In many discussions of the Daddy/little girl relationship, it is surprising how often some people have the idea tied to infantilization, or a perverse interest in underage girls. It is not viewed that way by those involved, but by others.
I have heard it said,
"At the extreme, the subs wear or are dressed in diapers and may use them, suck pacifiers and thumbs, play with dolls. They are bathed and tucked in. In less extreme cases, there is still an implied infantilization."
"They are sexually aroused by intimate contact with a little girl or possibly even with a daughter."
"The other motivation I imagine is that some daddy doms are relatively weak - and I don't mean that pejoratively. They have a dominant streak, but the only context in which they can safely express it is with a sub infantalized."
It has been my experience, both personally and by observation of others, that most Daddy and little girl relationships are not so different from other D/s relationships. He ties her up, he spanks her, she serves him, she gets release if he gives permission, and so on. Maybe the Daddy is older than his little girl, maybe quite a bit older. Maybe the Dom is more experienced or more mature or somehow has more authority or confidence; and the submissive defers to him. Often the overriding desires of the little girl are to be nurtured, and cared for and controlled, taught, and protected, perhaps different than the desires of other submissives and slaves who crave use and service.
But perhaps when he is Daddy it's more than just deference. It's more like he has a kind of infallibility. His authority is unchallengeable. It's not the same as the sheer power with which the slave-master asserts his will. The Daddy has a special aura of authority, in the face of which she becomes small, loses her grown-up faculties of self-determination and free will. In exchange she finds total security. I think in some cases, she is revisiting a relationship with an early authority figure in her life, perhaps one that never was completed or consummated.
It is a sense of "he knows what is best" for his little girl and she, knowing he has her best interests at heart, will obey her Daddy and feel comfortable and secure in "knowing" his love for her and the fact that she can please him by doing his bidding. It all sounds pretty much the same as most any submissive with her Dominant. I am not sure what the definitive difference is, often the more it is discussed, the more it sounds the same.
i agree with you, it's pretty much the same i think. Perhaps a Daddy/girl relationship is more focussed on the girl aspect while a D/s relationship is focussed on the slave or slut.
ReplyDeleteI'm not in a specific Daddy/girl relationship although there's also space for the Daddy and His girl. When i'm with my Owner my feelings interchange in a beautiful circle. First i am feeling very submissive that slowly changes into be more slutty, and me the slut needs pain. After being whipped, caned, used, abused etc.... i need to be hugged and caressed like a little girl. Being in His arms, being naughty, that needs a spank, the spank makes me craving for more pain, feeling a slut. See? a nice circle.
Swwet greetz from mo
I want to try to use "daddy" in a way that doesn't make me feel creepy. It seems to turn him on, and ultimately I want to turn him on so maybe I'll give it another shot.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is not alot of difference between a Daddy Dominant figure and a Dominant Dominant figure.
ReplyDeleteI think the whole concept of a D/s relationship is loosely based on the "Daddy/little girl" paradigm. The Dominant partner exerts his "will" (in whatever form is necessary) and (ideally) facilitates the submissive partner's growth and well being ; whether the term used for the Dominant partner is Sir, Master or Daddy, the role is similar.
What Mo says is correct though...if there is a difference it is in the nature of the girl/woman, ie.
naive, sweet girl or dirty little pain loving slut.
And some of us, myself included, are a mixture of both....(smile).
i've never felt the desire to call my owner 'daddy,' but there is certainly that element in my relationship.
ReplyDeletei think you could argue that it takes a *stronger* dominant to deal with a little girl as opposed to a slave or slut because the little girl requires so much overt nurturing. it takes a confidence to take on so much vulnerability in another person. i think sometimes men (the frequent dominants) struggle with being nurturing, but that's what a little girl requires. it's a special skill set, really. :)
Mo,
ReplyDeleteYes, I think you are right that the there is more focus on the girl aspect, of course, most little girls need a good spanking from time to time; a nice circle indeed.
