🫧Chloe's Curiosities Captivated🫦

[barefootgirl69]

Oh, a pet sub is one that needs the care and nurturing much like some of the others, and has aspects of pet regression (much like being little has age regression). It's probably most like being a little, but being a pet (kitten, puppy, etc). Pet play can be a part of this, but not a necessity, just as age play can be part of being a little, but not a necessity. Idk if I'm explaining this well at all

I'm not sure I agree in regards to pet play. I want to make sure I understand what you mean. If a pet sub isn't into pet play, how are they pets?

The people that I know that are into pet play do need nurturing, but they have always become a part of the play. Even wearing wings, or tails/ears, or a mask for a puppy play. It was quite an experience seeing this and being exposed to something I've never seen before. NMK but she was the sweetest person to talk to and get to know.

Are we talking about the same thing?

Fine print
I know there's pony play, but have not yet met anyone who is into it.

 

[TXRafe]

I'm not sure I agree in regards to pet play. I want to make sure I understand what you mean. If a pet sub isn't into pet play, how are they pets?

The people that I know that are into pet play do need nurturing, but they have always become a part of the play. Even wearing wings, or tails/ears, or a mask for a puppy play. It was quite an experience seeing this and being exposed to something I've never seen before. NMK but she was the sweetest person to talk to and get to know.

Are we talking about the same thing?

Fine print
I know there's pony play, but have not yet met anyone who is into it.

in my limited experience i find that often times a woman can relate both as a little and a pet. my personal preference is kitten (in the context of pet) but of course ultimately its up to the woman to decide. both require love, attention, nurturing, cuddles, pets. both can call their dom daddy or sir. its all about how the little/pet associates in the given moment. i find they can switch from being primary little to occasionally kitten and vice versa or simply prefer one or the other. like anything its a spectrum with no hard and fast rules. i feel like the ears and tail are certainly welcome accessories and nice bonuses but they arent necessary for the dynamic. whatever allows the person to enter into subspace and feel safe is ultimately the goal. again in my opinion.

 

[Noone45]

Is it just me or does anyone like this song !?

 

[Chloe_Harper]

I'm not sure I agree in regards to pet play. I want to make sure I understand what you mean. If a pet sub isn't into pet play, how are they pets?

The people that I know that are into pet play do need nurturing, but they have always become a part of the play. Even wearing wings, or tails/ears, or a mask for a puppy play. It was quite an experience seeing this and being exposed to something I've never seen before. NMK but she was the sweetest person to talk to and get to know.

Are we talking about the same thing?

Fine print
I know there's pony play, but have not yet met anyone who is into it.

I hear and understand completely where you are coming from. While, I would agree most pet subs are into pet play, it's not a necessity of actually associating yourself as a pet sub.

The ideals of being a pet is regressing into the mindset of a pet, much like little is a regression. You need certain levels of TLC when you need them, but can be playfully persnickety when that's where you're at. As a little sometimes might do uppies or grabby hands, a pet might do more of a nuzzle against their Dom for attention. Getting pets, not just pats on the head, but petting the head, with cooing words and the pet name are a large part. The ears and tails can be incorporated to simply help the sub put them into subspace, but a collar could also do this.

Getting deeper into it, pet play would incorporate more Master/pet behaviors. Being lead on all fours, fed out of a dish, having a special bed on the floor, maybe a cage, etc are more aspects that feel more pet play specific that are often part of, but not necessary, for a pet sub.

Just like all littles have differences in what they like or need, and some even age play not just regress, the same can be said for pets.

I think pony play is a bit different, just in regards to the fine print.

Does that clarify a little better?

 

[morelikeasong]

Little Talk (pt 1)

View attachment 2496413
This is Topaz. Newest, softest, bestest stuffy

So, I have mentioned in a previous post or two that one of my subby sides is my little side. It's not just some small part of me though. My little side is interwoven so seamlessly with my entire being. But, a lot of people don't really know what a little is or don't understand it, have misconceived notions about it. For years, it was a part of me only revealed to certain partners or in DDlg communities.

Not anymore.

