small portion of their personality, even if what you said made sense. 

 

Then you talked about the D/s dynamic present in the title dd/lg, which once again, I agree with. However, dd/lg being part of the CG/L community, I don't think a power exchange has to be part of the experience, and let's not forget about the variations we can find. I have seen Little Doms, and I still believe they belong to the CG/L community. Sure, they don't respect the "basic rule" but still. Also some littles/middles/babies do not want to be dominated, but would rather get guidance from the whole dynamic. They are still, in my opinion, part of the community. 

So yes, there are "guide lines", but it does not make it okay for one to say whether somebody is into dd/lg or not. There is no such a thing as a DD/LG checklist. 

It is a bit like saying that if a Daddy is not a Dom, then he cannot be a good Daddy. What makes a good Daddy or a good little is the way they treat their partners and fulfill their needs. 

 

You also say "One can't go into a baseball player forum and claim to be a baseball player solely based on the fact that they like bats and gloves". Right, that's true. But one can claim they are a baseball player as soon as they play baseball. Even if knowing the history of baseball is good, it will not make one a better player, just a well educated one (which is obviously important when it comes to BDSM). 

Then you add "Come up with a different name". Now that seems a bit harsh. Not because you do not fit in all the "creteria" does not mean you don't belong to the community. If all the "rules" and "guidelines" were religiously followed, then every CG/L relationship would be the same. 

 

"Don't rewrite the history of what baseball is and tell it's players that they don't have a right to define baseball." Sure the players have the right to define what baseball is, however I am not sure it gives them the right to say who can play and who cannot. 

 

Baseball has a history and rules, but they slowly changed with time and so does every other thing. Not saying the CG/L community is going to be renewed, just saying that it will eventually evolve. To quote Arya, DD/LG is not set in stone, and I don't think making it yours (as in when you "practice it") is a lack of respect towards its history. 

 

I actually like learning the history, rules, and every aspect of the dynamic, and I'm glad that some people take their time to educate newer members. What I'm pointing out, is when the "CG/L culture" is used to tell people who is "in" and who is not. 

 

This is my opinion, and if I misunderstood anything you've said please let me know, it is interesting to have a different point of view

Edited January 1, 2017 by Guest

[Guest countlieberkuhn]

One can't go into a baseball player forum and claim to be a baseball player solely based on the fact that they like bats and gloves. 

 

Just throwing in my 2 pennies here, and I may be misinterpreting the point, but I think it's unfair to use that logic unless the person literally doesn't play baseball.  They might be the worst baseball player in the world and not know the rules, but if they like it anyway and play, skill or experience doesn't really matter - they're a baseball player.

 

Labels seem very arbitrary here anyway, as far as I'm concerned.  There seems to be quite a few different subcultures that fit under the DDLG banner, but at the end of the day all of us here either want to look after someone, be looked after (or both), and share their love.

[Bam Bam]

If you have ever read any of my posts, then you would know i never exclude CG/l or any other type of dynamic. Please don't make accusations about my stance without research. Secondly, I'm not pointing out a rule book, i'm pointing out the "book" of tradition and common knowledge and practice, which, like it or not, exists in BDSM.

 

Not sure which "rules" you're talking about, because you're not being specific. But maybe it's the definition of "regression"? The concept of DDlg? I'm not sure how you think I'm making all of these "rules" and concepts up, but these definitions are all in dictionaries, writings on psychology, and within the numerous writings on BDSM. There is always room for evolution and interpretation, but that that doesn't negate that there is a general consensus! There seem to be many here who aren't aware of that general consensus and tradition regarding what the general BDSM, D/s, M/s, DDlg/CGl concepts and their terminology mean. I am simply reminding everyone, especially newbies, of that fact. I, personally, am not making this stuff up, I'm reminding people that it exists, it is there, look for it, read about it, be informed, from multiple applications, from multiple sources within cultural, social and scientific study.

