CG/L = D/s ?

[Little Illy]

*waves* Helllo!!

 

I am trying to understand an element to our community that doesn't happen in my relationship:

 

Does DDlg (MDlg, DDlb, MDlb, CG/L) have a Dominant/Submissive component for you?

 

For me, and almost everyone I talk to, I believe there is an inherent power exchange in this type of dynamic. But, I fully recognize there are those out there who believe D/s has absolutely nothing to do with CG/L. And those who feel that way, I ask you... please explain why!

 

I am trying to educate myself of the perspectives of others and I can't wrap my mind around there not being an inherent power exchange in some way (even if it is Daddy saying its time for bed). 

 

If anyone of you out there who don't believe D/s plays a role in your dynamic, can you please explain why or how? That way I can learn more about your reality instead of being stuck in mine!

 

Thanks everyone!

Edited May 29, 2018 by Little Illy

[xBabydollx]

DD/lg does have a Dominant/submissive component for me (under the BDSM spectrum).  I am one of of those ppl who believe D/s have nothing to do with cg/l (unless they are into DD/lg with the power exchange element). I will try to explain why I feel cg/l doesn't automatically mean D/s or an inherent power exchange. To start, I will say I begun my journey with a regular Dominant/submissive power exchange. Over time a Owner/pet power exchange was added. Eventually in life I explored a DD/lg power exchange. I mention this because I got to exp D/s at its core without the extra dressings of DD/lg or other variants. So, this is why I don't equate cg/l to automatically being D/s or a true power exchange. I personally believe that in all aspects of life ppl will exp some sort of 'power exchange'. Your boss makes rules and is in control of u; the employee who does what u are told. A parent makes rules, provide structure, and haves control over a child who does what they are told. Married spouses; one may be head of the household and takes control while the other submits to their desires and plans/goals that have been created for them to follow. Would I ever say the boss is a Dominant and the employee a submissive? The parent the Dominant and the child the submissive? And so on in various situations....no. Would I ever actually say these ppl have a power exchange? Again no.

 

We all get put into situations where we are in control, and situations where we give up control to others but that does not automatically equate someone to being a Dominant, submissive, into BDSM, or anything else. Just because someone have a little that they care for and sometimes tell what to do, or just because they have a daddy/mommy who they like to be in control of telling them when to eat, go to bed, do chores etc doesn't automatically make them part of D/s because it doesn't mean they are truly submitting to their partner. Dominance and submission (under the BDSM spectrum) can mean different things to different ppl, but what I often (damn near only) hear from others and feel myself is that a submissive is a person who gains pleasure from pleasing/submitting to their Dominant and being OWNED, and a Dominant is someone who gains pleasure from being in control of someone who consents to them, and OWNING them. (This sense of ownership is why many ppl into D/s will collar their sub, as a show of ownership; just like u will collar a pet that is truly yours). There is a known (and consented to) power exchange in place that reaches the level of ownership. The level of submission varies person to person, but it is often something quite intense and why such a high level of trust is required to reach that level. Simply put, not everyone desires to truly and deeply submit and bend to the will of another. Not everyone desires to feel as though they belong to another. Not everyone desires to be treated as property of another (being treated as property is more of a Master/slave thing but that's still a variant of D/s). With all of this in mind, this is why I simply (and respectfully)  can not view the power exchange u mention as the same power exchange between a Dominant/submissive under the BDSM spectrum.

[Guest SUeB]

We have a few components in our relationship. He is Daddy, Dom, Master, Owner.

The whole non-D/s Ddlg thing was a difficult one for me to understand too, but that's obviously how it is for some.

There are many different dynamics, and the structure of those dynamics also can vary wildly from one relationship to another.

[₦intendo §witch]

I'm not really a daddy unless I am sexual and I prefer it that way. When I am in daddy mode I'm usually wanting sex (give or receive). I disliked it when my ex called me daddy all the time because I wasn't sexual and I wanted to be more of a caring rather than dominate and her calling me daddy triggered me being dom and it was tiring. Luckily, with the girl I am with now calls me by my name and lets me take care of her and only calls me daddy when we engage in sexual things.

[Little Illy]

I guess my question is, do you see DDlg (or CG/L) as a non-power exchange? Because as a power exchange, one could argue it is D/s because that IS what D/s is? Even a light exchange would still be one, so that is where I am confused. I see couples with rules and punishments, yet they claim there is no power exchange, ergo no D/s and it baffles me.

