influencer for Big Hedonism

Great news: she loved it. Super tasty apparently. Great success. Along with the kidney-sensitive treats we found, it was a nice way to supplement her diet. Unforseen long-term consequence though: she loved it so much she began demanding it throughout the day. Like, would come up to us and meow, and meow, and meow, and not stop, until we got up, went to the kitchen, and got her some cat drink.

And by doing so on demand, we have unfortunately created a monster: no matter what we are doing at home, Dozy knows that if she sits next to you and meows, 1) you know what she wants, and 2) you know that she will not stop until you get it for her now. And when you do get it, she gets extremely excited. She will bum rush the kitchen door as you enter. She will run around your feet as you open the can. She will let out the creakiest, crunchiest, most nails-on-the-chalkboard meow you've ever heard if she thinks you're not going fast enough.

I do not begrudge her this. It is gratifying to care for a creature whose most ardent desires are so simple that it is this easy to fulfill them. But I am a little sad, because I know in my heart that I have never loved any comestible as much as she loves this cat drink. She has a pleasure of a purity and intensity that I will never know.

She is not that.

She is Elon Musk. She is Trump. She is a powerful monster with the money to end lives.

Giving her money and creating a demand for her books by engaging in fandom should be seen the same way owning a cybertruck is seen. Harry Potter gear is in the same category as MAGA gear.

I need to see the same disgust and outright hatred of her that I see about all the evil men in her category. I don't know if people see her as less dangerous because she's a woman or if people are worried that hating on a woman will get their feminist card revoked, but she needs to be taken more seriously by a lot of people. She's a big name heavy hitter with more money than anyone should be allowed to have.

Her shit fit and past legal actions caused Amnesty to take the report down. Like she's sued people to hell before, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned when someone who's used her wealth to ruin people who disagree with her comes after you.

And then taking the report down while they figure out what to do isn't good enough. She's apparently trying to team up with anyone else who didn't like being in the report to sue Amnesty International into the ground about it.

It's Amnesty fucking International.

The human rights charity.

as a result there is a very common practice of what i call 'turn-taking', which is what it sounds like- littles taking turns acting as the caregiver, meeting some amount of eachother's wants (there is an identical practice across submissives in general). what differentiates turn-taking from switching is that the caregiving partner does not really want to be in that role. it is a role they take on to meet another's needs, sacrificing some of their own enjoyment for anothers'. they may derive some level of pleasure from that of their partner, but ultimately they'd choose to be on the other side if they could.

(note that i am describing this as if it is two people, but it's often a group variously taking turns.)

i have seen a few people express very critical attitudes toward turn-taking and paint it in a very negative light, which i think is a bit unfair. of course turn-taking is nobody's ideal. anyone would rather participate in something more mutualistic. but it's a practice that arises when people have unmet needs they can't find another way of fulfilling, and it seems cruel to lambast them for seeking out a way that if done correctly does benefit both parties. sometimes interesting dynamics can arise from turn-taking as well that respect both people's preferences while allowing one to take a caregiving role; for example maintaining the little identity of one while the other takes on the role of their doll or toy.

with that said, there are some negative aspects that often arise within turn-taking that i think are worth talking about in specific. the most obvious manifestation is when one partner is simply not giving their fair share. they allow others to push themselves into a role that is not their preference and do not do the same in return. this is selfish behaviour and no good! children must learn to share playtime and let everyone have a go.

sometimes, this lack of sharing arises from failure of communication. one partner believes they turn-taking, the other simply thinks their partner is acting as caregiver. it can be difficult to ask for your turn, but you cannot expect it to come if you never do.

at other times, one partner feels pressured to pretend they are enjoying taking on this role, or perhaps they enjoy it a little, but are pushed to make it the entirety of their play because they are willing to do so. this is unfortunately common. many of us are poor communicators or very unwilling to be the source of disappointment or to let someone down. it's important to be conscious of this tendency in yourself and in your playmates. you must be proactive both in expressing yourself and in learning what your playmate is thinking, feeling and truly wants.

sometimes as well, people simply opt out of their responsibility. they may even be encouraged to do so by their playmates out of guilt or desire to please. this is going to be a bit harsh, but i often do not like the boastful sentiment i see expressed that someone is 'so little they make other littles feel the need to look after them' (similar to the idea of a submissive so pathetic other subs with no normal dominant instincts want to dominate them). at times this is a perfectly fine space to inhabit. it is a very pleasurable and validating feeling to be the littlest of all. however you must be very cautious that you understand this is not actually a natural, fundamental extension of who you are, but a deliberate dynamic you are getting to inhabit. you cannot abdicate your role and presence within that dynamic, and you must take responsibility for it, not treat it as simply a natural arrangement of things (outside of the immediate space of play). in many cases when i see this dynamic, i am not actually seeing 'the littlest' or the 'most pathetic': i am seeing 'the least willing to adopt a role that doesn't suit them'.

i went back and forth on this next part but after talking to @innumerable-voices i feel more certain of saying this: if you are going to ask others to compromise on their wants to take a caregiving role you have some obligation to reciprocate, and conversely if you are not willing to ever adopt a role that doesn't suit you you should not ask others to do so for you. at the minimum you should be trying to find an interplay you feel okay in that lets you reciprocate a little. simultaneously, if you are feeling resentment or distress at a role you are being pushed to inhabit more than you'd like, you must express this clearly.