Welcome to my virtual therapy room! I am Dr Lori Beth Bisbey and this is Sex Spoken Here. Remember that this podcast deals with adult themes so if you don’t have privacy you might wish to put on your headphones. This week I am interviewing Mason deRou. This is part one of a two part interview.
Master Mason deRou is a primal Master who began his walk into the public kink scene in 2009.
He has dominion over Miss Kimi deRou and together they form La Maison deRou. Mason deRou is also the commander of La Meute de Rougaroux (the Rougarou Pack). He is a uniform fetishist, pony trainer, erotic photographer and also loves the littles. Mason leverages his relative y9outh to build bridges among several kinky tribes and subcultures, allowing the voices of both past and current generations of kinksters to be heard. Mason has presented at BESS, Black Rose, CLUE, Weekend Reunion and several MaST chapters. Mason is the president of the Master-Dominant Consortium and is one of the founding members of the Leather Houses of Color Coalition. He is a member of MAsT DC Pan and MAsT Washington and is also an alumnus of the MTTA Academy (Master Training XX). Mason resides in southern Maryland.
Mason deRou starts talking about education by talking about structure and we spend some time talking about the military and what structure looks like in the military.
He goes on to say that he follows the power.
He looks for the people who are in authority. He spoke about the fact that someone was telling him that when people had to start from the bottom to be a Master if you have that policy you never run out of bottoms. He spoke of always wanting to know the why. We talk about the end result but not what started it. We need discernment skills to not take stuff at face value and the critical thinking. Mason deRou says that in the military they think between the boxes not outside the box. He wishes that people would think that way so we would not have the petty arguments that don’t matter. He says military people know how to act – they have a code that will get them through the day. Step 1 learn to critical think and step 2 is to learn discernment – to choose to use this.
Mason deRou asks do we really want accountability?
He says that the problem with a call out culture around consent violations and perceived bad behaviour is that people can’t discern – was it a mistake, was it a bad decision, was it someone just not caring, was it someone being an ass? Responses generally come from your own experience and lots is not put out in public. People often don’t discern they respond to personality instead – or cliques. People respond the best way they know how but they don’t have enough information. There is always some crucial piece that doesn’t make it online. Given that – we don’t want to call people out because discernment is a problem – we cannot decide as a group – there is not enough discernment to say as a group – this person made a mistake and have apologised and made amends versus this person is an asshole and just does it all the time.
We moved from here to talk about risk management and risk assessment.
We talk about SSC (safe sane consensual) but a lot of stuff I do ain’t safe or sane and if we take this view we will risk manage better. A lot of us are adrenalin junkies – all this stuff is risky. It is not that someone is purposely doing something. We have to be able to take responsibility and risk assess and risk manage. Mason deRou and I talked further about consent and the fact that we can’t even talk about proper informed medical consent.
We moved to talk about litigiousness and liability. Mason deRou said if we took that track about a lot of what we do – we probably wouldn’t do half of the stupid things we do.
Can the person even give consent? Are they in an impaired state of mind? Mason points out that lots of endorphins can produce an impaired state of mind and therefore the person can’t give consent. And people get upset when you bring this up because you are messing with their fun. Just because you risk assess doesn’t mean you don’t do something – you acknowledge the risk, list the reasons it is crazy and then make a decision if you are going to go ahead as well. Mason points out that when you make an error you have to be accountable and give a genuine apology and make amends. You have to have some credibility with yourself when that happens so when you do that to someone, they are more apt to be willing to hear you out. Can still make the choice but everyone has to know what they are getting into. There is a difference between playing with someone you know and pick up play – where you just met someone. We talked about making bad choices versus blaming others. Who had the ultimate responsibility for the scene? The top has the responsibility for the scene. If you don’t want it, don’t take the responsibility.
Mason deRou gave a shout out to Black Rose who do a BDSM 101 where people can talk to people and learn without being able to play.
BESS in Baltimore.
Mason deRou says you are at the whim of what you can find in your local area. I say that I am putting together of an archive of basic topics because of interviewing people over time. Lots more of an online presence for information where you can Q & A. Mason says the second part of what we need is an enforcement to see if people have been to a basic course so they have the basic skills and required people to have a card to show this order to play at a local dungeon. If we invested in not moving if you can’t prove that someone has knowledge. We are only willing to accept a certain level of risk. People need to invest in the basic skills – communication and negotiation skills. Of course that does involve work and Mason says some people don’t want to work.
