IN WHICH SHE EXPLAINS THE WAY SHE SEES IT

Cross-posted from a Fetlife Group...

I know how annoying labels and definitions are, but after railing against them for years I have discovered that they can actually be helpful because it means that everybody is on the same page when discussion things.

I'm not suggesting that we adopt definitions for terms for this group, but after posting in more than a couple of threads and being told things like 'that isn't what a babygirl is!' I thought that I might take the time to explain MY definitions of certain labels used in the BDSM and D/s realm.

Once again, to make things clear... these are my definitions and I am not proposing that they be held by the group.

BDSM - Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism. I don't agree that the DS in the center of the acronym stands for Dominant and submissive as well as sadism and masochism.

 

T/b - Top and bottom. I believe that this is a relationship that is based on kink play alone. There is no aspect of Dominance and submission outside of the scene. I don't think that this makes a Top and bottom any 'less' than a D/s or M/s scenario, it just makes it different. And there is nothing wrong with knowing exactly what you want and going after that with someone compatible. The drama starts when people who are T/b feel like they have to be more to be accepted into the kink society. I believe that it is a good thing for both a Top and bottom to have soft limits, hard limits and safe-words, all of which to have been explained to the other party before any sort of interaction takes place.

 

D/s - Dominance and submission. I believe that the Dominant actually holds a position over the submissive and that she is not 'his equal who just has a different job.' I believe that the submissive begs the Dominant for the opportunity to submit to him, and that being a submissive she has the rights afforded to any human being - including the right to disagree or to say 'no', although I can't imagine that someone truly interested in submitting would use that word easily and would first have put all of her effort and energy into finding out how to turn it into a 'yes'. I believe that it is fair for a submissive to have a few limits, but that she should be prepared for these to be stretched and possibly broken by her Dominant. Some submissives like the feeling of safety that a safe-word provides, personally I think that the Dominant should know his submissive well enough to not need one.

 

M/s - Master and slave. I believe that this is the next step deeper into the lifestyle. Once again, M/s isn't better than D/s or T/b, it is just different. I believe that a Master needs a certain amount of training and mentoring to build an understanding of the true tenants of D/s and the self-discipline to be able to follow and honour these. I believe that a true Master does submit, he submits to the ideal of D/s and does so with an open and vulnerable heart ready to be taught. I believe that his slave has no rights aside from those gracefully handed her by her Master, that she doesn't have the rights afforded to a human being because she is no longer one now that she has become a slave. I believe that she becomes property and like any sort of property it is up to the owner as to whether she will be cherished and used well or misused, broken and thrown away. I believe that this is the danger of being a slave and that if more people understood this there would be a lot fewer with the word 'slave' marked on their profile. I believe that it is the Master's prerogative to keep his slave in whatever way he sees fit, whether it is tied to the bedpost and sleeping on a cold hardwood floor, or being allowed to curl up by his feet on a cushion while he reads. And I believe that she has no place to complain and no place to deny him anything. I do not believe that a slave should have any limits set other than those given her by her Master.

 

Now, this is where things get controversial...

DD/bg - DaddyDom and babygirl. I believe that DaddyDom and babygirl is a sacred archetype that exists in the kink world. I think that it is primal and dates back to a prehistoric era where when a female was born into a family group she would have to endear herself to the Father in that group in order to receive the care and protection that she needed. Male children were useful, they would grow up to be hunters and protectors, female children were another mouth to feed, and all that they would grow up to be is another womb to fill - and it has long since been recognised by science that there is a primal push for the male of the species to propagate as much of his seed as possible, so as she became of age there was another belly to fill with the child of the groups lead figure (the Father) and the child had been trying to endear herself to him so that she would receive protection and food when it was scarce.

I believe that the Daddydom offers safety to his babygirl in a way that Dominants and Masters do not - that he offers her the room to be herself, to be that babygirl without fear of reprise. This is not to say that he offers her space to be a brat, and bratting is something that is entirely different. A Daddy offers interest when his girl shows him a picture that she has drawn and a lap to curl up into when she is sleepy and just wants to be held. He offers her the opportunity to discover and enjoy a childhood that she may not have never experienced. I also believe that being a babygirl is a highly submissive role.

 

The other aspect to DD/bg to consider is that while it is something we act out (I do not condone incest or sexual contact with underage people), in the archetype of the relationship a bg was truly owned by her Daddy - to such an extent that not only was she born for him, but she was born from him - she truly belongs to him.

 

D/lg - Daddy and little girl. This is where a lot of the issues within the misunderstandings of my posts have lain over the last couple of days. There is avast difference between a DaddyDom/babygirl relationship and a Daddy/little girl. D/lg is more a level of play that is directed by the little girl. There have been posts in response to things that I've said on threads here that have pointed out to me that just because someone is a little girl it doesn't mean that she is a submissive - and I totally agree (although, I would go as far as pointing out that these posts talking about little girls and whether they were submissive were posted in the DaddyDom and babygirl group on Fetlife.com.)

 

As far as I can see, the D/lg dynamic has a large brattiness factor to it, it involves the pouting and stamping of feet when she doesn't get her way, the begging and playing nicely to Daddy so that he will give into what she wants and other 'Princess' like behaviours. I am not condemning this dynamic, if this is what does it for you, and you have found a partner that shares your fantasies and preferences then more power to you. However, I do ask that you remember that you are a little girl, and not a babygirl... and I will show the same respect by remembering that I am a babygirl and not a little girl.

I think that safe words are a good thing to have in a D/lg scenario, and that hard and soft limits should be set, and I have found when talking to little girls that it tends to be them who set the limits and the Daddies who follow them.

 

There was SO much more that I wanted to write about... like my ideas on the definitions of discipline and my views on submission 'as a gift'... perhaps at another time in another thread.

If anyone has actually sat down and read through all of my ramblings - thank you.