To be a little is needing things that one usually only thinks about when people are younger. Coloring, bubbles, stuffed animals (stuffies), forts, lap time, etc. Those are just my favorites off the top of my head. Sometimes, I need to be in full littlespace, other times, my little is being fed through day-to-day moments.

A little needs a caregiver, in my case, Daddy. A lot of people use the word "Daddy" exclusively during sexual acts, but the word means so much more to me as a little. He is the person who nurtures and provides safety for me. He is the one who will hold me or play those little innocent games. He will never look down on me for needing to regress. He is more than just a Dom, for me. I am his, and he is mine.

I'm kinda rambling now. I need to organize my thoughts before my next post. But, I hope this gives insight to those who don't know. And to the littles and Daddys reading, I would love your thoughts on what it means to be a little or a Daddy

View attachment 2499141

Since there's been so much discussion about subbies, and lots of great questions, I thought I would throw this in here. It's not all-encompassing, and you may find more than one speaks to who you are. Let it be merely a starting point into self-discovery, conversation, and maybe research for those that need it

I was going to respond to your Little Talk post the other day but it was bad timing and then the conversation moved on

I don’t really consider myself officially fitting into any of the categories or bdsm labels. For me, the words are helpful descriptions but I always feel more like I identify with some of the traits vs identifying with the label, if that makes sense.
(Though, I suppose the Princess description in that graphic is pretty spot on for me. Shocker, I know . But I actually hadn’t seen that used as a label in any archetype lists like this and am getting a little giggle out of it. I always just liked the name/connotation)

I discovered the world of DDlg on tumblr some years back. I definitely found myself identifying with a lot of the traits and kinks and elements of the dynamic. But, when I tried out an actual D/s dynamic, I discovered it’s not really for me. I’m more of a mostly-bottom with some little/middle tendencies than I am a sub.

For some people, the labels are really important because they help them find community and share ideas and experiences. For others, they hate being put in a box and reject any label or classification. I fall somewhere in between the two. I’ve found the labels to be really helpful in my sexual exploration but I don’t take them as my own or fully identify as being in the communities.

 

[TXRafe]

I was going to respond to your Little Talk post the other day but it was bad timing and then the conversation moved on

I don’t really consider myself officially fitting into any of the categories or bdsm labels. For me, the words are helpful descriptions but I always feel more like I identify with some of the traits vs identifying with the label, if that makes sense.
(Though, I suppose the Princess description in that graphic is pretty spot on for me. Shocker, I know . But I actually hadn’t seen that used as a label in any archetype lists like this and am getting a little giggle out of it. I always just liked the name/connotation)

I discovered the world of DDlg on tumblr some years back. I definitely found myself identifying with a lot of the traits and kinks and elements of the dynamic. But, when I tried out an actual D/s dynamic, I discovered it’s not really for me. I’m more of a mostly-bottom with some little/middle tendencies than I am a sub.

For some people, the labels are really important because they help them find community and share ideas and experiences. For others, they hate being put in a box and reject any label or classification. I fall somewhere in between the two. I’ve found the labels to be really helpful in my sexual exploration but I don’t take them as my own or fully identify as being in the communities.

im sure @Chloe_Harper will tell you the same thing, but its always ok to go back and offer your perspective on any of the posts. i personally love reading everyones thoughts, its highly informative and educational. so thank you.

 

[Chloe_Harper]

I was going to respond to your Little Talk post the other day but it was bad timing and then the conversation moved on

I don’t really consider myself officially fitting into any of the categories or bdsm labels. For me, the words are helpful descriptions but I always feel more like I identify with some of the traits vs identifying with the label, if that makes sense.
(Though, I suppose the Princess description in that graphic is pretty spot on for me. Shocker, I know . But I actually hadn’t seen that used as a label in any archetype lists like this and am getting a little giggle out of it. I always just liked the name/connotation)

I discovered the world of DDlg on tumblr some years back. I definitely found myself identifying with a lot of the traits and kinks and elements of the dynamic. But, when I tried out an actual D/s dynamic, I discovered it’s not really for me. I’m more of a mostly-bottom with some little/middle tendencies than I am a sub.