 

I'm not sure why pointing out that there are existing definitions of concepts and that those norms are great starting points, and that those norms and traditions should be respected, is bad. I'm not saying those norms and traditions should never change or be interpreted differently, but if someone's been popping and locking for 40 years and some new kid walks in and says they're popping and locking and had never seen the original moves, and the old timer says, "no, actually popping and locking goes like this, but you're style is rad, too, " then that should be respected, not dissed.

 

I'm not dissing anyone's moves. I'm just saying know your history. Too many people here don't. And I get it, I'm being viewed as the old timer telling people to get off the lawn, but in all actuality I don't mind if people play on the lawn. I just want those who play on it to know that lots of people took time and care to get that lawn to be fun to play on, and to respect that.

I'm not making any accusations. In another post of yours you have stated "Remember, being a little is one thing, being into DDlg is another. There are many littles here who are not into DDlg and it's D/s concepts. And that's okay to not be into DDlg if one is a little, but this place is called DDlg Forum, and i'm just reminding people of that. Thanks." I do agree that this place is called "ddlgforum", but it has been widely accepted to welcome everybody from different corners of the spectrum. DD/lg does mean DaddyDom/littlegirl, yes we can all agree on that, but in that statement you do make it seem like this place is only for that certain dynamic. Whether you mean that or not, that is how it came across. 

 

Age regression is something we both agree on. You cannot regress to a child like or little state without once getting past that state in life, but to make assumptions that somebody has not made it past that state based on their age is wrong, which is something you also did in another post. "With all due respect to you, of course you can remember the interactions with your parents, which you mentioned in your post, because they only happened a short time ago as you are only 18." With that insert it does make it seem like you made the assumption that because she is "only 18" she cannot be a little within the community. You cannot base where somebody is in life based on their age.  

 

You've also stated "If someone is 17, lives at home, and doesn't pay their own bills, they are considered an adolescent child; not yet an adult. Turning 18 wouldn't automatically make that person an "adult" in actuality, only in the legal sense. This person, regardless of their age, would still not be capable of regressing or role-playing to a child-like psychology because it is the only one they have had. This is what is considered a child. A child can't be a little.". I cannot agree with most of that part. In this part you have stated that somebody who lives at home with their parents cannot mentally aged enough to be a little. I believe that be entirely incorrect. We can't judge somebody mentallity based on where they live. Things have changed a lot since when you were around that age and now. The world you lived in isn't here now. So to base somebody's mental age on where they live is impossible, but I do agree that if your legal or biological parents are still taking care of you, making your day to day choices, and managing your finances then you cannot be in the cg/l community. With the way you are making it seem is that only well aged matured adults can be part of the dd/lg community. I find that incredibly innacurate.  It just seems odd when you say that when most of the "Caregivers" here want that young pretty "little".

 

"I'm not sure why pointing out that there are existing definitions of concepts and that those norms are great starting points, and that those norms and traditions should be respected, is bad." I have yet to see anybody say that the existing definitions aren't a good starting point, but honestly what are the "norms" and "traditions" now? Here is where most people tend to disagree with you, it's when you say stuff like "no, actually popping and locking goes like this, but you're style is rad, too," or even "Baseball has a history, and you can throw a football tackle into the game if you wish, use a hockey puck instead of a baseball, and you can play it on a tennis court, too, but then realize that it isn't baseball anymore. Come up with a different name. Don't rewrite the history of what baseball is and tell it's players that they don't have a right to define baseball.". If I do recall correctly, Baseball has changed over the years, it is always evolving but I wouldn't compare ddlg to baseball. Like you have stated before "Secondly, I'm not pointing out a rule book, i'm pointing out the "book" of tradition and common knowledge and practice, which, like it or not, exists in BDSM." I have never heard of such a "book". Like many people here who come to this site, we have researched CG/L before we even decided to dive into a relationship, the difference between us and baseball players though. Is the fact that there is a written rule book. I can look on the internet all day and night and to find this "book" of traditions that you like to recall, but I will probably spend the rest of my life looking for it. The great thing about CGl is the fact that it isn't written in stone, it is open to interpretation and to be changed and added to. Definition of CGl is quite simple actually "Cg/L stands for Caregiver/Little. It is a lifestyle in which one of the people in a relationship, the caregiver, takes care of the other person in the relationship, the little, in an almost parental way. This lifestyle can be sexual or non sexual and usually involves child like things." Nowhere have I found that it has the be d/s or another like that. This is where it seems like you are twisting your version of cg/l into the actually definition. Yes Cg/l is a part of the bdsm community, but the bdsm community is a lot more than just d/s.

