a theory of power

As regular readers might have noticed, in the past couple of years I’ve repeatedly written about the nature of full-time power dynamics. It’s a theme that takes up a lot of space in my mind, as I move through the joys and challenges of my own power relationships over time. This post is an addition to that thread of musings.

In recent months I’ve found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with the discussions and resources about power that I encounter through the BDSM/leather community/ies. There’s nothing wrong with them, per se, they’ve just been speaking to me personally less and less. It’s not hard to figure out why. Let me digress into the directly personal for a moment in order to explain.

I’ve spent the past few years in steadily worsening chronic pain. I found out in May of this year that I had a rare, slow-growing tumour directly on my spinal cord that had basically been keeping my pelvic nerve company for easily a decade, possibly up to twenty years. By the time the doctors finally figured out what the fuck was wrong with me, my body was in a terribly fragile state—any kind of impact, including movements as simple as stepping down a stair or being brushed against in a crowd, would cause me to seize up in pain. Most kinds of SM play became impossible for me, or became pleasures I could indulge in only rarely or within strict limits. A seven-minute demo scene in a workshop this spring had me out of commission for days. When the pain it reached its worst, in the weeks prior to the surgery I had in July to remove the tumour, I stopped being able to enjoy even the most careful sex. Anything approaching orgasm was agony. Now, following surgery, the pain is mostly gone, but there are parts of my bits that I can’t feel at all, and I’m feeling tender and tentative when it comes to either initiating or receiving any kind of sexual touch. (I’m working on it.)

And yet, despite sex and play becoming increasingly rare and challenging, and eventually grinding to a complete halt, and despite my very low levels of erotic and sadomasochistic desire in recent months, at no point did I stop desiring and enjoying the power dynamics I have cultivated with my partners. If anything, they deepened.

This really drove home the point that power-based relationships, for me, do not live in sex or eroticism. There is a gigantic overlap, yes; I am rarely drawn to, and find it challenging to feel truly satisfied within, power dynamics that don’t veer pretty heavily into the erotic. But there’s nothing quite like having no erotic desire and no ability to enjoy sex to make it abundantly clear that erotic charge is in no way at the root of what I’m doing. Power, for me, doesn’t live in sex. It just likes to hang out there a whole lot. But its roots are elsewhere.

Over the course of my journey into and out of debilitating pain, I realized that it was extremely difficult to find discussions of power, in BDSM settings, that do not take as a given that power is a sexual kink. I know I’m not the only one for whom power doesn’t live in sex, but it’s unbelievably hard to find a place to learn about that or talk about it when your primary point of reference is the BDSM/leather world. Over and over, I found myself in situations where I was very much hoping for insight or new perspectives, and then realizing that for the people I was talking with, it all came down to, or revolved around, or was sourced within, sex. And each time that happened, I felt more isolated. A freak among freaks. A dominant sex pervert who wasn’t sexing or perving, but for whom the dominance hadn’t slowed down one iota. Honestly, I started to feel like maybe I should turn in my pervert card. I sure wasn’t feeling very pervy.

I discovered, though, that one place where I could find some glimmer of hope was within discussions of M/s relationships and what’s sometimes known as “the path of mastery”—a term I think lends itself to Darth Vader-like intoning quite well, which kind of makes me cringe, but I haven’t found something better. So that’s what I’m reading about these days (I’ll be updating my annotated reading list soon!), and that’s the kind of gatherings and conferences I’m budgeting to attend, and that’s what my brain is grinding away at. It’s not an entirely new line of thinking for me, but I think having sex and play forcibly removed from the equation really compelled me to find some way of understanding what the fuck it is I’m doing, since clearly it’s happening even completely outside those contexts.

So, of late, I’ve been doing a lot of chewing on this idea of “mastery.” Thus far, in my blogging about power, I’ve mostly discussed 24/7 relationships, but I haven’t written a heck of a lot about the more individual aspects of this path. I’ve also never been especially comfortable with the term “master,” as applied to myself. But for a number of reasons, I’m realizing that I have to swallow some of that discomfort and just bloody own that this is the path I’m on, mastery is probably the best word to describe it, and my task is to become comfortable with that, not try to wiggle out of it. As an exercise in comfort-building, I tried to develop a definition of mastery that makes sense and feels right to me, and I figured it might be worth sharing, again because there is precious little out there on the topic, even among people who’ve been doing this forever and a day. So…

