I cant seem to get around the concept that DDlg is just sexualization of children. People turned on by acting like kids. Looking like kids. How is this any better than pedophilia? At least one is being honest about what it is.
You’re missing one very important point here: DDlg takes place between consenting adults. Also be aware that Littles are a broad spectrum; not all of them “act like kids” or “look like kids.” Little run the gamut from those who enjoy a paci to those who enjoy climbing inside a blanket fort with a jar of PB and a spoon to those whose Littleness consists of little more than curling up with a Disney movie after a hard day at work. Educate yourself, and lose your misconceptions.
This is sort of like saying Furries are just sexualizing bestiality though. Or that the cliché vanilla combination of tuxedos and “French maid” lingerie sexualizes sexual exploitation of domestic servants.
Before some time in the 1960’s it was widely held by psychologists, law enforcement, and clergy that men who sought fellatio from women were “latent homosexuals.” Same with rear-entry “doggie style” vaginal intercourse! These acts resembled what (authorities believed) gay men did, therefore it was secretly gay behavior.
Instead Caregiver/Littles in general and sexual DD/Lg in particular adopt and emulate a familiar power dynamic familiar to… well… everybody who wasn’t born at age 21.
One could argue as Shulamuth Firestone did in Dialectics of Sex that the socially condoned custodial dynamics between all adults and all children is illegitimate and should be abolished.
One could argue that all forms of erotic power-exchange should be abolished because each in some way emulate some form of coercive exploitation.
One could even argue with, I guess, some small justification that regressing Littles in Cg/L represent adult colonization of childhood the way Marie Antoinetta colonized milkmaids.
But one would be mistaken to say Cg/L in general or DD/Lg in particular represent or endorse pedophiles.