 

"I'm being viewed as the old timer telling people to get off the lawn, but in all actuality I don't mind if people play on the lawn. I just want those who play on it to know that lots of people took time and care to get that lawn to be fun to play on, and to respect that." Well the great thing about grass is that I can take some of it and grow it into my own lawn. But for  you to tell me that what we are doing is not a part of the CG/l community is completely biased on your personal opinions. I have stated earlier there is no rule book, there is no traditions, and there is certainly not a group of creators that you like to seem you are a part of. 

[Guest ZenDD]

Just throwing in my 2 pennies here, and I may be misinterpreting the point, but I think it's unfair to use that logic unless the person literally doesn't play baseball.  They might be the worst baseball player in the world and not know the rules, but if they like it anyway and play, skill or experience doesn't really matter - they're a baseball player.

 

Labels seem very arbitrary here anyway, as far as I'm concerned.  There seems to be quite a few different subcultures that fit under the DDLG banner, but at the end of the day all of us here either want to look after someone, be looked after (or both), and share their love.

 

It would be unfair to use the logic unless a person literally doesn't play baseball, but my point is that there are people here who in fact do not play baseball and say they do. Nothing wrong with those who don't play. I'm not dissing non-players, I just feel that the non-players are defining and representing a game they actually don't know anything about and if they actually researched it, would find that they don't actually like the game.

 

Again, within the BDSM world, labels are most definitely NOT arbitrary. They are important to defining and identifying one's role within the community. One doesn't need a label if there is no community interaction, however.  Again, I didn't make this rule up, this is part of the traditional "coding" of the BDSM community.

[Guest ZenDD]

 

I'm not making any accusations. In another post of yours you have stated "Remember, being a little is one thing, being into DDlg is another. There are many littles here who are not into DDlg and it's D/s concepts. And that's okay to not be into DDlg if one is a little, but this place is called DDlg Forum, and i'm just reminding people of that. Thanks." I do agree that this place is called "ddlgforum", but it has been widely accepted to welcome everybody from different corners of the spectrum. DD/lg does mean DaddyDom/littlegirl, yes we can all agree on that, but in that statement you do make it seem like this place is only for that certain dynamic. Whether you mean that or not, that is how it came across. 

 

Age regression is something we both agree on. You cannot regress to a child like or little state without once getting past that state in life, but to make assumptions that somebody has not made it past that state based on their age is wrong, which is something you also did in another post. "With all due respect to you, of course you can remember the interactions with your parents, which you mentioned in your post, because they only happened a short time ago as you are only 18." With that insert it does make it seem like you made the assumption that because she is "only 18" she cannot be a little within the community. You cannot base where somebody is in life based on their age.  

 

You've also stated "If someone is 17, lives at home, and doesn't pay their own bills, they are considered an adolescent child; not yet an adult. Turning 18 wouldn't automatically make that person an "adult" in actuality, only in the legal sense. This person, regardless of their age, would still not be capable of regressing or role-playing to a child-like psychology because it is the only one they have had. This is what is considered a child. A child can't be a little.". I cannot agree with most of that part. In this part you have stated that somebody who lives at home with their parents cannot mentally aged enough to be a little. I believe that be entirely incorrect. We can't judge somebody mentallity based on where they live. Things have changed a lot since when you were around that age and now. The world you lived in isn't here now. So to base somebody's mental age on where they live is impossible, but I do agree that if your legal or biological parents are still taking care of you, making your day to day choices, and managing your finances then you cannot be in the cg/l community. With the way you are making it seem is that only well aged matured adults can be part of the dd/lg community. I find that incredibly innacurate.  It just seems odd when you say that when most of the "Caregivers" here want that young pretty "little".