[Little Illy]

Dominance and submission (under the BDSM spectrum) can mean different things to different ppl, but what I often (damn near only) hear from others and feel myself is that a submissive is a person who gains pleasure from pleasing/submitting to their Dominant and being OWNED, and a Dominant is someone who gains pleasure from being in control of someone who consents to them, and OWNING them. (This sense of ownership is why many ppl into D/s will collar their sub, as a show of ownership; just like u will collar a pet that is truly yours). There is a known (and consented to) power exchange in place that reaches the level of ownership. The level of submission varies person to person, but it is often something quite intense and why such a high level of trust is required to reach that level. Simply put, not everyone desires to truly and deeply submit and bend to the will of another. Not everyone desires to feel as though they belong to another. Not everyone desires to be treated as property of another (being treated as property is more of a Master/slave thing but that's still a variant of D/s). With all of this in mind, this is why I simply (and respectfully)  can not view the power exchange u mention as the same power exchange between a Dominant/submissive under the BDSM spectrum.

 

I challenge this (with so much respect!) and would say that, in DDlg and CG/l (Caregivers and Littles) do, in fact, thrive for those elements you have labeled as D/s. You talk about ownership and submission, but one could easily argue that the Little Boy is submitting by taking great pride in listening to Mommy's rules. Or that he feels owned by Mommy because his is hers. And that his Mommy takes great pleasure in controlling her little's daily life and decisions. Now she may do it from a more affectionate standpoint than a strict one, but the feelings are the same.

 

And as D/s and CG/L, the level of "ownership" varies. A lot of littles wants to feel owned (and not just pet or subby littles) because they want to feel like their CG has that much control. And many CGs desire that control over the little in which the CG lays out healthy and safe life choices. No it isn't BDSM related, but that control and exchange is still there. In my opinion at least.

 

I am literally just discussing so I can understand! Please! Explain to me why I am wrong so I can learn! Thank you all so much!

[xBabydollx]

I wouldn't say u are wrong. One can never really be 'wrong' in their views. With that said, DD/lg is a subtype of D/s just like Owner/pet, Master/slave, and the rest. So yes, a little boy or little girl can submit to their Daddy/Mommy and desire to be owned. I am not disagreeing with u here. DD/lg is just a form of regular D/s with a 'softer approach' and ofc the child-like quirks. The power exchange is still heavily implied tho and the sense of ownership is there. Have u ever heard a sub (I am referring to all the types including littles) say they belong to their Dominant, mind, body, and soul? It is meant quite literally and not in the vanilla way of 'we belong together' etc. Their Dominant owns them and they give their submission freely. I've come across many subs/littles/pets/slaves and to witness their submission is awing. When I was new it was quite intimidating lol. I have met so many who, for example, they may not be allowed to intimately touch themselves without their Dominant's permission, because their body is no longer theirs, but rather their Dominants. Not allowed to get a tattoo, cut their hair, self harm or whatever because their body belongs to someone else. Their Dominant can 'use' their body sexually whenever they wish, hell use their body as a foot stool for example, and he/she is free to do so (when this level of control have been consented to). As for mind and soul, I have met many who for example aren't allowed to call them selves fat/ugly/dumb or so on, because how dear they speak so negatively of their Mommy/Daddy's body. The examples go on and on and can appear 'extreme' or 'light'.

 

Everyone's dynamic is different and their level of submission varies (some ppl want control of this, others control of that. some want to give up control of only this, or maybe just a few things), but that feeling of submission and ownership is there and openly agreed upon from the start. With D/s of any variety, the ppl are fully and openly aware of what they are consenting to. They negotiate the level and areas of submission they want to give and take. Expectations and limits are vocally set in place. With submission, a Dominant often expect their will and desires to be fulfilled promptly and without hesitation (after the initial agreement have been set in place). With Master/slave they have a TPE (total power exchange) and let's just say, it's a level of submission most aren't willing to give since the slave is treated as property usually. With DD/lg the submission and ownership is clearly there and that's what make it a power exchange. With regular cgl, yeah there is a sense of one person in control, and the other being told what to do, but the actual submission and ownership of a power exchange isn't there. That's the difference. Ppl into regular cgl and not D/s or BDSM do not desire to submit to someone/be owned, or have someone submit to them/own someone. Not everyone wants that responsibility, or want to feel like they truly and literally belong to someone else. Not all littles want to literally belong to their Daddy/Mommy. Most ppl in the world are not willing to submit and bend to the will of someone else. That's what makes 1 little different from the other kind. One will consciously and willingly submit, while the other will not. There is no blurred lines in D/s, when u are in a power exchange, both parties are fully and vocally aware of it....otherwise, where is the consent?

