The Hidden Taboo of Power Dynamics

Why Egalitarian Ethics Cannot Explain Hierarchical Femdom

---

Most people who enter BDSM carrying the assumptions of the vanilla world. And in the vanilla world, at least in the West, relationships are now expected to be egalitarian. Feminism achieved that expectation. Women are no longer legally barred from working, opening bank accounts, or buying homes. In many countries, it is socially unthinkable for a husband to control every aspect of his wife’s life, though only a few generations ago this was the legal norm.

This progress was the first step in recognising women as equal in value and equal in power to men, something patriarchy historically denied. In the West, inequality was often hidden under the veneer of civility. But in other contexts, it has been brutally explicit.

Consider China’s One-Child Policy, which was implemented in the 1980s to control overpopulation. Because sons were valued more highly than daughters (as wage earners and carriers of the family line), many girls were abandoned, trafficked, or worse. Sex-selective abortions and infanticide created a demographic imbalance that is still felt today. The policy did not create patriarchy, but it revealed how cultures that treat women as “less valuable” will act when pressured.

Western societies, though more subtle, were no less patriarchal. Boys were prayed for and blessed. Inheritance laws passed property only through male heirs. Women were excluded from professions unless poverty forced them into service or prostitution. Even privileged women were still treated as burdens to be married off, traded, or managed.

Feminism changed all this. Through the work of generations of “disagreeable” women—those called angry, ugly, or hysterical—basic rights were secured. Women can now own property, pursue education, and live independently. As a result, in most Western societies today, egalitarianism is assumed in relationships. Equal value, equal rights, and equal decision-making.

That is fantastic for vanilla life. But when these egalitarian ideals are uncritically imported into BDSM, something strange happens… They undermine the very possibility of power dynamics.

Power Dynamics as Ethical Hierarchy

A power dynamic is not egalitarian. It is a relationship structure based on hierarchy. One person holds the majority of power, the other submits. This is not abuse, and it is not manipulation. It is a consensual choice to explore the erotic and emotional meaning of Power.

But this distinction is hard to stomach for those who only know the ethics of egalitarianism. Social equality teaches us that hierarchy is dangerous and should be dismantled. And yes, in workplaces, politics, and civic life, that is true. But in erotic life, hierarchy is not automatically abuse. It can be devotion, fulfilment, and transformation.

Thus, hierarchal dynamics requires a different ethical system. Not one based on symmetry, but one based on consent, safety, and clarity. Just as liberal democracies have enshrined the principle that “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” (Pierre Trudeau, 1967), power dynamics fall under the same protection. Consenting adults have the right to structure their erotic lives however they choose. This includes hierarchy.

Yes, there are dangers. Communes, cults, and polygamous sects show how quickly power can be abused when external regulation is absent. But the existence of abuse does not invalidate the structure itself. The question is always: is there consent? Is there awareness? Is there safety?

This is why power dynamics in BDSM cannot be measured against egalitarian ideals alone. They are taboo precisely because they invert social equality. But taboo is not the same as unethical.

Relative vs. Absolute Femdom

There are two ways egalitarian ideals intersect with power dynamics.

The first is through containers. Couples may live egalitarian relationships, but practice hierarchal dynamics within specific containers of time, space, and context. For a scene, one partner leads and the other submits, but once the container ends, equality resumes. This is Relative Femdom structure.

Relative Femdom satisfies many people. It allows them to keep their egalitarian ethics intact while still exploring the thrill of hierarchy. It works especially well for those who treat BDSM as play—bedroom sessions, club scenes, and one-off encounters. But it does not extend into lived relational structures.

The second approach is Absolute Femdom, where the asymmetry is not contained to scenes. The relationship itself is hierarchical. The dynamic and the relationship are inseparable. Power may shift in intensity depending on context—public vs. private, ritual vs. daily life—but it is always present. This is the structure of Master/slave, Total Power Exchange (TPE), and Female-Led Relationships (FLR), and… Absolute Femdom.

Absolute Femdom is not switched on and off. It is not roleplay. It is orientation and identity. The Domina is not “acting dominant”; she is Dominant. The submissive does not “pretend to obey”; he lives obedience.

Tribalism in the Scene — Egalitarians vs. Ethical Hierarchists

Once you see the distinction between egalitarian ethics and hierarchical ethics, you begin to understand why so much conflict erupts in BDSM spaces. It is not simply that people disagree, it is that they are often speaking from two completely different moral frameworks.

