Dear Desmond:
We are a married D/s couple. Someone has told us that the goal to aspire for is TPE (Total Power Exchange). What exactly is TPE, and how do we get there?
Wanting the Best

Dear Wanting:
“Total Power Exchange” is more or less interchangeable with “lifestyle” or “24/7” D/s. That is, it’s not confined to the bedroom, but reaches all (or nearly all) areas of the couple’s life. Many argue that no D/s relationship can be truly total – not just because of the demands on the submissive, but on the dominant as well. How many dominants want the responsibility of literally controlling every single aspect of another’s life? Others have found this a deeper and more intimate form of D/s and BDSM.

Think of TPE or lifestyle D/s like climbing Mount Everest. You don’t just fly to Nepal and go charging up the slope to the summit. You have to plan and take stages, often stopping at base camps along the way. Similarly, when making the transition from “occasional” BDSM play to a 24/7 lifestyle, take it in stages. That’s not only good common sense, but the experience and advice of most successful lifestylers. And the first step is for the two of you to discuss whether you really want to move in that direction.

I applaud you for wanting the best kind of relationship for you. Keep in mind, however, that “total” does not always mean “best.” While some couples may find that TPE or lifestyle D/s is best for them, it’s not necessarily best for another couple. Would you tell your vanilla friends that, because BDSM is so wonderful for you, that they and everyone else should also strive to be kinky? The goal to aspire to is to be happy together, in whatever manner suits you best – vanilla, one or two kinks, an ongoing exploration in your bedroom, or full-blown 24/7.

It’s one thing to be enthusiastic about lifestyle D/s because you and your partner have a great experience with it. It’s another thing to turn it into a doctrine of faith. The realm of BDSM is not about “racing to the summit.” It’s about enjoying the journey, however long or short, in whatever manner you travel.

Dear Desmond:
I recently started working as a pro-domme, and found something bizarre. When a client worships my feet, sometimes I get a really powerful orgasm. How is it possible, and what do I do about it?
Pro With A Problem

Dear Pro:
I once heard a scientist say that anything is possible, given the laws of nature. Even more true with sex, and especially with the wonderful world of foot fetishes (also known by the technical term podophilia).

We process sensation in a band-like section of the brain called the somatosensory cortex. When we map out which parts of the cortex connect with which parts of the body – guess what? The genitals are right next to the feet! That means that it’s much easier than you think for the wires to get crossed. No wonder that podophilia is one of the most common variations of eroticism – and one of the oldest. Even in the Bible, the Hebrew word for feet can also be read as privates. Makes it more interesting reading about Mary Magdalene washing the feet of Jesus …

Okay, back to your “problem.” Sorry if I sound glib, but how is having a powerful orgasm without the risk of pregnancy and disease, and getting paid to boot (forgive the pun) a problem? Perhaps you consider it a distraction, which I can see. Perhaps you associate getting off with falling for the guy who gets you off, which I assure you ain’t necessarily so. I suggest you use this power for good, specifically the good of your clients. Find out what works and what doesn’t, and instruct your foot slaves on how to better “toe” the line!

Dear Desmond:
I share a bisexual submissive with a gay male dominant. Recently I read about a scientific study that shows that bisexuality in men doesn’t really exist. How do I know whether my servant is truly devoted to me, and not just using me?
Wondering and Worrying Mistress

Dear Mistress:
I know of the study you’re talking about, and you need to know that it’s provoked a lot more heat than light. Bisexual advocates have disputed both the research methodology and the conclusions, as have many other people. For purposes of honest disclosure, I happen to be one of the skeptics. Yes, I’d like to see more scientific studies about sex – but good science, not bad, coupled with greater scientific literacy in the general population.

That said, here are five reasons to be skeptical about this study and its conclusion:

• 1) A single study does not prove a conclusion. Remember the debacle about “cold fusion”? Two physicists claimed they could produce nuclear fusion in their kitchen; everyone else tried to duplicate their results, and it failed miserably. Even more so with studying human nature, the study itself needs thorough peer review, and multiple studies need to be done before establishing the veracity of a given conclusion.
  
• 2) Psychologists and others have found that sexual orientation is much more complicated than mere genital arousal. There’s also non-genital displays of physical affection, emotional connection, identification with a community, and so forth. Unfortunately, the scientist who did this particular study ignored all of this and boiled it all down to measuring hard-ons.



• 3) Speaking of hard-ons, many medical researchers will tell you that penile erection is not as reliable an indicator of arousal or attraction as one might think. For one thing, many young men get erections as a response to anxiety or stress; additionally, the physical contact that the measuring device makes with a man’s penis can throw off the results in either direction! -- bring about erections more easily in some, and make them more difficult in others. Many psychologists and neuroscientists have proposed a more reliable way to see if someone is aroused by or attracted to something: pupil dilation.



• 4) Some have also questioned the sampling done in this study as neither large enough nor diverse enough to give reliable results. True, this was also the criticism launched against Kinsey’s initial studies, but let’s give him credit for collecting one of the largest databases of individual sexual histories for research. This study, on the other hand, relies on results gathered from less than one hundred volunteers.



• 5) Last but not least, allegations of bias and simplistic conclusions have dogged the author of this study for years. Specifically, this fellow stirred controversy by reducing all transgender women into two categories, which provoked protest from many in the transgender community for running counter to their own diverse experiences.

And now for the question I’m sure many readers are asking: what does all this talk about a study on bi-guys have to do with kink? Because sex research has always provoked controversy, and certainly when researchers look into the more polymorphously perverse aspects of how we get it on. That means we need to be careful whenever any study is cited, and first make sure it’s good science.