 

"I'm not sure why pointing out that there are existing definitions of concepts and that those norms are great starting points, and that those norms and traditions should be respected, is bad." I have yet to see anybody say that the existing definitions aren't a good starting point, but honestly what are the "norms" and "traditions" now? Here is where most people tend to disagree with you, it's when you say stuff like "no, actually popping and locking goes like this, but you're style is rad, too," or even "Baseball has a history, and you can throw a football tackle into the game if you wish, use a hockey puck instead of a baseball, and you can play it on a tennis court, too, but then realize that it isn't baseball anymore. Come up with a different name. Don't rewrite the history of what baseball is and tell it's players that they don't have a right to define baseball.". If I do recall correctly, Baseball has changed over the years, it is always evolving but I wouldn't compare ddlg to baseball. Like you have stated before "Secondly, I'm not pointing out a rule book, i'm pointing out the "book" of tradition and common knowledge and practice, which, like it or not, exists in BDSM." I have never heard of such a "book". Like many people here who come to this site, we have researched CG/L before we even decided to dive into a relationship, the difference between us and baseball players though. Is the fact that there is a written rule book. I can look on the internet all day and night and to find this "book" of traditions that you like to recall, but I will probably spend the rest of my life looking for it. The great thing about CGl is the fact that it isn't written in stone, it is open to interpretation and to be changed and added to. Definition of CGl is quite simple actually "Cg/L stands for Caregiver/Little. It is a lifestyle in which one of the people in a relationship, the caregiver, takes care of the other person in the relationship, the little, in an almost parental way. This lifestyle can be sexual or non sexual and usually involves child like things." Nowhere have I found that it has the be d/s or another like that. This is where it seems like you are twisting your version of cg/l into the actually definition. Yes Cg/l is a part of the bdsm community, but the bdsm community is a lot more than just d/s.

 

"I'm being viewed as the old timer telling people to get off the lawn, but in all actuality I don't mind if people play on the lawn. I just want those who play on it to know that lots of people took time and care to get that lawn to be fun to play on, and to respect that." Well the great thing about grass is that I can take some of it and grow it into my own lawn. But for  you to tell me that what we are doing is not a part of the CG/l community is completely biased on your personal opinions. I have stated earlier there is no rule book, there is no traditions, and there is certainly not a group of creators that you like to seem you are a part of. 

 

 

I agree with the things your saying. I just think my observations are being misinterpreted by those who want so desperately to be part of this community when, if they actually took the time to research what DDlg is, they'd see that they aren't actually practitioners, adherents, or even interested. Too many here associate it with an interest in child-like behavior and products made for children. Those are peripheral issues. 

 

Again, more misinterpretation: the "book" of tradition i mention isn't an actual book, hence the quotation marks. I was making a point about that there aren't rules but there is history and tradition. One can't take B/D, for example, and say, "there doesn't have to be any Bondage or Domination in B/D." I mean, one could say that, but it would be pretty silly and misinformed. Of course there are no "rules", but there is common sense involved. The reality is that the common sense about DDlg is vanishing into thin air. If someone likes to wear a collar and cuffs, but is not into M/s dynamics it isn't really accurate for them to say they are part of the M/s community. Of course one has the "right" to do it, it's just illogical. The same thing occurs here: an interest in stuffies, coloring books, and pacifiers does not automatically make one a DDlg adherent. It's illogical. I know i'm coming across as impatient or even aggressive, as some have stated, but I'm reacting to what I feel is some pretty aggressive ignorance, and misinformation.

 

Most of my responses DO NOT only address the original poster's issues. When I respond, I respond with some generalities that could address the entire community and all who might read it. So not every observation has to do entirely with what an original poster might personally address. I find the issues intrinsic to that poster's comments, within those comments, implied within those comments, and address those. 

