Posted by DR on October 10, 2005 at 21:31 [67.83.76.91]
In Reply to: Re: DLs as Daddies? posted by Daddy T on October 09, 2005 at 16:22
Daddy T wrote,
"i think a male ab and a female ab relationship cannot be called a daddy/babygirl relationship."
I think that's a very narrow view of our kink. While your example might not fit your Daddy/babygirl schema, it may be exactly what others do, and how they define themselves.
I think we lead down a slippery slope when we start to outline how others may define themselves. For instance, kelsey and I do not age-play whatsoever -- that is, she does not mentally regress -- however, I am her Daddy and she calls me as such. Some, like you, might even define a Daddy as an age-play specific role by saying (to paraphrase you)...
"i think a non-age-player cannot be called a Daddy."
Obviously, I would disagree.
I think its important to put our definitions in their proper perspective. Defining kink by play type, role, dynamic, etc., is necessary, but only so as to foster effective communication among us. It should not be used however as a platform to non-consensually define others play, roles or dynamics.
If an AB wants to call himself a Daddy, that is his right, and although you may disagree with him, its improper to say that he "cannot be called a Daddy." His right to self-define trumps your opinions to the contrary.
Email: