CONTENTS:
START HERE: Unhealthy vs Healthy TPE: Context and Definitions
Part II: What makes for a healthy/unhealthy TPE (according to me and others)
Part III: Questions to ask yourself to tell if *your* dark dynamic or TPE is unhealthy or not
Part IV: You know someone whose dynamic seems unhealthy, or yours is and you want to stay. Now what?
—
This writing is part of a series of them, and it is the longest. For this reason, I’ll avoid an over-long introduction. Below, you’ll find a compilation of answers I received when asking kinksters what the difference was between unhealthy and healthy TPE (total power exchange), particularly when it comes to what I will call “dark dynamics.” For definitions and further context, and rules of engagement, please see the “Start Here” post.
I’ve tried to delineate the responses into set categories as much as possible. Quotes do not represent the only things said or the only people who spoke about each category, not by far — they simply are the ones I determined to best represent a point.
Without further adieu…
Traits of Healthy vs Unhealthy TPE
Discussing needs, interests, and motivations in prep work/the dynamic being consciously constructed between individuals vs being placed in a dynamic in a cookie-cutter mold
While many people said this in some form, @CarterBrulee named as a particular red flag:
attempting to jump immediately into high levels of power exchange without getting to know me or my needs and desires
It’s specifically that “without getting to know me or my needs and desires” that made me quote Carter here. This is the root. For some, it may be fine to jump in fast—I did, and this is something I *do* stand by because while it was fast, our first discussions were “what do you want out of kink?” and “what does having a submissive mean to you?” and “what would a collar indicate to you?” and these sorts of essentials. Jumping in without those discussions happening out the gate without a continual conversation on how certain things are affecting the bottom may be unhealthy, and at best, is bound for more miscommunications and mismatches.
Conscious construction, it should be noted, doesn’t have to mean doing everything a submissive wants if that isn’t what appeals to those involved. This is underlined by the fact that this category came more from those who engage in dark dynamics than not. Interests, desires, and the like being considered does not always mean these are “given in to”. But as @Aerin put it to me, “even abandonment play requires some kind of attention. It requires reminders that it’s happening.” Any kind of play is a process of reaction and response. When there is no longer a response, even if it is one that does not give you what you desire, you may be experiencing something unhealthy.
For each individual matters too, and its opposite, a cookie-cutter dynamic, was named as a red flag by many (frequent in “harem” abuse situations).
@SuspendDisbelief said:
Good TPE takes into account the natural desires of the sub, if for no other reason than to ignore them. Bad TPE is fully built around shoving a sub into a premade box using cookie cutter methods, burning the coffee to standardize it like starbucks (no shade). Good TPE, if involving “changes/training” (which I do not believe TPE must, to be clear!) might involve agreement upon the recipe, laying out the ingredients, and cooking together. Like, the sub should be a willing participant in their own subversion, such that they have a full understanding of what that end goal means. I don’t want to say the personalization is what makes it good, because I’m certain a predatory dom could personalize the grooming process, but there’s got to be something in there about keeping the “why” of both partners at the forefront of the dynamic, even if the “what” and “how” is completely up to the whims of the dom. I completely understand (and experience) a submissive’s desire to be slowly, unconsciously molded into their dominant’s image of perfection, but there needs to be a baseline materials science-type understanding of what the unique substance being fucked with can safely do.
@CarterBrulee said:
If you can never see how your dominant considers you in their choices. Even if it is to disregard intentionally and purposefully in ways that serve parts of the dynamic. Then it’s likely not a good dynamic.
@Chayla said:
It’s actually totally fine with me if this relationship is genuinely very centered around the dominant and includes some amount of disregard for me and my preferences and isn’t about “helping” me — but it still needs to consider me as an individual. I’m not going to be able to provide the same things as the next person, nor be motivated the same ways, nor want the same things, nor be fulfilled in the same ways.
@Aerin also pointed out that a dark dynamic being what a submissive wants can still be a red flag of unhealthy behaviors if it comes without prior discussion. This is a particularly important point, as “perfect-for-me-and-we-didn’t-even-have-to-talk-about-it” often may seem like romance or destiny or other positive things at first—but that can turn into a nightmare fast. They offered this thought experiment as a potential measure:
If they successfully used the same process on somebody else who didn’t have the same level of interest in ESM and consensual abuse play as their bottom, would they be violating consent? In other words, is their treatment of the bottom only OK because the bottom is making it ok? If they don’t have mechanisms in place to gather specific information before they do the horrible things that the horrible things will be welcome and consensual, the fact that the bottom enjoys those horrible things is irrelevant.
@Darren_Campbell made a related observation to the cookie-cutter discussion (emphasis mine):
These rigid structures [that we often see in serial abusers] come pre-conceived and then ask subs (usually women) to slot into these fantasy roles. Leadership isn’t cookie-cutter, it’s an act of inspiration in response to meeting circumstances and people that drive us to build and co-create something new. In its purest form it’s an act of serendipity and wonder. “Look at this amazing person that has offered me their service/suffering/obedience/whatever. I wonder what amazing thing we can do with that.” If you go in certain, YOU MISSED THE FUCKING POINT.
I bolded that “in response” because response isn’t a one-time thing; it’s a process. The needs and desires conversation is not just a one-and-done before a partnership but is a continual process of discovery and response throughout.
@LillyKoi- pointed out how these discussions can also be of benefit throughout a partnership:
I frequently go back and read our discussions prior to ESM engagement as a form of checking in. Getting to know each other – especially wants, needs, desires, intentions, self care systems, triggers, what is known to work, what is known to fail, curating our own specific vocabulary/definitions, current boundaries, etc. in writing is a prerequisite for this kind of engagement with me because I want a work around for any “during engagement headspace” that might be clouding someone’s judgement or ability to communicate authentically.
An environment of care vs selfishness or detachment
Consideration of the needs of the bottom also overlapped with a topic I’ll refer to as an environment of care. @Aerin gave these great thoughts around care that might be relevant in preparatory discussions:
Do the top’s actions provide for both parties in the dynamic, or only for themselves? This question gets complicated when the bottom’s needs are met specifically by serving the top’s interests, or by having their needs denied. Defining one’s personal limits on how much the bottom will sacrifice for the relationship can help. In particular, it can help to identify what elements of the bottom’s identity and life, those parts of it that aren’t the dynamic itself, are more important to the bottom than their identity as a bottom to that top. But in a truly abusive dynamic, knowing the answer to this question is unlikely to be enough on its own for the victim to recognize what’s happening to them. An effective abuser can convince a victim they’re meeting the victim’s needs.
When it comes to evaluating this, one anonymous respondent said (emphasis mine):
I think there are specific things I look for, mostly in how a person communicates. Do they listen to actually understand or to build the best reply? Are they capable of shelving their own agenda in a given moment to put somebody else’s issue first, only temporarily? Are they able to express their wants and needs? Do they even know what they want?
@CarterBrulee offered an example of a dark dynamic operating with care in response to individual:
I had a dominant who never once told me he liked me. He had high levels of control over my life but he used that control and structure in ways that supported me and showed he valued me. […] He was basically always mean and cruel with words but he structured his power in a way that demonstrated that he was always thinking about what would also be good for me. Like part of our dynamic was he has to be offered any big decisions. So he chose where I did my post doc. Even though one of the positions was in his city he chose the one furthest from him because it was the best for my professional goals.
@owlfinch said:
One of my core values as a leader in the workplace is that if your primary motivation to be a leader is about what you can make other people do for you, you’re fundamentally going to be a terrible leader. I think this can be pretty much copied and pasted into a D/s context.
I’ll also highly recommend this post by @owlfinch, titled “My Dominance is not caregiving, but it is caring.” In it, owlfinch specifically names caring about understanding masochists’ suffering, the impact of her dominance, and the person themselves. “I do what I do with care, because I need to be careful,” she writes. It’s worth reading for yourself.
She also says, “My play has many edges, one that cuts both ways. In caring for my partners, I care for myself.” This is worth consideration of its own. If a sadist, particularly an emotional sadist, does not believe that their play could hurt them as well, they may not understand the gravity of what they are doing or be doing it without necessary investment.
Relationship structures that are or are not honest or respectful about how people connect and love
You’ll notice that’s oddly phrased. There’s a reason. Yes, I am talking about needs within the relationship on the polyam-mono spectrum, but other things as well.
Red flags for unhealthy dynamics here *may* include: the top dictating relationship structure without discussion because “tops have that privilege,” being told that if you were truly submissive/kinky/progressive/in Love you’d be okay with something that you aren’t, being “outvoted” and made to feel your preference hurts multiple people and you shouldn’t leave and pursue happiness, or being told you’re a “secret submissive.” (If you’re okay being the secret, please consider that this places your willingness above the existing relationships’ abilities to have informed consent to their reality.) This of course excepts mutually-consented-to DADT policies… which must include the full knowledge of the “secret” partner so that they may give full consent, too.
There were also mentions of rules being set that affect *other* relationships without those parties’ consent, be those romantic, sexual, play, or outside of kink entirely. Examples might be a rule to always pick up the phone within 3 rings regardless of where an s-type is and then that being used specifically when the D-type knows that s-type is doing important tasks or having quality time with others, or the D-type asking the s-type to never, ever share a specific fetish with anyone else, then or in the future — this may be healthy and desired, or it may be a vehicle of isolation. In particular, limiting relationships with other people who are expressing care is a frequent tool of abusers. As @Mad_Star writes in this analysis of the abuse she was confronted with by one of our old local formerly-missing-stairs,
When your partner gives you a growing list of people we “shouldn’t trust” or “should be wary of interacting with,” you take it at face value, with the assumption that they’re just looking out for your best interests. Most significantly when it is to state that the Other Two, after they have [wisely] left, are just crazy, dramatic, attention-seeking, not to be trusted. Producing wedges between us only served to give him more power—this is clear to me now.