Naughty Girl,
I know that there are times I am called daddy and they way it sounds almost makes me laugh. Is the creeepy feeling from the use of the word? I think deferring to him as you would "daddy" might suffice, it is more about the interaction than the words but, go ahead and give it another shot.
Charli,
Yes, I think it is about the difference in the nature of the girl and I think some Dominants can relate to either or both kinds; the naive, sweet girl or dirty pain slut.
And I think you are right, I think many girls are a mixture of both.
persephone,
From much I have read in your blog, I almost get the feeling of a Parents/little girl, you have a very unique relationship, there are many girls that envy your ownership a great deal; and as you say, that element is prominent in your relationship.
A very interesting observation about the nature of the Dominant; a special skill set for what a little girl requires.
The more I read on this subject specifically, especially from all the information you have shared with me, the more I understand the nature of the Daddy/girl relationship, and the more I feel as though it is what I can relate to most.
ReplyDeleteI so agree 100% especially with persephone's point that it takes, in a way, a stronger "dominant" to deal with a little girl, because it is indeed a lot of confidence and, I would guess (although I could be wrong)responsibility to take on someone who requires that sort of nurturing, who is that vulnerable.
I myself AM that vulnerable; I find myself needing that constant nurturing, that protection, that care...the more I delve into that vulnerability and need for reassurance and care, the more I crave permanence in a Daddy/lg dynamic rather than the temporary, scenes of Daddy dominance that I find myself experiencing now.
Much more to think about indeed. Sorry for the ramble :).
first, thank You for Your welcoming comment on my page...
ReplyDeletesecond, i agree with what You wrote about the Daddy/lil girl dynamic. i also agree with what persephone says in that it takes a special person or couple to take on the duel role of Dom/Domme and Daddy/Mum. The commitment to both Top and nurture, dominate and direct is massive and takes such a special relationship...
fown
It is the fact that I'm my actual Daddy's "daddy's girl". I've never called him Dad, Pops, Father, etc. I've always called him Daddy. So, to start calling my guy that in a sexual way is sort of creeping me out. We're going slow but it sure feels weird coming out of my lips...
ReplyDeletei agree with a lot of this. Richard can do it all...lol. We easily go back and forth between Master/slave..Dom/sub...Daddy/little girl at his whim.
ReplyDeleteinteresting post. :)
Sometime back on Deity's blog I too passed a comment that I could never call my Master Daddy because it is 'creepy'. As always it is a mistake to say never. Although it ultimately caused me intense grief an occasion arose when I dropped so deeply into subspace as his little girl that I did call him Daddy. It was completely natural, I wasn't thinking of him as my father but as some universal idea of Father. A being so caring and nurturing and totally protective. He was no longer a dominant but something quite different.
ReplyDeleteThank you all for continuing your sharing and exploring of this concept:
ReplyDeletekitten,
from what I have read in your postings, he certainly seems to fulfill that Daddy role for you, and I think meg's point about it requiring a "special" dom is accurate, although my perspective is tainted.
Hopefully you will find that permanence you crave.
fown,
thank you for your comment, and confirmation concerning the Daddy/lil girl dynamic and meg's observations as well.
Naughty Girl,
I understand you being creeped out, doll also had that concern/fixation, but seems to have broken through.
Pixiepie,
I think it is a very fluid thing, depending on the mood/feelings/needs.
doll,
you dropped so deeply into subspace . . . I did call him Daddy. And, was it creepy in recollection?
It seems to be a very frequent component of the interaction between dominant and submissive. Given the power exchange and surrender, it seems very likely that that parental nurturing sensation might come into play when she is most vulnerable.
Interesting.
thanks for writing this. i am still surprised at how little in the way of resources for Daddy/little girl type of relationships. We often were to D/s, as that is the overall dynamic of our relationship. Daddy sees himself just as that...Daddy...and he is in charge of the care and growth of lil ole me. I wish more people realized it isn't something that is bordering on the perverse.
ReplyDelete