[Little Illy]

So, to dumb down your awesome explanation for me to understand it, are you saying that where those couples don't see the D/s in their relationship is when they don't want to be fully owned/submissive/controlling/etc? Is the distinction the depth and intensity of the ownership? 

 

Example: I believe in a Total Power Exchange - so the opposite would be where there is a Daddy and a LG but they don't necessarily have the exchange, but rather just are together? Not to diminish that type of relationship! I'm just trying to understand!

Edited May 29, 2018 by Little Illy

[Guest Dean]

My personal viewpoint is that CG/l and DD/lg (or MD/lg, etc.) are not quite the same. xBabydollx stated that DD/lg is a subset of D/s. I would say that DD/lg is where CG/l and D/s meet. Semantics time: DD/lg (MD/lg) is really CD/l or CD/ls meaning Care Dominant/little or Care Dominant/little submissive. Notice that this denotes both the caregiving aspect of the Dom as well as the little aspect of the submissive. Dominant and submissive are both included which would make it a part of D/s. However, an argument could be made that the opposite does exist where the little is actually the Dom: cs/LD or care submissive/Little Dominant. Because both a submissive and Dominant exist in the dynamic, it still falls under D/s.

 

As for CG/l (Caregiver/little: notice the lack of either Dominant or submissive in the designation), there is a different dynamic, one in which neither person is consistently dominant or consistently submissive. Nor do they ever acknowledge its existence. A "vanilla" dynamic in which both are generally equal where neither conform or wish to conform to a power dynamic. The caregiver would still give baths, read stories, etc. but there is no expectation of control. So, yes, it is a relationship where they just are together. Just as any other non-power dynamic relationship. 

 

This means that it is possible to be a Daddy or Mommy without being a Dom as well as being a little does not require being submissive. You can participate in and enjoy a CG/l relationship without any D/s at all. Or, you could be in and enjoy a CD/ls relationship where the power dynamic exists and it is both CG/l and D/s.

[xBabydollx]

Dean pretty much said it. There is tons of ppl in cg/l who do not want or require D/s. Some cg/l littles, AB/Dl, age regressors etc may simply want to have their paci, their diaper, be cute (for example) and have someone take care of them within this space. Some even prefer to be within this sort of space alone, without a caregiver. Not all of these ppl even like rules or structure from their daddy or mommy. For these ppl there is no power exchange, no submission, no ownership. There is no D/s or DD/LG. There is only caregiving or age regressing on its own. It is why so many of their heads would probably pop if u ever associate their lifestyle to D/s, DD/LG, BDSM, or a kink.

 

Also, I want to throw out there that some ppl have in D/s a TPE and some ppl dont. Most ppl only give or want to take a limited amount of control/submission. Not every Dominant is strict either. Not only the Daddy Dom/Mommy Domme type may have a 'softer approach' to D/s.

 

To keep it simple

DD/lg = D/s because of the clear power excchange (not to mention DD/lg derives from D/s which comes from BDSM).

 

cg/l doesnt = D/s because there is no mutually consented to power exchange element

 

u can be a little and be into DD/lg or be a little and have 0 ties to it and BDSM as a whole, preferring to stick to the cg/l tag alone.

[LittleKitten13]

I think I would more agree with Dean on this.

I would not say that Papa and I are really in a D/s relationship.  We're more caregiver/little, than daddy dom/little.  He takes care of me and might tell me to do something now and then, like, "Hey, it's time to go to bed, or hey, it's time for a shower," but I tell him to do things too sometimes, but that doesn't mean I'm his dominate.

[Little Illy]

Thank you all! I sincerely appreciate you trying to explain a part of the dynamic I just couldn't wrap my head around! 