For some people, the labels are really important because they help them find community and share ideas and experiences. For others, they hate being put in a box and reject any label or classification. I fall somewhere in between the two. I’ve found the labels to be really helpful in my sexual exploration but I don’t take them as my own or fully identify as being in the communities.

Oh, I love that you found time to share this also, I love that I could share something new with you as far as the "princess" label goes

No. Labels aren't for everyone. I like to put them with their definitions out there so people can simply learn and understand themselves better, just like you have over the years! No single label fits me. I use them more to help people know more generalizations about me, including my partner.

Of course, with my partner, my Daddy, we can go deeper into what fits and what doesn't once those basic understandings are there.

I really appreciate your insight and sharing here I hope it will help others that might struggle with labels as well!

 

[Chloe_Harper]

im sure @Chloe_Harper will tell you the same thing, but its always ok to go back and offer your perspective on any of the posts. i personally love reading everyones thoughts, its highly informative and educational. so thank you.

Yes. Always ok to go back! Everything you said here is perfect

 

[jason28053]

I'm not sure I agree in regards to pet play. I want to make sure I understand what you mean. If a pet sub isn't into pet play, how are they pets?

The people that I know that are into pet play do need nurturing, but they have always become a part of the play. Even wearing wings, or tails/ears, or a mask for a puppy play. It was quite an experience seeing this and being exposed to something I've never seen before. NMK but she was the sweetest person to talk to and get to know.

Are we talking about the same thing?

Fine print
I know there's pony play, but have not yet met anyone who is into it.

I’ve heard that @Lord Pmann is into pony play!

 

[Strixaluco]

I discovered the world of DDlg on tumblr some years back. I definitely found myself identifying with a lot of the traits and kinks and elements of the dynamic. But, when I tried out an actual D/s dynamic, I discovered it’s not really for me. I’m more of a mostly-bottom with some little/middle tendencies than I am a sub.

So for you, it would rather be caregiver/little without it being DD/lg. There's even variation in DD/lg in how much of a Dom / Daddy Dom / Daddy the other one is...

I actually know a Little who has a sub pet caregiver... (Yes, they are perplexing to watch and listen. Fascinating even. Definitely eye-opening.)

For some people, the labels are really important because they help them find community and share ideas and experiences. For others, they hate being put in a box and reject any label or classification. I fall somewhere in between the two. I’ve found the labels to be really helpful in my sexual exploration but I don’t take them as my own or fully identify as being in the communities.

Labels are definitely tools only. I see them not as boxes, but as kind of... blotches that vaguely mix into another. They don't have clear lines but very blurry ones.

Reading this discussion I've been thinking that I could add to my own description that I have some princess tendencies and perhaps a hint of a pet. But describing myself as "sub in the bedroom and little (without ageplay) elsewhere" was however quite enough to rise the interest of my now-Dom and beloved.
Then of course added a list of needs/wants and unwanted elements, to see if those are compatible. (Around those times I rejected several men who had spanking or degradation first on their list - both hard limits for me, so it just wouldn't work in the long run. Then again D has spanking as the last interest, and I in turn can live without butt play - those are things we don't go longing for.)

 

[morelikeasong]

So for you, it would rather be caregiver/little without it being DD/lg. There's even variation in DD/lg in how much of a Dom / Daddy Dom / Daddy the other one is...

My understanding is that the caregiver term usually is used with age regression. Maybe not exclusively, but it does seem to often be connected. I don’t age regress/play and I don’t really use honorifics for my partner. I think ultimately I just don’t desire a “dynamic” at least not at this time. I can relate to some of the elements but don’t really consider myself part of the community.

I love seeing what works for other people though!

 

[MischiefMakerAlways]

My understanding is that the caregiver term usually is used with age regression. Maybe not exclusively, but it does seem to often be connected. I don’t age regress/play and I don’t really use honorifics for my partner. I think ultimately I just don’t desire a “dynamic” at least not at this time. I can relate to some of the elements but don’t really consider myself part of the community.

I love seeing what works for other people though!