Finally, OPP (one-penis policy) structures came up no less than a dozen times in respondents’ thoughts on what made dynamics they had been in unhealthy, and even *more* in their observations of trends among publicly outted abusers. It’s why I phrase this one as respecting “how people connect and love,” not just the people *within* the relationship. At one time, I defended OPP with “I want to do what T wants and I should have that right.” I don’t inherently disagree with that today, and plenty of mono-poly relationships do this just fine. (I also am not talking about polycules that just so happen to include only one penis.) But I now realize that a restriction placed on the line of “you can pursue relationships with people with vaginas, but not penises” is inherently disrespectful of non-heteronormative connections and indicates a conscious or unconscious belief that relationships between people with vaginas are not threats (read: not serious) in the same way as when one person has a penis. (Tell me it’s about no partners the same gender as the cismale top and not about the genitals at all, and I’ll tell you to find an OPP cismale who is cool with their partners dating transwomen who haven’t had bottom surgery.)
If you are a non-penis partner in OPP, I think your duty in not being unhealthy with *your* outside partners is to let them know your top’s restrictions and beliefs, as they deserve to know if that metamour will never see them as an equal. If all are cool with this and the implications, this may not be as much of a problem.
Appropriate coping mechanisms vs rage and playing in rage
Inappropriate coping methods can come in many forms. Tops who are able to be honest and upfront about their own issues and disappointments, with themselves at the very least, are likely to be healthier overall—anyone is, really. But in particular, punishments or “play” being an instantaneous emotional response to a negative feeling was mentioned several times, most often in the context of anger.
@sinsational said:
I enjoy partners essentially pretending to be upset with me over some random thing (like for breaking “protocol” that doesn’t exist yet, or for food being too bland or honestly “just because” is great) and hurting me in actual real terrible ways that distress me. Being kept in a semi fear state that I may get hit at any time is like a drug and I’m hooked. BUT during these interactions my partner should always be mindful of my well-being by staying in control and not acting this way during times they may ACTUALLY wish to harm me.
She told me of a time that she and a former partner slapped her in the middle of an argument as an example of this when it’s unhealthy. This is something that I see going along with the consideration and care elements mentioned above, as well as having the well-being of the bottom in mind.
This is different than play being for catharsis, which may be quite common in some forms and can be done by tops as well. However, play or things allowed in play coming from a reactionary temper is not normal, even in dark dynamics.
A dynamic that appreciates and supports your health efforts vs one that inhibits it and/or one expected to be that support itself.
Many, many, many responses said this in some way. This was one of the most striking elements for me in @SillyHilly’s abuse story, that “X even claimed [their] obsession with him would help [their] neurodivergence, as any spare moment or thought [they] had could purposefully turn to him.” This was absolutely abuse in their case. In others, it could be—at its very best—a complete misunderstanding of what neurodivergence is, which may well point to a lack of caring enough to do research about the things that impact one’s partner.
@SuspendDisbelief pointed to the difference:
good TPE: “Can we try to do D/s in a way that works with my neurodivergence by focusing me?”
bad TPE: “Obsessing over Me while I keep you secret will cure your neurodivergence”
There were several mentions I count in this section of tops telling bottoms what they want, need, or feel being a red flag — though sometimes outsiders can see us better than we can see ourselves, your own thoughts on your wants/needs/feelings being denied because a top “knows better” is likely an unhealthy trait. One anonymous respondent mentioned:
There have been times when I was not prepared to make statements about my own wellbeing because I thought it was against the dynamic. In fact, that was an indication that the dynamic was damaging me in an unintended way.
On the other hand, I personally feel very strongly that dynamics that integrate health or self-improvement measures as commands or tasks can also be unhealthy in their own way, even if not purposefully so. Your results, as always, may vary.
Partners who work on themselves and their self awareness vs those who believe they have it all figured out, often to the extent of presenting their lack of curiosity about self-improvement as a benefit.
Nobody is perfect.
AA, my abusive ex, thought he was. He used to flirtily joke that we shouldn’t go out together because there wouldn’t be enough room in the car for us and both our egos. Somehow in this, he presented his own as attractive while simultaneously deflating mine (which was bigger than now but not abnormally big—but he thought it would should be because I was with him.)