 

Contrary to how I'm being perceived, I'm not saying things are black and white, that there is only one way, but the fact that people deny a general consensus, and that people even get defensive over that general consensus, is mind boggling to me. Look up DDlg/CGl on the number of blogs and sites and one will find what i'm saying to be true. I'm not saying there aren't variations on the theme, but there is a theme. I'm sorry if people don't like the theme, but it exists. Most of us who are adherents of CG/l find commonalities with that main theme: a consensual, adult, D/s dynamic with a Caregiver psychology and a child-like psychology in the roles. That's the basis. That's the constant. THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE, just as getting restraned in B/D will never change. Restraint in B/D is the constant. Yes, there are variations: rope, or belts, or ties, or handcuffs, or purely psychological restraint, but it's all restraint nonetheless. The theme of restraint doesn't change. It's ok if one doesn't agree with those techniques, but don't be illogical and deny the basic theme. The blatant disregard for the themes of BDSM are puzzling to me. 

[Guest ZenDD]

Then you talked about the D/s dynamic present in the title dd/lg, which once again, I agree with. However, dd/lg being part of the CG/L community, I don't think a power exchange has to be part of the experience, and let's not forget about the variations we can find. I have seen Little Doms, and I still believe they belong to the CG/L community. Sure, they don't respect the "basic rule" but still. Also some littles/middles/babies do not want to be dominated, but would rather get guidance from the whole dynamic. They are still, in my opinion, part of the community. 

So yes, there are "guide lines", but it does not make it okay for one to say whether somebody is into dd/lg or not. There is no such a thing as a DD/LG checklist. 

It is a bit like saying that if a Daddy is not a Dom, then he cannot be a good Daddy. What makes a good Daddy or a good little is the way they treat their partners and fulfill their needs. 

 

You don't have to like power exchange, but that is what CG/l and DDlg are. They are branches of D/s. That is a fact. There is nothing wrong with not liking a power exchange, but I would venture to say that then that person is not actually an adherent of CG/l. My opinion. And guess what? My opinion matters just as much as anyone elses. Again, I'm not even denying variations such as little doms or sub CG's, but those are D/s and power exchange dynamics too! Who said that CG's can only be Dominant? Not I.

 

Being a good Daddy, by the way, has nothing to do with being a Dom. You stated, "Also some littles/middles/babies do not want to be dominated, but would rather get guidance from the whole dynamic. They are still, in my opinion, part of the community." It is precisely comments like this that I'm referring to! This is a misinformed statement! Guidance IS Domination, it IS power exchange. One guides, one submits to being guided. How is that not D/s? Guidance and nurturing is the specific, distinct, style and technique of Dominance used in CG/l!! Somehow, many here don't understand what D/s actually is. It is assumed by many here to mean "cruelty", or "force". Submission is often misinterpreted to mean a form of degrading servitude. Because of these misinterpretations, there are many here who then say that D/s isn't or doesn't have to be part of the CG/l dynamic. There is a vast lack of understanding of the basic psychological concepts that make up the various BDSM archetypes here. And there is no reason for it because there are vast amounts of resources. All it takes is a couple of google searches and the reading of a few sites to get a basic grasp on these concepts. But it is quite obvious that there are many here who fail to do even that; I'm sure many can agree with that. In turn, it makes it difficult to actually have conversations and debate about DDlg/CG/l when the general knowledge is so low.

 

Often, there seem to be more discussions about toys, anime, and games than CGl concepts and dynamics. I'm glad that my posts have at least generated some more in-depth conversation. Thanks everyone.

[Guest ZenDD]

There is a foundation to what CGL is and its BDSM. Some things just can't be changed. But it's how you choose to interpret certain aspects that allow you to make the relationship yours.

 

Exactly! Well put.