The best place to find Mason deRou
At an event. If you are out and about in Washington DC I’ve been at the Crucible, I’ve been to BESS. Online Mason deRou on Facebook and on Fetlife LeRougaroux. There is a group LeRougaroux’s Den with lots of readings. You can follow without sending a friend request.
Thanks for joining me for Sex Spoken Here with Dr Lori Beth Bisbey. This week we talked about consent, risk assessment, the importance of education in BDSM and how the community polices itself and the problems with this. If any of this triggered you, please write me at email@example.com and I will help you to find resources.
Write to me with suggestions for the show, questions you want answered at firstname.lastname@example.org, follow me on twitter, Instagram and Facebook.
Check out my YouTube channel: Dr Lori Beth Bisbey. For a free 30-minute strategy session with me, go to https://the-intimacy-coach.com/and click the button that says click here! on the contact page.
Please leave a review on iTunes and stitcher if you enjoy the show.
I look forward to seeing you next week.
Master Black Zeus
Welcome to my virtual therapy room! I am Dr Lori Beth Bisbey and this is Sex Spoken Here. Remember that this Vlog deals with adult themes so if you don’t have privacy you might wish to put on your headphones.
This is part 2 of my interview with Master Black Zeus. Part one can be found on the A to Z of Sex podcast, Z is for Black Zeus.
I had the opportunity interview Master Black Zeus during Master Slave Conference 2018. He is a community elder who entered the leather community in 1986 when he was mentored and introduced into the community by a gay leatherman who he rode motorcycles with. Like many who engage in BDSM and/or are part of the leather community, he began his journey anonymously so as not to cause problems in his daily life. He entered the public scene in 1997 by joining Black Rose and attending a number of classes and events. He developed a website and began to host regular online educational events. He is a member of MAsT Las Vegas and hosts the ISA Network video conferences.
We continued our conversation by talking about the differences between D/s and M/s relationships. He talks about teaching power exchange (PE) versus total power exchange (TPE) and also talks about erotic power exchange which is solely for the erotic potential of the exchange.
We spoke about the models coming into BDSM, kink and leather. We spoke about the fact that lots of things get eroticised because of the authority transfer. So that some service activities become erotic because they are part of the service.
Master Black Zeus says that it is important to talk about more than kink when talking BDSM and that we are talking about relationship building. He talked about the fact that there was a big thing made in his local community when they found out that he played with men. He went on to say that being a dominant and a sadist, he can enjoy playing with people of all genders. I point out that often times sexual orientation doesn’t enter into this because it is all about the dominance and submission, about the sadism and masochism and that means you can play with someone who is not of your usual preferred orientation or gender.
The conversation turned round to respect, relationships, consent and HIV. We talked about sexual health and the importance of knowing about your sexual health status. We spoke about the illusion that PREP means there is no epidemic anymore. We spoke about all the other diseases that are around and how important regular sexual health screening is.
We finished by talking about what is important if you are going to engage in a BDSM lifestyle. We talked about the fact that we all make mistakes and apologising and learning from mistakes is essential. No one is perfect.
Thanks for joining me this week for Sex Spoken Here with Dr Lori Beth Bisbey.
Write to me with suggestions for the show, questions you want answered at email@example.com, follow me on twitter and instagram @drbisbey.
For a free 30 minute strategy session with me, go to https://the-intimacy-coach.com and head to the contact page and click the button that says Schedule Now!
I look forward to seeing you next week
With the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the issue of consent has been shoved into the foreground of daily life again.
The conversations around consent on social media, in the mainstream media and on the street highlight to me that few people truly understand the topic and those who do, don’t necessarily believe that people have a right to refuse or withdraw consent.
Consent has always been a bit of a sticky topic.
I’ve spent the past 30 years working with individuals, couples and polyamorous groups to help them sort out relationship issues, fix sexual problems, and create intimate relationships that last. Despite an emphasis on the need for the ‘safe sex’ conversation before having sex since the late 1980’s, an overwhelming majority of couples still skip the conversation and rely on use of barriers (condoms, femidoms, gloves, dental dams). Talking about sex with a lover or potential lover still remains an area that many people find too tough to manage. Because of this, people often don’t get explicit sexual consent.
