Explaining Differences

[Guest Strawberry]

I've seen this argument float around other sites and I never know how to respond. A lot of people get disgusted with DD/lg because they think it is somehow incestual or pedophilic. I know it isn't as its a consenting relationship dynamic between two adults, but I don't know how to explain it without seeming like a know-it-all or snobby.

 

On the flip side, is there merit to their arguments? I know I'm always wary especially since I'm extremely baby-faced, so I am extra cautious. Does anyone else have these concerns?

[Puppy]

Honestly, in most cases you're trying to convince a brick wall that it is in fact not a brick wall. It just doesn't work.

Try your best to explain to them how you personally feel about the lifestyle. Littles aren't pretending to be children having sex with their parent. It's littles taking on child like qualities and embracing their child self. A daddy is just a figure of power and discipline, not a depiction of a biological father.

 

If people do not want to understand then there's nothing you can say to make them understand. It's best to just ignore them and surround yourself with people who embrace the lifestyle.

[MrBonesWildRide]

You know what's funny is that maybe 2 months or so ago, a user came onto the forums asking the same question and was met with extreme hostility. I added him offline and had a conversation with him and I feel like for all of us, we need to remember how we are removed from the "vanilla" world with our dynamic and our lifestyle.

 

Now first, we have to dissect why people would feel that this dynamic is inherently wrong and the merits of that argument. Those who feel our dynamic is wrong believe it to be wrong because we incorporate childlike and caregiver-esque elements into a relationship. To us, this seems like just something we do naturally. However to others, it is seen as wrong. The reason it is seen as wrong is because these things are (usually) marketed towards actual children. Diapers, blankets, toys, coloring books, children's shows/movies, movies, etc. The general idea is that these are marketed towards and generally only allowed for children and adopting them into an adult frame of mind is seen as misuse. 

 

I will go on a tangent that is related to this idea and use "My Little Pony" as an example. My Little Pony was originally a children's show, marketed towards much younger children. However, when the "brony" part of the internet became a huge market share, the idea of people liking My Little Pony began having a negative connotation as the adults who appropriated the show did so while simultaneously trying to make the show out to be more than just something for little kids. There is a stigma that adult males into My Little Pony are (generally) creepy. This is the exact same idea used to point out the flaws of DDLG/CGl. 

 

Going beyond that, our lifestyle does more than just appropriate a children's show. It appropriate's a children's lifestyle. Coloring, dressing "little", acting "little", etc are all ideas that are associated with children. While we may not be directly an incestuous lifestyle, there are some firm parallels that can be drawn. So really, the nay-sayers are not at all in the wrong for how they feel. It is no different than the law which states that spanking is abuse. Just because we consent, does not make it somehow "right". But we have to continue to press that what we're doing is not "wrong". 

 

I do not pick fights with anyone who says that the dynamic is "creepy" or "wrong". It is no ones battle to fight. We shouldn't be engaging people like that. If a discussion is made that draws parallels between incest or pedophilia and the lifestyle, I've found that pointing out that adults pretending to be kids and actually having sex with a real kid are two very different ballparks. Putting distance between pedophilia and the lifestyle is the absolute #1 thing our dynamic. 

 

Pointing out what separates us from the negatives is usually better than pointing out the positives as positives can be hand-waved away as simply allowing the behavior to persist. Saying "I love feeling little" vs "I understand that children's lifestyles are for children, and I am appropriating this as something I do in my personal time and it does not involve anyone but myself and my partner". 

[Guest Strawberry]

I guess what I'm having a hard time grasping pertains to the dynamic when it involves little space and sex/sexualization. And that's where I have a hard time disagreeing with critics.

 

Take for instance Melanie Martinez's recent album concept. Every song and the accompanying photos surrounded childhood images and adult themes like most DD/lg relationships. There was a small uproar when she posted a photo sucking on a pacifier while also doing bedroom eyes and showing a lot of cleavage like pictures some littles post. The arguments were that a grown women shouldn't be posting a sexualized image of something like the pacifier as it leads to the sexualization of children and babies.

 

Or for instance the thread a while ago that talked about daddies and littles having sex while the little was in little space. Most people that replied said that it was fine and normal for this dynamic. While it most definitely isn't illegal and both the little and daddy are of age, how is the difference told between a consenting couple where one just happens to act younger and someone getting their rocks off on someone who in the moment could essentially be a child? Where is the line drawn? Does one need to be drawn at all?

[MrBonesWildRide]

I guess what I'm having a hard time grasping pertains to the dynamic when it involves little space and sex/sexualization. And that's where I have a hard time disagreeing with critics.

 

[...]

 

how is the difference told between a consenting couple where one just happens to act younger and someone getting their rocks off on someone who in the moment could essentially be a child? Where is the line drawn? Does one need to be drawn at all?