[Johnny Hammersticks]

I want to start by thanking I'm a Boo for starting a great topic with some very good discussion going on here. The good part of this forum is to help people define and understand what DDLG is because its such a new entity, and dosent really have its own clear definition, or traditions.

 

With that, i want to remind people that DDLG is its own entity, its not BDSM. BDSM is BDSM. They are different. While some of the same principals and terminologies are employed, DDLG is a thing because it has a lifestyle of its own.

 

As DDLG has gained popularity, many people with BDSM roots have adopted it into their relationships. But there are just as many people with no BDSM roots who have adopted DDLG also. I happen to be one of the latter.

 

All of our interpretations are valid, when those interpretations work in each and every one our personal relationships. And as long as you conduct yourself respectfully in this community, we all have valid points when discussing and trying to define exactly what DDLG is.

 

To me, being a little does not nescessarily mean you want to be tied up and degraded, and being a Daddy dossent mean you want to leave welts on your girlfriends ass. In my view the little/Daddy ruleset is quite different than a D/s ruleset. But again, thats my interpretation. The interpretation of one who has their roots in the traditional BDSM sense may be offened by my views, and if so,so be it.

 

My main point of this post is to remind people that its a comepletly seperate dynamic, and DDLG, as its moved to a more mainstream of popularity, is starting to need its own definition, rather than piggybacking on the definition of BDSM.

[LoralieHaze]

I want to start by thanking I'm a Boo for starting a great topic with some very good discussion going on here. The good part of this forum is to help people define and understand what DDLG is because its such a new entity, and dosent really have its own clear definition, or traditions.

 

With that, i want to remind people that DDLG is its own entity, its not BDSM. BDSM is BDSM. They are different. While some of the same principals and terminologies are employed, DDLG is a thing because it has a lifestyle of its own.

 

As DDLG has gained popularity, many people with BDSM roots have adopted it into their relationships. But there are just as many people with no BDSM roots who have adopted DDLG also. I happen to be one of the latter.

 

All of our interpretations are valid, when those interpretations work in each and every one our personal relationships. And as long as you conduct yourself respectfully in this community, we all have valid points when discussing and trying to define exactly what DDLG is.

 

To me, being a little does not nescessarily mean you want to be tied up and degraded, and being a Daddy dossent mean you want to leave welts on your girlfriends ass. In my view the little/Daddy ruleset is quite different than a D/s ruleset. But again, thats my interpretation. The interpretation of one who has their roots in the traditional BDSM sense may be offened by my views, and if so,so be it.

 

My main point of this post is to remind people that its a comepletly seperate dynamic, and DDLG, as its moved to a more mainstream of popularity, is starting to need its own definition, rather than piggybacking on the definition of BDSM.

 

I find much of this post extremely ironic as you have indicated on multiple occasions that the type of DDlg relationships that you've been in have leaned much more heavily towards M/s than towards DDlg. In my opinion, this is a great example of people not knowing what BDSM actually is, and therefore saying that they're not interested in it. It's a simple case of people not doing enough research, and therefore not knowing what they're talking about.

 

I understand that concept all too well because I've experienced it myself. I once made a post on here saying that I had no interest in being involved in a M/s dynamic, but over time, as I began to learn what it really was and what it really involved, I discovered that I've actually been interested in it for a long time. My preconceived notion of it being forced upon people was what held me back and I believe that the same thing is happening to many, many people on the forum when they read the terms D/s and BDSM.

 

You're right that to be a little doesn't have to mean being tied up and degraded. To want to be tied up means that someone is into bondage and to want to be degraded means that someone is into masochism, specifically the emotional type, neither of which are the same as submission. Additionally, the desire to want to leave welts on someone's ass is sadism, which is different than dominance.  You're wrong however to assume/imply that to be in a Dom/sub relationship, of which DDlg is a certain type, automatically equates to bondage and sadomasochism. Those are parts of BDSM but all the different parts don't always coincide. Just because BDSM stands for bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism, that doesn't men that that's all there is to it, or that all the elements must be practiced at the same time and by all adherents.  