In my dynamic, we do zero age play. However, I am her Daddy Dom in that she needs someone to be her stalwart and source of strength. She wants to feel protected and adored, similar to how a father cares for his daughter, but with absolutely none of that role crossover. My little wants to feel safe to be cuddled, secure in my arms, and as part of her submissiveness, she has a sense of smallness - not in a demeaning way, but physically and dynamically.

So where she uses the honorific "Daddy," she is not my daughter, she is my little to protect and care for.

The variety of dynamics is so incredibly wide!

 

[BrendaBear]

In my dynamic, we do zero age play. However, I am her Daddy Dom in that she needs someone to be her stalwart and source of strength. She wants to feel protected and adored, similar to how a father cares for his daughter, but with absolutely none of that role crossover. My little wants to feel safe to be cuddled, secure in my arms, and as part of her submissiveness, she has a sense of smallness - not in a demeaning way, but physically and dynamically.

So where she uses the honorific "Daddy," she is not my daughter, she is my little to protect and care for.

The variety of dynamics is so incredibly wide!

I absolutely adore this.... so wonderful!!

And everything you said is totally how I feel except "...and as part of her submissiveness, she has a sense of smallness..." and I love that the term "Daddy" works for you, I adore that as well. But in my life, that term has pretty negative feelings associated with it.

This is just so beautiful... I'm so happy for you both.
https://media1.tenor.com/m/-Gz7GtiuTXIAAAAC/excited-yes.gif

 

[UnquietDreams]

In my dynamic, we do zero age play. However, I am her Daddy Dom in that she needs someone to be her stalwart and source of strength. She wants to feel protected and adored, similar to how a father cares for his daughter, but with absolutely none of that role crossover. My little wants to feel safe to be cuddled, secure in my arms, and as part of her submissiveness, she has a sense of smallness - not in a demeaning way, but physically and dynamically.

So where she uses the honorific "Daddy," she is not my daughter, she is my little to protect and care for.

The variety of dynamics is so incredibly wide!

That's kind of the the problem with labeling things. There is such a variety of kink. And here are spaces (luckily not this one) where that would spawn endless arguments over this meaning or that term, and "you aren't using that word correctly" (or how I use it), some playful and some very, very serious. Hell, things as broad as "BDSM" vs "kink" have generated pages and pages of flame wars. Everything has its "geek rage," I suppose.

And like you say, there is such a range, a massive spectrum. I Dom, and caretaking is a huge part of my personality, my love language, but nothing in the age regression or Daddy/little realms (which are themselves sometimes combined and sometimes divergent, such as in your case) ring for me at all. And I am more a scene Dom ( and I'm not going to get into all the terms used there, heh) rather than an always on one, though I still lean into caretaking at all times -- someone I care for I want to take care of, to make things easier for them rather than as a facet of submission.

All of that makes conversations like this important.

 

[BrendaBear]

That's kind of the the problem with labeling things. There is such a variety of kink. And here are spaces (luckily not this one) where that would spawn endless arguments over this meaning or that term, and "you aren't using that word correctly" (or how I use it), some playful and some very, very serious. Hell, things as broad as "BDSM" vs "kink" have generated pages and pages of flame wars. Everything has its "geek rage," I suppose.

All that... I saw that early on in my time on Lit and it kind of scared me off. Certainly scared me out of those threads. Then with conversations with Sin (SinfulDesires), she helped me get that just because person "A" thinks the term encompasses this, that, and nothing else doesn't mean anything. That my desires and wants were just as valid, and she said all those terms mean different things to different people, and that's fine. Just talk through it all and have open communication with your partner(s).

I miss her so much.

 

[Strixaluco]

My understanding is that the caregiver term usually is used with age regression. Maybe not exclusively, but it does seem to often be connected. I don’t age regress/play and I don’t really use honorifics for my partner. I think ultimately I just don’t desire a “dynamic” at least not at this time. I can relate to some of the elements but don’t really consider myself part of the community.

I love seeing what works for other people though!

Caregiver/little is the broadest term possible in this context that doesn't specify gender and also doesn't say if domination is included.

Neither does it imply age regression nor age play (which aren't synonyms). Using honorifics isn't determining really - but the dynamic (within the couple or desired) is, of course.