Mastery, for me, is a radical commitment to acknowledging, recognizing, and profoundly knowing my privilege and power both in classically political ways (gender, race, etc.) and also in terms of less tangible, describable and theorizable/theorized areas such as leadership skill, charisma, intuition, emotional intelligence, attractiveness, persuasiveness, command presence, and so forth. A key piece of this is to extend that acknowledgement, recognition and knowledge to the pleasure that can be and is taken in that power (even though holding power and privilege is not always pleasurable). This is the stuff that often gets dismissed or ignored in academic and political discussions of power, but that utterly changes the game at every small interpersonal moment in a way that can only be ethically dealt with through acceptance, clear sight and responsible management. Alongside that, mastery is a radical commitment to using that privilege and power for good (mine, my partners’, others’, the community’s, the world’s) in as explicit, conscious and consensual a way as possible in every moment.

This concept of mastery relies on a pursuit of deep self-awareness, and a commitment to right and ethical use of power, which presupposes the establishment of an ethical system. But this ethical system is not an institutionally-based one. Most people who work within pre-established or institutionalized ethical systems (religion, law, professional codes, academia, military, martial arts, whatever) don’t pursue mastery in the sense that I’m talking about here, though the two types of code are not mutually exclusive. But institutional frameworks on their own don’t generally encourage the kind of individualized understanding, personal moral code and introspective approach I’m talking about here. Also, unless you are fanatically devoted, most outside-originating systems (even when chosen) give you much more room to deviate or get away with shit, whereas a strong inner-sourced moral code does not.

I guess a short way of saying this would be that for me, mastery begins and ends with self-mastery, so in that sense it doesn’t in any way depend on the existence of a relationship—and thus in no way is defined by or limited to the erotic. But when someone shows up who wants to enter into a power relationship with me, then I govern that dyad by my self-mastery code.

I’ve written in the past about describing “This Thing” (my preferred term, for the moment, for what others might call M/s or Master/slave relationships). The further writing I’m doing here isn’t intended to replace those ideas, but rather to add to them. In that earlier post, I was trying to describe the key features I’d been able to pinpoint—the elements that seemed, to me, to be common to all or at least most relationships that were This Thing, both my own and those I’d seen around me. (If you want even broader context, I also wrote about conceptual frameworks for D/s relationships, because This Thing is at one extreme of a scale that includes a range of other power-inflected relationship types.)

I have wrestled before with how to explain what’s different between This Thing and any other kind of relationship, and my earlier attempt, while trying to be definitive, was mostly descriptive. But recently I came up with a two-step system that I’d like to put forth as a definition.

First step: to count as This Thing in my personal conception of things, the power dynamic must fit both of the following criteria. (Note that PIC = Person In Charge and POA = Person Obeying Authority. These positions can only exist in relation to one another. Someone who is on a path of mastery, or on that of what’s often known as “slavery,” can be on that path whether they’re in a relationship or not; that part is about self-understanding and identity, not relationship.)

1) It must be 100%, by which I mean not time-bound (i.e. limited to the bounds of a scene or a specific time frame of any other kind) and not bound by the limits of a specific “territory” or area. As such, an ongoing relationship in which the PIC’s authority is limited—say, their territory includes the POA’s sexual practice, dress habits and school pursuits, but they have no say over the POA’s health or parenting or finances—doesn’t count in my framing of things, even if such relationships may have a lot in common with This Thing, and may be far more common than This Thing, and may even happen between two people who are each on their respective paths. Just because one person in a relationship is on the path of mastery and the other on the path of “slavery” doesn’t mean they are master and slave to each other, any more than two dancers who fall in love must necessarily dance together.

2) It must be deliberate and self-conscious, in that both participants explicitly acknowledge that they’re doing an ongoing power dynamic and they agree to engage in it on purpose. So no implicit relationships here. Of course power suffuses plenty of relationships in implicit ways, including many relationships that fit some of the second-step criteria, but I don’t think it can truly be This Thing if you don’t actually ever talk about it.

These two criteria, though, are not enough to make a relationship into This Thing. The first criterion, for instance, is present in parent/child relationships and in other relationships of dependence, consensual or otherwise (state/prisoner, say, or institution/mental patient), but those aren’t This Thing. And lots of cases exist where both criteria are present, such as when people join certain religions (especially as nuns, priests and the equivalent) or the military, but those too aren’t This Thing because they don’t hit any of the second-step criteria.

