One of the most persistent misunderstandings within D/sâparticularly within Femdomâis the question of whether a Domina can truly dominate if the submissive gives consent. At surface level, this question appears logical. If a person consents to domination, chooses their limits, and agrees on the activities to be done to them, then surely what follows is not real domination at all, but a co-authored dynamic/session. However, this logic tends to assume that consent and control are mutually exclusive, that the very act of agreeing nullifies any real power imbalance. But this assumption is based on a fundamental confusion of how power functions within ethical D/s.
In truth, consent is not in control of the Dominaâs power. It is the threshold to it. Consent is the submissiveâs final autonomous act before entering a female-led asymmetrical power-based dynamic (Femdom). Think of it as crossing into anotherâs domain. The submissive is not building the Queendom by stepping into it. He is being allowed through its gates because he has given consent. Once inside, the law and order belongs to Her.
In an Absolute Femdom structure, the Domina governs what happens within Her Femdom. She sets the terms, she defines the parameters, she designs the construct, and controls the rhythm, pace and intensity. The submissive may have opened the door himself, but once inside, he no longer dictates what occurs. His agency is not erased, but it is transferredâintentionally and with awarenessâto serve Her authority.
However, most kinksters do not enter D/s with this framework. Instead, they approach consent not as an offering of power, but as a bargaining tool. The submissive only consents once their specific desires, activities, limits, and intensities have been negotiated and agreed to. In this model, it is the submissive who determines the conditions under which power may be âgranted,â and the Domina is expected to agree to those terms in order to proceed. Although many mistake this for consensual domination, it is actually a form of conditional play. The power being âexchangedâ is not being transferred to the Domina, but rather portioned out in pre-approved increments by the submissive himself. This is not real domination.
Relative Femdom (roleplayed power) versus Absolute Femdom (real power)
For a while now, I have discussed the difference between roleplay power (conditional) and real power (unconditional) in Femdom as Relative and Absolute Femdom.
Relative Femdom (roleplayed power) refers to female-led consensual Topping/bottoming. It is often synonymous with roleplay domination or scene-based D/s, where the submissive consents not only to a curated experience of domination, but to specific activities, such as spanking, humiliation, worship, chastity, and so on. This structure is based on permission, not submission; it is collaboration governed by negotiation. The Dominaâs power is conditional upon the submissiveâs desire and preferences. The submissive is not submitting to the Dominaâs will, he is ensuring his desires are met and that She performs her role within the bounds of his fantasy. This is often mistaken for domination, but the power structure is nullified, and it does not genuinely emerge from Her erotic sovereignty. Instead, the Domina’s domination is exercised in service to Her submissive’s permission. Of course, She may also find personal satisfaction in what She enacts, but only to the extent that Her desires align with what he has permitted. Even if the experience involves deep sensation or psychological intensity, it remains confined to the conditions the submissive has authored. What the submissive has consented to is not Her authority, but a personalised dynamic scripted around his desires. This is not authentic Femdom because the moment Her power is limited by his desire, it is no longer power.
Many couples operate within this frameworkâusing mutual negotiation to co-author their D/s, and referring to it as Femdom simply because the woman is in the Top position.
In Absolute Femdom (real power), the dynamic is not act-based. It is orientation-based. The submissive does not consent to a list of actions. He consents to being subject to Her will. That may include the things he enjoys, or it may not. He enters not to take and receive, but to offer and relinquish. The consent he offers is not to a menu of physical stimulation, but to a power structure governed by the Domina. What defines the power exchange here is not the intensity of the experience, but the direction of authorship. The Domina is not acting out what he wants. She is enacting who She is.
Relative and Absolute Domination structures reflect the philosophical distinction between transactional and positional power. In transactional dynamics, such as Relative or roleplay, the exchange of control is conditional. The sub gives power to the Domina temporarily or on condition to receive a particular outcome. In positional power, the Domina is not granted conditional control over specific acts. She is recognised as the authority within the dynamic, and the submissive aligns himself accordingly. As Hannah Arendt notes in her distinction between power and violence, true authority is not about force, it is about recognition. In Absolute Femdom, the Domina does not need to demand obedience. She does not need to justify her methods. Her authority is accepted as part of the relational frame. She is the source, not the facilitator.