In my country the CG/l community is so focused on age playing (or regressing) people that I don't really feel part of that. I am happy to have found it via the thread of @barefootgirl69 as it gave me a much lot nuanced view, and a chance of identifying myself.

 

[Chloe_Harper]

Whew, I missed quite a window of discussion here this is what I get for sleeping for once

@morelikeasong get it girl! Dynamics aren't for everyone, and that could change or not. I love that you've seen different things from various dynamic descriptions that you like and incorporate in your own way! Titles, labels, honorifics, those aren't necessary for you, and I love that! And, like you, I like seeing all the different responses and learning what does and doesn't work for others, as well as maybe learning more about yourself

@Strixaluco I'm glad you've found a way to describe your subbie side without remaining fully in a box. I also love that some of the conversation on here has opened your eyes to new ways of seeing yourself. I'm curious how that journey of self-discovery will go for you. Your partnership with your current Dom seems to be really great and healthy, from what I've read here and elsewhere. I wonder how he would describe your subbie side.

@MischiefMakerAlways I love how you describe your role as "Daddy". It is different from a lot of people's who use that title, but not so off that it's unheard of. I think it could also open up the eyes of people who maybe wanted that honorific, but without the other aspects you mentioned. Idk. I just love seeing all these different sides to people I'm learning so much while getting to share what I know too.

@UnquietDreams, And here are spaces (luckily not this one) where that would spawn endless arguments over this meaning or that term, and "you aren't using that word correctly" (or how I use it), some playful and some very, very serious. First off, thank you for recognizing not this one I would shut down any behavior that was being purely argumentative. I like dialogue, not anyone talking at anyone. I think a Scene Dom actually makes a lot of sense for a lot of people. There's a lot that can into a dynamic, and it can feel draining to be on all the time. Certain dynamics, it's not for a scene, just ready to Dom at a moment's notice. I would say the latter is more common for littles, princesses, brats and pets. Rope bunnies, slaves, servants, dolls, bimbos, subs (with no other labels) it's easier to plan, to separate those heavier aspects into scenework. And yea, I love conversations like this!

@BrendaBear I'm sorry anyone ever made you or your opinions feel unwelcome. That will never happen here. I said it yesterday, I love watching your journey of reflection and discovery of who you are and what you need. I love that the conversations here are helping make that more and more clear for you. I love seeing your courage in sharing more about yourself and asking the questions you do rather than keep them to yourself. Keep exploring, learning, conversing and questioning. Love you girly.

 

[MischiefMakerAlways]

That's kind of the the problem with labeling things. There is such a variety of kink. And here are spaces (luckily not this one) where that would spawn endless arguments over this meaning or that term, and "you aren't using that word correctly" (or how I use it), some playful and some very, very serious. Hell, things as broad as "BDSM" vs "kink" have generated pages and pages of flame wars. Everything has its "geek rage," I suppose.

And like you say, there is such a range, a massive spectrum. I Dom, and caretaking is a huge part of my personality, my love language, but nothing in the age regression or Daddy/little realms (which are themselves sometimes combined and sometimes divergent, such as in your case) ring for me at all. And I am more a scene Dom ( and I'm not going to get into all the terms used there, heh) rather than an always on one, though I still lean into caretaking at all times -- someone I care for I want to take care of, to make things easier for them rather than as a facet of submission.

All of that makes conversations like this important.

Exactly and well put.

I've never had an official dynamic before, but in looking back, I'm always the Dominant. I'm also always the caretaker. This amazing thing I have now is really just the technical manifestation of my personality. Would I ever have picked the honorific, "Daddy?" Absolutely not. But, somehow, it is completely accurate and it just works.

And even phrases like scene Dom have nuance to them. I've jokingly and semi seriously remarked how similar I think you and I are. And I couldn't agree more, the D/s dynamic is meant to enhance the relationship, not stress it. My rules and traditions are exceedingly minimal, all for crystal clear purposes, and are never meant to be crushing.

I don't want a slave, which is a whole other level. I want to have a partner and friend outside of the bedroom. But even then, part of the dynamic is there because I will always protect my sub. I will push her to be the best version of herself. I will do everything I can to provide her what she needs. But in the day to day - she is my partner and equal (not insinuating she isn't equal in the dynamic, but I think what I mean is clear).

