You're Not a Little

[Sparklefrosting]

I saw a YouTube video on ddlg and the girl was basically saying that if you act, dress, and play like a little but you don't want submission then you're not a little you're just an age regressor. I mean maybe technically she could be right but if you're not into bdsm and you want to hang out in the community like who cares? I mean fwiends is fwiends wight? C: What do you folks think? 

[Guest ~ Ducky ~]

That girl is an idiot. You can be a little without having to submit or be sexual, either way you're still valid no matter what. Same thing goes for caregivers too.

[Cr33pyHollow]

I think Littles can be either dominant or submissive, but if there's no need for either, you're pretty much just an age regressor. But it doesn't really matter, imo. Age regressor or little, we share something in common so there's no need for hate :3

[Baby_Kota]

you can be whatever you want!

[AsleepAndDreaming]

By that logic, if I have only very limited interest in BDSM does that make me not a Daddy? I'm not sure my little one would be too impressed with that definition...

 

There are dynamics within dynamics here. There simply is no set way. The thought of inflicting physical pain on someone, even within a sexual context, is a turn off for me. My little gets spanks, but only because she has convinced me that she loves it. Anything more than that is a no-no, but she still calls me Daddy every day of every week. I think the person on your YouTube video needs to broaden their mind a lil bit.

[Nymph]

Labels can be useful to give a general idea of something. General being the key word here, if a girl wants to get OCD and try to push her meanings and uses of labels onto others it's her problem. It's usually someone really young trying to find themselves or a very closed minded person who obsess over this stuff.

 

As far as I am concerned, if a few combination of words is all there is to you... you are not that interesting :/

[Littlest_Bee]

Labels never really meant all that much to me. People are people and they like what they like.

I don't see a good reason to exclude someone who feels little and wants to refer to themselves in that way just because not everything matches with the way other people use that label. I mean yes, an overarching label can simplify things but you always have to get to know a person and their specific personality.

[Guest Urthurs]

(I was going to comment but Nymph already said it perfectly.)

[Guest daddy_B1ue]

That's dumb, this stuff isn't that defined, you can do whatever you want with it. There's also people trying to make up strict definitions of everything in bdsm and it takes the fun out of it 

[Guest pacibrat]

The "lg" part of DDlg is little girl.  There are no rules to say that DD and lg ALWAYS have to go together.  If you're a little, you're a little regardless of whether or not you want a DD or DM.  Some littles just want a caregiver, no sex and no dominating and that's okay.  I've also found that the dominant part of DD isn't always very present in the daddy part for some daddies and that's okay too.  Eh, it's all semantics.  Be who you are.  All littles should be embraced in the community and not shunned as "age regressors" who aren't a part of this.  Why create a dividing line?

[sullenDaddybones]

I remember being a Goth and being told my white socks meant I was a Poser, fake, wannabee. Since being whatever a Little is, is a state of mind, sort of makes no sense telling someone what they are as the only person who will truly understand you is someone that loves you and is able to get in your Space and Share it. If at all possible?

 

The rigid lines made out for Littles and Daddies and the labels are all just that. They are not real. Even the Name Little is merely a search tag. It can represent in my OPINION a broader stroke on the canvas as to meaning. 

[Guest littlelisafrank]

I believe terms are important, because they help to keep DDlg within consensual company. Whether we like it or not, there are certain aspects of DDlg that can be triggering to those who only participate in age regression as a form of therapy to cope with trauma. Yes, age regression and DDlg can overlap for some people, but not for everyone, and we as a community need to respect that by keeping a clear distinction between the two communities.

[Guest DaddyCares1]

I disagree. Some people worry too much about terms and definitions. Littles can be entirely non sexual or have submissive needs. Neither is wrong or worse than the other. Do what works for you

[Untwisted]

I'm not a fan of labels, but I think they are important and at the same time, completely unimportant.

 

In the context of here, it's probably important to most people to know whether someone is a big or a little, but not much else should be assumed based on that very general label.  How an individual defines themselves being big or little is entirely up to that individual so can't be wrong.

As for the Youtube girl mentioned, most people here might disagree with her definition, and she's got it wrong as far as I'm concerned, but she's as right as anyone else.

[boomslang]

She's obviously poorly informed about pretty much EVERYTHING if she's making blanket statements like that.  People like her are best just looked over and passed on.  I mean... one, quick glance at the little/bdsm/agere community will show her how wrong she is.  Littles can be or not be dominant/sub and age regressors can be dominant/sub as well.  Some people take labels way too seriously and miss out on experiencing awesome diversity because of that.