24/7 Littles – Practical ways of being Little in the Big world.

(Adapted from my PK Table on Littles)

Stereotypes

How people on the outside ( and sometimes on the inside) view us.

Some of these stereotypes personally fit me, and others don’t, but it all goes back to trying to make us fit into one singular box.

• How people on the outside ( and sometimes on the inside) view us.
• Some of these stereotypes personally fit me, and others don’t, but it all goes back to trying to make us fit into one singular box.
• All littles have some sort of childhood trauma.
• Littles and Caregivers are really pedophiles or into pedophilia.
• All littles are little 24/7.
• They all have some sort of Daddy complex.
• They are all brats.
• All littles like to be babies in diapers.
• Littles can’t thrive in a professional/corporate world.
• Littles aren’t strong enough to adult and get shit done.
• Littles are unintelligent.
• Littles just take and never give anything back to a friendship or relationship.
• All littles are annoying.
• Tops/sadists can’t be littles.
• All littles are submissive.
• Littles is 100% fetish.
• Littles are automatically treated the same as real children.
• All Littles are immature and irresponsible adults.
• Being Little is just about sex.
• Littles can’t be independent.
• Littles have never grown up.
• Littles have to be petite girls of a certain age.
• Littles can’t have multiple ages.
• Littles have to be kinky.

I’m hoping to dispel some of these stereotypes over the course of this writing and through my many other writings posted on Fetlife and Tumblr.

Terms and Definitions

• Big – Any non-little adult in the Big/Littles community or particular adults that a Little feels close to. Bigs include: Daddies, Mommies, Brothers, Sisters, Caregiver/Caretaker. Bigs can be Dominant, submissive, or on neither side of the slash. Littles can be Bigs to other Littles.
• Brat- is not a term inherently tied to Littles. Being a Brat means pushing the boundaries without crossing the lines within the dynamic you have or the negotiation you have created. Bratting requires consent from the receiver, whether blanket consent or periodic consent. Bratting is not the same as being a SAM.
• Little- Someone who has a childlike personality and possibly even interest. Littles are a subset of the Baby Girl/baby boy category, as well in that we enjoy nurturing dynamics/relationships, whether romantic or not. It is important to note that childlike is a big part of the stereotype issue. Most people forget that real children do not have one uniform type of personhood. They all vary in ability and maturity; the same counts for Littles.
• Age play- is role-play that can be used in sexual and non-sexual ways for temporary experiences. You can role-play a child, which is usually why people assume age player and Little are the same, as well as the Littles community was born from Age play; but you can also age play as an adult, usually an elder.Now I specifically want to talk about the differences between being a little and an age player. They are not one and the same. Ageplay is more role-play-based and can be for any age range. Little is more of your personality. It’s not what we do. So personally, I don’t agree that the stereotype of being a Little 24/7 is entirely incorrect. I think that many people have a particular image of what you have to be to count as a Little.For some people being Little is not a dominant part of their personality. It only comes out when triggered, when they have time or a safe place, or when they want it. I am going to talk to you about today is people who can’t control their Little in the way of bringing it in and out on demand and when it is present in everyday life and those of us who have it as a fully integrated part of its personality.
• ABDL- Adult Babies are a subset of Littles or ageplayers depending on the AB for which side they lean towards. There is often a lot of role-play that is not inherently sexual that revolves around being a baby, usually toddler or younger. Some ABs are also into diaper play or diaper comfort. This the DL for diaper lovers.
• Little Space- Little space is a headspace, similar to subspace. It is experienced differently. For some Littles, it’s when their thought processes change from that of regular adults to Tiny Adults. It can even change so far that we go into regression.
• Regression- in our terms, is not the same as psychological regression, but there can be overlap if the person does experience both. Many people don’t understand the difference, so many assume Little, especially Littles who regress, are mentally unstable, or ill in general. For those that don’t know, regression is a concept by Freud, which he defines as a defense mechanism leading to the temporary or long-term reversion of the ego to an earlier stage of development rather than handling unacceptable impulses in a more adult way. It can be used that way, and it is not inherently unhealthy.
• Daddy/Mommy Dom(me)- General terms in the D/s portion of the Big/ Little community that denote a Dominant/submissive relationship between a Caregiver (or Big) and a Little. The most commonly discussed forms are Daddy Dominant Little girl, Mommy Domme Little Boy, and Caregiver Little to give general space to non-binary people. There are many forms of the dynamic, including the Daddy or Mommy type person being the submissive or slave in service to their Little.