So, those second-step criteria, then. In addition to the two first-step criteria, the relationship must meet one or more of the following three criteria, any one of which is sufficient. In other words, they are often all three present, and more rarely two out of three (any two), and more rarely still just a single one, but as long as at least one of them is present, it fits into my definition of This Thing.

1) It is erotic. The power dynamic produces and sustains arousal.


2) It is power for power’s sake. The power dynamic is desired for its own sake and is cultivated as an end unto itself, rather than as being a means to an end, a practice in service to a goal. Not to say that goals of another kind can’t be present—they often are, and This Thing is an excellent framework to support goal achievement (for both partners). But the primary purpose isn’t to achieve an outside goal. The goal is to experience and enjoy the power dynamic. If all you wanted were X other goal (spiritual enlightenment, earning a PhD, losing twenty pounds, etc.) then you could easily take another path to get there (monasticism, grad school, personal trainer, etc.) and that way may involve a power dynamic, but the dynamic is then bound by the elements related to the achievement of that goal.


3) It is done in the context of a leather, M/s or BDSM tradition or community context.

As a “proof” of my criteria set, I went at this backwards and tried to eliminate two out of three second-step criteria at every turn to see if what was left still held up. I’m not eliminating the first-step ones; they remain the foundation piece for the second-step ones.

So, if we eliminate the arousal factor, you can still have a non-erotic power dynamic that is deliberately enjoyed for its own ends, whether it is or is not done within self-consciously leather traditions. Non-erotic dynamics in This Thing are rare, but by no means unheard of. One well-known pair on the M/s teaching circuit, for instance, is made up of a gay male master and a female slave who aren’t sexually involved.

If you eliminate the power-for-its-own-sake factor, say by making it a goal-oriented dynamic, then it might be time-limited in the sense that when the goal is achieved the relationship dissolves, but it may well still be a full-time and ongoing This Thing relationship while it lasts, if it is also either erotic and/or happening within the context of leather traditions. I admit I’ve rarely seen this—for most people, a relationship that’s based on a specific goal doesn’t tend to become as all-encompassing as This Thing, but it’s theoretically possible, particularly, I suppose, if the goal were a pretty gigantic or long-term one. A couple of the M/s couple profiles in the book Ask the Man Who Owns Him discuss a specific goal as a key element of the relationship, the accomplishment of which could signal the end of the M/s dynamic in at least one case, so I know this does exist. On the other side of the coin, for some pairs who are heavily spiritually oriented, they may see their dynamic as serving a spiritual purpose such that they wouldn’t say they’re doing power for its own sake; it’s all in service to a higher calling or at the command of their deity. This stretches my idea of “for its own sake” somewhat, but for the purposes of this definition, I’d still count spiritually-framed M/s relationships of that type as This Thing as long, of course, as they still hit the initial two criteria of being 100% full-time and full-spectrum and explicitly acknowledged as such.

If you eliminate the leather tradition element, you can still have a fully functional and happy power dynamic, but you may lack a language with which to discuss it or a set of concepts to start from, and you may lack support structures and a community, which—when you’re going into an intense and unusual kind of relationship like this—can be crucial in helping you find support as well as balancing, deepening and understanding what you are getting up to. Still, there are other kinds of communities and traditions to work from—people find inspiration for This Thing in an array of places. (Note that I do NOT count as This Thing frameworks that are based on institutionalized conservative or fundamentalist strains of organized religion and are coercive as such—so if God tells your religion that men are in charge and women must submit, and two people believe this and enter a relationship based on those parameters, to my mind one or possibly both of them are actually in a non-consensual power dynamic with an institutional third party and as such the entire idea here is moot.) And some people are really into making it all up for themselves, without using any models whatsoever. Bonus points for creativity! Also, if you’re not into kinky sex per se, or you find the BDSM/leather/fetish community/ies off-putting for some reason, or the resources you’ve found within leather/BDSM don’t speak to you even if you do like kink, or you’re geographically isolated, or you’re not especially sociable or community-oriented—well, for all these reasons and many more, then leather symbolism and traditions might be of no interest to you.

A side note about this last criterion. In BDSM and leather communities, there often are traditions and symbols—the use of a collar, the wearing of leather, the employment of etiquette and protocols, and so forth—that can serve really well to help frame This Thing, and the visibility of that symbolism in the outside world draws people seeking This Thing to the BDSM/leather community. But it can be a bit of a minefield once you get there.

