On D/Lg and Agency

Why does no one seem to realize the most important thing? Regardless of if DDLG was all about littles acting as kids and having that as a turn on. littles are over the age, and can CONSENT TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY. Daddies or doms may be attracted to anything just like everyone else in the world but they have relationships with OTHER ADULTS, in a CONSENTIAL MANNER. So where does that even become remotely close to pedophiles where they are attracted to children who CANNOT consent. There is a difference

Thank you for bringing this up.  While my erstwhile correspondent was single-mindedly obsessed with the motivation of Daddies, the key difference is that unlike pedophilia, non-consensual sexual assault, genuine misogyny or misandry, and domestic violence, in power-exchange kinks the Little, Sub, Prey, “Bimbo,” or Masochist is an active and autonomous agent pursuing and frequently initiating their own, usually erotic gratification.

By definition a child does not have agency.  It’s this lack of agency more than anything else that makes consent inadmissible.  Even if the victim says “yes.”

This is particularly important considering how many child abusers claim their victim “wanted” whatever was done.  Let’s take a little side-trip to explore why that’s 100% pure and utter gaslighting, self-serving, criminal bullshit.

Consider a more “neutral” case: an adult who’s drunk enough alcohol that they’re too drunk to drive – drunk enough that any reasonable, responsible bystander would ask for their keys and call a cab if the drunk tried to leave.  Someone that drunk is generally still able to speak, and to “make decisions.”  In fact there would be no cause to ask for car keys had the drunk not “decided” they were going to drive home!

Now consider an adult drunk enough to have their car keys taken away instead announces they’re horny, and when some rando says “I’ll fuck you” the drunk clearly and even enthusiastically announces “hell yeah you can fuck my drunky-wunky ass anytime, baybeee.”

Can we say at that point that the drunk has agency, or that despite their evident enthusiasm they’re capable of competent consent?

No.  No they are not.  Being able to say the words, or even initiating sexual contact does not automatically constitute consent.

It’s the same thing with minor children.  If it were not so then an abuser could get away with saying “when I offered them candy they voluntarily and enthusiastically got into my van.”

A minor child, like an intoxicated adult, does not have the agency to give competent, credible consent.  They just don’t.

Which brings us back to adult bottoms in power-exchange kink relationships.  As @beautifuly-damaged says in her ask, adult Littles are capable, autonomous adults who can give informed, active, and competent consent.  As active and independent adult agents, not only are Littles and other bottoms in kink able to consent, they’re able to initiate sexual activities with their partners for their own gratification.

That’s a… rather major difference.

One can wonder why, as the previous anon did, what might motivate another consenting adult to agree to participate as a top with a power-exchange bottom.  But the anon’s level of angst, dismay, concern… or prurient interest and/or social signaling should take into account the active, independent, and even initiating agency of the bottoms who seek them out.

Anyway, big, big hat’s off, @beautifuly-damaged, for highlighting that night-and-day difference.  And thanks for letting me dad’splain about it too.

0