Discussion in 'General BDSM discussions' started by Elegant_Thrall, Feb 10, 2012.
That is an awful term. Like, the worst.
What's wrong with it? It refers to a specific dynamic.
And Kor, I like your wording.
Elegant, the phrase 'daddy's girl' (or in the gay community, 'daddy's boy' is a very widespread term for a particular type of power exchange relationship. They designate relationships in which the sub yields some degree of real control, but not as much as a slave does. There may be a significant age differential between daddy and boy/girl. The relationship generally has a lot of room for affection, whereas a master/slave relationship is often somewhat harsher. The boy/girl may be resistant or bratty on occasion, thus requiring the daddy to inflict discipline. In some cases (more so with girls, less so with boys), there may be an element of age play involved, in which the sub dresses up as a child or teenage.
Obviously, the term has hints of incest and child molestation lurking in it. For some couples, that is intentional, and they may play out incest or molestation scenes. But most of the time, those are not factors in the relationship.
Despite those overtones, the term is very deeply embedded in the BDSM community. There's a whole gay dating site called Daddyhunt.
no... the best!
I am aware.
Exactly. And that's why I dislike it so much.
Again? I don't really understand where this is coming from, but the fact that I don't like the term does not stem from the fact that I don't understand what it is referring to. In fact my understanding of its connotation is probably why I don't like it. I was referred to a "daddy's little girl" once in a half-sexual half-joking sort of way once and I almost threw up in my mouth. If I had a cock, it probably would have inverted into my body and ruptured my bladder or something.
Indeed. And while I certainly don't wish to slap a label of derision on those sorts of fantasies, as we are all a little fucked up if we're on this forum, those are the antithesis of things I think about during sex.
I know I don't speak for all of you, but S&M is a sexual thing for me. I realise that many of you incorporate it into your mundane daily lives somewhat (I actually wish I could do this more but my partner isn't up to it) but for me it's usually something that only ever happens when I'm getting fucked. Now my desire to incorporate it more into my mundane life, I should probably clarify, is derived from the desire to incorporate more sexy rumpus into my daily life, not from a desire to have less freedom and more control. If my partner was to demand that I carry all the groceries for him whenever we go out because I am his little whore and he can do what he wants with me, I'd probably object.
Stop. If you thought to yourself "Oh Elegant you're obviously what we in these parts refer to as a "daddy's girl," I must verbally protest and shake my angry fist at you. Let me lay down a list of what that aspect of my attitude towards S&M does and does not tell you about me, or it should tell you about me.
What it DOES say:
In aspects other than the sexual, I have a dominant personality, and I probably assume leaderships more often than not.
The slave/master relationship is less set in stone, and I am therefore more likely to stray from it if the mood suits me. This could either be on a "nah I don't feel like doing that" basis, or it could be on a "tee hee I'm so bad you should spank me" basis. I'll let you in on a secret: I love being spanked.
What it DOESN'T say:
That I desire men who are significantly older than me
That I fantasize about having sexy rumpus time with my father *wretch*
That I would enjoy going back in time to my younger years and getting diddled by a paedofile
That I dislike or am hostile to the idea of a typically "harsh" punishment or treatment
That I am a spoiled brat
That I enjoy dressing up in clothes typical of a younger age group
So if it has more point in the negative than in the positive, it's an inappropriate term... and not just because it makes me want to hurl.
Now, if you didn't think to yourself that I qualify as a "daddy's girl", then please tell me what you think I am because I've never heard another term used that I thought accurately describes me and others like me (I know they exist I've met them before)
Now this term is prevalent, but I think it's more prevalent than...
Oh good I'm glad you said that. I'mma go ahead and assume that's because fetishes towards child molestation and incest are not what people would consider "common" to the BDSM community, unlike say leather, usage of toys, biting, and whips.
So why is this term so in my goddamn face all the time? It's being used to describe something so broad; something with so many facets, when it should be used only for some very (your words, but my thoughts exactly) isolated niche of the BDSM community. There needs to be something else to describe people like me.
Vanilla doesn't work (aside of the fact that it's vaguely insulting as it seems to be used by some people to exclude others from their little insular "kink" groups) because I've been in relationships with people who I wouldn't consider vanilla, people who liked the idea of sex in public places with the potential of getting caught an aspect that turned them on, people who enjoyed anal sex, and so forth, and yet they were intimidated and "weirded out" by my desire to be abused. Nor is it effective to consider people as being "shades" of vanilla because how do you quantify that???