Thinking back, my first memory about consent though I didn’t realise it at the time was when I was 7 years old. I had an aunt who suffered from schizophrenia. She was always loud, had her lipstick drawn way outside her lips and smelled kind of funny. I can clearly remember being told to go give her a kiss because she would feel bad if I didn’t. Before I could agree to do so, she grabbed me and I remember being held tight and struggling to get free. I have countless friends who tell similar stories and many friends who are parents who admit telling their children to go hug the smelly aunt for the same reason.
The concept of consent has changed a lot in the past 40 years.
When I started dating in the 1970’s, a lot of gaining consent was unspoken. Often a man would touch a woman and see how she reacted in order to see if they had consent. This was the cultural norm at the time. Girls were still taught to ‘play hard to get’ so the only real way guys had of knowing what the girl wanted was to make an advance and see if ‘no’ became ‘yes’. The sexual revolution was in progress so people were given conflicting messages. If women were hip then they were supposed to have lots of sex but if they did decide to have lots of sex, they were branded as sluts. There were girls that you had fun with and girls that you had relationships with. The ones you had relationships with were the ones who played hard to get. I remember being extremely confused. I enjoyed sex but when I was honest about this, I was a slut. I wasn’t ever very good at playing hard to get because I didn’t lie well.
An article published in the Journal of Sexual Violence in November 2017, highlights that college men are really confused about gaining consent for sex. It suggests that men don’t make a distinction between a woman expressing desire and a woman giving consent. Essentially, to these men, an expression of desire equalled a green light to pursue sex.
When I think back to the examples of sexual consent in the media when I was entering the world of relationships, the first that comes to mind is Hans Solo and Princess Leia in Star Wars.
He pursues her relentlessly and she refuses constantly. In the end, he pushes her against the wall and kisses her as she is refusing again! She melts and they form a great romance. Harrison Ford goes on to force himself on multiple heroines in Blade Runner and all the Indiana Jones movies. And all of the women melt (including me). Except this isn’t consent, it is coercion.
The message for men is that women are turned on by this caveman approach and that eventually they will consent and melt. This might be true but only when the man is as hot as Harrison Ford and the woman is already attracted to him. And that’s the problem. If Mary has told Art from accounting repeatedly and clearly that she doesn’t want to go out with him and is not interested in him at all sexually, she will not find him pushing her up against the wall and kissing her hot at all. She will see this for what it is, a sexual assault.
It isn’t surprising that men feel the goal posts have moved repeatedly and that women are equally frustrated.
With the recent mounting allegations in so many arenas, the imbalance of power has been highlighted when talking about harassment. If there is an imbalance of power, men are told that any suggestion of sexual activity can be seen as harassment. When President Bill Clinton had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, though both acknowledged that there was a power imbalance, Ms Lewinsky wrote in 2014 ‘Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: It was a consensual relationship.’ How are men supposed to walk through this minefield without getting blown up? If someone takes advantage of you, how can that be consensual? Would it not be more honest for her to say – ‘It was a consensual relationship’. and leave it at that?
People are still more likely to meet sexual and romantic partners in the workplace than anywhere else.
With the increasing confusion around consent, how can you express interest in a colleague without being perceived as harassing? If you are his or her boss, don’t express sexual interest period. The power imbalance makes it very difficult navigate this type of relationship. The person in the junior position will always have some concerns about whether refusing will change the work relationship with the boss and impact upon the job and promotion prospects. You are best off hoping the person who works for you will express their interest and then you can accept their advances. Although even this is not without risk.
If you are an equal or are the subordinate in the relationship, then you can express interest but I would suggest expressing it in as non-sexual a way as possible. Invite the person for a coffee instead of telling the person how sexy you find them.
What constitutes sexual consent?
Consent is when someone says ‘yes’.
This may seem obvious but many people confuse the lack of a ‘no’ for consent. Silence does not mean yes.
You can only get consent from someone who is able to give consent.
People who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol may not be able to give consent. It depends upon how altered their reasoning ability is whilst taking the drugs or alcohol. For example, if a person is so drunk that he cannot stand up and is blacking out, he cannot give consent. However, if a person is able to function and under the influence of alcohol, he can give consent even though he may not make the best decisions and he may regret it the next day.