My personal viewpoint is that CG/l and DD/lg (or MD/lg, etc.) are not quite the same. xBabydollx stated that DD/lg is a subset of D/s. I would say that DD/lg is where CG/l and D/s meet. Semantics time: DD/lg (MD/lg) is really CD/l or CD/ls meaning Care Dominant/little or Care Dominant/little submissive. Notice that this denotes both the caregiving aspect of the Dom as well as the little aspect of the submissive. Dominant and submissive are both included which would make it a part of D/s. However, an argument could be made that the opposite does exist where the little is actually the Dom: cs/LD or care submissive/Little Dominant. Because both a submissive and Dominant exist in the dynamic, it still falls under D/s.

 

As for CG/l (Caregiver/little: notice the lack of either Dominant or submissive in the designation), there is a different dynamic, one in which neither person is consistently dominant or consistently submissive. Nor do they ever acknowledge its existence. A "vanilla" dynamic in which both are generally equal where neither conform or wish to conform to a power dynamic. The caregiver would still give baths, read stories, etc. but there is no expectation of control. So, yes, it is a relationship where they just are together. Just as any other non-power dynamic relationship. 

 

This means that it is possible to be a Daddy or Mommy without being a Dom as well as being a little does not require being submissive. You can participate in and enjoy a CG/l relationship without any D/s at all. Or, you could be in and enjoy a CD/ls relationship where the power dynamic exists and it is both CG/l and D/s.

 

I appreciate this because for some reason this hit home what all of you are trying to say! And I REALLY appreciate you guys helping me expand my knowledge base! Tank youssss! !!!

[xBabydollx]

Yeah, Dean explained what I was trying to say really well haha. I'm glad u get to see the other side of it now, and how this cg/l element for some ppl can never be considered D/s or a power exchange for them personally, and for others D/s is the root of their DD/lg dynamic.

[JackOfSomeTrades]

I too found Dean's insights on this very good, and very much in line with my own perspective these days.

 

I'm glad to have run across this thread, and in particular to have run across it where I am in my relationships right now because it's something I've been giving a LOT of thought to lately, prompted by my little girl and I splitting up.

 

My little girl and I did not have a formal power exchange. As is my natural inclination in my romantic relationships, I offered advise, did my best at all times to support her in achieving goals she set for herself, and talked about those goals and how to achieve them to offer insight where I could, ask questions to better understand her so that I could constantly improve the guidance I attempted to give, etc, etc.

 

Now, everything I just described I could also do for a good friend or a partner in a "vanilla" relationship. However, that's not how we related. Ever. Her identification as a little is such a core fundamental part of her being that, to some extent, there was some part of her that was *always* in little space, especially interacting with me. How we addressed each other, our word choices while communicating, etc, was miles apart from how I've ever interacted with someone in a purely "vanilla" relationship. When she was deeply immersed in little space, I was the one watching over her, caring for her, and making the space safe for her. I was her Caretaker. Someone she knew she could rely on to address her needs and safety when in touch with that incredibly vulnerable space.

 

When I first encountered "the DD/lg community", actually as a result of the relationship I formed with my little, there seemed to me to be a very common opinion that what she and I had was just a plain old relationship where she happened to be woman who identified as a little and who happened to be willing to be immersed in little space while she was with me. She was definitely a "lg" but I was not a "DD." Those two "D"s being inextricably tied to the point that "Daddy" on it's own was mere shorthand for "Daddy Dom" and if you weren't your little girl's Dom, well, you weren't her Daddy either.

 

I definitely internalized that opinion a fair amount, and while she called me "Daddy" or "Papa" or "Baba" nearly 100% of the time, and I called her "baby" or "princess" or "hime" nearly 100% of the times, for much of our early time together, I just accepted that I was not, in fact, her Daddy. That feeling just never sat properly. I've been a "supportive/caregiving partner" in every long term relationship I've had, including with my long term 13 year partner with whom I live (poly, ENM), but the dynamic between myself and those past (and current) partners is dramatically different in how it plays out in our day-to-day interactions, language, and actions. We didn't have rules, punishments, rewards, etc ... but we definitely had "roles" ... not role-playing roles, but intrinsic positions within our space that played out in *very* specific ways that was *very* tied to her being a little girl, and me being her Caregiver.

 

So ... after all that rambling ... I do identify what I had with my little girl as a CG/l relationship. I was not her Dom and she was not my sub. I was the Caregiver to her little girl.

[Guest Dreamless]

I just want to say this is all very insightful and helpful for someone just starting out and trying to define roles and understand where they fall in lifestyle. Thank you for having a reasonable discussion.