Integrating your Little into the Big World

When you are 24/7, even when you have a person who can take care of all the adult responsibilities, there is still a degree of adulting you end up doing. The way we handle this is what I call integration. I was recently given the most perfect term that describes what 24/7 Littles do to handle their adult responsibilities. We are reverse age playing. Pretending to be the adults that everyone else needs us to be. This is where integration really helps us.

What is integration? It’s simply about finding what works for you or for your tiny adult so that they can find a balance between who they are and who they need to be as well as who they want to be.

If you have been through my Fet you will notice that I have many writings on being Little in a world design for Real Adult Humans. Your integration may require just getting through an 8-hour work shift, or maybe your home life is not a safe space; you may even have children and can’t completely Little out.

So the basics of integration are:

• Realizing you are not participating in a fantasy or a scene. You are living real life and being authentic to yourself.
• Identify what you want out of your Real Adult Human Life.
• Identify how you feel about your Little and how prominent that person is.
• Identify if you have an age or a range.
• Recognize that you are an adult and can only give up adulting as far as your partner will allow.
• Identify if you have a supportive partner or Caregiver. This will help you when deciding the future of your life while embracing your Little.
• Identify your career choice and all that goes into it. When I started, I planned on working in a very corporate space full-time. I still plan to work with corporate spaces as an event consulting, professional organizer, and time management consultant. So my personal integration is built on that.
• Identify how much kink and or D/s is a part of your Little or life.

On being a burden

I don’t have much to say on this except, you aren’t, especially in the context of a Big/ Little dynamic. Of course, you need to negotiate, but Bigs, if you decide to be in a dynamic with a 24/7 Little, you should already know it’s a huge responsibility. It’s an even bigger responsibility when you are the in-charge one.

On discussing Little issues

There is a lot of misinformation that I hear from non-Caregivers and non-Littles.

Littles are not large children.

Littles are not uncivilized adults.

Littles are not playing a child role.

Littles are not one thing.

DO NOT ASSUME ALL LITTLES ARE THE SAME AND WANT THE SAME THINGS BECAUSE OF NO.

If there are asshole Littles in your community, cool. Someone should probably say something to them the same way people are so apt to say something to asshole Dominants.

Being Little is not play or kink for a lot of us headspace or no. That ideology demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a little is.

Being a nice Big (which to Littles addresses all adult non-Littles as well) does not mean you are being forced into our little’s space.

Being a 24/7 Little isn’t an excuse to be an asshat.

Littles being little is not an excuse to be an asshole.

If you are at a kink event, Littles should still be able to be themselves, but they should not force you to engage with them.

If a Little talks to you in baby talk (because some of us do ) and you don’t like that, you can not deal with them, or you can ask them not to.

Everyone has the right to be respected. At the very least, tell the person in charge of the event or venue what is going on.

People don’t be assholes.

A “101” Resource List

Updated Fall 2023

Glossaries

The Kinkly Sex Dictionary

Overviews

• What is BDSM? Your Queer Guide to Kink, Domination, Bondage, and More by Evelyn Bauer
• Subcultures and Sociology: BDSM by Grinnell College
• What is BDSM Sex? on WebMD

Think Pieces

• More Than a Taboo | The Rich history of BDSM
• It’s Time to Recenter Kink and BDSM as Part of Radical Queer History by Cameron Glover
• 25 Facts About BDSM That You Won’t Learn In “Fifty Shades Of Grey” by Casey Gueren
• OPINION: Bears of Color, we must allow ourselves to take up space by Kyle Jackson
• Power Exchange and Dependency
• How Kink Let’s Black Folk Get Free: The Liberatory Potential of BDSM by Vanessa Coleman
• Straight female slave serving a gay Master: An interview with slave trudy by Alt Sex Talk
• Reimagining BDSM | Tshegofatso Senne | TEDxCapeTownWomen
• Is BDSM Possible After Black Lives Matter? by Ali Mushtaq
• “Safe Sane Consensual” by slave david stein

Research Discussions

• Socialization, Role Attainment and Stigma Management in BDSM by Ronald Lynn Hopper Jr.