Jeff and John met through a friend. On their first date, they enjoyed two bottles of wine during dinner. Jeff invited John up to his flat for a nightcap. John said yes and they each had a glass of port. John asked Jeff where the restroom was and when he stood up he said ‘I’m a bit buzzed’ and grinned. When he came back from the restroom, they began kissing again. Things heated up very quickly and Jeff asked John if he would like to have sex with him. John hesitated for a moment and then said ‘I don’t usually do this on a first date. But yes, I would like to have sex with you.’ Many people in Jeff’s position would simply make sure there were condoms and lube handy and then go back to the foreplay. After all, John has consented to sex and Jeff is really attracted to him.
For some people, John being buzzed and also stating that he doesn’t usually have sex on a first date would be enough to make them question whether the consent was valid. Would John feel happy the next day about having gone against his own mores by having sex on the first date? It’s possible that John would feel upset with himself but not with Jeff. Equally, he could feel taken advantage of by Jeff as he could feel that once Jeff realised he was buzzed and he had stated that he doesn’t usually have sex on the first date, Jeff should have suggested that they wait until the next date. To me, this situation is an ethical challenge. Is a person responsible for protecting their potential sexual partner from a potentially bad decision? Perhaps but that also could feel extremely patronising. How does someone know if it is a good or bad decision for another person? Or is it simply the case that when someone is buzzed or drunk and expressing hesitancy about having sex, no sexual activity should be pursued as they are not giving enthusiastic or affirmative consent.
People who are suffering from mental illness may not be able to give consent. This depends upon the person’s ability to comprehend what is being asked of her, her ability to comprehend the consequences of going through with what is being asked of her. If she is not able to understand the potential consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man (like getting pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted infection), then she cannot give consent.
There is also arousal non-concordance.
Emily Nagoskiwrites about this extensively. Arousal non-concordance is when the body’s signals about the sexual value of something does not agree with the mind or emotion’s feelings about the sexual value of something. For example, a man can have an erection randomly and it does not mean he wants to have sex with the person he is talking to at the time of the erection. A woman can lubricate during a sexual activity and not be enjoying it at all. This happens frequently during sexual assaults and is one of the things that makes victims feel so guilty. They think because there was physical arousal or even orgasm it equals enjoyment. It does not. Equally a woman can be very interested in sex and very turned on but not lubricating for a whole host of reasons. This is why it is essential to listen to someone’s words about what they want rather than thinking that a body is telling the ‘true’ story.
Do you need consent for every single part of a sexual encounter?
Yes. However this does not need to kill the buzz. In my experience, the best way to make this fun is to have a conversation before beginning. Talk about all the things you want to do with each other and get clear consent. Talk about your fantasies and ask your partner what she would like to engage in. Ask your lover about her fantasies and what she would like to do. Consent goes both ways.
Even when you have clear consent as you begin, your lover can still withdraw consent at any time. For example, you talk about anal sex as part of your consent conversation over dinner and both of you agree that the idea is hot and you want to try it tonight. You prepare well and use lots of lubrication but as you begin, your lover says it hurts too badly and asks you to stop. You no longer have consent at this point and need to stop.
Consent is a dynamic process.
Pay attention to what your lover is saying, the emotion being communicated and body language. If any of this seems at all hesitant or confused, check with your lover again. Ask if they like what you are doing and want you to continue. When in doubt, listen to your partner’s words.
I still like the video published by the Thames Valley Police in the UK comparing consent to a cup of tea. However, Cathy Young wrote a great piece that highlights the fact that consent isn’t this simple. She highlights the fact that lots of definitions of assault now suggest that if someone is badgered until they give in and say yes this is still sexual assault. She speaks about the current rape narratives in the media that become ‘I said no but he kept trying until I said yes’. This is coercion.
Please note, I am not suggesting that you keep needling at someone until they finally give in. That is coercion. But if you do that and I say yes, legally I have given consent. The idea that if you have to convince me, I have not given consent is dead wrong. If you convince me to say yes, then I have given consent. I can change my mind and say no in the middle of things and then you have to stop what you are doing. When I say no, I have withdrawn consent. If I say yes because I don’t want to hurt your feelings, that is consent. As long as I am free to refuse without risking some actual harm (like being beaten, killed, losing my job, my family being harmed), it is consent. It’s up to me to gather the strength to refuse.
