Power Exchange: Chapter 3

Note: This is part of a book I am writing, access the earlier chapters at the tag Power-Exchange Sextbook.

.

Chapter 3

The Nature of Roles and Relationship Structures

Within power-exchange, there are many roles that people choose from when it comes to a personal identification. You may identify as a submissive or a master, you may have seen people identify as littles or mommies, and you may have seen other more niche identifications such as handler or keeper. On a personal level, all of these roles tend to be interpreted in an individualistic way and that means what you see as an act of submission may not be so to other party. For the purpose of clarity, I have classified these roles into several categories that elucidate specific natures of control.

Parental Control

There are several roles within power-exchange that are reminiscent of social roles that may be familial in nature and borrow from the power-structures of those relationships. These roles may include:

- Daddy/Mommy

- Fraternal or Sororal Roles

- Little/Middle/Big

These roles may sometimes be defined within the context of relationships and sometimes as individual elements of identity. However, before we discuss the nature of control at play any deeper, let us be clear about a few things. Identifying as daddy/mommy does not necessarily connote any incestuous leanings, because for most people the identification is with the nature of the role not with their own family. Additionally, identifying as a little or engaging in regression-based age-play is not necessarily about your own younger years or any nefarious interpretation thereof, for most people it is about the emotional association they have with the state of being in that role. Moreover, being into a role that is easily associated with actual members of your life does not mean you are necessarily attempting to recreate or fix those relationships, you may just be trying to explore them in different factions. It is also important to remember that even though popular-interpretation inclines to think of mommy/daddy as top-roles and little/middle as bottom roles, that is not necessarily the case. These roles are not hierarchically designed, a little may enjoy topping their mommy and a daddy may enjoy being ass-fucked by their little.

Also, while none of these things are necessarily true, they could be for some people, for some these types of roles or relations may actually be about daddy/mommy issues for some people and that is part of the beauty of kink, it allows you to create safe(r) spaces within which to explore complicated feelings or leanings.

Nature of Control

Roles combine to create dynamics and while the individual features of these roles may have extremely specific meaning to the identifiers outside of a relationship, power-exchange exists within dynamics which means roles must come together and orchestrate the environment of engagement that is desired. Dynamics like daddy-girl (DD/Lg) or mommy-girl combine the roles of two people to see how best they can simulate the environment they desire and for that purpose it is important to understand the nature of control at play within such dynamics.

Before we discuss any specific traits of such control, let us establish that we cannot deduce the exact method of the expression of control for all people. We cannot even define this type (or any type) of power-exchange with the kind of specificity that projects moral or ethical superiority over one method of exercising control than another. What we can do is elucidate the nature of the structures and let all individuals decide how control plays out within them. For instance, if you see daddy as a nurturing role, the nature of control at play could be exercised as guidance towards one’s best interests or it could be exercised as subverting the instinct to view a parental role as nurturing and being corrupting or destructive to your little instead. There is a stereotype about these types of dynamics that demonizes darker versions of them while exalting the compulsory application of control in a form that is nurturing, affectionate and overtly loving, but almost all dynamics have various forms they can take, and almost all include a darker version sometimes referred to as dark dynamics which hinge on the subversion and bastardisation of accepted norms within that dynamic.

The nature of control, may include:

- A replication of disciplined parental structures like enforced bed-times, meal-times, nutritional control or control over clothing.

- A reward/punishment-based dynamic which may include domestic discipline or a set of rules.

Hierarchical Control

Hierarchical control is more associated with a traditional-view of power-exchange wherein the roles themselves indicate who is higher and lower on the hierarchy and in which direction the control flows. Such roles may contain:

- Dominant/submissive

- Top/bottom

First of all, it is very important to clarify that the hierarchy does not indicate that one person is better, smarter, more deserving or socially-valuable by virtue of the role they have chosen. The purpose of the hierarchy is for the people within the dynamic to be able to enjoy taking or yielding power. Typically, in organisations like the armed-forces or corporate structures, hierarchy is poised to ease communication but ends up being exploited to exercise undue control or influence by positioning those at the top of the hierarchy as more deserving of their positions, but in power-exchange the hierarchy is entirely a function of choice. The dominant is the dominant because that is who they want to be and the submissive is the submissive because that is who they want to be.

It is also up to the parties in the dynamic to determine what the hierarchy indicates. For some people it may be a system on authority that governs who determines the course of action, it could be things like where we have dinner or where one is allowed to sit during the course of a meal. It may also govern systems of addressal or the manner in which one party defers to the other. It may manifest in something as simple as who makes the rules and/or issues the instructions.

At the heart of it, it does not indicate that the submissive is powerless because fundamentally power-exchange is a dynamic that is agreed upon by equals, and the power-based distinction of the hierarchy only exists within the structure of what has been agreed upon.