Community Resources

• Carter Johnson Library & Collections
• Women of Drummer

Reading

• Perverts of Color

The minor differences

One of the few differences between casual players, kinksters, and BDSM lifestyles (24/7 practitioner)* is that kinksters and lifestylers understand that 24/7 does not look like a perpetual scene.

Once you have passed the mentality of casually interacting with the BDSM subculture, you recognize that submission in a scene does not look the same as surrender and obedience in everyday life of an ongoing dynamic. That accountability, responsibility, leadership, authority, power, etc., are not the same as the dominance of a scene.

You become aware that for those who exist in the subculture rather than interacting with it don’t struggle with fitting or behaving according to their roles and identifiers because they simply are.

In a scene, you may be more structured and act in various ways, but in life, you flow. Even the most structured and high protocols houses understand that what comes and goes with life does not alter the structure of a dynamic. Life isn’t sexy, ambient, or enveloping all the time.

And that is one of the differences you have to remember when shifting to 24/7 from play. Dominance and submission go from hot to regular. It’s your new norm.  It’s present even without presence. If it is not, you can’t build a foundation for a 24/7 dynamic or as refer to them simply as a BDSM relationship.

This is why you see so many people talk about obedience, surrender, and authority as skills to learn when you move away from scenes.

Submission takes effort, but it’s in the moment. Every little moment. Have your surrendered? Are you obedient? Where does the authority lie? 

Even when they aren’t looking.
When they aren’t touching you.
When the presence is not tangible, is it still palpable with your personal decisions.

Have you learned to be your whole self with this connection to another so that actively engaging in power dynamics in everyday life is something navigable so that the daily life is managed and lived?

The BDSM subculture encompasses all interests, but we also, at some point, have to become aware that it is definitely a world that is more than a hobby. There are variances and degrees in which our identities affect our interactions. The way we relate and form bonds may differ from what is the dominant culture where we come from. We may experience profound shifts in who we are. And all of that is ok.

* Insert your own language for how you describe people who engage in BDSM casually and those who do not.

24/7 little doesn’ t mean broken.

I remember when a titleholder who is also a little (or dabbler in littledom, I don”t remember, honestly) told me that being a 24/7 little meant something was wrong with me.

Apparently, being a 24/7 little means, you are nonfunctional as an adult.

Not true.

And it’s stuff like that that made me start teaching about being little for play vs. being little.

Neither is better than the other both are approaches to being little in different ways.

We are all aware, or at least we should be, that all identifiers for what it is we do can be a complete part of our concept of self or just part of activities we engage in.

Someone being a 24/7 little does not mean that they are incapable of having other parts of self. I’ll give you an example using me.

I am…
a psychologist
a student
a teacher
a wife
a friend
a sister
a daughter
a partner
a slave
a little
a pet
a pet parent

None of those identities necessarily weigh more in my life, though some of those activities I interact with different and are more prominent parts of my everyday life. If you do not understand what little’s are or can be, then, of course, you’re going to think a little cannot be a functional adult.

I’ve been to many events in our community.

And I stopped going to some events and house parties simply because people would tell me silly things like being a little means not being allowed to drink or do anything that adults with you because if you are a little, that means you’re a “little” and can’t function, also, like asking my Daddy about all of the things. Hello, a whole damn adult is standing in front of you.

I’m honestly often like, “what the hell is wrong with you all.” too many big and non-big adults who talk to littles bc y’all…

So many of you talk about little’s forcing you to engage in scenes with us when we are just existing, but how many of you all have approached a little on some real ill by holding the stereotypes of which you think it means to be a little onto us.

How many of you have attempted to infantilize us without our permission simply because that is what you assumed you should do?

So it is quite possible that some of my being a 24/7 little is something being “wrong” with me.

But also I am a 24/7 slave and when I say that no one bats an eye about my functionality as an adult human.

I have a child-like countenance even without being a little. I also am disabled with various invisible illnesses. I generally only explain the symptoms relevant to you outside of the disorders I advocate for. I do allow people to ask for me to just be a carefree little around them. I do sometimes have symptomatic periods where I do age regress, and that is not me being little at that time.