A good portion of the continued confusion about consent arises because in many places women are still objectified.
Men who objectify women don’t understand appropriate boundaries. They ignore the woman’s role in the workplace and instead see her only or primary role as being a sexual object for a man. When a man views a woman as purely a sexual object, it is not a big step for him to believe that she should be a sexual object for him.
The current narrative in the media seems to suggest that men fall into two categories: abusers or not good enough allies. Few men are depicted as good allies to women. This is a thorny topic and often ends up making men feel that they can do no right. The thing is, we all make mistakes. In my conversation about consent with Kitty Stryker, one of the things she highlighted as being important is there being away for people who have violated consent to apologise and make amends and be accepted back into the community at large. We were talking particularly about the BDSM community, but we also agreed that this applies when talking about sexual harassment as well. Clearly if someone rapes a woman, a simple apology and promise not to do this again will not be enough. If someone harasses a woman in the work place, there ought to be a way back into the workplace community. If we do not start providing ways back in when people make mistakes and we continue to focus on blame, things will remain fractured and the divide between men and women will increase.
How do we begin to repair the divide?
To start, we open the conversation. We admit that all of us fail to get consent at times. Have you ever given someone a hug without asking and felt their discomfort? Did you tell your child to go hug Aunt Jane so she wouldn’t feel hurt? We take responsibility for our part in this dynamic. Have you played hard to get or have you ignored a woman’s ‘no’?
Then, we express a willingness to teach and learn about consent, to look at the concept not only as a means to an end (How do I get her to f**k me?) but also as a part of how we connect with each other, the dynamic between us.
Finally, we work on how to create real tangible ways to heal breaches of consent instead of focusing solely on blame so that our relationships heal and we move forward into positive relationships in the workplace, social spaces and the wider community.
One of the things I have noticed over the past number of years is how often a simple relationship mistake can bring drama with a capital D that lasts for ages.
Often these mistakes fall into a few obvious categories.
1 It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission.
This quote originally came from Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper who was a US naval officer and an early computer programmer. She said this in an interview with Chips Ahoy when she asked the magazine why they didn’t just go ahead and print and they said they were trying to get permission.
The problem with asking for forgiveness instead of getting permission in a relationship (especially in non-monogamous relationships) is that when you make the conscious choice to do this, you are admitting that you are doing something behind your partner’s back. In essence you are lying because omitting is also lying. Dishonesty is the number one cause of relationship breakdown.
By avoiding talking with your partner about something you know they are likely to find difficult, you also assume your partner’s feelings, thoughts and reactions. You make it impossible for them to grow because you are not having the difficult conversation with them.
You also avoid having to hear someone say ‘no’ and then abide by that ‘no’ because you have agreed to do so. In non-monogamous relationships this is particularly damaging. Most people in non-monogamous relationships have agreements about how other relationships are started and conducted, what types of sex are permissible and what types of relationships are permissible. If you ignore these agreements, you are essentially saying that they are not important and therefore you diminish the importance of your commitment and your relationship.
Jeffrey and Cindy are married and identify as polyamorous. The one rule they have about choosing other partners is that they need to talk with each other before sleeping with someone else and that in some circumstances, the other partner can say ‘No, I don’t want you to sleep with that person.’. Margaret kept pursuing Jeffrey over a period of two years. Margaret’s son and Jeffrey and Cindy’s son were great friends and in the same class at school. Jeffrey finally decided he wanted to sleep with Margaret but he knew that Cindy would say no. Cindy would not like that Margaret was someone at the school and was the mother of one of their son’s friends. She would be concerned that if there were relationship problems between Jeffrey and Margaret, everyone at school would hear about it and also that their son’s friendship would be disrupted. Jeffrey decides not to ask Cindy and starts a relationship with Margaret that goes on for 6 months. Cindy found out because everyone at school knew and there was a large scene between Jeffrey and Margaret. Cindy ended her marriage as a result of this messy affair in part because of the drama it brought to her son’s life and to her life.
2 Pressure to try ‘new’ things.
People who are non-monogamous often feel a need to try anything. There can be considerable social pressure to try the newest activity, relationship style or type of relationship rules out there. Pressure can be applied before an idea is thought through and discussed. For example, in some circles, women are expected to try sexual activity with other women. People are sometimes pressured to be friends with each other’s metamours (the partners of your partner).