The slang just isn't for me. I don't like it and I wish it would go away unless referring to that niche I mentioned before. Bugs me. Pet peeve, ya know? Like how people say "I could care less" when they mean to say "I COULDN'T care less." Annoying, right?
ELEGANT! *whip crack* Your post is too fucking long!
This is why I hate it.
Elegant, you certainly don't need to use any label that doesn't feel right to you. But it seems to me that there's little point in objecting to the term, given how widespread it is, and given that many d/s couples like it as much as you dislike it. And of course, they have as much right to use it for themselves as you have to refuse it for yourself. So I guess the thing to do would simply ignore the term when you run across others using it, and politely correct it if someone applies it to you.
As for what you should call yourself, I think 'sub' is the best term. You don't want power exchange outside the sexual areas of your life, so you're definitely not a slave and not a 'girl'. Perhaps you're a pet, since that term can encompass a sense of being pampered and therefore might fit your being dominant outside of sex. But the term 'sub' doesn't really imply anything outside the idea that you enjoy being submissive sexually.
I'm not trying to change the world. I'm just trying to get some discussion going up in here... whilst expressing my distaste for a rampant misnomer.
Because I feel like that's what it is.
I don't think it's a misnomer. When it is applied by the Daddy and girl together (which is the only time it really matters), it is generally a dynamic where it is a sensible name.
Elegant, you certainly have the right to dislike the term and reject it for yourself. But saying that the term itself is wrong really violates one of the basic principles of the BDSM community, which is summarized in the clumsy phrase "Your kink is not my kink, but your kink is ok". The essence here is that kinky people accept each other's kinks and don't judge them, except where the cross of the line into non-consensuality or seriously unsafe play. You have the right to reject the term for yourself, but you don't have the right to reject it for anyone else. There are many d/s couples out there for whom the daddy/boy or daddy/girl label is the perfect embodiment of what they like to do and how their relationship feels for them. And even if they like it because it allows them to pretend that they're committing incest or child abuse, there's nothing wrong with that (so long as they aren't actually committing child abuse). Kinks are taboo; that's why they're so arousing. What seems disgusting to you might be deeply arousing to someone else, and what seems arousing to you is, I guarantee it, disgusting to a majority of the population (since being a sub at all is generally unacceptable). So if you want people to accept your kinks, you have be willing to accept theirs, at least to the point of telling them that they get to define their play and not telling them they're wrong for liking something you don't like. 'Daddy's girl' is a misnomer FOR YOU. It's not a misnomer in general.
I also meant to add: Most of the people I know or know of who are called or call themselves DLGs are very specifically into that kink, not just subs who went 'Oh, we're only bedroom and rules are flexible and we're affectionate, I MUST be in a DLG relationship!' They're people who thought about all the labels before they chose it, and after they chose it, everyone else recognized it through their use. If you're so caught up on people calling you the wrong label, you should probably do the same.
Obviously if someone accuses you of that title, they'd be wrong. It means they used the word wrongly, not that it's the wrong word in every occasion.
A couple things I didn't have time for in my posts earlier:
-As a little thing, I didn't think from the description you posted that you were a daddy's girl. Maybe a bedroom-only sub, and of course there was, from the partial description, before you went into dislikes and more detail, that you COULD be DLG, I wasn't going to that conclusion.
-Which leads to that when Sebastian called out the term in the other thread, he was listing a few types of dynamics that might have applied to Anna2, not naming what she was. Which seems to perhaps be part of the problem here?
-Although you had an idea what daddygirl meant, the reason we all thought otherwise was your annoyance at the term. To most of us, it's not different than any other dynamic in value, which means that when someone reacts that way, they probably don't know exactly what it means. So we assumed you either thought it referred to something more strongly incestuous or an insult for not being a 'better' sub (not that I know what a better sub would be'). In any case, it was unnecessary to quote and argue with each of us in turn for the same point; once would be enough.
I'm doing my best not to overlap too much with Sebastian.
Holy crap I was confused about why this thread was cut in half and then moved, but then I realised what "DLG" stands for and the confusion melted away.
Seb you're reading a little too hard into my feelings. Let me just find you a quote from my big ass post from earlier.
So you see, you can relax. I'm certainly not expressing hate towards the people that enjoy that kind of play (again as long as it's not real incest or child abuse) My issue is with the term, not with the people who actually fulfil the definition of the term.
That's why I said something more incestuous. Although it doesn't make much of a difference in this context
Separate names with a comma.