Two arcs often intersect here. First, the BDSM or leather community is often where people end up when they are drawn to the eroticism of power and/or the exploration of power for its own sake, because there isn’t really another place where this stuff gets engaged in and discussed as such. Especially the erotic part. You can certainly find self-conscious explorations of power in various places, particularly religions, but it is very rare to see those places address the erotic in any meaningful way. They are usually invested in denying or controlling the erotic, often setting it up as a threat to the belief system itself. Second, people who are drawn to BDSM sometimes discover that their interest in power goes beyond play, after exploring the scene for a while and getting the nagging feeling they want something deeper.

The fact that the BDSM world acts as a vector for full-time power-oriented people in this way—both people who start out wanting a full-time dynamic and look for opportunities through BDSM, and people who start out being interested in BDSM play and end up realizing they want a full-time dynamic—is in fact the source of a lot of confusion and pain. Many folks oriented toward This Thing feel frustrated and alienated in BDSM communities where the focus is squarely on play or time-bound power, because when everything is framed that way, and these are the terms of all conversations, it can be really difficult to talk about how This Thing isn’t play (but is often still kinky and/or erotic, and play does still often happen within This Thing), and it can be super challenging to find resources and perspectives, even though you’d think this would be precisely the place to find them. Often in these same settings, BDSM players are suspicious of ongoing power dynamics because they frame their BDSM practice as being okay precisely because of its temporary or role-based character. So a lot of players pooh-pooh This Thing, or any other kind of ongoing arrangement for that matter, as taking itself too seriously, or see it as inherently abusive or just “going too far,” much like any vanilla community would.

The situation is an odd one. The place where people are most likely to gravitate in order to find This Thing, or through which people are likeliest to figure out they want This Thing, is a place where wanting it may be actively discouraged and finding it might in fact prove very difficult. So close, yet so far away! I have written about this from a slightly different angle in the past, and I may return to the topic in future writing.

For now, back to the task at hand. If you eliminate all three of my second-step criteria—if it’s not erotic, power is not engaged in for its own sake, and you’re not doing it through leather traditions—then whatever you’re doing is not This Thing.

Of course, all of this still leaves room for the existence of plenty of power-based relationships that aren’t This Thing by this definition, but that are nevertheless profound, ongoing, and very real. This definition effort isn’t a value or validity judgement. But of late I’m realizing that honing in on the particularities of This Thing is really helping me think through some stuff in helpful ways, in terms of understanding who I am, how I operate, how I’m oriented and what feels good to me. From there, I can and do engage in power relationships that aren’t This Thing because they don’t hit all the criteria, even if no matter what kind of relationship I’m in, or not in, I am still on this path of mastery that begins and ends with self-mastery.

I don’t pretend to have a conclusive understanding here, and I don’t expect my definitions or perspectives to resonate with everyone who’s doing This Thing or any other type of ongoing power dynamic. But I am committed to an ongoing exploration of ideas and to sharing concepts as they jell in my head. If nothing else, perhaps I can help provoke a proliferation of ideas and conceptual models so that we can all benefit from having a broader range to choose from. Onward and upward!

15 thoughts on “a theory of power

  1. Andrea,

    First, I am sorry to hear about your health issues, and I wish you a speedy and solid recovery.

    Second, this is a wonderful post. Like you, I derive pleasure from the exercise of power that might seem very abstract to other people — it’s enjoyable to me, for example, to send my s-type a text message and know that they’re doing what I ask, even if that task is nonsexual (as it typically is), I don’t see it being performed, nor does it benefit or affect me in any way.

    I would say that our relationship meets all three of the second step criteria, while not meeting the first step (I do not have the authority or seek the authority to control her at all times and in all things. My s-type has a spouse of her own, for one thing, and doing things that might interfere in that relationship is a limit for both of us).

    I just finished writing a Kindle Single-length book on the topic of rules & discipline, and I remember thinking, “Folks who practice a form of BDSM that practice ‘total power exchange’ are going to hate this book, or think of it as a watered down version of BDSM.” But to be honest, I didn’t know what to do about it, and I’m still not quite sure. The book does emphasize negotiation in the service of arriving at rules that serve the relationship and the people in it, but I wonder if it is discouraging people who want ‘This Thing’ unintentionally. I’m not sure how to incorporate that perspective.