3 Believing that opening up your relationship and becoming non-monogamous will resolve all relationship issues
It is trendy to be non-monogamous. It doesn’t suit everyone. Non-monogamy requires LOTS of good communication. I have seen many couples whose relationships have become sexually stagnant or who have been having difficulty with desire latch on to the idea that opening their relationship up will solve all their relationship issues. If you already cannot communicate well with each other and don’t have the communication skills to resolve your existing relationship problems, opening up your relationship will only make things more complex. Before deciding to open up, why not work with a coach or take a class to improve your communication skills including negotiation and conflict management?
The idea that opening up will solve things is like the idea that moving will solve issues that you are having. It never words because where ever you go, there you are. You take the issues with you. And with opening up your relationship, you take your relationship issues with you and also bring them into new relationships thus creating lots of drama in many cases.
4 Misunderstanding what making all relationships equal means.
Non-hierarchical polyamory is also trendy now. People get extremely upset when someone talks about having primary relationships and will shame people who don’t agree that all their relationships should be non-hierarchical. Leaving aside people who are in authority transfer based relationships which by their nature are hierarchical, there are a number of issues with trying to make all relationships ‘equal’. Equal is identical in mathematical value, of the same quantity or number. Seeing all relationships as of equal importance or all people as of equal value is acceptable (though often problematic. After all, my one night stand is not of equal importance as my marriage, nor is it of equal value). Better yet is looking at all people as being of equal value. In reality, a relationship in which I am financially supporting someone is not equal to one in which I see someone once a year. I have responsibilities in the first relationship that I do not have in the second relationship. Which usually means that I need to give more time to the first relationship. Many people just the ‘equality’ of a relationship with how much time is spent together. Once making relationships equal becomes the focus, counting becomes a focus as well. Counting leads to disaster.
What do I mean by counting? Counting is when you compare relationships and look at how much time, how many holidays, how many photos posted on Facebook and then make assumptions about the value of the relationships based on the numbers you come up with. Arly gets angry with Marco regularly because they post more pictures of themselves with Annie than they do of themselves with Arly. To Arly, this means that Marco values their relationship with Annie more than they value their relationship with Arly. In fact, Annie takes the photos and Marco simply shares them. To Marco, this means nothing. They love Annie and they love Arly. Arly also insists that Marco spend the same number of days with him that they spend with Annie. Arly says that if Marco doesn’t agree to this, Marco is being hierarchical. It isn’t practical for them to spend the same number of days with each one as Arly lives 1000 km away and Annie lives in the same house. Quality over quantity is a maxim that needs to be adopted often in non-monogamous relationships styles. Scheduling time is one of the most difficult things to manage as time is finite and we all have many demands on our time beyond our relationships.
5 This is the ‘right’ way to be polyamorous.
The ‘right’ way changes depending on the trends. As I said earlier, non-hierarchical polyamory is trendy now so hierarchical relationships are seen as ‘wrong’. Except that some polyamorous people are in authority transfer based relationships and these are hierarchical and as a result, the way they do polyamory is usually hierarchical because the dominant in that hierarchical relationship holds the agency and decides what other relationships the submissive will be allowed to be in, what the submissive can do in those relationships and how much time the submissive can give to those relationships. Of course YMMV. In some cases, the submissive may have agency to carve out time for a specific other relationship and this may be kept sacrosanct. There are no right ways only the right way for you. Figuring out what is right for you takes looking at all the possibilities, examining what feels right for you in any given situation and final discussing possibilities with partners and negotiating until parameters are agreed upon and clear.
6 We shouldn’t have to work on our relationships ongoing.
Once we have negotiated and agreed a contract of sorts or a set of rules, that should be OK going forward. Polyamory should be fun and spending time working on relationships is not fun.
All relationships require work. Work doesn’t have to be arduous. Work could just be a good conversation. Work could be time spent each week checking in with a partner as to how they are feeling and making sure there are no issues that are brewing. Relationships require attention no matter what type of relationship they are. Relationships are more fun when there aren’t any unexamined issues around casting negative shadows over the enjoyable bits.
