I’m often asked about the difference between D/s, M/s, and O/p relationships, frequently with an added comment like, “They’re basically the same thing, right?” Or “ Isn’t it just a question of degree?” As is the case with many “straightforward“ questions, these are surprisingly complex issues. For one thing, in the real world of BDSM culture, these terms are used in a variety of ways, some loose and some tightly defined. At a deeper level, there’s a philosophical issue: If the basic principle of power exchange is that people structure their relationships through negotiation and consent, then does it make sense even to try to give definitions to the terms people choose to label relationships of their own invention?

There’s a lot of truth to this rejection of definitions. However, the problem of rejecting definitions altogether is that it also means rejecting any guidance for people who want to learn more or try it out for themselves. The distinctions I offer here are in the spirit of guidance; if you are beyond this basic level, then you already know that you don’t need definitions. If you’ve tried this approach to relationships and things didn’t work out, a basic discussion of the structure of these relationships may help you move to the next level.

Let’s start with the basic principle of power exchange: Relationships are structured through a negotiated, deliberate, and consensual exchange of power. This is not nearly as mysterious as it may sound. Think about two people in a relationship, one of whom makes more money than the other. The one with a higher income may have an expectation that they get to decide where to take the big vacation of the year. If this expectation is unspoken and assumed, the relationship can suffer: There may be conflict that arises from resentment, for instance. What if the people in this relationship negotiate the decision process and decide (together, consensually) that the one with the higher income gets to decide on the vacation if the other get to have a “veto”? That arrangement is an exchange of power.

Many of the conflicts that have brought people to therapists or philosophical practitioners are actually about assumed expectations, and many of those conflicts can be resolved by means of this principle of power exchange. I don’t mean to be implying that it’s easy or you can solve all your relationship problems with a weekend class. What I do mean is that power exchange goes hand in hand with habits of mind like respect and good communication, and the cumulative effective of those habits, over time, tends toward vibrant, healthy relationships.

One of the primary obstacles to adopting power exchange as a guiding principle is messaging we get from our culture that people in intimate relationships should be “equal.” Equal in dignity and respect does not mean equal in power, nor is the reverse true. Have you ever experienced someone grudgingly giving you equal power in a decision all the while denigrating you for your opinion? And in reality, relationships between human beings cannot practically be equal, or else you should grind off all the traits that make you the unique person you are. If you were seeking intimacy or companionships, would you choose a “relationship” between interchangeable, identical cogs?

Contrary to what this messaging may encourage you to believe, adopting the principle of power exchange is actually the opposite of robbing people of their dignity or autonomy. In fact, I would argue that this principle actually heightens autonomy, precisely because people enter into relationship with each other through a process designed to originate in their own autonomy.

If you think about it like that, a good way to conceptualize a Dominant/submissive relationship structure is to think of “zones of submission” granted to the Dom by the sub through an agreement. Consider a simple (and incomplete!) agreement like “In the bedroom, I will submit to you and do whatever I’m told.” Clearly this is incomplete — we need to know more precisely what “in the bedroom” means. Does it include only “sex”? What sex, specifically? Can the Dom bring a friend?

Incomplete as it is, this illustrates the notion of a zone of submission: As far as this activity or this area of life is concerned, the sub “submits” to the Dom — and otherwise the sub retains autonomy. So, let’s call the areas of life that are not zones of submission “zones of autonomy.” Now we can see that the essence of a D/s structure is that the sub grants specifically named (and defined) zones of submission to the Dom, and retains all the other zones of autonomy. Before the agreement that establishes the D/s relationship — and always during negotiation — the sub and the Dom are autonomous individuals who respect each other’s autonomy.

D/s relationships can be quite narrow, and they can be extensive. A sub who is also a parent, for instance, may grant just about all areas of life to the Dom as zones of submission yet retain activities associated with parenting as a zone of autonomy. In such a relationship, the Dom may not have expectations that intrude into the sub’s parental activities. Let’s take a practical example: The Dom’s expectation is that the sub will be naked at home, and this is part of their agreement. However, the sub’s judgment as a parent is that, when the child is present, being naked isn’t appropriate. In this case, the zone of autonomy is about parenting, and that zone in effect trumps the Dom’s expectation.

What about Owner/property relationships (one flavor of which is the Master/slave)? It may seem like its a question of degree, but that misses an important nuance in the relationship structure that makes a very big practical difference. The D/s relationship can be seen as granting zones of submission against a general background of autonomy. The O/p relationship is actually the opposite of this: the general assumption is submission, with specifically granted zones of autonomy. Another example may make the difference clear.

Suppose in a D/s relationship, the sub has granted zones of submission; all is well. One day, the sub’s grandmother falls ill, and the sub needs to go out of town to help. In the spirit of good communication, the sub informs the Dom of the situation, and because of the D/s structure’s general presumption of autonomy, the sub is right in assuming that they can decide what to do about their grandmother.

Now let’s replay that situation in a different key, the M/s structure. in this case, the general presumption is submission to the M, so when this situation arises, the sub asks permission to go out of town. That’s a significant difference, and that difference should impress on us the importance of having values that align. If the s is not prepared for the M to say no, then conflict can arise in the relationship. This doesn’t necessarily spell The End! But it does mean that more negotiation and clarification of expectations (and values!) may be needed.

Let’s go back where we started: terms and definitions. What this story illustrates isn’t that we should adopt a uniform “dictionary” that applies to all power exchange relationships everywhere — though in practice you may see people flaming each other with comments like “You’re not really a slave, so stop using that term.” Rather, what this illustrates is that a workable agreement requires a lot of thought, and talking about how you are using words can be an important part of the negotiation process.

If you’d like some help with this process, you can always ask a philosopher. And I know a good Love Coach you can connect with, too.

Happy power exchanging!