What is acceptable for Littles?

[Awinita]

OK so I understand that a not a lot of people support underage littles but I was wondering is it OK to support an underage little if they are not in a sexual relationship? IE is it ok if they identify as a little and only have stuffies, colouring books and dummies or are they completely banned from doing anything "little" till they turn 18+?

[LittleMeredith]

In my country there is no 'legal' age for sex. I think everyone is allowed to have a sexual relationship, aslong as it safe and both sides agreed. And even littles under 18 should be supported in my opinion.

[Guest Elencha]

I'm not sure I understand, ate you asking if it's okay for a kid to do kid's stuff? Cuz I'm petty sure that's acceptable anywhere. In any place where there is a legal age of majority, the general idea is that anyone below that age is a child and thus expected to engage in childish behavior and activities. I suppose the question that must be asked is, what do you mean by support?

[Harley_Quinn]

I support underage littles cause i was one

[Little_Bear]

My question to add onto this would be what if they're 16, but in their country (like New Zealand, where I live), it's the legal age of consent?

[Awinita]

Yeah that's also another factor to consider. The legal age is different in each country but I think I might have mixed ageplay with littles 

[crybabygirl]

In my country the legal age of consent is 15, so i support littles over 15. I don't think 14 year olds are old enough to know what they are into in a sexual way, but if you like colouring and disney movies - go ahead! Just call it something else than CG/L.

[PrincessCanHasCandy]

OK so I understand that a not a lot of people support underage littles but I was wondering is it OK to support an underage little if they are not in a sexual relationship? IE is it ok if they identify as a little and only have stuffies, colouring books and dummies or are they completely banned from doing anything "little" till they turn 18+?

Not all ddlg relationships are sexual, they don't have to be sexual. And there shouldn't be an age set for littles at eighteen. So I say yes, littles who are "underage" should be supported because that's what he/she needs is support and acceptance because its hard out in the big people world all alone

[Guest Elencha]

Not all ddlg relationships are sexual, they don't have to be sexual. And there shouldn't be an age set for littles at eighteen. So I say yes, littles who are "underage" should be supported because that's what he/she needs is support and acceptance because its hard out in the big people world all alone

And, again, this is where the definition of support causes trouble. If one happens to know a 16 year-old who wants to call themselves a little for liking kid stuff and wanting to have someone tell them what to do, they are free to give advice and guidance legally, but my personal opinion is that they should give the advice that they stop looking for a new word for kid. I think encouraging children to label themselves is, in fact, not the sort of support they need. If, by support, one means to encourage a child to interact with adults in any way other than purely as child to adult, then no. We should not be "supporting" underage "littles".

 

I do draw a distinction between the age of consent and the age of majority. Anyone below the age of majority, by definition, is a minor. A minor is, certainly by convention and implication at least, a child. Maybe not a little kid, but a kid, by law, if nothing else. Acceptance is nice, but nice and good are not the same thing. Accepting a kid into a community where they are likely to be put at mental or emotional risk is not good. If the law says they are unable to be held legally accountable for their actions, why put them into situations where their decisions have higher stakes than normal?

Puberty is tough enough without kink.

 

As far as encouraging them to pursue non-sexual relationships of the ddlg type, again, I don't get the point. They have parents to guide them and take care of them, (usually). They have teachers if they need extra mentoring. Aunts, uncles, older cousins, all manner of guidance is there if guidance and care and support are what they need. They do not have need of a label for these things because they are still kids, for the most part, kids are offered these things freely. Even kids of 17 and 18.

 

Maybe I'm way off base here, but I think we get out of hand with wanting to label things. A kid with a kid's needs is a kid. An adult with a kid's needs is a little. A DDlg relationship of any flavor is a relationship dynamic between consenting adults. No child can give consent, it isn't legally possible, and it isn't ethical to try to wiggle around it by walking the "but we aren't having sex line".

 

Again, just my opinion.

[neko]

In all honesty I think "underage littles" are bullshit. There's MAYBE a couple of places (in the US I think) where the age of consent is 18. everywhere else is under 18. So yes I support underage littles because most "underage" littles are in fact legal in literally every single country/state/whatever else (with the exception of the couple of states)