 

The difference is that one involves roleplay and the other involves skating around an actual legal issue with a minor who, according to the law, cannot consent. Roleplay is different than this, and it is the same reason having sex in a fursuit is not the same as having sex with an actual animal. 

 

Now what I just said already is hypocritical. Spanking is considered assault in the eyes of the law and therefore nobody can consent to it. HOWEVER, the general idea (even in our own circles) is that having sex with a minor is seen as a negative, bad thing. We also agree with them there. We isolate and shun those who try to imply that actually being that age is wrong. While acting that age is made up and fantasy.

 

When people say what they think their "little age" is, they are making up a general idea that they feel might be an age at which they would do certain events. Everyone's little age is generally random and subjective. What matters isnt a number but an idea. "I am acting [x] years old" by being willfully immature. It is also said in a mocking way when people are immature: "What are you, [young age]?" 

 

It's actually an incredibly tight rope that we walk, and this is why I say that we should try to avoid actually engaging people in the public. Sexualizing childrens things is, to a large portion of the world, wrong. And we're not going to change it. Sure, that's a conservative way of looking at it but I feel like it's an incredibly uphill battle that we fight. We already have to deal with predators and minors rapidly engaging in our community already. We shouldn't be looking to pick arguments with adults who think we embrace minors.

 

It's another reason I hate the fact that so many minors try to engage the community. Because they are the ones who make this part of the lifestyle a negative one. 

[Guest Penny]

I used to feel kind of disgusted by the concept of dd/lg for the same reasons even though I am a little and I do still have a hard time rationalizing the sexual aspects of the lifestyle but there really is a huge difference between this lifestyle and the actual sexualization of children.

 

It's like, I hate to use this comparison but plenty of couples engage in rape fantasy, but that doesn't mean they would ever want to actually rape someone, it's just fantasy and play between two consenting adults.

 

From what I have gathered and from personal experience I dont see DD/lg sexualizing children or childhood but rather innocence and niavity.

 

At least that's my two cents.

[Guest MyDaddyMyWorld]

Simple. Just stop trying to explain it. Your relationship has nothing to do with anyone else.

[OhioDaddy76]

While I agree with MDMW, I find nothing wrong with tackling these questions. Self examination of our motives, emotions, and ultimately our actions is healthy.

 

So, I would say that what draws me to this lifestyle is the ability to take my experience and age and do that age old "if I knew then what I know now" trick! I take it very serious to help my littles find their own confidence, grow to be wonderful and loved women, and generally help them in life. Though I've seen the DDLG stuff run into the bedroom, I've generally been mortified by girls who want to role play incest or having sex with a child. That's flat out ruined/ended a couple relationships. Not here to judge, that's their journey but not one I'm on. To me the DDLG primarily exists outside of the bedroom and the sexuality is simply a natural progression in an adult relationship between two adults (there is that word again) who care for each other and have physical attraction.

 

Ultimately I would probably just avoid trying to explain it to anyone that can't hear/understand the answer. As someone else hinted at, these probes for info are more often about starting an argument and seeking to further entrench whatever belief system they have vice wanting to open their mind and be more enlightened.

[Guest Strawberry]

thank you so much y'all!! i think i'll need some more introspection on my part, but your responses have helped a TON. i'll do my best to stay away from these arguments in the future ^.^

[MissChrissy]

When I first ventured past the realm of "vanilla", I thought myself to simply be a tad submissive. However, the more and more exploring I did, I found that I am, not only, so much more than that, but a bit Primal, and a bit lg.

 

I have had a very difficult time trying to discover myself because I can't seem to really explain the differences and defining lines to, even, my own satisfaction!

 

Now, when I don't even have a Daddy, I am finding myself delving into the "Little" aspects of it all. I am extremely surprised to find, at the age of 47, a divorce, and 2 grown children later, that the Little Girl in me is still there, IN ME, and longs for the days when I had the innocence and limited intellect that allowed me to do nothing more to worry about how to fit another one of my drawings put up on the fridge!

 

When I was visiting my 26 year old daughter, a few weeks ago, I found myself like a deer in the head lights when I was put in a position to have to explain a FEW things about my life choices (I will not go into what happened). Suffice it to say that all is well.

What I learned from that situation was that I can not "explain" overall concepts, criteria, or definitions other than for choices I make about who I choose to be or do and even those are so convaluted that I can only theorize!

All I can say concerning the whole "Little" concept is....I can't imagine any woman not, at one time or another, feeling a desire to be a Little Girl, again. What level or, even extreme, any one of us chooses to take that to is not something that any other person can not truly expect to understand because of all the individual factors that go into any choice that any of us make on a personal level.

Thus, if no one can truly understand, then there is no question as to one being able to truly explain it. You can't, so do not feel frustrated at not being able to.

 

Just my .02 cents.

[Guest UmbraRose]

I forget where I read it but "it's what you get when a Dom isn't a sadist and the sub is not into pain." It's the simplest explanation I have found so far..