Are you in a non-monogamous relationship? Are you creating one? If you would like help creating a workable structure, sign up for a free 30 minute discovery session here and why not work through my online course here?
I have written about polyamorous D/s relationships in the past. Recently, in a mentoring session with the head of the leather household, House of Trei, Choc Trei, polyamory in a full Master/slave or Owner/property authority transfer based relationship came up as part of a discussion of their House tour. The discussion raised new points and led to me re-examining the many types relationship style that people who are in an authority based relationship might adopt.
As a refresher, authority transfer based relationships are ones in which one person is definitely the leader and the other is the follower.
These are consensual relationships in which the person who is in the subordinate role, surrenders part or all of their autonomy by surrendering authority over part or all of themselves and their lives to the one who is in the dominant role so that the dominant is the one who makes the decisions or has the final say.
There are a number of different flavours of authority transfer based consensual relationships The most common are:
D/s (Dominant/submissive) In D/s relationships, the submissive gives the Dominant partner limited authority over themselves and over their lives. They negotiate the areas of service and of authority transfer.
M/s (Master/slave) In M/s relationships, the slave surrenders authority over themselves and their lives to the Master. This is a full transfer of authority as opposed to in D/s.
O/p (Owner/property) In O/p relationships, the Owner has full authority over the property just as in M/s.
However, as with most definitions, these tend to evolve so YMMV.
How does this intersect with non-monogamy?
Many people who practice non-monogamy, particularly those who identify as practicing polyamory dislike the idea of hierarchical relationships. They eschew the previous common polyamorous structure that had one relationship identified as a primary relationship and others as secondary, tertiary and so on. They feel that no relationship should be more important than another, no person taking precedence over another, all relationships be seen as and treated as equal.
In practice, equal is truly the wrong term.
While relationships may be treated equally in mind and heart – be equal in value, in day to day life, equal is very difficult if not impossible to achieve. Equal means to be the be the same in degree, size or quantity. Attempting to create equality of time alone can be a challenge.
When one of the relationships is a hierarchical one as all authority transfer based relationships are, equal becomes difficult at best and impossible at worst.
If the authority transfer based relationship is a D/s one, it is possible to create equal other polyamorous relationships as both parties retain at least some agency. However, if it is an M/s or O/p relationship, equal other relationships are not truly possible.
Why is this so? In surrendering authority, the submissive also surrenders agency. Some agency is usually returned except in the most restrictive and micro-managed M/s relationships where the Master controls every aspect of the slave’s live. But even though the subordinate regains some agency, the ultimate decision maker is person in charge. They can allow the subordinate to have other romantic and/or sexual relationships and they also have the authority to end these relationships.
Full polyamory requires full agency.
As the slave does not have the agency to create the relationship without permission, to define the parameters of the relationship, or to choose if the relationship is to continue or to end, then it is not polyamory as such.
Therefore what is it? It is consensual non-monogamy that is taking its form from the hierarchical authority transfer based relationship.
Choc Trei calls this ‘loaning’ as the Owner/Master/Mistress is the party with the agency to begin the second relationship, negotiate it’s parameters and to end it. In discussing this, she used the example of a car. Two people can purchase a car together, share the use of it, the maintenance of it and both names are on the title (registration document). This is polyamory – with two people each having a relationship with a separate third person. In the car analogy, both people have agency to use the vehicle as they see fit as they both own part of it. In the polyamory example, the separate relationships can take any form as all parties have agency over the relationship (which is the car).
However, when there is an M/s or O/p relationship, the car analogy becomes one person (the M/O) purchases the car, takes responsibility for maintenance of it, uses it and that person’s name is on the title (registration document). The owner of the car can choose to lend it to another person. The owner would define the terms of the loan. For example, don’t take the car over state lines, don’t use cheap petrol, wash the car every week. In addition, the owner could end the loan for any reason. For example, the person who borrows the car uses the wrong petrol or simply the owner has need of the car. More or less agency can be awarded when making a loan of property, but the final decision point is always the Owner.
The Owner sets the tone for all other relationships that their property has whether these relationships are sexual, romantic and sexual, friendships, business or family relationships. The Owner can award more or less agency to their property to create and maintain relationships but the owner has the final say.
People often believe that this relationship structure is overly complicated.
