This is the third installment on power exchange relationships! I will probably have more to add to this series in the future because I love talking about this, but this is the last one for now. The case for two daddies (or mommies!) speaks very heavily from my own experience and convictions, but let me reiterate also from previous posts that while I may be preaching My Gospel, I’m not preaching The Gospel. There is no One True Way for BDSM or polyamory and I encourage everyone to create your own relationships that work for you! If you missed the first and second ones, you can read them here:
D/s + the axis of control
D/s + devotional service
D/s and polyamory are two lifestyles that, at first glance, seem to be ideologically at odds with each other. D/s is all about a controlled container for roles and power exchange, while polyamory is more about expressions of love and freedom to form relationships that often defy containers. Let me be more specific—the brand of polyamory that I practice is known as relationship anarchy (I kind of hate this name btw) and has a foundation of trust and autonomy. I love love and I want everyone I love to experience as much love as they want without restrictions. To put it simply this means that everyone does what makes them happy, communicates about what they want and what they’re doing, and works to dismantle traditional relationship hierarchies and roles that are created by hoarding the utmost intimacy for only one partner. The most important aspect that defines this type of polyamory is that it doesn’t really have rules. Everyone is free to do what they want as long as they communicate and aren’t an asshole.
I was practicing polyamory this way before I even truly understood what a power exchange relationship could mean. It was a bit of an oxy-moron to me at first—my dogmatic belief that a relationship should never be about control was part of the reason I felt that D/s was just not for me when I first started practicing BDSM. I didn’t yet have the imagination to picture what it could look like to both fuck with power and control while still honoring my conviction that everyone should be doing exactly what they want. What I didn’t know then is that giving up control, being owned, controlling someone else, should only ever be willful. I like to think of it as ownership without possession. There doesn’t have to be a chasm between being owned and being free.
Meme by @alt_weekend
As is the case with alternative lifestyle choices, there aren’t many examples for us to follow. I see a lot of overlap in D/s and polyamory, mainly that they’re more or less parts of our identity we often have to keep secret for obvious reasons. If you’re also queer (etc.) then it becomes A Lot when it’s time to come out to family, coworkers, or friends 3x as a Gay Polyamorous Pervert. I’ve found that people have a lot more trouble understanding polyamory than BDSM, which is endlessly fascinating. These are not yet completely mainstreamed and thus we have lots of people living in secret, which brings us back to shitty role models. Many of the ways I saw both polyamory and BDSM being practiced by people who were supposedly doing it right just didn’t sit well with me. Since it’s always easier to describe what I don’t like, here are some examples.
The relationships we see at the forefront in this lifestyle usually consist of one dominant to many submissives. This seems to be pretty standard in how people structure traditional Leather families and multi-partner power exchange relationships. One popular “rule” in polyamorous relationships is the “One X Rule.” This is when a partner sets a rule that the other partner can’t date someone who shares a commonality with them. The most popular example is in a polyam relationship when a man sets the rules that his girlfriend is only allowed to date other women. It essentially says “It is threatening if you date someone like me, because they might replace me.” This is a parallel to D/s when one dominant gets to have many submissives/partners, but not the other way around. I can’t see this any other way than as a scarcity mindset founded on insecurity. It was hard to see myself living this lifestyle when I couldn’t imagine limiting my partners/submissives to only me.
Creating a “One Dominant Rule” is limiting subs from forming bonds and having exciting experiences outside the relationship, and vice versa. This also draws parallels to the primary partner framework in hierarchical polyamory. For me, the idea of fulfilling new connections and learning and growing from those relationships is one of the main reasons to practice polyamory. I want that for myself and also for my partners. So when the pool of people you’re allowed to choose from is controlled and limited, it’s robbing you of valuable experience and opportunities for growth. You can learn so much about yourself from different dominants and tops and play styles, why should you be denied that?
Another example is how the scope of control in polyamorous D/s relationships can become unethical. Not unethical in a way that the people in the relationship aren’t consenting, but unethical in a way that people outside the relationship aren’t consenting. What I mean is that creating rules and protocols in a relationship with the expectation that these rules are followed by other people NOT in the relationship, ie people who did not consent, is not okay. A lot of these protocols where control extends beyond the relationship can be found in old guard D/s. There is a widely known protocol that if someone is wearing a collar in public, they shouldn’t be addressed directly. (Maybe bottoms who wear collars for fashion have created their own top shortage?) The idea is that if someone is owned, permission by the owner should be granted before anyone can talk to them. This is like, extremely HOT in a fantasy ownership sense!! However, if you dig deeper, this involves a whole community of non-consenting people in a personal protocol while also kind of socially isolating someone. If you’re in a polyamorous relationship these types of rules have more extreme consequences. Other partners/dates aren’t allowed to address a sub in shared spaces without asking permission, which sets up a new power dynamic between two people who aren’t even dating. It is also an effective cock block for the submissive as cruising would be virtually impossible while they are with their dominant, which could be all the time!
Now that we have some examples of how traditional D/s and polyamory don’t really vibe, we might be able to imagine what D/s looks like within the praxis of relationship anarchy. It is possible to build a role-based dynamic that only involves the people in the immediate relationship and does not hinder other relationships in any way or block potential partners from access to intimacy. You have to pivot your thinking to reimagine control. This follows relationship anarchy in that the ideal is autonomous connections that are built organically without constraint. For example, putting a submissive in long term chastity or orgasm control so that they can’t fuck current partners and can’t establish new sexual relationships wouldn’t work here. A version of this that doesn’t hinder other relationships is to control a submissive’s masturbation privileges or lock them up only when it doesn’t interfere with other dates. Think of it as compartmentalizing control. You can have multiple power exchange relationships with whomever you want as long as the rules and protocols from one relationship don’t bleed over into the others (unless everyone is consenting!).
Polyamory, or at least the kind that I practice, thrives on a philosophy of abundance. Everyone ideally has the support and agency to get their needs met and there’s enough love to go around. D/s thrives on discipline and structure—values that are traditionally aligned with control and scarcity. While we usually hear about every submissive having only One Leader, in relationship anarchy there is no hierarchy and there are no leaders. When we incite power exchange relationships with this same framework something new emerges. D/s ideology shifts when you start to imagine the cup overflowing with enough devotion, discipline, and perversion for all. Ownership without possession. Instead of one Daddy, why not two?
"Think of it as compartmentalizing control. You can have multiple power exchange relationships with whomever you want as long as the rules and protocols from one relationship don’t bleed over into the others." YES to holding ourselves accountable to not controlling (or cock-blocking) out of fear.
Ownership without possession ❤️ such a clever and concise way to put it.