 

I'm not sure who said it but it was mentioned above that many here do research on DDlg before deciding to join the community and the forum. In my (almost) eight months of being on this site, I've found that it's incredibly rare for new members to have done any prior research at all. This place is often the way in which they metaphorically dip their toe into anything remotely kinky. I don't think doing that is bad, we all start somewhere, but I do think it's inaccurate to say that many people show up with pre-existing knowledge of this lifestyle when the vast majority do not. 

[Guest]

First, I woud like to make clear that this is a debate, and there is no right or wrong, which was the point of my original post. 

 

Now,

 

" And guess what? My opinion matters just as much as anyone elses"

Never said the opposite, everybody's opinion matter. Opinions can be discussed, which is what we are doing. 

 

"Guidance IS Domination, it IS power exchange. One guides, one submits to being guided"

Personally, I do not see guidance as a form of domination, it can be, and often is, but it does not have to be. There is a subtle nuance between those two terms, anyone can seek guidance in any circumstances, which does not have to imply any submission or domination. 

Here are my researches: 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/guidance

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/domination?s=ts

 

 Somehow, many here don't understand what D/s actually is. It is assumed by many here to mean "cruelty", or "force". Submission is often misinterpreted to mean a form of degrading servitude. Because of these misinterpretations, there are many here who then say that D/s isn't or doesn't have to be part of the CG/l dynamic. 

I completely agree with you on that, but don't really see where confusion has arisen? Now you might be talking about a general observation and not only the post I made. 

 

I think many people misinterprete what you say because first, as you said yourself, you do not only answer to the post, you also  "respond with some generalities that could address the entire community and all who might read it"

And it makes it seem like you're off topic, or stated unsolicited opinions. 

Now I understand that might not be your intention, but the way you answer makes it feel like we should feel somehow privileged by your willingness to share your "superior" knowledge. Don't get me wrong, most of your posts are very articulate and informative, however, they can appear a little random and off topic. 

 

 "There is a vast lack of understanding of the basic psychological concepts that make up the various BDSM archetypes here. And there is no reason for it because there are vast amounts of resources. All it takes is a couple of google searches and the reading of a few sites to get a basic grasp on these concepts. But it is quite obvious that there are many here who fail to do even that; I'm sure many can agree with that. In turn, it makes it difficult to actually have conversations and debate about DDlg/CG/l when the general knowledge is so low."

Now, with all due respect, it sounds quite condescending and patronising. People are completely free to contribute to this community and forum without having accessed the same sources as yourself. And if you really feel like the level of general knowledge is so low, you are not obliged to engage. 

You and I agree on the fact that everybody's opinion matters, and I am glad you have responded to my post.    

 

What my post was about in the first place, is the fact that some people feel the need to tell others, that they do not belong here, and that their opinions are perhaps less worthwhile than others. There is no need for a "DD/LG police" presence; if people can find like-minded friends, comfort and a sense that they have been listened to and understood, they should be welcome here, be they littles, middles, babies, caregivers no matter their perceived role.        

Edited January 4, 2017 by Guest

[Daddy's_Babygirl]

Alright first of all, yes thank you ImaBoo.

 

DDlg is NOT BDSM... however, I'm with Zen on this one. It IS a branch off of it. If it weren't, it wouldn't be Daddy Dom little girl, it'd be something else. Yes, we use CGl to incorporate all dynamics, however Dominance is still in its core.

 

You don't have to have a total power exchange, but as Zen stated, there IS an exchange of power, even in switch dynamics. You don't want total domination just guidance? Fine, but you're still submitting to that persons guidance. More than likely you're going to take the advice they give you.

 

Littles.... generally speaking are submissive in some nature. They want guidance, love, affection, and in many cases (myself included), discipline.

 

Being into stuffies, pacifiers, etc.... may indeed make you "little"... but that doesn't make you into DDlg. If you want your partner to not provide any guidance, discipline, absolutely no form of domination.... how can they be a Daddy DOM? The key word here folks is Dom. Dominate. The very word itself is found in BDSM.