Other partners may not have thought this, but did not always show curiosity around being more self-aware. The times when I have felt both most fulfilled with and attracted to people I Love over the years have almost universally lined up with times they’re in therapy (me, too).
@zeehonk said:
When knowing yourself stops, we can quickly veer into territory that becomes unhealthy and hard to come back from.
This especially matters when it comes to how people respond to traits of their own that lead to hurt. @CarterBrulee gave as an example of healthy TPE that “when genuine problems occur or I’ve been hurt in unexpected ways, my partner wants to find ways to address them.” However, I’d personally argue that even if hurt is not presently occurring, someone who sees nothing in themselves to improve simply is not able to evaluate their behaviors with appropriate consideration for darker forms of play.
Intention vs autopilot
This overlaps with much of what has been said. But @BlackBoxOnFet helped me to further define autopilot: “it’s more than complacency because neglectfulness and insecurity on the part of the dom can really contribute to it.” BlackBox said:
an absolutely critical ingredient is the ability to look me in the eyes and say “yes, this bad/negative/unhealthy/scary thing that’s happening to you as a result of what we’re doing, I choose that. That’s what I want.” If they can’t look me in the eyes and say that, they have no business doing the thing. And if they can, I very possibly will consent. I can’t think of any examples of really painful memories on the right side of the slash that didn’t involve my partner repeatedly missing, ignoring, second-guessing, or being hostile to me sharing my actual experience of it.
On the other hand, @zeehonk said:
I had a relationship for 3ish years that could be described as a dark power exchange. It mimicked a lot of the abuse that I survived in my youth but with intention, and I thrived in it. To be able to ask for things that were scary, to learn how to feel big feelings, to recognize that I was strong, and that being weak was okay made a huge difference in my life and outlook in the world. Things turned unhealthy after we decided to dissolve our D/s dynamic because we had kept communicating with each other, but forgot to check in with ourselves. He forgot to drop the dark part of our relationship and it was no longer consensual.
This goes for any relationship. Any thing. Autopilot is death. I don’t mean it has to be exciting and hot and magic and scary all the time. Comfort is good. Comfort is not autopilot. Comfort that turns to autopilot quickly becomes discontent for someone. And dark dynamics that turn to autopilot end in serious harm, for so many reasons.
Then again, magic is distilled intent, said a dear friend to me once when they were not on this website. Today they are, and the partner of another dear friend who is attracted to the dark same as I. So I take it back. Do things with intent, and they will be magic all the time.
These, of course, are not all-encompassing. I tried to get in as many of the most–often-named elements as I could. Other thoughts worth considering but not directly linked to the above include:
- “telling you that their educator status is evidence that they are safe and can be trusted. Basically every educator that I find good and trustworthy would never call out their status as a teacher as a reason to play with them,” from @CarterBrulee
- “It is very risky for people to engage in any sort of power exchange or authority transfer without having an understanding of power differentials and intersectionality. Even if people know how to negotiate, people need to know that, most of the time, we don’t come to the “negotiation table” on even footing. The more power someone holds over someone, the more potential there is for manipulation and coercion to occur (sometimes even unintentionally),” from @-Cosmopolite-
- Insistence on substance use before play, alongside a pattern of only pushing for more than had been previously discussed once the bottom is in an altered headspace (As someone who consensually plays with forced intoxication, I want to point to the word “insistence” in that especially)
- Inconsistencies, mentioned both in regards to what one says/writes/teaches vs what one does, and in regards to oneself.
Now, I know some (perhaps many) of you may be asking:
Isn’t it possible that some of this is done without some awareness from the other party?
Sure.
One anonymous respondent says (in the context of communication):
It is never fair to expect someone perfect, or to expect someone to have perfect mastery over these skills. Masters are human too. But a person who cultivates these skills is cultivating themselves to be a successful human in a relationship, which is a necessary element, in my experience, of a successful power exchange of any intensity.
I agree and will say this more in part IV. Nobody starts from 100%. Nobody should be expected to. Taking feedback and working on it is what a healthy person does.
Another shares:
I’ve definitely seen D-types have serial relationships, just one after a fucking another, where their partners mental health, one after another, dissolves during the dynamic. The first one or two times, maybe that’s a learning curve or bad fit. More than that starts to look really, really bad. I find it very hard to believe that they’re actually unaware of the effects of their actions in power exchange once I see it happen to three or more people.
But this may not be helpful if you don’t know their past or you actually are the first to go into a dynamic like this with them. (And seeing or not seeing these things also doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of change, but they will need to put in work, likely with a therapist.)
And I’m not saying that if you or your partner are on the wrong side of some of the “vs” here that you are absolutely unhealthy.
But I’m asking you to stay curious and to consider often what makes you sure.
For more on this, please see Part III.
Should you want to join in on the conversation in the comments of my writings, you can find the original Fetlife post of this one here.