In my experience, it depends wholly on the tone set by the dominant partner. Some Owners love to micro manage and sometimes that means that any other relationships can become complicated as permissions and negotiations happen on a regular basis. Other Owners give significant agency and freedom to their property which tends to mean that other relationships are less complicated.
Jarrod and Seth are in an authority transfer based relationship. Jarrod sees himself as a benevolent Owner. Seth has always been able to have casual sexual liaisons with minimal interference. Jarrod requires Seth to ask first and to make clever choices. ‘Clever choices’ means to choose people who won’t bring any drama into their relationship. Jarrod does not ask to meet most of the people Seth becomes involved with as he feels no need.
When Seth meets Angelo, the connection is extremely intense. Seth asks Jarrod for permission to have sex with Angelo and Jarrod grants this. Seth realises that he wants an actual relationship with Angelo and brings this to Jarrod. Jarrod sits down with Seth to discuss what kind of relationship he would like to have with Angelo and after this discussion, asks to meet Angelo so they can negotiate the terms of the relationship and discuss the rules.
Jarrod likes Angelo immediately upon meeting him. He explains to Angelo that he is happy for him to start a relationship with Seth, his property, with certain rules in place. Rule number 1 is Angelo is always to be available to him (Jarrod) when needed. Jarrod tells Angelo that he will do his best to respect their time together, but reiterates that if he needs Seth, his need will come before Angelo’s needs or desires. Jarrod goes on to say that if he becomes concerned about the relationship between Seth and Angelo and his concerns cannot be resolved, he (Jarrod) will end the relationship between them. The rest of the rules include safe sex only, no group scenes, no cuts or skin breaks of any kind and no permanent marks. Angelo agrees to these rules and pursues his relationship with Seth.
After 6 months, the relationship between Angelo and Seth is still going strong. Angelo tells Seth that he has fallen in love with him. He becomes uncomfortable with Jarrod having the final say over their relationship. He wants to their relationship to be completely autonomous and resents that Jarrod has some say over their relationship even though Jarrod doesn’t interfere and never has interfered. At first, Angelo urges Seth to address this with Jarrod. Seth refuses and says that Angelo must have this conversation. Seth tells Angelo that he does not want to change his relationship with Jarrod. Angelo is upset by this but decides to talk with Jarrod about changing the rules anyway. The conversation doesn’t go well and the relationship between Seth and Angelo ends.
In that example, the intensity of the relationship between the property and the outside person changed and this lead the relationship ending as the other person would no longer respect the rules set by the Owner. I see this type of situation in my consulting room regularly either because Owner and property come in to make sense of the drama that has entered their relationship or because the outside person comes because they are not happy having a relationship that is not completely autonomous. This type of situation can often be avoided if all parties are clear at the outset as to what the relationship possibilities are and what kind of parameters will be put into place.
I often see people who are in an M/s or O/p relationship and want to have other M/s or D/s relationships. In these relationships, the negotiation can be easier as all parties understand authority based relationships. It can also be more complicated while people try to figure out who is ultimately in charge of whom. Short term encounters are mostly easily managed. It is the longer term relationships that require the most care and attention to negotiate.
For people whose primary sexual orientation is dominance or submission, it is not unusual for most of their romantic relationships and sexual encounters to have at least an element of dominance/submission.
Though many of my romantic relationships are not D/s, almost all of my sexual relationships involve submission as this is my primary orientation. My husband and I are in an M/s relationship and so he has the last word on any other relationships that I become involved in. He gives me lots of agency to form relationships and does not micromanage any of these relationships. He has only a few rules and is laid back as long as these rules are adhered to. Everyone I become involved with is well aware of the hierarchy before they get involved with me. People who only want egalitarian polyamorous relationships don’t usually get involved with me because I am in a hierarchical relationship.
The trend to denigrate all hierarchical non-monogamous relationships works to exclude many people who choose authority transfer based relationships as part of their relationship structure.
By their nature, authority based relationships are hierarchical and this does impact upon non-hierarchical relationships that a person has as well. It doesn’t always mean that the authority based relationship is creating and controlling the hierarchy but often this is the case.
Are you in an authority based relationship and non-monogamous? If you would like help creating a structure that works well or managing the issues that arise out of the relationship structure, sign up for a 30 minute free discovery session with me on my contact page. If you want to learn more about authority based relationships, check out my online course here.
PROUD MEMEBER OF