The Egalitarian Tribe:

Those who practice dynamics inside egalitarian containers believe they are defending ethics. To them, equality is synonymous with safety. Hierarchy looks like abuse because they cannot distinguish between patriarchal domination and consensual power exchange. Their ethical framework is symmetrical. They believe no one should have more power than another in relationships, only in contained/negotiated dynamics. When they see hierarchy, which is an asymmetrycal relationship, they assume coercion.

This is reinforced by pop-kink discourse, sex therapists, and mainstream BDSM literature, which almost always filter power dynamics through egalitarian ideals. The agenda is to protect. Educators want to prevent abuse, but the unintended consequence is that they erase the legitimacy of hierarchical dynamics altogether. Thus, their message is that the only ethical power exchange is one that is contained within equality.

The Ethical Hierarchist Tribe:

On the other side are those of us who live in hierarchical structures. We know that egalitarian ethics cannot account for our realities. To us, the insistence that “real relationships must be equal” sounds hollow, because it ignores the erotic and emotional depth that comes from asymmetry.

For ethical hierarchists, consent is not annulled by hierarchy. It is the very foundation that makes hierarchy possible. Submissives in these dynamics do not lose agency; they choose to channel it into devotion. Dominas do not erase their partner’s value; they reorient it into service.

From this vantage point, egalitarians look more like roleplayers. They talk about “power exchange” but only within tightly contained scenes. Their relationships remain symmetrical. To hierarchists, this feels shallow, as if the real taboo has been domesticated into safe entertainment.

Talking Past Each Other

The problem is that these two tribes interact without realising they are operating from different ethics. Egalitarians critique hierarchists for being “abusive,” not realising that consent and safety are embedded differently in hierarchical structures. Hierarchists dismiss egalitarians as “just playing,” not realising that containers may be the only way those people can reconcile kink with their social commitments.

It is like trying to apply the rules of living on land to life underwater. Both are forms of life, but they require different principles to function. If you judge a fish by how well it breathes air, you will call it defective. If you judge a human by how well they move in water, you will call them weak. In truth, each belongs to its own environment.

The tragedy is that most of this conflict could be avoided if people simply clarified their ethical framework. But instead, many assume theirs is “correct”. An egalitarian reads a text on Absolute Femdom and insists it is abusive because it does not fit their ethic. A hierarchist reads an essay on container play and dismisses it as souless. Both are wrong, because they are judging the wrong system.

I have lived this myself. When I first began writing about ethical hierarchy, egalitarians accused me of promoting abuse. It was only when I clarified that Absolute Femdom is in the same family as TPE and FLR that some finally understood. But then, they got angry for me “fooling” them into thinking I was talking about Relative dynamics by not declaring my ethics upfront. This is why, for your own sake, know which structure you are reading before you project your ethic onto it.

If the clash between egalitarian and hierarchical frameworks were simply a matter of different orientations, it would be easy enough to name the distinction and move on. But in practice, the scene is saturated with silencing, misinformation, and defensiveness. Too often, conversations fall into conflict not because people disagree on substance, but they assume their ethical lens is the only one that exists.

Attempts to educate are often treated as threats. When someone explains the structure of an ethical hierarchy, egalitarians frequently hear it as a personal attack on their own freedom. The logic goes: if my ethic is not the only legitimate one, then my safety is undermined. In reality, the reverse is true. Education clarifies boundaries. It allows people to see which structures align with them and which don’t. But in a culture where identity is fragile and bound to moral claims, even descriptions and opinions feel like judgment.

As mentioned above, this conflict is made worse by the way pop-kink educators and therapists frame BDSM. They often promote egalitarian models as the only safe ones, with the intent of protecting the inexperienced from abuse. The agenda is understandable, but the effect is silencing. Hierarchical structures are erased or pathologised. Anything that looks like long-term chastity, objectification, sadism, or ritualised devotion is dismissed as unhealthy.

The irony is that in trying to protect people, they recreate the very abstinence logic that feminism fought against in sex education. Denying information does not prevent people from exploring, it simply leaves them unprepared when they do. We know what abstinence-only sex education produces… a spike in unsafe pregnancies and infections among teenagers who were never given the tools to live in reality. The same pattern is being repeated in the BDSM scene. When hierarchical dynamics are denied a voice, people cannot recognise them when they encounter them. They either mislabel them as abusive, or they stumble into them without the literacy to navigate them safely.