    1. Thanks for your comment, Lily. I can’t respond all that well without reading the book, but I will say that for me, what’s important is for writers to acknowledge, as completely as possible, the perspective they’re coming from. Generally, speaking for myself at least, I don’t find writing that’s not about This Thing to be automatically discouraging of it – and some of it is even quite useful. But I do find that a barrier is created when the writing comes at the topic without saying what framework it’s working within, what assumptions it starts from, and whom it’s directed at. Anyway, good luck with your book sales!

      1. Thank you! Despite not having read the book, your response was actually very useful, and I’ve actually added a passage in the beginning making my own approach more explicit, and comparing it to other styles of power exchange.

  2. This was really excellent and timely reading. I’m stilling thinking on your multi-step articulation of This Thing, but it intuitively makes sense to me. What I love most about this post, though, is your incredible (dare I say ‘radical’?) definition of mastery – not just in the vague sense of “got my shit together” self-mastery, which seems so prevalent, but in terms of nuanced and explicit critical consciousness and awareness of self-in-the-world.

    This is absolutely the kind of mastery that speaks to me as something thoroughly steeped in my own core ethics. While I have never deliberately separated ethics and mastery in my mind, I have not brought them together like this before either, wherein mastery does not exist apart from said ethics. The fact that I felt like some people who took up the language of mastery seemed so far distant in their principles and practices from others using the same language has been a source of consternation many times over the years. I think now, though, thanks to your articulation and a bit of my own mulling, that the folks I most respect and see myself aligned with are those pursuing mastery within this more critical consciousness/self-in-the-world awareness framework. It’s a way of living in the world and functioning in relationships that contributes (IMO) to a totally different sort of energy than those who perceived mastery and life outside of that framework. With the (theoretically traditional) focus on honor, loyalty, integrity, community, etc. within many Leather circles, I and some of the folks I know have tended to classify this energy/philosophy difference within M/s (and power/authority dynamics more broadly) as an intersection or not with “being Leather” (not as something merely claimed, but also lived), which may still be a contributing factor, but I’d say that even for those power/authority-oriented folks who are not Leather-identified, what pings to me as a kind of “Leather-living” is, at base, the critically conscious mastery/engagement with power you’re talking about and its complement, critically conscious surrender(?) or deference(?).

    Consequently, your articulation of mastery in this way also helps me articulate what I’m looking for – not just in myself or in my relationships, but also in community. Whether they’re 23 or 73, of whatever gender or sexuality, racial group or class background, the people I have most profoundly connected with, both seem to viscerally understand power in this way (or very similar to it) and strive to live their everyday lives in alignment that understanding of power. Love it! Seriously, thanks so much for getting things churning in my brain like this. I have much to ponder now – as usual when get thinky. 😉

    In Specs, Respect, Leather, and Critically Conscious Self-in-the-World Awareness-Type Mastery,

    P.S. Do let folks know what cons you might be coming to next year. I always love running into cool people I know. 😉

    1. Thanks D. What a delicious comment to read. I’m so glad that my musings have hit a chord with you – though I must say I’m not surprised you’d be a person who’d identify with the deeply conscious aspect of all this. 🙂

      Also I like your terminology, “critically conscious,” and will probably use it in the future – thank you for that. I’d agree that “being Leather” is often used as a somewhat amorphous analogue to this critically conscious mastery I’m talking about, at least in some quarters and on the part of some people. And there is overlap, to be sure – but because “Leather” means so many different things to different people and encompasses a specific set of subcultural codes to boot, it doesn’t quite fit. For instance most Leather-identified spaces, groups, etc. have very little vocabulary for understanding or working to end oppression, even though they’re sexual minorities and have a history of being persecuted as such. It continues to puzzle me deeply how little reflection on these topics I see within spaces that should in theory be so ripe for it.

      On the flip side, most anti-oppression communities and spaces have remarkably poor vocabulary for discussing power outside classic social categories, and possibly some vaguely articulated ideas about “taking up (too much) space” or about in-community abuse dynamics – though some restorative/reparative justice discussions take steps in interesting directions. But even then, rarely do these groups discuss consciously chosen and pleasurable power – they often see power only as the source of pain and oppression, and as something to be flattened or stamped out, which paradoxically often lets people and groups get away with horrific shit because everyone’s busy pretending power’s not really happening because they’re all activists who agree on the same anti-oppressive theories.

