[LiddleSlime]

So over the past couple months I've been thinking more and more about whether I'm a little, and finding this site has just about confirmed it for me. I like the liddle definition and the more I look at my interests and such, the more I think it fits.

However, I'm also very much on the aro spectrum, if not full aro. I've seen that it's not good to have a platonic caregiver, because it is a very emotionally involved role. But being aromantic, I don't think I'll ever be able to have a 'proper' romantic relationship with anyone. I more or less came to terms with that before, I'm fine not being in a relationship, but I wouldn't mind having a CG at some point. I'm worried that being aro might mess that up for me though.

Does anyone have any advice on this, or am I just misinterpreting the 'no platonic CGLO' thing?

[Motherly]

The care a Caregiver provides is a version of romantic love. That’s just truly what it is. Just as you may express certain feelings through regression, Caregivers express their romantic feelings of love through caregiving.

The desire to “be cared for” by a Caregiver is the desire to feel loved and highly prioritized by another adult.

If you don’t want to extend love back to your Caregiver then the “relationship” is not psychologically healthy for the Caregiver, at least. It could even be considered emotionally manipulative or even emotionally abusive to demand this type of expression of love without reciprocation.

The only alternative that truly exists outside of the garbage online roleplay spread about in the community is to pay a fee, just like real parents have to do to have their real children safely monitored while they can’t care for them. You’re best to find multiple service providers, as none of them would be obligated to prioritize you just as real babysitters can decline sittings or families whenever they want. If you’re not willing to reciprocate love or pay for the service then you might as well just live in the online RP that goes on.

Ultimately, we are real people too. We deserve to have our love not only appreciated but reciprocated. We don’t deserve to be used for others’ pleasure just because they like feeling loved and cared about.

Real people. Caregivers are not acting. They are not “parents” to be used up when you want to pretend to be a child under supervision. Real CGL relationships are not fun roleplays when you feel like you want some special attention or to feel especially loved.

Last note, Littles do not need Caregivers. You don’t need a Caregiver to be or feel little. Caregivers will not give you an “experience” of “immersion”. If you aren’t looking to live someone else in return then do not seek out a Caregiver.


Yeah. The idea of being used because a Little doesn’t want to care about me in return, as if a Caregiver doesn’t need to feel loved too, kind of ticks me off. Not fair. Not sustainable. Not healthy.

[LiddleSlime]

I see what you're saying, and for the average allosexual person, it's very good logic. For an aromantic person however, we really can't feel that romantic love, but we do feel love in other ways. Aros can be in normal relationships, we also have queerplatonic relationships, but I know CGl is it's own sort of relationship too. So I suppose a better way to phrase my question is: Does it have to be romantic love that we give back? Because I can care deeply for someone, I can love them, but it'll always be different than most people would describe romantic love being. I guess I'm worried that because I can't fall in love with someone, it'll mess up my chances to have that close CGl relationship.

[BryanWarden1]

I think that the idea you can’t fall in love with someone is simply based on limited experience.- you haven’t met the person you could fall in love with.

[Motherly]

I can only say that I, personally, would not be comfortable with someone pretending to love me to manipulate me into continuing to shower them with my romantic expressions of love and devotion. It doesn’t seem fair to give so much of myself and my feelings but not receive the same amount of emotional devotion in return. While a relationship may not be “equal” it should definitely be fair to both/all partners.

I can say though that love is not a black or white expression either. Caregiving, for example, is an atypical expression of romantic love that other people may be surprised by. Some people may even be made uncomfortable by it. Some people, particularly Littles, may greater appreciate it though. How someone expresses their love for another is definitely complex and can’t be restricted to a defined box. Love and romance doesn’t necessarily mean X, Y, and Z displays or acts must occur.

I do agree with the other poster though in that it’s possible to love romantically and that not having experienced it yet does not mean you cannot in the future. It may take you longer, it may be with only one person ever, or it may be expressed differently than typically thought of but it’s doubtful you lack the capability in all situations with all persons.

[LiddleSlime]

I wasn't going to say anything, and I really hope this doesn't come off as aggressive or anything, but being told 'you haven't met the right person yet' feels really mean. It's like saying that meeting someone special could magically fix me, like telling an asexual they just need to find the right person, or a gay person that they haven't met the right person of the opposite sex, etc etc. It's actually quite hurtful.

While I agree, yes, I could very well change in the future, but currently I identify as aromantic, because that is how I feel based off the experience I do have. I've had multiple relationships in the past, but all of them were because of societal pressure put onto me and saying yes to anyone that asked me out. I've not once had anyone that I actually fancied. So, at least for the foreseeable future, I am aromantic. It does not feel good at all to have that invalidated when it has taken me years to get to the point I'm at, and I'm still struggling.

As for love in general, yes, it can be expressed in many different forms. But love is not always romantic even if it is expressed in the way most people would see couples expressing it. I completely understand CGs that would not be comfortable being in a relationship with an aro person, it's not for everyone, just like being in a relationship with an ace person isn't for everyone. I wasn't, however, asking about if it's alright to have a relationship where all the give is from the CG and no return from the little. If or when I ever did get into any sort of relationship like this, just like with any other part of my life, it would have to be with someone I trust explicitly, which for me is a very hard won feat. I can still return all the hugs, kisses, cuddles, assurances, etc, whatever is needed. Except for saying 'I love you' and meaning 'I'm in love with you'. It's not at all me asking about whether having a friendship style CGl relationship is alright on a whole, but if aromantics can even be in the CGl community because of this.

And from what I've read so far, I don't feel entirely comfortable here anymore because of your replies. You've both been polite, mostly, but even the small bit of dismissing my aromantic nature doesn't make me feel welcome at all.

[Motherly]

I’m sorry you didn’t receive the answer you wanted. Sometimes the truth sucks.

I did not attack or dismiss your current sexuality. I did suggest it may be re-evaluated and re-labeled in the future by potential circumstances that you may have not yet experienced, and that if that occurred you would be better prepared to carry out a romance-based relationship—which is how CGL partnerships are fulfilled. Friends-with-emotional-benefits does not work out and is not psychologically healthy or safe, particularly so in heavily co-dependent relationship structures such as CGL. I’m not going to candycoat it to say “a friendship style CGL relationship” is sustainable because it isn’t no matter your buts and ifs. That’s just that, no sense in arguing because it isn’t what you want to hear. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt.

Have a wonderful existence.