I think conversations like these are important because no two relationships between any humans is exactly the same. That is especially true in kink!

 

[UnquietDreams]

Labels are definitely tools only. I see them not as boxes, but as kind of... blotches that vaguely mix into another. They don't have clear lines but very blurry ones.

I utterly love the description as "blotches." That is perfect, as everything bleeds around the lines we try to imposes. Thank you for that image.

 

[BrendaBear]

…. I would say the latter is more common for littles, princesses, brats and pets. Rope bunnies, slaves, servants, dolls, bimbos, subs (with no other labels) it's easier to ….

This totally made me hear that in Edie McClurg’s voice… as in… “Oh, he's very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude.”

And may I say, we have a lot of righteous dudes here and in the Brat House.

Now… why did Lit attribute that quote to the might mischievous wonder? @Chloe_Harper said that.

 

[BrendaBear]

I don't want a slave, which is a whole other level. I want to have a partner and friend outside of the bedroom. But even then, part of the dynamic is there because I will always protect my sub. I will push her to be the best version of herself. I will do everything I can to provide her what she needs. But in the day to day - she is my partner and equal (not insinuating she isn't equal in the dynamic, but I think what I mean is clear).

I absolutely love this! All of this, is so good!

 

[BrendaBear]

Reading all this, all these wonderful views, and the beautiful things these guys write… gives me hope. Thank you all!

 

[UsuallyPresent]

Whew, I missed quite a window of discussion here this is what I get for sleeping for once -snip-

Meh, sleep's for the weak. Or the sane? Functional? Something like that...

Certain dynamics, it's not for a scene, just ready to Dom at a moment's notice. I would say the latter is more common for littles, princesses, brats and pets. Rope bunnies, slaves, servants, dolls, bimbos, subs (with no other labels) it's easier to plan, to separate those heavier aspects into scenework. -snip-

Respectfully, gotta disagree, sorry - I know plenty of those binned in the 'lifestyle' category who're very happily scene-based. In a couple cases they're people with high energy, motivation, and capability in mundane life who enjoy respites where they don't have to have said drives, in others they have real-world commitments (partners, kids, etc) and draw a firm line between the two roles. I'd be shocked if there weren't other archetypes for such separation, those are just 2 I've seen repeatedly.

On the flip side, one gymbro I know is very happily airheaded most of the time and only occasionally "turns his head on" (his terminology, not mine.) This admittedly seems less common from my experience, but it happens.

 

[Chloe_Harper]

Respectfully, gotta disagree, sorry - I know plenty of those binned in the 'lifestyle' category who're very happily scene-based.

You can respectfully disagree. Nothing I say is a hard and fast rule, unless I'm talking about my specific roles. To be fair, I didn't say all. This was the usual, more common, of what I've seen as part of these communities. Not to say there isn't crossover. I, as a little, used to live more in the scene-play dynamics, but find myself moving more and more away from that and embracing my little side in the day-to-day as I have seen countless others do. That's not to say they don't still play in scenework, simply my observations.

On the flip side, one gymbro I know is very happily airheaded most of the time and only occasionally "turns his head on" (his terminology, not mine.) This admittedly seems less common from my experience, but it happens.

Ah, yes, the true bimbo/himbo has a deep-seeded desire to be brainless, bubbly, etc. I always admired those that could do that, and their Dominants who could help get them there and keep them there. Usually, you see that in fantasy and scenework, but on occasion there are those who live it.

That's all I was saying. I split the categories more on the likelihood of where you might find them, but, again, not all. As @MischiefMakerAlways said I think conversations like these are important because no two relationships between any humans is exactly the same.

 

[UsuallyPresent]

You can respectfully disagree. Nothing I say is a hard and fast rule, unless I'm talking about my specific roles. To be fair, I didn't say all. This was the usual, more common, of what I've seen as part of these communities. Not to say there isn't crossover. -snippity-

Fair enough and true! And people are people- we all tend to squiggle our way into various metaphorical cracks...