Nature of Control

As ever, the specific nature of control can vary but typically D/s relationships tend to be a function of rules, accountability and role-expression. On part of the submissive, there is the promise to adhere to the agreed-upon conditions of the hierarchy and on part of the dominant there is the commitment to fulfil their end by being responsible for the situations they set into motion. Both parties are accountable to one another.

While it is possible that some people prefer the type of D/s where the structure enables them to achieve personal goals (like developing a gym-habit or quitting smoking) by making themselves accountable to a dominant-entity, there are others who prefer a more benign form of control that does not amount to control over their decisions in life. There is no single method that is more correct than the other. Some people respond better to a system of rules that is determined through a process and enforced with fairness, while others may prefer one that is more arbitrary and unjust. The goal is to determine what kind of hierarchy one may find most gratifying and find the best possible way to create that.

Ownership-Based Control

Ownership-based control refers to the type of power-exchange dynamics where one party may (within reasonable and possible extents) take control of another person via assuming proprietorship of their personhood and/or body. These types of dynamics may include:

- Master or Mistress/Slave

- Owner/Property or Pet

- Some D/s dynamics

- Gorean relationships

While there is a fundamental objectification to assuming control via ownership, it is important to view this objectification within the context of consensual relationships that are desired by all parties. Historically, ownership-based relationships may have unpalatable social-roots in slavery and patriarchal-marriage, and it is sometimes a sphere within which nefarious actors attempt to recreate the actual systems of exploitation and not the symbols that indicate control.

Objectification in the sense of ownership-based relationships does not have to replicate systems of exploitation where your property is something about which you do not care. Certainly, in practise, people who veer towards such dynamics may enjoy creating an environment where the role of property is reinforced by recreating such systems, but it is only after they agree upon systems of care and consideration and how it is to be dispensed.

Nature of Control

While an ownership-based relationship may contain rules much like hierarchical relationships (and two may also intersect in terms of forming a dynamic), this form of dynamic also tends to include systems of control that govern general codes of behaviour or one’s body. There may be a system in place to make the property feel accustomed to thinking of their body as owned by someone else, that can happen via asking for permission to exercise bodily function or via orgasm control. There may also be extensive protocols with regard to how one party is to treat the other, which can include positional control, like how one must present themselves, or communication-protocol like how one must refer to oneself.

The most common misconception with master or mistress/slave dynamics is that it is a cold and careless environment within which the top does not care for the bottom, and that misconception is perpetuated by the pop-culture image of latex-and-whips fetishism. In actuality, assuming control over parties at that level requires a great deal of commitment and communication. It is also important to note that identifying as a slave does not automatically mean a person has no limits and are subject to whatever may be done to them. Some people negotiate to be in the kind of relationships where the control is extensive and may extend to even being passed on as property to a different entity chosen by the owner, while for others that is not something that is on the table. The choice of a particular form of control is just the starting point to determining how you would like your dynamic to play out, it does not come with a playbook on exactly how it should be.

Guidance-Based Control

A guidance-based dynamic may be one where there aren’t necessarily very rigid structures of control, instead there is a goal-based association between parties that is carried out via the conventions of nurturing, encouraging, coaching, drawing-out or grooming. These types of dynamics may include:

- Handler/Pony or Pet

- Mentor/Mentee

- Leader/Follower

- Partners-in-crime

- Leather-based dynamics

Fundamentally, guidance-based control is about providing support and extending expertise to a person who may be trying to attain comfort within their role or trying to achieve certain feats that require help. It could be a person who wants to access their feminine-side and wishes for a mentor who may help them do so, someone who identifies as a pony and seeks a rider to help them feel fulfilled within the role or someone who wants to do things associated with power-exchange without being subject to a vast mire of control.

Nature of Control

This type of dynamic tends not to have hierarchy, but hinges heavily on respect for one another, and the respect may skew in favour of the top-role by virtue of the expertise they have gained in their craft/role over the years. Historically, there has been a tradition of mentorship within leather subcultures as well as ownership cultures where in order to attain mastery one may serve under the tutelage of another person. This type of dynamic, though indeed this could apply to any type of dynamic, tends not to be sexual in nature, but could be for some people. It may also not be a romantic relationship, it could be the type of relationship that continues even after it has served its purpose and co-exists with other types of dynamics.

Some General Guidelines

The aforementioned delineation of power-structures is meant to elucidate the nature of control in more granular ways but it is important to remember a few things with regard to that:

- The nature of control you desire does not have to fall firmly within a singular category, most relationship dynamics sample from multiple categories at the same time.

- Power-exchange dynamics can be sexual and romantic for some people, but they do not have to be so for all.

- Structures of control can be as rigid or free-from as the parties within the dynamic desire.

- The listed-examples of dynamics for each type of control are not exhaustive or limited only to the category within which they are placed. It is entirely possible for one to desire an ownership-based mommy/girl relationship, for instance.

- The conventions of control as categorised are secondary to the desires of the parties involved. As such, the people in the dynamic are always more important than the rules of BDSM as they exist within the zeitgeist.