Ironically, this refusal to share information is a patriarchal reflex dressed up as care. It presumes that people are too ignorant to know what’s good for them, so information and knowledge is withhold until they are ready. But, adults cannot consent meaningfully if they are denied the language to understand what they desire.

Withholding results in a culture of fear. Egalitarians grow defensive whenever hierarchists speak. Hierarchists grow cynical at being constantly deemed abusers. And newcomers—those who most need clarity—are left floundering in misinformation. They cannot distinguish between Relative play and Absolute Femdom, between fantasy theatre and lived hierarchy, between safe taboos and unsafe coercion.

The scene then becomes a theatre of projection. People defend their own structures by denying the legitimacy of others. And in the process, education—the only tool that could cut through the confusion—is silenced under the weight of personal offence.

However, the ethical responsibility of educators is not to decide which structures are valid, but to equip people with the conceptual clarity to recognise what they are stepping into. Silencing advanced dynamics does not keep people safe. It infantilises them. It denies them agency. It recreates the very patriarchal reflex feminism fought to dismantle: you are too fragile to know the truth, so we will withhold it from you.

When people understand that there are two broad ethical frameworks—egalitarian and hierarchical—they can finally stop talking past one another. Submissives can orient to Dominas whose structure aligns with them. Dominas can identify whether a potential sub is ready for the ethic she embodies. (And to tell you the truth, this is one of the reasons why Domina have a habit of declining new submissives—their ethics don’t align, but the sub doesn’t even consider this.) And the scene as a whole can stop wasting energy on unnecessary conflict.

Education makes taboo legible. It turns fear into literacy, and literacy into choice. And choice—free, informed, enthusiastic—is the bedrock of consent. Which is BDSM.

Toward a Clear Definition of Femdom

At the core of all this noise, conflict, and misinformation, Femdom remains simple. It requires only two things:

1. Female-led power asymmetry
2. Grounded in Female desire

That is the definition. It is not defined by props, rituals, fetishes, or scripts. It is not defined by whether the Domina is married, queer, professional, or lifestyle. It is not defined by whether the submissive kneels daily or only occasionally. These are variations, not essences. The essence is asymmetry—one leads, one yields—authored not by male fantasy, but by Female erotic truth.

Yes, egalitarian ethics conflict with this because they want Femdom to be symmetrical at its base: negotiated as equal trade, roleplayed in equal containers, and wrong when decision power isn’t equal. But if both sides retain equal power, the structure is not truly hierarchical. It is play. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s call it what it is – Femdom roleplay.

Hierarchical ethics, by contrast, can account for both the taboo and the transcendent. They accept that asymmetry is not a flaw but the very point for power dynamics. They understand that submission is not a currency but a devotion. They embrace the paradox that inequality, when chosen and desired, can generate meaning, intensity, and intimacy that equality cannot.

Philosophy, Psychology, and Ethics in Alignment

Philosophically, this echoes Aristotle’s insight that not all goods are commensurable. Some things cannot be measured on the same scale. Female desire and male fantasy are not equivalents to be traded. They are different orders of reality. This concept is vitally important when considering power dynamics.

Psychologically, it resonates with Bataille’s view of eroticism as excess. True eroticism does not calculate, balance, or negotiate like a market. It wastes, it expends, and it sacrifices – there is no balance or equality. A submissive’s devotion is not payment for equal domination. He offers not out of equality, but surrendering grace. This is particularly hard for many people to fathom who have a transactional mindset.

Ethically, it fits with consent as the grounding principle. Hierarchy without consent is abuse. But hierarchy with consent is no less legitimate than equality with consent. What matters is not whether the relationship looks symmetrical to outsiders, but whether those within it have chosen and built it knowingly.

With the cultural saturation of porn, ProDommes, swingers, kinksters, and therapists all shouting their definitions, clarity is survival. Without a compass, Dominas are reduced to service providers, submissives are reduced to customers, and Femdom reduces into kink theatre. By reasserting that Femdom is asymmetry authored by Female desire, we can protect both its depth and its integrity.

And… only from this position of clarity can we begin to approach the darker taboos—the practices that frighten egalitarians, but which hierarchists recognise as natural extensions of the ethic: tributing, courtesan dynamics, “forced” transformation, objectification, long-term chastity, and real sadism.

Entering the Taboo

Once you understand that Femdom is female-led asymmetry grounded in Female desire, many of the practices that seem shocking or “abusive” to egalitarian eyes fall into place. The taboo is not that they exist, but that they are misunderstood when judged by the wrong ethic. They are taboo to the social vanilla. They are taboo to the egalitarians.