But the idea that anyone who identifies as a 24/7 little is broken, incompetent, or needs help is a strange and unnecessary idea.

Ask first.

Valuing commitment does not mean tolerating bs…

Originally post on Revolution Kitty

A person told me they don’t like me as a polyamory advocate because I tell people to leave their partners because I am SoPo, immature, and don’t value commitment.

I find that entire statement to be hilarious because I actually don’t promote this because I personally do not get into relationships unless I have the intention of those relationships to be lifelong relationships.

I do not causally date and I heavily believe in commitments as a solo polyamorous person ( as many SoPos do and want y’all to be clear with us why you think we don’t have commitments). I value my autonomy and negotiate relationships based on this.

I don’t need to negotiate a romantic or queerplatonic relationship with you if I don’t have the intention of doing everything in my power for us to maintain a healthy lasting relationship.

When I go into relationships, I go into it with the intention that we communicate and that we will maintain this lifelong or a long-term relationship as long as maintaining this is not harmful to us.

And when I say maintaining that relationship. I mean that we are evaluating the problems that we are having and why we are having those problems which means maybe we have to go to therapy because we can’t see eye to eye, etc, etc. Ya know.

So why would I ever advocate for people to break up?

I can definitely understand that many ways of relationship-ing do not align with the autonomy and self-advocating that I teach, so that can sound like I want you to break up just because it is hard.

The point is that I advocate that if you’re not able to do the work it may take to recenter your relationship back to health, that it is OK for you to leave.

I advocate that no one is required to stay in a relationship that they do not feel is a good fit for them, period.

I advocate that people should look at their relationships periodically to make sure it’s where they want their relationship to be and that it is healthy, fulfilling, and allowing for their own personal growth and if it’s not to address that. And for some people that means leave. For some, that means loving harder.

To be clear if I see a bunch of red flags and abuse, I’m gonna tell a person that my recommendation would be for them to remove themselves from an unsafe situation.

Removal from an unsafe situation may end the relationship permanently or it may cause individuals to start reevaluating things and seek to become healthier.

My advocacy cannot be to just leave relationships because you find them temporarily unfulfilling because I understand that the nature of humans is that we are not going to be constantly enthralled with the people in our lives at all times.
They will not always be a source of happiness and enjoyment.
Sometimes we are going to “hate” them and dislike them because we may have to make choices that we don’t necessarily want to because we have decided that the person is going to be a part of our lives.

Did you know that it is completely valid and okay to decide that what you negotiate in your relationship at one point no longer works for you?… But it’s not necessarily ok just for you to say well this doesn’t work for me so I’m not gonna act on that anymore without having a conversation with your partner. Sometimes it is sometimes it’s not.

Relationships are about communication, often resource sharing, and partnerships. I recently explained to a tiny child who decided I need to be his big sister, that love is love and relationships are not always simply love. Relationships require interaction. Love is a state of being.

None of that means that you can’t be autonomous and when people start saying that relationships that require them to communicate effectively with their partners ruin their autonomy I also challenge them to consider what they think autonomy, freedom, and control in relationships mean to them.

Polyamory is Specific, but You as a Person Can be Many Things.

From a conversation I had with a lovely person about closed groups when the people are polyamorous.

“Being polyamorous does not mean you necessarily want open relationships. Dating/ establishing multiple people/relationships does not mean that a specific relationship is open.

The purpose would be whatever the particular relational group needs or desires.

*Example: I don’t have open relationships. I am not monogamous. However, I don’t necessarily desire to have other people in my relationships with other partners though it is always open to negotiation.

I am also a relationship anarchist. Nevertheless, I have no desire to be open in all of my connections. Like I don’t want to be open to interacting as a slave with every person I date or every submissive a partner may date, thinking we are sub-siblings.*

It’s descriptive and general to inform that there are specific agreements.

It is a mistake to conflate polyamory as a non-monogamy or open relationship umbrella. It is a specific type of non-monogamy and does not necessarily also encompass open relationships.

This is actually where a lot of people screw up. They assume that it’s all the same and it is not. Moreover, it also makes conversations hard because people feel they are being judged when their language is being corrected.