 

Frankly, I'm new to the DDlg dynamic. I in no way claim to be a founder or even an adherent. I am doing my best to learn more about it, and frankly in the process I find sometimes sickening information. Young girls who are using the dynamic as a reason to not ever need to be an adult. Girls who are posting that they're looking for a Daddy.... but want no guidance, no dominance, no rules (which is fine if that's what you choose)... they don't want to work or help keep up on housework. They just want to be... frankly, a child. If this is what you want, by all means, do it... but I feel like that's a dynamic that's been around for awhile and they call it Sugar Daddy...

 

I am not saying that you have to have rules or discipline to be into DDlg. You don't have to like punishments, you don't have to like TPE... however, like it or not it IS a branch of BDSM. The pilars of BDSM are bondage/discipline domination/submission and sadism/masochsim. You don't have to incorporate any of these into your dynamic if you so choose, but once you take out domination, it is no longer Daddy Dom little girl.

[Guest]

"Frankly, I'm new to the DDlg dynamic. I in no way claim to be a founder or even an adherent. I am doing my best to learn more about it, and frankly in the process I find sometimes sickening information. Young girls who are using the dynamic as a reason to not ever need to be an adult. Girls who are posting that they're looking for a Daddy.... but want no guidance, no dominance, no rules (which is fine if that's what you choose)... they don't want to work or help keep up on housework. They just want to be... frankly, a child. If this is what you want, by all means, do it... but I feel like that's a dynamic that's been around for awhile and they call it Sugar Daddy..." 

I completely agree with you on that

 

But my point was not to say dd/lg does not require dominance.

My point was to express my disagreement when people feel the need to say who is and who is not into dd/lg, or that it has to be done this way or that way, and that if it was not, then it was wrong. 

[Daddy's_Babygirl]

While I agree that there isn't really a right or wrong way to do DDlg... I do agree that it had things it was founded on that aren't really used much now. I also tend to not tell people their relationship is wrong, regardless of the dynamic.

[CrazyLittleBuggaBoo]

This dynamic has evolved and grown as much as the people involved in it has. BDSM, MS, DDLG, MDLB, CG/L. It's all the same thing, while at the very same time being different from each other. It's a kink. It's a lifestyle. It's sexual. and yes It's non-sexual.

 

How you view your life in this lifestyle has nothing to do with how someone else lives their. It's grown and evolved far past any point anyone of us can fully understand. It's so much more than just a kink. But there are some people who will always only treat it like a kink. While there will be others that enjoy this lifestyle without it being sexual or kink.

 

While some enjoy it because it makes their pants tingle others enjoy it because they simply enjoy it, no deep seeded desire or lust. Just because one person gets their rocks off that way, and one person just relaxes and clams them self from stress that way doesn't make ether of them wrong. What makes you wrong is stupiditly fighting over who is right and who is wrong and putting each other down over something so pointless.

 

Didn't we start communities for find like mindedness? For a place to fit in and connect with people? To get away from all the stupid that doesn't understand anything about how or why we do anything? So why bring the ridicule in on each other? A community is suppose to protect and lift each other up. Not ridicule and beat each other down because we are a little bit different. So who cares? Who cares if this Little is the Dom and their Caregiver is the Sub? Who cares if these two Littles are in a relationship with no Caregiver? Who cares if this couple only has the dynamic for sex? Who cares if this couple never has sex in their dynamic? Who gives anyone the right to tell anyone how to live? 

 

So many their dynamic doesn't fit the CG/L kink dynamic, maybe it isn't a kink thing. Just because it's kink for one doesn't mean it has to be kink for all. I think everyone should have enough respect for each other to stop fucking fighting over it. So your views are a little different. THATS OK!!! We don't all have to fit the same mold. People should stop shoving their points of view down other's ear wholes. Community, a place of togetherness not a place of I'm right and fuck you because you're doing it wrong...

 

Come on, what's wrong with you people?