Practices that Frighten Egalitarians

• Tributing — the expectation that submissives offer material gifts or financial devotion. Through egalitarian eyes, this looks like exploitation. Why should a man have to pay for love? But in hierarchical dynamics, tributing is not a wage, it is ritualised devotion. It is not “buying” a woman’s attention but recognising her sovereignty.
• Courtesan Lifestyles — where Dominas maintain multiple submissives, each with distinct roles. To egalitarians, this looks like promiscuity or greed. But hierarchists see it as a living economy of devotion, where service is distributed according to desire, skill, and capacity.
• “Forced” Transformation — feminisation, behavioural conditioning, or identity play. Egalitarian ethics scream coercion, “you cannot force someone to change who they are!” But in an ethical hierarchy, “forced” is a ritual of surrender. The submissive yields authorship of his identity to the Domina, and she reshapes him according to Her desire.
• Long-Term Chastity — to egalitarians, this looks like denial, cruelty, or even sexual abuse. But in hierarchical terms, chastity is not deprivation, but consecration. The submissive’s sexuality is no longer his own; it belongs to Her, and the lock is the sacrament.
• Objectification — reducing the submissive to a function, role, or even furniture. Egalitarian frameworks read this as dehumanisation, which is a moral violation. But in hierarchical ethics, objectification is paradoxically affirming. To become “Her object” is to be given purpose, place, and meaning through Her authorship.
• Sadism — the infliction of real pain. Egalitarians equate real pain with harm, and harm with abuse. But hierarchists know that sadism, when framed by consent, becomes intimacy. The body becomes a canvas where devotion and power are inscribed in sensation.

These practices frighten egalitarians because they collapse the central pillars of equality: autonomy, reciprocity, and balance. To them, tributing looks like theft, objectification like degradation, chastity like control, and sadism like cruelty. And from within their ethic, they are right.

But their ethic is not the only one.

In an ethical hierarchy, the meaning of these practices is transformed. They are not abuses of power but expressions of devotion and authorship. They rely on the asymmetry being freely chosen. A submissive who consents to tributing, chastity, or transformation is not exploited, he is surrendering. And a Domina who authors his surrender from Her desire is not abusive. She is exercising the role he has entrusted to Her.

This is why education matters so much. Without literacy in hierarchical ethics, these practices will always look monstrous from the outside. With literacy, they can be recognised as rituals of intimacy, structured by consent, and lived as truth.

In Closing

At the beginning of this article, I said that most people enter BDSM carrying the expectations of egalitarianism from the vanilla world. They come assuming equality is the only safe ethic. They enter the scene and encounter a reality that unsettles them: Dominas and submissives building hierarchies not just for play, but as a way of life.

This is where the taboo lives. It is taboo not because it is hidden or illegal, but it violates the default moral grammar of modern society. To choose inequality in a relationship feels like heresy against feminism, even when it is chosen by women themselves. To live in hierarchy feels like betrayal of social progress, even when it is authored by Female desire.

But the truth is the taboo is not the same as harm. Hierarchy does not erase consent—it relies on it. Devotion does not negate agency—it channels it. Submission is not a currency to buy domination—it is the devotion that sustains it.

When I speak of Absolute Femdom, I am naming this truth. Absolute is not about extremity for its own sake. It is about recognising that some women live their domination as orientation, as life, not as roleplay. It is not a container they step into—it is an identity they inhabit. It is not theatre—they are not “acting” dominant. It is their erotic truth.

Female-led asymmetry is grounded in Female desire. That is the essence. Everything else is variation, expression, and style. But without this foundation, Femdom collapses into kink menus, service models, and porn tropes. With it, Femdom reclaims its depth as an erotic philosophy, a relational ethic, and for some of us, a way of life.

The conflict between egalitarians and hierarchists will not disappear overnight, but it can be clarified. Education can dissolve some of the fear. Philosophy can show that taboo is not synonymous with abuse. And lived experience can testify that devotion and asymmetry can produce intimacy that egalitarian ideals cannot even touch.

So, when people challenge Me—when they insist that Absolute Femdom is “abuse,” or that hierarchical ethics are “unethical”—I remind them: Femdom requires only two things. The female leads, the other surrenders, and it is the female’s desire, not the male’s fantasy, that authors the structure.

That is not abuse. That is Femdom.