This is also where a lot of abuse and manipulation in the polyamorous community come from. A lot of people say they are polyamorous but are actually a different type of nonmonogamous, and when they practice their other types of nonmonogamy while claiming polyamory, their partners or metas are viewed as controlling.

You cannot claim polyamory if you are simply a swinger, want a fuck buddy only, etc. It’s more extensive than that, though it’s not necessarily related to prioritizing others over others or escalators, though, and some people also try to portray it like that.

You can be multiple things, however.

Nonmonogamy is the central umbrella then there are 1) ethical non-monogamy which yes houses polyamory, 2) consensual non-monogamy, 3) and non-consensual non-monogamy.

You can be multiple things, in any case.

The first two are used interchangeably colloquially, but there is a push to be specific that not everything that is consensual is actually ethical. Especially when most people view consent as a simple yes rather than reviewing the privilege and possible aspects of coercion, even subtle, you can be your authentic self without subtle coercion by establishing boundaries and discussing methods of having “living” or evolving agreements.

I dislike that submission and being dominant-led is seen as codependency even by people who actively practice the BDSM lifestyle.

There is definitely a difference between power exchange dynamics and authority transfer dynamics. Neither of these dynamics has a foundation of inherent viewing one person as superior over the other. It is the choice of deference and self-reflection. Authority transfer is deeply rooted in “alignment of will”. It is a choice of surrender, not a systemically social power imbalanced.

In authority transfers, even after negotiations, all parties are equal (well as equal as the laws of the land allow since those are really the things that attempt to influence the equity and equality we all have a living being, but that’s another discussion).

I understand objectively the concern of not living in a vacuum and the perceptions of people who don’t get it; but if we believe in negotiations what is wrong? As a gender equality activist and advocate, I feel it is important to note that you can’t take a person’s right to choose their engagement in their relationships without devaluing a person’s ability to make their own choices. Sometimes people make the wrong choices, but isn’t that what rigorous education rooted in the knowledge of consent and boundaries addresses? What negatives do you perceive from these dynamics and their impact on society if you heavily believe in these ideals?

Diversity in Black Kink Series

Last year I mentioned wanting to do a “Diversity in Black Kink” series.
Life happened, though.

I still want to do this, but I want to do it a bit differently than intended to match my energy levels.
If interested in participating you may send me the following via FB messenger or email it to kitteninlimbo@gmail.com.

• 📸A picture that can be public (vanilla and kink). Don’t out yourself. It should follow Facebook TOS.
• 📃A word document/ Google doc link/ etc with your story. These are Non-fiction experiences within the BDSM subculture. It can be encompassing of the good, bad, and ugly. DO NOT call people out individually or use names for this. I encourage you to address the social issues that have impacted you. Try to keep it under 500 words, but I will make multiple parts if needed.
• 🧠Your experience does not have to be inherently kinky, but it should reflect lessons learned through your involvement in the BDSM subculture.
• 🖍Note and highlight if this needs to be anonymously posted or provide the name that you use in the kink world. Again do not out yourself.
• 📥You may submit more than one experience. I will post anonymous posts freely, but another post may be spread out over time.
• 📞If you have contact info that can be shared in a public setting, you may ask that to be included.
  Other stuff:
• 🐻These posts will still be posted to my blog Grumbles with KIL, but will also be able to be featured in a public FB Album from my FB page.
• 🐻I will share these with the group(s) I admin and tag you into the post shared with the group. You will not be tagged in any public version of this post. Contact me if this is confusing.
  🐻I may edit what you send me. I will email you/message you the changes I have made to ensure the integrity of your experience is upheld before the final version is posted.
  🐻I will not actively be seeking people to do this. I will tag the people who have previously expressed interest and others I think may have a good story to share.

📌This will be public, so you will be opting into this by sending me your info to be posted. That is your consent. Please note that I can’t control who sees this, who may copy this, and who may use this. I will include on all posts that this is not intellectual property to be used or adapted by others without permission, but it can be shared.

Is polyamory a form of enlightenment?

So here’s the thing. Non-monogamy is not more enlightened, but I accept that it may have been their gateway to breaking toxic patterns or behaviors in people’s personal circle.