Most representations of BDSM focus on activity in the dynamic, not authorship of the dynamic. This is reflected in academic studies that analyse BDSM through the lens of technique, performance, and aesthetic (see Weiss 2011; Newmahr 2010). But while activities can simulate domination, they do not constitute it. Power does not exist in the performance of commands. It exists in who originates them, and why. This is why negotiated scene play, while useful for certain dynamics, is not domination in the truest sense. It is erotic collaboration. The sub remains the author of their own stimulation, and the Domina becomes the director of his script. That is not domination.
By contrast, in Absolute Femdom, the Domina is not performing. She is governing. Her choices are not based on how best to fulfill the submissiveâs side of the fantasy, but on how best to express her own erotic logic. The submissive, in turn, is not seeking a specific experience catering to his preferences. He is offering himself to be shaped, used, and redirected within Her system. The domination is real.
Consent in Relative Femdom vs. Absolute Femdom
So, getting back to consentâŠ
While both Relative and Absolute Femdom are built on consentâbecause all ethical BDSM requires itâthe kind of consent being offered, and what that consent gives access to, diverges significantly.
In Relative Femdom, consent is transactional. It is negotiated with the goal of aligning two sets of preferences. The submissive consents only after discussing and agreeing upon specific activities, limits, intensities, and often emotional or erotic outcomes. It functions much like a service contract. The submissive states what he is willing to endure or enjoy, and the Domina agrees to deliver within that scope. The consent here is conditional, specific, and often revocable by design.
In this model, the submissive retains a form of editorial control. His consent is ongoing in the sense that it is reaffirmed as long as the Domina continues to operate within the negotiated bounds. The dynamic is often scene-based, activity-driven, and constructed collaboratively. The authority of the Domina is real, but only within the shared fantasy they have co-authored. Her dominance is performed within a box built from his permission.
In Absolute Femdom, consent is positional. It is given at the entry point, not as permission for specific acts, but as the act of entering a Dominaâs erotic and authoritative structure. The submissive does not consent to acts; he consents to being under her rule. He does not know exactly what will happen, and importantly, he is not meant to. This kind of consent is not itemised, but is structural. It says, âI offer myself to your power,â not âI allow these five things and not these three.â
In this model, consent marks the final moment the submissive exercises his own authority within the dynamic, but it does not erase his agency altogether. He always retains the ultimate right to withdraw entirely. He may choose to exit the structure he once entered. In this sense, consent remains a living framework, not a static contract. But within the container of an Absolute Femdom dynamicâonce consent has been offered and the threshold crossedâwhat develops is no longer centred on his preferences. It is guided by Her logic, Her vision, and Her design. The role of limits, negotiation, and safety remain vital, but not as tools for reshaping Her authority. They exist to protect his physical and psychological well-being, not to interrupt or co-direct Her rule. In this way, consent becomes the scaffolding of the dynamic: supportive, ongoing, but structurally stable.
So, this is why consent does not cancel real domination. It enables it. Consent is the final act of self-direction the submissive engages in before relinquishing control. The Domina does not dominate because she was permitted. She dominates because he surrendered, and she received that offering, which activated her domination.
Spectrum and Combinations:
Now, of course, these domination structures are on a spectrum, and in fact, are used by the same Domina depending on contexts. For example: with my own personal subs, I do Absolute, but when I’m out at a scene party, I will Top subs and use Relative. I also start with Relative at the beginning of each D/s relationship as part of my vetting process. I tell my potentials that I am not going to really dominate them until I have decided to claim them as my own. And then as we journey towards Me claiming them, we move closer to Absolute. So, each model benefits different contexts, stages and intentions.
To be continuedâŠ
In the next instalment, I will talk about the difference between negotiation for D/s roleplay (Relative Femdom) and negotiation for real domination.