      Anyway, I’m perhaps getting off the topic of your comment and of my post, but all of this to say: thanks for engaging. I am so glad you are here.

      1. Sadly, groups fighting one form of oppression generally seem to be no more willing to fight (or even acknowledge) other forms of oppression than the general population, despite what they so eagerly want to believe. I’ve seen this particularly exemplified in both kink and geek cultures this past year, but it’s far from a new phenomenon. This behavior seems to be increasingly prevalent as the culture gains broader acceptance and faces less stigma. While common sense might indicate that oppressed groups would be far more successful if they cooperated, they seldom do. Thus, each group has to wage their own struggle, often with very similar themes.

        The only way I can think of to combat this problem is education in hopes of making individuals more cognizant of their privilege and the power inherent in their actions. And that, as you’ve so eloquently pointed out, is an ongoing challenge, even for those of us particularly interested in examining that power and privilege. That said, I do think that even simple lessons on privilege and inherent power dynamics would be greatly beneficial if they were part of everyone’s education.

        It may be a long path toward mastery, but precious few even recognize their travel for the journey it is.

  3. Wow. This may come across as somewhat inarticulate, because a) you have fair blown my mind, and b) you have brought together a whole bunch of things I’ve been pondering separately in different spheres of my life. In consequence, this feels like the Unifying Theory of Everything!

    I’m sorry I don’t have anything useful to contribute (yet), and I do hope your health improves soon.

  4. Coming to this late — sorry. A lot of this stuff is very tangential to what you’re discussing here, and I’m not sure that I completely grok what you’re getting into above. But I think the following scattered bits may have ideas that you can pull into your thoughts.

    This post by Pepper Mint might interest you: http://freaksexual.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/towards-a-general-theory-of-bdsm-and-power/

    You might also be interested in some of my writing about BDSM and abuse:

    I really wonder what you would make of my book about pickup artists, which talks a lot about various types of social power (particularly unspoken negotiation and unspoken power) that are almost never acknowledged in feminism, BDSM, or poly.

    There’s a little bit of discussion about that stuff, but in general, this is a very surface-level article about the things I wrote about in the book:

    (one thing to note might be the “neg” bit)

    (the book’s here, for anyone who might be interested: amazon.com/Confessions-Pickup-Artist-Chaser-ebook/dp/B007I5HRQU )

    In something I’ve been working on lately, I wrote that:

    A lot of new BDSMers focus on questions like: “Who really has all the power?” One seemingly-obvious answer is that “the bottom has all the ‘real’ power because the bottom gets to set limits on the encounter.” The thing is, though, the top also gets to set limits — it’s just that tops usually aren’t seen as having limits to set in the first place, because they’re perceived as “in charge.”

    The truth is, the person who has “all the power” in a BDSM encounter has more to do with those particular individuals than anything else. Does one partner have more experience? More money? More social status? Is one partner more attractive? Is one partner smarter or more articulate? More ethical? These are all factors that influence who can — or who will choose to — apply more pressure within the relationship.

  5. I find your writings very interesting as they dwell on a subject dear to me, the psychological aspects to dominance and submission.
    I particularly like your term “sustainable 24/7” as it describes exactly what is the essence of our dynamic. May I use it?
    As one who has experienced (and overcome) health issues (in both myself and a previous Sub/slave (she passed away 4 yrs ago, after 16 together) that basically ended sex as most know it, I’m familiar with your journey. I got more into exploring other elements to our D/s – a future of no sex gets one thinking? – Like peeling an onion – strip away the layers of ‘trappings’ to reveal its true core essence. One learns to adapt, don’t they?
    Personally I’ve come through mine with an even deeper sense of my dominance and the style of mastery I wanted.
    Perhaps the experience of age has taught me perservence at what one love’s is the purpose of life.
    I’m blessed, I came out ahead.
    Solved my impotence thru penile injections (to my delight after 11 yrs) and met a 55-yo bisexual ‘baby girl’. I’m a 67-yo ‘Daddy’ dominant, Both retired, together one year, we live our dynamic together 24 hours a day. Its a complete TPE.without the M/s label.

    1. I’m happy to hear that you’ve found happiness despite what sounds like a lot of health challenges. 🙂 Thank you for sharing your story! And yes by all means, I don’t think I can lay claim to “sustainable D/s” as a term as it’s too general, so please use it freely. Best to you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s