Having more than one partner is not the epitome of freedom because every day, we see non-monogamous and polyamorous people still with their insecurities affecting their ability to communicate. Some also struggle to come to terms with what they want because they aren’t comfortable with those things; Some can’t be honest with their partners about those things because they still have shame and fight their social conditioning.

I find the idea that non-monogamy of any type, expressly polyamory, giving us some superiority (emotionally, socially, and psychologically) to be so ridiculous because plenty of monogamists that study sexuality, psychology, and social engagement show us how to be free, healthy, and comfortable in ourselves.

Now I don’t necessarily believe our species is monoamrous or polyamorous by nature. Many people interpret monogamy and polyamory as a human evolutionary leap rather than part of social evolution. We are not a species that can interact in ways that limit our social capacity.

Mating is reproductive. What we call relationships now are social. Many relationships in the past are based on mating but socially controlled by groups wanting to retain power over others. But that is not the end of our ability to find companionship and interact with others.

Polyamorists are not inventing anything new technically. We are just humans trying to get back to what we need to be healthy. This is one of our modern equivalent and interpretation. There are many other ways of engaging our healthy social and relational needs.

Reading the Room: When people can’t tell the difference of their label being attacked from discussions of red flags.

Let’s put this up for consideration.

Topic: Unicorns, hierarchy, couple’s privilege.

So there are terms with negative connotations in non-monogamy.

Thirds, unicorns, couple’s privilege, hierarchy, primary, etc. 

It’s been like this for a while. The negative treatment of “thirds” is coming to light because polyamory is gaining more public traction. More people are calling out abuses and people who use polyamory as an umbrella term for non-monogamy  whic& can turn bad and unhealthy very quickly.

Neither word nor label is inherently bad, but they are intrinsically tied to abusive/ dangerous non-consensual behaviors. As polyamory is still not a norm the idea that the terms are inherently bad is easy to hold on to.

But like spouse( maybe specifically wife) and marriage are not bad, when discussing DV and abuse there may be strong negative connotations.

In polyamory and non-monogamy, people that identify as unicorns and often people who practice some form of hierarchy aren’t reading the context that the discussion is about abusive practices.  Often time the overall discussion isn’t even about abuse but giving information about how a specific aspect can turn into abuse.

These clashes often represent privilege, seeing polyamory through a narrow lens, and a lack of ability to communicate in forums due to the pretty one-dimensional aspects of tone and language.

Note the context before assuming that just because you saw a word you identify with it means the discussion is generalized or about you. If you think about this objectively people have discussions like this about red flags every day without it devolving. Why? Because the point is a warning, giving information and context so people have the ability to make informed choices.

slave kitty.

*Being empathetic is exhausting.
*Being understanding of different rates of growth is exhausting.
*Having people act like having personal boundaries is exhausting.

The honest truth is that in relationships the people involved are different. You may have similar perspectives and beliefs, but there will be big things that you may not agree on. There is nothing wrong with that. People are allowed to have different ways of interacting with the world.

You have to decide, define, and defend your personal boundaries. You have to understand your boundaries do not control others, but that they do impact how you interact and handle situations.

Your boundaries are “When X occurs, my boundaries are Y, and I will do Z to uphold them.”

Sometimes the actions of others cause you to enter a space in which your boundaries are challenged. This is when the concept of hard and soft boundaries is critical. I decide if my boundaries are hard and soft with the following:

How will temporarily or permanently changing how you address this boundary and stand by it affect you?

Will any deviating from this boundary cause me harm (mental, physical, emotional, spiritual), but not hurt?

Why did I create is the boundary?

Am I using this boundary to hide from something?

Choosing to modify your boundaries does not mean your boundaries are not important or real. Boundaries are adaptable and are meant to change as we do. As we learn and grow so will our boundaries. This may mean that our boundaries become more rigid or that we develop flexibility as we learn to balance ourselves and uphold our authentic self and our needs.

People may not approve of this no matter which way it goes. Someone will always feel like you are doing too much or not enough with your boundaries, but you have to decide what helps you to be the healthiest person you can be and to respect yourself.

Links you may find interesting:

Hard Boundaries and Soft Boundaries by Jess Mahler

5 Types of Boundaries for Your Relationships by Keir Brady

The Guide to Setting Healthy Boundaries by Clusters of Inspiration